how come no sickness language re. rape?

This whole "slutwalk" phenomenon ("Cop's rape comment sparks wave of 'SlutWalks' - US news - Life - msnbc.com") is ironic . . . the barbarians have had enough and aren't taking it anymore!!!

I know, I know; some people are saying this is sort of a variation of the "Take Back the Night" rallies which I agree with in principle. And you will hardly find a more devout "law and order" person than myself. I'm not sure that the death penalty is inappropriate for a man who forces sexual intercourse on a woman. But it is interesting to me that this subject presents a clash between hand-wringing Liberal views on "crime" and radical Feminism. If these persons ("sexual offenders") are just "sick" or victims of society or some-such, is it right (much less wise) to tempt them or induce them to act out?

I'd say this phenomenon is more a reflection of the power of social media and the fact that young people have too much time on their hands than it is some statement about what a majority civilized Westerners think.

Did sitting appellate judges get their supper for free?

Conservatives want judges to sing for their supper and submit to contested elections — but will that pimp out the bench? | Jeff Woods | Nashville Scene:

Calling it a threat to their independence and integrity, judges on the state's highest courts are descending into the muddy political trenches of the legislature to try to put down a conservative populist uprising.

The judges are apoplectic over the possibility of a change in state law that they say would put justice up for sale in Tennessee. It would end their comfy, hard-to-lose yes/no elections and force them to hit the hustings like common politicians to shake down fat cats, cut backroom deals, kiss babies, talk tough in TV ads and promise the moon to voters in competitive campaigns.

But having already been placed on the bench by a coalition of powerful special interests and powerful politicians, did sitting appellate judges get their supper for free?

Who says appointment with retention votes for judges is best?

Interesting analysis of the comment from Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady heralding the Iowa version of choosing judges by commission appointment and retention: ("Iowa’s Crazy Judges, Part II" - By Gary Marx - Bench Memos - National Review Online)

Judges: Politics for me but not for thee

It's no shock that appellate and supreme court judges in Tennessee are political, but it is shocking to hear them claim that they oppose elections "because politics and money corrupt the judiciary" and yet give heavily to candidates who will protect them from facing contested elections. Tennessee judges donate to politicians who oppose judicial elections | tennessean.com | The Tennessean:

According to Wade, Tennessee's Supreme Court justices and appellate judges uniformly oppose a switch to an electoral selection process.

"Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn't mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues," Wade said. "All of us have a constitutional right to support any candidate of our choice, and yet when I put on the black robe, partisan politics and friendships play no role.

. . . .

Wade was the most frequent contributor to political campaigns over the past four election cycles among judges from Tennessee's highest courts.

BTW, despite saying repeatedly that these big spending judges gave to both Democrats (who characteristically like the undemocratic and unconstitutional TN Plan) and Republicans (who more often than not oppose the TN Plan), the reporter failed to ask the obvious question (that, or failed to like the answer to said question): were the Republicans who got money from judges supporters of not electing judges?

Well, Republican Doug Overbey--the Maryville lawyer who was just about the only Republican in the Senate who fought to preserve the TN Plan (here, and here), sure doesn't count. Neither would the Republican who faced TN Plan opponent Mike Bell in the primary (story here).  Judges gave money in a primary race?  Someone who makes a campaign contribution in a primary, particularly a primary of the other political party, hardly seems like someone who "contribut[es] to campaigns from time to time."

This is great reporting from Andy Sher of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Judges' donations draw criticism | Chattanooga Times Free Press, but I have to say that it concerned me to read this statement from the article:

All five Supreme Court justices back the Tennessee Plan for selecting and retaining judges.

Look, because of my experience over on the years on this issue, I was aware that all the Supreme Court justices liked the Tennessee Plan--which ignores the constitution's requirement of contested elections. But it is stunning to think that this is common knowledge. Especially when you consider that they would be the ones deciding on whether a given system complies with the Tennessee Constitution.

And that's the problem with a system that insulates judges from "politics" (read: accountability). The reason that a lot of money is potentially spent on judicial elections is because the persons elected in such elections have a LOT of impact on voters' lives. I guess we voters just need to just leave all this politicking to judges and unaccountable commissions . . .

Irony of buying favor with judges

Nice op/ed from Gail Kerr Tennessean, "Fundraising to Keep Judges from Being Bought is Ironic"):

Lawyers and former judges are raising money from big law firms to try and preserve the current method of seating Tennessee's appellate court judges.

The irony is not lost: Those very legal eagles argue that allowing judges to be popularly elected would create a system in which special interests and big powerful law firms can buy the state's judiciary.

My only quibble is with Kerr's flat assertion that, "Overall, the current system has worked beautifully to place appeals court judges who have followed the rule of law." Who says?

Cross-posted at Tennessee Judicial Reform Blog.

"Nicely" stated on problems with electing judges . . .

Aside from the fact that contested elections for all judges is required by Tennessee's constitution, it is disingenuous for politicians to claim that elections beget "bought" judges.  State Rep. Frank Nicely has it right I think (New fight brews over judge selection process in Tennessee | tennessean.com | The Tennessean):

The Tennessee Plan will expire in 2012. Emboldened by new Republican majorities after November's elections, however, opponents may press the issue sooner. Opponents say that in addition to being unconstitutional, the Tennessee Plan makes judges unaccountable to voters.

'If elections are so crooked that you cannot elect a judge … then what does that say about our form of government?' said state Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Knoxville.

Cross-posted at judicialreformcoalition.blogspot.com

Soros-selected judges for Tennessee

It appears that lawyers' special interest groups are gearing up for a serious fight to defend their hold on Tennessee's current unconstitutional system of selecting judges. "John Jay's college of justice" and "Help us help us help ourselves." Actually, I don't believe they were caught off guard in 2009, as the group carrying the water at that time was the TBA. This go 'round, with Republican majorities in both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly, retention-election supporters will be working under the auspices of a Soros-funded group calling itself Tennesseeans for Fair and Impartial Courts ("TFIC").

Here's more information about what we can expect from TFIC.

Cross-posted at judicialreformcoalition.blogspot.com

About Bush v. Gore . . . and those wacist wepublicans . . .

In an interesting profile of likely soon-to-depart SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens is this Liberal reconstruction of what happened in the Court's 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. What will the Supreme Court be like without Justice John Paul Stevens? : The New Yorker:

In Bush v. Gore, Stevens framed his colleagues’ decision as an insult to the judicial role, one that could, he wrote, “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.” In words that became better known than anything in the collectively written majority decision, he continued:


Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Uh, it's probably the very essence of "rule of law" is not to change the rules in the middle of a controversy. The Left really struggles with that concept.

And another point needs correcting in the article:

After his clerkship, Stevens returned to Chicago and took a job at one of the city’s first religiously integrated law firms. Abner Mikva clerked on the Supreme Court the year after Stevens, then returned to Chicago to start a career in public life. “Those were the days when there was such a thing as a moderate Republican, and that’s what he was,” Mikva said of Stevens. “He was a pretty conservative Republican on economic issues, but he was always a great progressive on civil rights and social rights.”

Republicans as a party were certifiably more in favor of "civil rights" than Democrats.

And, near the end of the profile, my beef with Stevens comes to light:

Stevens, throughout his years on the Court, has drawn not just on history and precedent but on contemporary values and even on his own experience as a judge. According to Stevens, that approach has its origins in his brief stint as a lawyer on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee. “That was probably one of the most important parts of my education,” Stevens told me. He recalled an incident involving an antitrust law: “I remember explaining one of the tricky problems in the statute to one of the members of the committee. I got all through it, and he said, ‘Well, you know, let’s let the judges figure that one out.’ ”

What that told him was that “the legislature really works with the judges—contrary to the suggestion that the statute is a statute all by itself,” Stevens said. “There is an understanding that there are areas of interpretation that are going to have to be filled in later on, and the legislators rely on that. It’s part of the whole process. And you realize that they’re not totally separate branches of government—they’re working together.”

Whatever happened to judicial restraint (read: a proper, limited role of the judiciary) and separation of powers, not to mention textualism?

Leave it to a Mockingbird

I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt from Ann Coulter's latest op/ed ("What's Arabic For 'You're No Atticus Finch'?" - HUMAN EVENTS) From the article:

You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the 'American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients' when it's being used to defend causes popular with liberals -- serial killers, terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.
. . . .
Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice, but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.

what motivates a man like John Albert Gardner, III

I was privileged to meet James Dobson yesterday afternoon at the Opryland Resort, and upon reading this sobering story ("Man is arrested in San Diego teen's disappearance," Los Angeles Times), as I was contemplating what motivates someone to do this sort of thing, I was reminded of Dobson's groundbreaking interview (here) with serial murderer and rapist Ted Bundy, prior to Bundy's execution in Florida.

It is worth a listen.

A couple things about the Amy Bishop case

Wow. The emerging details about UAH murderer Amy Bishop are fascinating. Survivor: Ala. prof in slayings shot methodically - BostonHerald.com.

1. Though hindsight is 20/20, the facts surrounding Bishop's killing of her brother in 1986 are pretty troubling. It'll be interesting to see how this evolving story will affect the political fortunes of Democratic Congressman William Delahunt:

He said there were no ballistics tests included, and he also thought it odd that there was an 11-day gap between the death and interviews with family members, apparently because they were too distraught to talk sooner.

The Norfolk County district attorney at the time was William Delahunt, now a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. He was traveling in Israel and could not immediately be reached for comment on the case.

2. Though it is almost impossible to predict how you would react if you had been among the faculty members in that UAH Biology Department meeting, I was stunned to read these details of how they handled the situation:

[UAH Associate Professor] Joseph Ng told the AP the shooting stopped almost as soon as it started. He said the gun seemed to jam and he and others rushed Bishop out of the room and then barricaded the door shut with a table.

Ng said the charge was led by Debra Moriarity, a professor of biochemistry, after Bishop aimed the gun at her and attempted to fire. When the gun didn’t shoot, Moriarity pushed her way to Bishop, urged her to stop, and then helped force her out the door.

'Moriarity was probably the one that saved our lives. She was the one that initiated the rush,' he told the AP. 'It took a lot of guts to just go up to her.'

Ng said the survivors worried she would shoot her way through the door, and frantically worked up a backup plan in case she burst through. But she never did.

(emphasis added). Yes, Bishop could have shot her way back in . . . or started shooting students or others elsewhere in the building.

3. Though I sympathize with the family members and loved ones of the UAH victims, I do not see how a typical hiring process would have alerted UAH to Amy Bishop's past "issues."

Not much of a former Constitutional law professor--Update

In all due deference to President, regarding his either stupid or disingenuous assertions about the Citizens United ruling during the SOTU :

Tonight the president engaged in dem[a]goguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

And here's why.


Update . . . insight from a former SOTU speech fact checker:

I don’t see why it’s inappropriate for the president to express disagreement with a Supreme Court opinion, even if the members of the Court are in the room. Presidents giving State of the Union addresses express disagreement with how Congress does its job all the time, and the Court is not somehow beyond criticism in ways the other branches aren’t. It would be nice if he had tried to make some argument explaining why he thought the Court’s reading of the relevant constitutional provision was incorrect — since it is after all the Court’s job to interpret the constitution and the law, not to seek particular policy outcomes. But even so, Obama’s criticism didn’t strike me as an offense against protocol.

It was, however, an offense against the truth, which makes it even more troubling and peculiar. It was just plain wrong on the facts, in a very straightforward and unmistakable way. A presidential speech, especially a State of the Union address, generally goes through layer after layer of fact-checking. I still have the scars from a couple of years of this in the Bush White House, proving the case for every fact, figure, noun, verb, and adjective in the speech that had anything to do with the issues I was working on. Some errors creep in sometimes of course, but they tend to be on tiny side-issues. And there are also sometimes claims that are open to dispute or interpretation (on intelligence or national security for instance, where not everything that’s known can be said, or on economic analysis.) But this seems like a direct claim by the president that simply misstates the content of a Supreme Court opinion. Is there even an issue of interpretation here? Is there anyone who actually claims with any specific reference to the opinion that the opinion could allow foreign corporations to contribute to American campaigns? Or that it overturns a century of legal precedent?

I suppose it could be chalked up to demagoguery, but you’d think the internal White House process would keep even demagoguery within some factually supportable boundaries — so there was at least a plausible argument for every claim allowed into the president’s speeches. This seems like an abject failure of the staffing process — a process intended, among other things, to protect the president from embarrassment.

And a final word on the subject An Appalling Breach of Decorum | Cato @ Liberty:

For the president to have singled the justices out for criticism, while others around them stood and applauded as they sat there still, is simply demagoguery at its worst. I would not be surprised if the justices declined next year’s invitation. And Obama wanted to change the tone in Washington? He sure has.

Lockerbie perp's release: "justice" or "compassion"?

The AP headline reads, "Scotland: Lockerbie decision based on 'justice.'" I'm assuming that Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's deputy first minister was referring to capital J Justice (as in the Ministry of Justice) in this statement (here:)

"What I do know, and what I can state categorically ... is that these deals — if such deals existed — played no part whatsoever in the decision that Kenny MacAskill took to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds," Sturgeon, said. "That was a decision taken entirely on justice grounds, and there were no influences relating to political or economic interests that played any part in that."

Rove and US Atty firings: where's the injustice?

The first line of this story is tantalizing, but where's the beef? Where's the injustice? From the story:

White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door interviews with former Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers reveal involvement as early as May 2005 by Rove's office in the 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Voter fraud (which is of the certifiable and Democratic Party variety) may not be important to certain DOJ attorneys, but it is to me and to most Republicans.

Yelling at cops and stuff

I hate to keep revisiting the Gates arrest story, because it will lead some people to assert or conclude that I'm piling on or that I'm a racist, but I think--like Gates purports to believe, that this is a teachable moment on this issue of race in America.

Here's the best op/ed I've read on the subject; it's by Barry Saunders. It has a bit of a surreal feel to it because it's hard to believe that Saunders--who claims to have been stopped "a hundred or so times" by police, is able to have such an easygoing attitude about the subject. However, I think Saunders strikes the perfect balance between objectivity and empathy on the subject. For the record, I am very concerned that officers not prejudicially make traffic stops, but that isn't what's at issue here, in my opinion. Apparently, this black Boston police officer agrees with me.

And one other comment-worthy thing that I've heard of late (from a handful of Conservative talk-show people, as best I can recall) is, "it's not illegal to yell at a police officer." That's not true. Police are involved in very dangerous work. I'd say at least once per week it crosses my mind that I would not want to walk up to a vehicle in a traffic stop on a dark, deserted highway (or during broad daylight). And they are often in the minority under very tense circumstances that can readily escalate or spin out of control; thus, officers have a legitimate basis for expecting citizens to not be disorderly in such a situation. Those conditions may or may not have been present in the Gates arrest, but it is not correct to flatly say, "it's not against the law to yell at a cop."

Tough vote on Sotomayor

As announcements trickle out regarding GOP senators' intended votes on the Sotomayor nomination, I can't help but feel (a teeny bit of) sympathy for them. Why? Because the Sotomayor who testified on Capitol Hill last week is different than the Sotomayor who has judged and seminared and opined over the past 17 years (and who is also the Sotomayor likely to reappear once seated on the Supreme Court). As Jay Nordlinger writes at NationalReview.com:

Well, that was an amazing performance by Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate committee. The Sonia Sotomayor of the past was completely gone. Gone was the woman who talked about the role of “physiology” in judging, who insisted that impartiality, objectivity, neutrality — all of that — was a fantasy, and a bad one. In her place was a champion of impartiality, disinterestedness, and the rule of law: the rule of law, and nothing but. Doesn’t make a difference whether you’re a Latina or a whitey or whatever. “Empathy”? Never heard of it. Certainly has no role in the courtroom.

A funny thought occurred to me: Maybe President Obama should withdraw Sotomayor’s nomination? I mean, she seemed to repudiate everything he stands for in judging.

I must say I was especially grateful to those liberals who said, publicly, they were disappointed in Sotomayor’s choices: who said that her testimony before the committee was dishonest and disingenuous. They scored her for perpetuating the childish belief that judging can be impartial. They wanted the old, candid, racialist Sonia back. I would like to add that I think the old, candid, racialist Sonia would have been just fine. What I mean is, the Senate would have confirmed her anyway — there is that mountain of Democratic votes. She could have let it all hang out. She did not have to dissemble to stymie people like me.

The Sonia Sotomayor who testified before the committee, people like me could endorse and vote for. Somebody’s lying: either the Sonia Sotomayor of the past or the Sonia Sotomayor of the present. Or she has undergone a conversion. I doubt that such conversion has taken place. You?

So which vote should they cast? The one that will be characterized as partisan (and perhaps bigoted) or the one that will not avert her confirmation and is fairly rooted in a concern for Rule of Law and sound judicial philosophy?

Kathleen Parker's identity politics sinkhole

Kathleen Parker has an off-target essay up today about the Sotomayor hearings. In particular, Parker misinterprets legitimate questions about Sotomayor's wise-latina-makes-better-judge views as sexist/chauvinistic/racist. From the article:Kathleen Parker - The GOP's Sotomayor Sinkhole - washingtonpost.com:

But those who picked the wrong battles during her confirmation, reminding Americans that they are blind to their own biases and attitudes, may find themselves increasingly lonely in that great big tent.

By questioning Sotomayor about her race- and sex-based ideology and judicial philosophy, the Senators (who are jurisprudentially Conservative, but only happen to be male and white) are appropriately establishing a standard for Rule of Law and the proper role of a judge in our Constitutional republic.

I believe that a sparsely populated GOP big tent is a predictable result of cluelessly (or worse, insidiously) demagoguing legitimate questions of public policy. Way to go, female, people-pleasing Kathleen Parker.

Coburn pickin' a fight?

I agree with Sonia Sotomayor's handling (at least in the context of this video) of this poorly framed question from Sen. Coburn on "personal self defense."

I think he's driving at the 2nd Amendment, but that is a distinct question from "personal self defense." I also sympathize with her unwillingness to tell her personal opinion (apart from legal considerations) about any such right. It is appropriate to ask her whether she believes that the Constitution provides for such a right or whether a particular statute provides that "right," and a good judge (one acting within his/her proper role) need not go beyond such consideration.

What exactly is "historic" about her?

Patrick Leahy betrays (here) his identity politics:

Noting that only 101 people get a direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court, Mr. Leahy highlighted Judge Sotomayor's credentials.

"President Obama has done his part and made a historic pick, now the Senate has to do its part," he said.

Have a heart, Sotomayor!

If you follow the news at all, you likely have heard (here) that the U.S. Supreme overturned one of S.Ct. nominee Sonia Sotomayor's lower court decisions this week. But the more interesting and timely aspect of this story to me (rather than the wins/losses or victor/smack-down angle) is how it reflects Sotomayor's summary and un-serious treatment of a very serious and complex issue.

Given that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's most exceptional quality is supposedly her ability to empathize, this week's affirmative action decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is ironic. Sotomayor's endorsement of a one-paragraph 2nd Circuit opinion in the matter wasn't very sympathetic.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg was careful to note how she had resisted her feelings in considering this case,

The white firefighters who studied for the exam "understandably attract the court's empathy," Justice Ginsburg said in summarizing the dissent from the bench. But, she added, "they had no vested right to promotion."

It is a fair (not to mention complex) question whether there is a right to be promoted if you qualify for a promotion in every respect except for the color of your skin. And I commend the "living Constitution"/jurisprudentially Liberal dissenters on our Supreme Court for their effort to rationalize their political view of racial preferences. But Sotomayor, and the other two judges on the panel who dismissively refused to consider this case at the Circuit Court level, didn't even go to that trouble. Apparently her motivation to go the extra mile is limited to certain types of petitioners.

Come on Judge Sotomayor, have a heart!