Today is a Monday, so it’s fitting that on this date in 1547, Ivan the Terrible was crowned the first czar of Russia. In fact, that’s why Mondays are traditionally crappy. In honor of Ivan. Even though the day of his coronation was actually a Sunday. Evolution at work folks. Today is also Martin Luther King Day in the U.S. See link below for an excerpt from his famous “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” As always, consider this an Open Thread . Why Martin Luther King couldn’t wait | New York Daily News “Here, from the letter, is a single, pain-filled, 300-plus word sentence, explaining why waiting was ‘unwise and untimely’” Obsessive Koch Disorder: Art Brisbane Responds | Powerline “This brings forward another ingredient in this situation: The Times’s audience. That audience consists of New Yorkers, by and large a liberal population, and national readers, many of whom select The Times because it mirrors their views.” Art Brisbane, New York Times public editor Obama thumbs nose at Founders with one-man rule | Michael Barone “More important, what gives the head of the executive branch the authority to decide whether one house of the legislative branch is conducting serious business?” Private-sector experience? Oh, no! | Frank J. Fleming, New York Post “Isn’t there something just so reassuring about a career politician? He has never worried about ‘profit’ or ‘efficiency’ or ‘success’; his every job has involved only helping people.” Todays word of the day comes from Luciferous Logolepsy , and is appropriate in many ways to this past weekend of football. epicaricacy n. – taking pleasure in others’ misfortune
See more here:
Daily Links – January 16, 2012
So now it seems the executive branch of our government thinks it rules over the legislative branch. King Obama can now (regardless of what the Constitution says) tell congress that they are officially in recess, so he can appoint the people he wants, without those pesky confirmation votes. As a start, read more background information HERE and HERE . Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)
Read the original post:
Playing Obama, It’s Recess Time
From the pool report: Presidential motorcade left a soggy South Lawn at 12:45 p.m. for shopping and lunch amidst the legislative chaos. Fourteen minutes later the motorcade arrived at Potomac Yards in Alexandria, where the President headed into the Pet Smart store. By the time the pool was allowed in a shirtsleeved POTUS was at
Excerpt from:
Let’s Move! While Queen Michelle relaxes in Hawaii, Barack pigs out in Washington
Here’s an interesting little legal issue — one that is apparently easier to resolve properly if you have not had legal training. California Penal Code section 288.7(a) reads as follows : Any person 18 years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child who is 10 years of age or younger is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. That simple language in bold is apparently too difficult for some judges to understand. Our hypothetical defendant is 19 years old. The evidence shows that he met the victim at her 10th birthday party. One week later, he had sex with her. Is he subject to the penalties provided by this law? As a common sense person, dear reader, you are saying: of course he is! The victim was 10 when he had sex with her. She just had her 10th birthday! And the penalties apply if the victim is 10 or younger. What’s the problem? It turns out that at least one California court saw a problem. That court said “10 years of age or younger” means “exactly 10 years old, not one day more” . . . or younger. In other words, the day after the victim’s birthday, she is no longer “10 years of age of younger” . . . according to these legal geniuses. That conclusion is, of course, absurd. If you asked this girl how old she is, she would say: “ten.” If you asked her mother how old she is, she would say: “ten.” If you asked all her friends and relatives how old she is, they would say: “ten.” If the statute says the victim must be “10 years of age OR younger” and she is “10 years of age,” then the statute applies. I don’t care what the legislative “intent” was. I don’t care about the “rule of lenity” or any other mumbo jumbo. Not in this case. Because here the language is clear. The girl is ten. The statute applies. Next case! This is what I mean when I stress that “legislative intent” should not matter to the interpretation of a statute. This court actually bemoaned the fact that there was no legislative history available to help out. The court also noted that several other cases in other jurisdictions had resolved similar issues in the same silly way (as well as several that resolved it properly). The court further noted that, in many cases, “courts have been able to resolve the issue on the basis of an illuminating legislative history.” Legislative history. Aaaaaargh! So, let’s say a legislator didn’t like the law, and was pushing to make the victim’s age “11 years or younger” before harsher penalties kicked in — but ended up voting for the statute in a pander to the public. He could simply have a staffer slip something into the legislative record talking about how “10 years or age or younger” really excludes anyone who is 10 years and a day. And one suspects certain idiot judges would pay attention to that kind of dishonest crap. Not me. To me, the words mean what they mean. Trying to divine some “legislative intent” from clues in speeches and notes from committee meetings is a fool’s errand. The plain language should control. Luckily, sanity may win out. The California Supreme Court has granted review and the case may not be cited. At least one other court has come out with a sensible ruling going the proper way. But when you throw common sense out the window, the law can take the most obvious, plain meanings of words, and twist them into something that would make the man on the street furrow his brow and say “What now??” It’s not always lawyers who do this, mind you. But they seem to be mighty good at it.
Read the original post:
Another Example of How Lawyers Ignoring the Plain Meaning of Language Go Astray
In the summer issue of National Affairs , George Mason law professor Eric Claeys warned conservatives not to place their hopes in a Supreme Court review of Obama’s health care law. Claeys argues that only Justice Thomas has a record that clearly indicates that he would vote to strike down the law. The other conservative justices are question marks, including even Scalia. Claeys concludes that it’s possible that Obamacare may be struck down, but that opponents shouldn’t lose focus on the legislative battle.
