Quote of the day

The Gentlelady from Western Florida, Mrs. Wicked Witch

This just in... God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws," according to Florida Senate candidate and future Liberty University political science professor Katherine Harris (R-shocker).

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday in the Florida Baptist Witness, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers." Reached for comment, God said, "That's right. I choose our rulers, which is why you don't have a chance in Hell of getting elected. But look at the bright side, you do have a chance of going to Hell."

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said. (That's a good point - I forgot that Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrinch, Duke Cunnigham, Bob Ney, and Tom DeLay are all Hindus.)

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments. Recent campaign finance disclosures have revealed that the only person still giving Harris money is Mel Gibson.

Retarded state laws: California edition

I have no commentary to add on this one. The resolution speaks for itself.

H.R. 36 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Richman and Canciamilla
Relative to Pluto's planetary status.

WHEREAS, Recent astronomical discoveries, including Pluto's oblong orbit and the sighting of a slightly larger Kuiper Belt object, have led astronomers to question the planetary status of Pluto; and

WHEREAS, The mean-spirited International Astronomical Union decided on August 24, 2006, to disrespect Pluto by stripping Pluto of its planetary status and reclassifying it as a lowly dwarf planet;and

WHEREAS, Pluto was discovered in 1930 by an American, Clyde Tombaugh, at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, and this discovery resulted in millions of Californians being taught that Pluto was the ninth planet in the solar system; and

WHEREAS, Pluto, named after the Roman God of the underworld and affectionately sharing the name of California's most famous animated dog, has a special connection to California history and culture; and

WHEREAS, Downgrading Pluto's status will cause psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe and worry about the instability of universal constants; and

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet renders millions of text books, museum displays, and children's refrigerator art projects obsolete, and represents a substantial unfunded mandate that must be paid by dwindling Proposition 98 education funds, thereby harming California's children and widening its budget deficits; and

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet is a hasty,ill-considered scientific heresy similar to questioning the Copernican theory, drawing maps of a round world, and proving the existence of the time and space continuum; and

WHEREAS, The downgrading of Pluto reduces the number of planets available for legislative leaders to hide redistricting legislation and other inconvenient political reform measures; and

WHEREAS, The California Legislature, in the closing days of the 2005-06 session, has been considering few matters important to the future of California, and the status of Pluto takes precedence and is worthy of this body's immediate attention; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly hereby condemns the International Astronomical Union's decision to strip Pluto of its planetary status for its tremendous impact on the people of California and the state's long term fiscal health; and be it further

Resolved, That the Assembly Clerk shall send a copy of the resolution to the International Astronomical Union and to any Californian who, believing that his or her legislator is addressing the problems that threaten the future of the Golden State, requests a copy of the resolution.

Retarded state courts: North Carolina edition (Guest column by Brandeis)

It turns out, it's not just legislatures that can create Frankenstein's monsters of law. Sadly, the very institution we rely on to protect us from the excesses of the Legislature's mad scientist - the Ken Mars to our Gene Wilder, if you will - frequently cackles at us and flips the switch itself. And boy hidey, if I could swing Teri Garr into the bed that flew up to the roof, I'd probably do some crazy things too.

But, that's not the point. In re: Banks, in 1978, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered a challenge to the state's "Peeping Tom" statute, which reads:"N.C.G.S. 14-202: Secretly peeping into room occupied by female person. Any person who shall peep secretly into any room occupied by a female person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court." I'll let you take a second to ponder this.

So, Mr. Banks offers two arguments for the unconstitutionality of the statute: he argues first that it is unconstitutionally vague, and second that it is overbroad. Under the vagueness standard, Mr. Banks argues that the statute's plain meaning prohibits conduct it could not possibly be meant to prohibit - e.g., looking in a restaurant window to see if your friend has arrived yet. If there's a woman inside, and she doesn't know you're looking - WHOOPS! you just committed a crime - and a rather bad one, if you're hoping for a career in politics, since you're now a "Peeping Tom." In other words, Banks argues that there's no fair notice to the defendant based on his analysis that admits of obviously innocent conduct to be prohibited. He also argues that there's no enforcement standard, because of the same analysis. On overbreadth, Banks essentially makes the same argument as on vagueness - only he doesn't have to jump through any additional hoops. Because the statute bans clearly innocent conduct, it is unconstitutional on overbreadth.

The Court laughs him off the stage. They tell him not to be silly. The basic analysis of both Banks' arguments turns on the lack of a workable definition for two terms: "peep" and "secretly." The Court basically tells Banks that the Court can define those words however they want, and cite cases where the Court issued definitions that narrow the statute. The most egregious example of this is their redefinition of "secretly." The Court redefines "secretly" to mean "with wrongful intent to invade a privacy interest." Now, I want you to parse through the word "secretly" as close as you can, and tell me where that definition comes from. Thus, on vagueness, the Court redefines "secretly," then asserts that based on this redefinition that there is both fair notice and enforcement standards (since the prosecutor now has to prove "wrongful intent"), and on overbreadth, well, CLEARLY the redefinition makes it not overly broad, since you can only be convicted if you've done something WRONG, right?

Technically, the Court can do this. Narrowing the construction of a statute is perfectly within the Court's power, although I would argue that this particular narrowing is an unconscionable abuse of discretion. But why didn't Banks appeal to the federal courts on, oh, I dunno, equal protection? The statute only permits prosecution if a FEMALE person is in the room. Needless to say, I don't think a federal court would have permitted this statute to stand.

As a matter of fact, I think the federal courts would have laughed the State off the stage. After all, no matter how impressive it is that the monster can scream "Puttin' On The Ritz," it doesn't matter until you manage the brain transplant to calm him down.

Double crossed

In case you missed it, last week President Bush signed a law that would insulate a 29-foot Latin cross on a war memorial from legal challenges on Establishment Clause grounds. A case, raised by a local atheist, has been winding its way through the California courts for 17 years. Apparently, "justice delayed is justice divine." But now Congress has used eminent domain to seize the memorial and force additional delays in resolving its constitutionality.

According to the New York Times, "Judges in state and federal courts have ruled that the cross violates the California Constitution, but it has stayed in place while appeals have played out. There are signs that the United States Supreme Court,which has previously rejected hearing the case, may now be interested."

Calling this session's lawmakers a "do-nothing Congress" gives them far too much credit. From a bill of attainder targeting a dying woman in Florida to a bill stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, this Congress is in bed with the Religious Right to such a degree that it makes me wonder whether adultery is taking place.

Two observations: (1) If Republicans want to rant and rave about how eminent domain was never intended to be used to seize people's homes for economic development projects, they cannot turn around and justify using eminent domain to protect Jesus. People in glass houses...you get the point. (2) There is a long history and tradition of attempting to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction on controversial matters. The most famous example of this practice occurred when Congress almost prevented the Court from ruling on further desegregation cases after Brown v. Board was handed down. I believe that the architects of Massive Resistance are rolling over in their graves now that Congress is seriously debating a court stripping bill of such miniscule importance.

The current role that the Religious Right plays in American politics has gone from bizarre to totally ridiculous. Why are our politicians still cow-towing to a group whose leader blamed the attacks on 9/11 on feminists and the People for the American Way? I know the Lord works in mysterious ways, but for people like me on the Religious Left, this is quite a test of faith.

Retarded state laws: Congressional edition

Just because state legislatures are the "laboratories of democracy" doesn't mean that the U.S. Congress is immune from creating a legislative Frankenstein every once in a while. I am sad to report that the U.S. House is losing one of its senior statesmen, Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Last week, McKinney lost her seat in the Democratic primary to former county commissioner Hank "I'm Not A Lunatic" Johnson.

A National Treasure

There are certainly many ways to make fun of McKinney, but I want to highlight one under-reported aspect of her legislative career. This year McKinney introduced H.R. 4968, which directs the National Archives to commence the establishment of a collection of records to be known as the "Tupac Amaru Shakur Records Collection" at the National Archives.

Here is a brief excerpt from the summary of the bill:

Requires the Archivist of the United States to enter into an agreement with the Tupac Amaru Shakur Center for the Arts in Stone Mountain, Georgia, or another location agreed to by the family of Tupac Shakur, for the establishment of a secondary location for a complete copy of the appropriate part of the Collection, not including physical artifacts.

Directs the National Archives to appoint an independent Citizens Advisory Committee.

Grants Presidential authority over such disclosure or postponement of executive branch related records or information, or of any information in a related record obtained or developed solely within the executive branch.

A few observations: (1) The bill is 51 pages long, which means the legislative counsel who drafted it deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor for putting up with this crap. (2) The Citizens Advisory Committee would be the most pimped out government panel ever. (3) What? Where's the love for Biggie? (4) Has anyone at the National Archives heard of Tupac (or rap music at all)? (5) I would give 3:1 odds that McKinney will end up on a reality show, most likely Celebrity Boxing.

Pardon me?

The Washington Post reports that President Bush has handed down his latest round of pardons. Here are a few of the people pardoned:

Those pardoned included James Leon Adams, Simpsonville, S.C., selling firearms to out-of-state residents and falsifying firearms records; Tony Dale Ashworth, Winnsboro, S.C., unlawful transfer of a firearm; Randall Leece Deal, Clayton, Ga., liquor law violations and conspiracy to violate liquor laws; William Henry Eagle, Wenatchee, Wash., possessing an unregistered still, carrying on the business of a distiller without the required bond, and manufacturing mash on other than lawfully qualified premises.

I have two observations. (1) When I think of the clear framer's intent of Article II Section 2, I think of pardoning a moonshiner. (2) George W. "compassionate conservative" Bush has issued the fewest number of pardons of any post-war president.

It's about faith, not zealotry: Guest blogging at East Texas Skeptic

Check out my brother Holmes' blog, The East Texas Skeptic. He has started a fascinating thread of discussion about religion from a pragmatist's perspective, and I have (foolishly) weighed in.

Justice is not neutral

Dahlia Lithwick wrote an outstanding column about Justice Kennedy's recent speech to the American Bar Association. Here is a lengthy, but excellent snippett.

[Kennedy] describes the American conception of law as a "liberating force, a covenant, a promise." And in spite of the lofty intellectualism and the big words, this speech captures my imagination and that of the assembled crowd for its two quintessential Kennedy traits. The first is the vast sprawl of his imaginative world. He travels the planet and reads widely and he attends lectures on water purification. Then he applies all that knowledge to his conception of the law. And whether you like that expansive scope, listening to him is still a tonic to the smallness and smug certainty that has characterized our political leadership in this country for the past six years. It offers a welcome break from the hermetically sealed constitutional worldview of some of his detractors. Kennedy is a legendary agonizer. But his comments here reveal the extent to which that agony is not an end in itself. His sense of justice and equality is a work in progress, informed by what he learns from people all over the planet who know more than he does. There's something reassuring in his sense that the world is a fluid place.

Which brings us to Kennedy's second great characteristic, the one that has launched a thousand heart attacks over at the National Review Online: Kennedy believes that justice has a purpose. It is not a neutral set of ideals. It is a promise that humans "can dare, can plan, can have joy in their existence." It's premised on the view that poverty and hopelessness and alienation should cause us worry. Maybe that premise is too ambitious. Maybe it is truly not the province of the law to pave over the differences between those who are suffering and those who are not. But Kennedy at least recognizes that all this suffering and alienation is the handmaiden of awlessness; and that it is as much the task of lawyers to fight lawlessness as it is to serve some dispassionate, neutral machine called the law.

Retarded state laws: South Dakota edition

I'm sorry it's been a while since I last posted, but trust me this was worth the wait. Voters in South Dakota will go to the polls this November to decide a ballot initiative that would allow people to sue judges, juries or city councils for making decisions they don't like. The constitutional amendment is called: the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) To quote the Bible according to Lewis, "Do not think about the previous sentence for more than two minutes, or blood will start shooting out your nose." In spite of that warning, please read this post all the way to the end. The stupidity is especially stupefying.

Here is the explanation of the amendment written by the Attorney General:

Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.

The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the volunteers. Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.

The proposed amendment is retroactive. The volunteers may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.

If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

Here is the core provision of the amendment:

No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.

I almost don't even know where to begin...

• Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions... are all required to make judicial decisions. Wow. Charles Manson can sue the jury that convicted him because he respectfully disagrees with their decision. You don't like a recent zoning decision made by the city council? Sue the bastards. This may be the only section of the amendment the Bar Association actually likes.


• The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen volunteers to expose these decision makers to fines and jail. Fantastic, let's call on the Justice League to hold judges accountable. On a more serious note, this is more than likely a bill of attainder.


• The proposed amendment is retroactive. How do you explain ex post facto to simpletons from South Dakota?


• If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. YOU THINK?!? In addition to the problems listed above, consult Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. John Marshall isn't rolling over in his grave. He is grabbing his old gavel and getting ready to kick some ass.


• Section 5: The Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for the Special Grand Jury to meet not within a mile of any judicial body. (We wouldn't want judges pelting the grand jurors with tomatoes on their lunch break.)


• Section 6: The Legislature shall cause to be deduced 1.9% from the gross judicial salaries of all judges [to fund this administration of this law]. Great, a special tax on judges to create frivolous law suits.


• Section 10: Should the [annual budget of the jury] drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of seven Circuit Court judges, the State Treasurer shall notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account. "Hey mom, I need more money for laundry." "I already gave you money for this semester." "The Constitution says I can get more."


• Section 12: Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel... Once you make these exclusions, you are left with 72 people in the state to choose from.


• Section 15: All allegations in the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complaintant. Translation: you have to sit and listen attentively to the guy who claims the CIA put a chip in his brain.


• Section 16: Should the Special Grand Jury also find probably cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge...[it shall] select a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. You wouldn't want anyone with experience to preside over such an important trial, would you? Would you?


• Section 18: Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office. Let's work on more ways to write baseball analogies into our founding documents. Let's replace "guilty on a preponderance of the evidence" with "the tie goes to the runner."

Before I close, it is the policy of Supreme Dicta, much like Fox News, likes to feign an attempt at being "fair and balanced." Here is a case for voting in favor of the amendment. South Dakota's economy is stagnant. Any influx of additional revenue would greatly improve the lives of its citizens. Approving this amendment would generate a great deal of publicity for the state, on news broadcasts and late night comedy shows. Whenever the words "South Dakota" are mentioned, people automatically think of Mt. Rushmore. Therefore, you should vote for this amendment because the resulting bad publicity will generate tourism revenues.