Breaking News: Equal Protection Clause Does Not Protect A Messy Office

Thanks to the good folks at Decision of the Day for finding this gem.

A professor at the University of Texas San Antonio lost his job over having a messy workspace. The professor, a chemist, was warned repeatedly to clean up his lab space because of safety concerns. When he refused, school officials decided to clean it themselves, which resulted in the professor throwing a fit and getting arrested.

After being fired, the professor brought suit alleging an equal protection violation. The district court rejected his claims, a decision affirmed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals this week (shocker). Discrimination based on work habits is subject to rational basis review, and given that a messy chemistry lab could lead to a fire or other bad things, this is not a surprise. I'm sure the judges on the 5th Circuit

BTW, this professor had accepted a summer job at Los Alamos National Lab. No wonder the Chinese have all our nuclear secrets!

Given my personal habits and my future career plans, this story scares the crap out of me.

God and the GOP

In case you missed the Republican CNN/You Tube debate last night, it was nowhere near as entertaining as the Democratic version (no snowman!). The most interesting exchange, IMHO, came in a discussion about religion.

Check it out:

A few observations: (1) Giuliani sounds like a Democrat. His answer is exactly how most progressive Christians view the Bible. It's the exact same answer I would give to that question, but I don't have to please an evangelical base like he does. How did Pat Robertson endorse this guy? I know Uncle Pat really wants to bomb Iran, but other than that he shares no common ground with Giuliani. And the promise to appoint really strong conservative judges? Yeah that worked out great for Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41.

(2) Romney will say ANYTHING to get himself elected. He loves to stick to his talking points, but as soon as he was pushed away from them, he's not sure what he believes. Did you see him hesitate? He waffles so much he makes John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar.

(3) Mike Huckabee bugs me...because he is so damn likeable. He speaks with conviction, he's got a pastor's charisma, a fantastic sense, and I feel like he is the one Republican running who can disagree without being disagreable. He's the anti-Duncan-Hunter. He's got a great personal story - losing 110 lbs while serving as governor of Arkansas, and he's the bass player in a rock band. He's the type of guy I would love to have a beer with (though since he is a Baptist, we would have to have the drink back at my apartment). The reason he bugs me is because he is very conservative, and I think he could win a general election.

Besides, I am commanded to like Mike Huckabee. If I didn't like him this man would hunt me down in my sleep.

Worst judge ever!

Remember the third grade? Someone shoots a spitball, and the teacher can't figure out who do it. So Mrs. Crabtree says that unless the culprit confesses, the whole class loses recess for a week. And then the tyrant actually enforces that overreaching punishment, and life sucks for a while.

Well apparently the American judicial system is a lot like third grade:

On the morning of March 11, 2005, Judge Robert M. Restaino, was presiding over a slate of domestic violence cases when he heard a phone ring in his courtroom. He told the roughly 70 people in the courtroom that “every single person is going to jail in this courtroom” unless the phone was turned over.

He continued: “If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.”

Security officers attempted to find the phone, but failed, while an officer was posted at the door.

After a brief recess, Judge Restaino returned to the bench and asked the defendant who had been standing before him when the phone rang — from the back of the room — and if he knew whose phone it was.

“No,” the defendant, Reginald Jones, said. “I was up here.”

Nonetheless, the judge scrapped plans to release Mr. Jones, set bail at $1,500 and sent him into custody. He was the first of 46 defendants to be sent into custody because of what could be called the case of the ringing cellphone.” The judge opined at length about his frustration over the phone.

One defendant, according to the report, told the judge, “This is not fair to the rest of us.” To which the judge replied, “I know it isn’t.”

This is all I have to say - Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for political bias in conducting a trial resulting from the John Fries' Rebellion in 1804, the only time in American history a justice was ever impeached (though he was acquitted). If that is the threshold for impeachment, surely this idiot's capriciousness crosses the line. What a bastard!

Some thoughts on Loving (v. Virginia)

Stephanie Coontz, a history professor at Evergreen State College, authored an intriguing op-ed in the New York Times. Prof. Coontz points out that for most of recorded history the institution of marriage has been free of state (and even religious interference).

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

My, my how things have changed. Starting in the early 20th century, state governments began to enact legislation banning interracial couples from marrying. These statutes not only targeted blacks, but also the Chinese, Indians and "Mongolians." And today, our doofus-in-chief wants to amend the Constitution to protect the integrity of the American family, which is under threat whenever two dudes make out with each other.

That's not the only thing that has changed this century. The development of the welfare state added new significance to marriage as a formula for the distribution of state benefits. But as Coontz points out:

Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

What could solve this problem? Privatize marriage. Get the state out of the business of sanctioning private committed relationships. So long as a romantic relationship is not premised on the abuse of one party (marrying someone under age, polygamy, etc.) and it will not produce offspring that are genetically at-risk (incest), what business does the state have in regulating the structure of our families? Let the morality of a particular union be debated within a religious denomination, not the U.S. Capitol.

The Supreme Court (eventually) ruled bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional in 1967 in the case Loving v. Virginia. The Court noted that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence. The Court found that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination."

But the history of marriage as an institution demonstrates that - though the Court reached the correct decision - it used the wrong logic. The Court ruled that states may not draw distinctions in marriage due to based on race, but that leaves the door open to drawing distinctions on other grounds (such as sexual orientation) could be legitimate.

So the question is this: are interracial marriage statutes unconstitutional because the right of marriage is a private right of citizenship, not subject to arbitrary infringement by the state? Or is it unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions based on race?

If the answer is the former, then bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. If the answer is the latter, then sadly such bans will pass constitutional muster, as the Court only requires distinctions based on sexual orientation to meet the minimal "rational basis" standard of review.

Happy Birthday, Federalist 10!

You may not have realized it, but over Thanksgiving, we all had an additional reason to be thankful. On Friday, Federalist 10 celebrated its 220th birthday. This most famous (and insightful) volume of the Federalist Papers was written under the pen name Publius, which was really James Madison.

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions," groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today's discourse the term special interest or even political parties often carry the same connotation. Madison argues that the representative system of government will yield wiser rulers who can truly discern the public good. Madison also argues that the size of the United States will minimize the number of representatives over which a faction may gain control. Thus, the principles of pluralism dictate that small factions would be checked by the common good because they would not be large enough to command a majority of the whole country. This approach is better than the alternative:

Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

Of course, one could make the point that pluralism in the American democratic system has been replaced by hyperpluralism - there some many interest groups the government either 1) bends over backwards to please all of them (see, e.g. the farm bill), or 2) it causes gridlock (see, e.g. Social Security). I would love to hear Madison's thoughts about factions in the 21st century.

Madison might also provide some useful insight over the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. “If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables a majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.” One can draw two conclusions from this statement. First of all, Madison believes in a “regular vote,” the very thing that a filibuster prevents. This comment implies that obstructionist tactics that delay the possibility of voting would be contrary to Madison’s vision. Second, strengthening minority rights would increase the violence of faction because it gives more groups of representatives the weapons to create “instability, injustice, and confusion.” Couple that with what Madison wrote in Federalist 58:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.

The next time you hear the cryptkeeper Senator Robert Byrd go on and on about a senator's constitutional right to extended debate, just remember it's a bunch of hooey.

Anyways, happy birthday Federalist 10! If only 21st century political discourse could be so sophisticated. Instead we have to put up with this.

Happy Turkey Day!

In case you can't tell, the president is the one on the left. It is a sad day in America when a turkey has a higher public approval rating from than our commander-in-chief.

Yesterday, President Bush engaged in the annual tradition of pardoning a Thanksgiving turkey. Actually, he pardoned two birds, nicknamed "Scooter" and "Libby." No, no, their names were actually "May" and "Flower." The president told the crowd at the Rose Garden that the vice president had thought of yet another suggestion for names: "Lunch" and "Dinner." Thankfully the vice president was nowhere to be seen because God only knows how many people in the crowd he would have shot in the face while attempting to kill these turkeys.

Actually, the president could not have picked a worse day to be granting a pardon. Yesterday an excerpt from a new book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's was leaked to the media. The passage seems to suggest that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, former Chief of Staff Andy Card, and former Dark Sith Lord Karl Rove were "involved" in the lies told to American public about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. The vice president's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury for his involvement in the scandal. But President Bush commuted the sentence of Libby, and he never went to prison, presumably because a man named "Scooter" wouldn't last 24 hours in the slammer.

The turkey-pardoning tradition started with President Truman,* but President Bush was the first to start pardoning two turkeys per year. Let's do a little math here, that makes 14 turkeys pardoned, which is sadly almost more than the number of people pardoned by this president. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.

* Actually, upon further research, it appears that this tradition is much more contemporary. President Truman "received" a Turkey in 1947, and was photographed next to the healthy looking bird. However, the president did not pardon the turkey, he ate it. Every year since the president has been presented with a turkey, but apparently, it was President Bush 41 (aka Bush the Legitimate) who started the pardoning tradition.

I leave the last word to Dana Milbank, the brilliant satirist for the Washington Post, who waxes serious in his coverage of the event:

The best names, considering the birds' itinerary, may have been, to borrow Bush's old joke about his base, "Have" and "Have More." At a time when nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty, the wholesome ceremony for the annual turkey-pardoning has managed to turn into yet another display of American excess.

From the White House, the birds were driven in police-escorted motorcade to Dulles Airport, where they were whisked to a private room in the United Airlines Red Carpet Club, before going to Gate C17 to board a United flight to Orlando, where they will be grand marshals of a Disney parade.

"They're going to Disney World!" announced the stickers on the turkeys' kennels. According to their first-class boarding tickets, "Turkey One" received Seats 3B and 3C, while "Turkey Two" got 1A and 1B. The plane, flown by a chicken farmer and packed with actual paying customers in coach, was renamed "United Turkey One, Flight 6519."

This is the one time I would not like to fly first class, as I doubt these two birds are potty-trained. Milbank quotes one reporter who worries if the birds will eventually be sent to Gitmo to be "water basted."

On that note, I hope all the readers of this humble little blog enjoy a peaceful and joyful Thanksgiving!!

Guns don't kill people. The Constitution kills people.

In case you haven't heard, the Supreme Court has granted cert in the D.C. gun ban case. In other words, we are about to hear for the first time what the 2nd Amendment really means. The last time the Court heard a gun case was 1939, and it didn't resolve the central question of the meaning of the right to bear arms.

At issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or do they bestow a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- making it therefore subject to strict government regulation.

The amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A plain-text reading of the amendment would seem to support the right is a collective one - it is hard for a one-man militia to be very effective, despite the U.S. Army's new catch phrase.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in March that the Washington, D.C. law that prohibits most people from owning a handgun is unconstitutional. It is the first time a circuit court has ever ruled a gun control law unconstitutional. And if the Supreme Court opens the flood gates with an overly expansive view of gun rights, it won't be the last.

I am not expecting a favorable ruling on this issue. And that fact is really starting to depress me. Until I found this YouTube video, which made me smile. Now this is a possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I had not considered before...

Shareef don't like it, Rock the classroom

This professor almost makes me want to go to law school...almost. (The link includes audio of the songs.)

It's not hard to imagine how "Contracts" can be one of the most tedious, dry and dreaded classes that first-year law students have to take. But one professor at Boston University School of Law has gone so far to keep class entertaining, that he is known on campus as the professor who rocks — literally.

For nearly 20 years, Professor Mark Pettit has been spicing up his classes by singing legal spoofs of Top 40 hits, from Michael Jackson's "Beat it" (Pettit sings "Breach it") to Britney Spears. (Think: "You're not that innocent!")

"He's wonderful," gushes student Alexis Rollins. "He's probably my favorite professor. He puts a little levity into [class] and makes it interesting when he sings."
Today, Pettit seems to be as into his performance, as his students are. He even shows up with props, like a toy guitar, mirrored sunglasses, and a white glove for his Michael Jackson numbers.

"You can tell he gets into it," says student Kim Parr. "It comes through in those moments where he's just going at it, and forgets he's in class. There's some part of him that's definitely living some fantasy."

Civic duty v. iPods (the answer will disappoint you)

As we have known for a while, Americans are willing to sacrifice our most basic values and principles for a certain price. Unfortunately, that price seems to be getting lower and lower. A survey of students at New York University found that young people appreciate the importance of voting, but it is not as important has having the latest and greatest piece of electronics.

Twenty percent of survey respondents sad that they would give up their right to vote in next year's election in exchange for an iPod touch. I can imagine the thought process of these students: "I know that if Giuliani gets elected we will end up carpet-bombing Iran, but the wireless Internet on the new iPod is so freackin' sweet."

Sixty-six percent of the students said they would give up their right to vote next year in exchange for a free ride at NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million.

BUT, 90 percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for the money also said they consider voting "very important" or "somewhat important"; only 10 percent said it was "not important." Also, 70 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference.

How do these two findings make sense in relation to each other? I can understand how alluring the prospect of $1 million can be, especially to young people. I can even rationalize the chance to get a free college education for sitting out one election. But this is a survey of NYU students, they have at least some money. Maybe CUNY students need help buying an iPod, but Ivy League kids? Come on!

However, any of these trade-offs run into substantial moral problems, especially if you adopt a Kantian moral perspective. Kant's categorical imperative says that you judge the morality of an action based on the consequences of that actions if everyone in society acted in the same fashion. Thus, if all college students gave up their right to vote in exchange for a bribe, we would have a civic crisis in this country. So, this is probably not the right thing to do.

However, there are a few brave souls who are fighting voter cynicism in this country. You remember the lottery scheme in Arizona? Well, here's another interesting approach. An owner of a Tampa strip club (that I may or may not have visited in the past) was upset by low voter turnout in the March 6 city election. Thus on election day, if you show up to his club wearing an "I Voted" sticker, he will waive the $20 cover charge.

Again, applying the Kantian categorical imperative, the world would be a much better place if everyone got a free lap dance. Thus, it is a moral action.

Whoops! Good luck on death row...

Ok, let me set the scene. You live in Idaho and you just killed someone. The prosecutor is offering you life in prison without parole if you plead guilty. If you go to trial and lose, you could face the death penalty.

Your lawyer, who has never handled a murder trial before, advises you to reject the plea deal under this rationale:

Just six weeks before Idaho offered the plea bargain to Mr. Hoffman, the Ninth Circuit had invalidated Arizona’s death penalty law on the ground that it gave too much fact-finding power to the judge. Since Idaho’s death penalty law was indistinguishable, and Idaho is also in the Ninth Circuit, Mr. Wellman reasoned that even if his client received a death sentence, it would be overturned on appeal.

However, Mr. Wellman was unaware that four days before the plea bargain was offered, the Arizona Supreme Court, in a separate case, had rejected the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and had upheld the Arizona death penalty statute. This decision injected a good deal of ambiguity and made it likely that the United States Supreme Court would resolve the conflict. In fact, the next year, the justices upheld the Arizona law.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark! You go to trial, lose, and get put on death row...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict this sequence of events unfolding. Which is why the defendant, who is still on death row 18 years later, is making a 6th Amendment effective counsel claim to the Supreme Court.

Idaho, needless to say, is urging the Court to uphold the death sentence. “Counsel are not required to guess what may happen regarding future court decisions,” Mr. Wasden, the state attorney general, told the justices, adding that, given the “unsettled” state of the law, “Wellman’s advice was not objectively unreasonable.” Really? Hey, Mr. Attorney General, if it were your child on trial for murder, would you be happy if his attorney played Russian roulette so recklessly?

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to clarify an important part of 6th Amendment law in this case. In McCann v. Richardson (1970), the Court ruled that a defendant is entitled to 6th Amendment relief if his attorney showed not just bad judgment but "gross error." The Court has never elaborated what "gross error" means.

In 1984, the Court changed its tune a little, ruling in Strickland v. Washington that a defendant needs to prove both:

“cause” — a quality of legal representation that is objectively deficient — and “prejudice,” proof of harm from the lawyer’s behavior.

Under that standard, the Idaho man may be eligible to have his sentence commuted.

Where will the Court come down? Well, as usual, it is probably up to Justice Kennedy. I'm not very familiar with his 6th Amendment views, but he is certainly not an unabashed supporter of the death penalty, given his flip-flop on executing minors. He also sided with the liberals in ruling that the mentally ill should not be subject to the death penalty. Stay tuned to see what the Court decides.

Pardon the Interruption

I wanted to apologize for not posting in the past week, but I am in the process of becoming better acquainted with the legal community. Last Wednesday in New York City I was hit by a car while crossing the street. I'm doing relatively well, mostly cuts and bruises, but I am going to see an orthopedist about wrist and knee injuries.

Mega-thanks to Brandeis for putting something up recently. I hope to start posting again tomorrow (getting back to normal will help me feel much better).

In Which The Author Fears For His Career

Our friends who are obsessed with Biglaw dreams and making six figures at some big firm at Above the Law point out this article in the Washington City Paper. There's some sad things going on in the legal profession these days.

From there we were taken to our work station: a windowless room filled with computers. We each had a computer; we were trained on the particular computer program we’d be using, then got clicking. Relevant. Not relevant. Not relevant. Not relevant. Two staff attorneys—full-time lawyers hired by the law firm to oversee the temp document reviewers—sat at a table in the front of the room, watching us click in this quiet, quiet room. Mostly quiet room.

The sad part is the idea that our friends at Columbia and Harvard and Stanford will find themselves here, not because of their own failures, but because of the failures of law firms. My biggest complaint with Above the Law is that they exchange breathless posts about how some Biglaw firm has announced their associate bonus structure for the year with breathless posts about rumors of how first-year associate salaries are rising AGAIN in big markets with breathless posts about rumors of Biglaw firms laying off associates. Never, never in my memory has Above the Law, which trumpets its mention in the Washington Post as a "must-read law blog," questioned the entire basis of the market. Never has ATL asked its readers, or even itself, "Is there something healthy about every major law firm interviewing the same dozen people at every law school, just so they can tell their clients, 'we only recruit from the top 5% of the class'?" Since David Lat appears intrinsically incapable of shaking up the status quo, I'll do it for him:

Is it possible that treating your summer associates like kings, then turning around and treating your first-year associates like shit, is right? Does the market really demand that you throw all these perks at these kids who will never even be that great of lawyers? For every Clarence Darrow who finished at the top of his law school class, there are a lot more William Jennings Bryans who did NOT. Is it possible, is this a universe in which it could happen, where law firms might be better off paying twice as many first-year associates half as much, and not working the ones they do hire to death?

Because that's the flip side of Biglaw salaries - Biglaw hours. If a firm pays you six figures, they expect you to earn every bit of it. They will work you well over 60 hours a week, and if some can figure out a way to get 100 hours a week out of you, they will.

But law firms don't bear all the responsibility. Law school has become a kinder, gentler place in the last twenty years. But maybe that's a problem. Maybe law schools need to resume rejecting 95% of applicants, and maybe they need to return to the "look to your left; look to your right; one of the three of you will be gone by December" attitude. Maybe it's better for the profession to have the selection, which has to take place, take place before we have thousands of young people who've taken on upwards of $50K in debt.

But law schools don't bear all the responsibility, either. Graduate school has become a mechanism for college seniors who are scared of the real world to put it off for a few more years. Of all the options, law school is far and away the most popular. Why? Because it has cachet, unlike a business degree; it involves no hard science, unlike medical or engineering school; and it carries the prospect of beaucoup money, unlike a master's degree.

In short, the way that American parents have spoiled and sheltered their babies, extending childhood into the late teens, the early twenties, and even into the late twenties or early thirties, bears at least a small part of the fault for the sudden glut of American lawyers, all hoping to be rich or make a big difference in the world. But someone has to be the small-town lawyers. Someone has to be the guy who Mr. and Mrs. Jones go to when they suddenly realize (probably when Granpaw dies) that hey, they need to arrange for their estates when they die. Someone has to divorce Peggy Sue from the no-goodnik she married right out of high school, who hits her, when she finally gets up the courage to leave. Someone has to be the solo practitioners and small firms who, even if they never win a big verdict or make themselves obscenely rich, make a small difference in the lives of their communities. Those small differences add up. Just because you aren't being written up in the Washington Post or New York Times doesn't mean you aren't important to the people who know you.

Retarded state legislative committee hearing: California edition

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
MIGDEN, Chair
9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
(Please note location change)
San Francisco City Hall, Room 250 (Chambers)
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco
INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS
SUBJECT: Nail Polish and Product Safety in the Workplace

Is there any stopping the radical homosexual agenda?

Now that's what I call justice

The good folks over at Quiz Law have found another gem of a news story, and this one is from my home state of Virginia, so I have to comment on it.

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously removed a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge Michael Shull from Gate City (home of Jerry Kilgore, not this Jerry Kilgore). "Unless our citizens can trust that judges will fairly resolve the disputes brought before our courts, and treat all litigants with dignity, our courts will lose the public's respect and confidence upon which our legal system depends," Justice Barbara Milano Keenan wrote of (former) Judge Shull.

Why would the Virginia Supreme Court make such a bold ruling with such strong language? Maybe because during a hearing over which parent would have custody over the child on Christmas, (former) Judge Shull flipped a coin to resolve the dispute.

Loyal readers of Supreme Dicta will remember that I love this style of justice. (Former) Judge Shull explained his actions by saying he was just trying to get the parents to work come to a compromise. And besides, how can you really determine what the child's best interest is in this situation? Evaluate which parent is going to buy better Christmas presents? Flipping a coin is equally arbitrary, but WAY more entertaining.

Unfortunately, that's not the only reason for his dismissal. He also ordered a woman to drop her pants when she claimed that her boyfriend stabbed her. (Former) Judge Shull wanted to see the injury for himself because the woman had a history of mental illness, and he thought she might be lying. Oh yeah, and he also called a teenage boy a "wuss" and a "mama's boy"... and once advised a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend.

Oh well, I guess I should be happy that every once in a while a government official actually gets fired for incompetence. For instance, I don't think anyone in the State Department was fired for ordering soccer balls with the Saudi flag printed on it. (The Saudi flag has the name of Allah on it, and Saudis were not exactly excited about the chance to kick God's name around in the dirt.)

But if (former) Judge Shull was allowed to keep his job, he would give me something easy to blog about for years and years.

Taking bootlegging to a whole new level

A Southern California couple is facing criminal charges for attempting to sell 375 pounds of "bathtub" cheese at a local farmer's market. You heard it right, the moonshine of dairy, homemade cheese, which (understandably) carries a higher risk of salmonella or E. coli.

In addition to being booked for selling the bootlegged cheese, Floribel Hernandez Cuenca was also "arrested on felony cheese making charges." I'm sure the D.A. is thrilled with the chance to be "tough on dairy." The cheese in seized from their home includes varieties of panela, queso fresco and queso oxaca, which, as I understand, is the White Lightning of the underground cheese industry.

I've heard of taking an oatmeal bath in your tub, but this is frickin ridiculous. Unfortunately, the felony is for cheese making, not cheese cutting. Otherwise Rosie O'Donnell would be most certainly behind bars.

N.B. - Thanks to the good folks over at QuizLaw for this story.

The grass is always greener

The grass is being installed today at the new stadium for the Washington Nationals.


I know this has nothing to do with law, politics, or the Supreme Court -- so sue me. Actually, please don't.

Happy Birthday to the Stamp Act!

On this day in 1765, the Stamp Act, Britain's first direct tax on the American colonies, took effect. Thanks to the French and Indian Wars (aka the Seven Years War), Britain's national debt had skyrocketed to 129 million pounds. The U.K. government levied some pretty high taxes on English citizens living in Britain, which stirred a serious threat of revolt. Thus, the British government decided to spread out the financial burden to include the American colonies.

The Stamp Act levied a tax on all legal documents, publications, including newspapers, and even playing cards. The actual financial impact of the tax was fairly limited (60,000 pounds annually), and thus it was not so much the taxation that the colonists objected to, but more "the without representation" part. It was a speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses on the Stamp Act when Patrick Henry said "give me liberty or give me death."

The Stamp Act is historically significant for two reasons. First, it marked the beginning of the British government bungling its colonial policy, which helped move the colonists towards Independence. Second, it marked the beginning of America's greedy opposition to any form of taxation. Sure, a tax made without our consent is illegitimate, but greed played a huge role in America's birth. Do you think Henry would have made his speech in Parliament decided to give a subsidy to the colonies without allowing them to vote on the matter?

Elite economic interests also were the catalyst for ditching the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. See, e.g., Charles Beard. While all Americans should be pleased that history worked its magic the way it did, I also think it is important to trace the origin of America's historical aversion to paying taxes. Thus, is it any surprise why our welfare state is so minuscule and we are the only advanced democracy without universal health care?