In Other News: Britney Flashes Hoo-Ha, Federal Courts Can Dispense Justice: Film at 11

Would you believe that it took two former U.S. Attorneys and a "terrific team" at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP that consists of at least twenty-one people to determine that federal courts can, in fact, dispense justice in terrorism prosecutions?

The new report from Human Rights First (available here) (oh yeah, it took seven Human Rights First staffers to produce this report) discusses in voluminous detail the implications of using the federal courts, as opposed to any sort of special military tribunals, to try terrorist suspects. I haven't read the full report, but the executive summary basically says:

1) Prosecutors don't need special statutes to nail terrorists.

2) Courts can still exercise jurisdiction even if the defendant was "tortured."

3) Courts have sufficient power to detain suspected terrorists.

4) Existing mechanisms are sufficient to protect national security interests in hearing and protecting evidence that may be classified.

So, in other words, everything that you've ever been told by the Bush administration about its need for "new powers" to fight terrorism is, in fact, a lie.

I don't want to minimize the effort and energy put out by the authors of the study - they've done yeoman's work in assembling the materials and sifting through them to create this magnum opus. But I'm left to wonder, really? Is this newsworthy?

Are we as a people so collectively stupid that we can't even see when we're being lied to? I get that the courts aren't simple and easy to understand, but how hard is it to grasp the concept that "criminal" means "criminal?" The authors of the study reject the idea that the criminal justice system is "the answer to the problem of international terrorism." Setting aside the question of whether that's correct (it's not), I don't get why, if the government DECIDES to prosecute someone criminally, the ordinary criminal processes are insufficient. And (with rather more evidence than their tummy rumblings), neither do Zabel and Benjamin, the authors of the report.

Once again, the real world contradicts the fantasy constructed by this administration (which, if you believe Scott McClellan, turns out to be even wider than we imagined). I sorta feel bad for people like them, who "create their own reality," they're being bitten in the ass by, you know, real reality.

Drunk stripper wants club to pay for her car wreck

This is a true story. To quote Lewis Black, "I have neither the time nor the energy to make s*%$ like this up."

A woman contends that her job as a stripper caused her to have a one-car wreck on her way home from work last year, according to a lawsuit filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court.

Patsy Hamaker's suit says part of her job as a dancer at The Furnace club in Birmingham involved encouraging customers to buy her alcoholic drinks.

The suit alleges that managers at the strip club allowed her to leave work drunk on Oct. 17. She wrecked her car, resulting in serious injury, according to the suit, filed Wednesday.

Hamaker seeks compensation for her injuries and additional money to punish the club. Her lawyer, Alan Smith, declined comment on where she lives or whether she still works for the strip club.

I think we have found our Lawsuit Du Jour. Think of the incredible legal precedent this lawsuit would set. If this woman were to prevail, this would open the doors to many other similar lawsuits, possibly including:

• A garbageman will be able to sue his employer for making him too smelly to land a date with a woman.
  
• A boxer will be able to sue a fight promoter for getting a shiner in a ten-round bout.
  
• A nanny will be able to sue her host family whenever little Bobby spits up on the nanny's shirt.
  
• And a hooker at the Bunny Ranch will be able to sue her employer for alienation of affection when clients tell her they love her and then leave 30 minutes later.
  

The stripper should have done what any responsible stripper would do: if you are too drunk to drive home, go home with one of your customers. It's not that hard to figure out.

I'd love to see the look on the judge's face when he reads this complaint. I'd take bets on how long the laughter lasts. I think a fair over-under line is probably 10 minutes.

Retarded state legislation: Nevada edition

Last week, the good folks over at Quiz Law reported on a Nevada state representative who stabbed her new husband:

State Assemblywoman Francis Allen, a Republican :), faces a felony charge of stabbing her new husband in the arm with a steak knife and then telling him to call his mother after he asked for help with the wound, according to a police report.

This is amusing, but Supreme Dicta has uncovered new information that raises the hilarity level of this story by a notch or two.

Check out this bill that Rep. Allen sponsored in 2007:

AB 398 - revising certain provisions concerning justifiable homicide

Section 2 of this bill revises the standard applied for determining when a homicide is justified. Under existing law, to establish justifiable homicide the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and the person who committed the killing must not have acted in revenge. This bill instead requires that the person who committed the killing of another person had at least a bare fear that the person killed intended to commit a certain offense and the person who committed the killing was not acting in revenge.

Lowering the legal threshold required for homicide to be justified...if it had passed, it might have helped its primary sponsor last week. I suppose the only way for more egg to be on this woman's face is if she had sponsored a budget amendment giving state subsidies to the producers of steak knives.

Also check out her campaign website. Apparently her slogans are: Integrity. Trust. Leadership. Stabbing. Taunting. OK so two of those slogans are made up. I bet you can figure out which.

Democracy at Its Finest

What. The. Fuck?

Normally I try not to drop the F-bomb here, but nothing else communicates the jaw-dropping WRONGNESS of this.

Seriously? This is a moment worthy of that great majoritarian, Oliver Wendell "Three generations of idiots are enough" Holmes.

Although I suspect even Holmes would've suggested that maybe KINDERGARTEN wasn't the best place to indulge the legislative impulse.

I am utterly without words to mock this. This isn't even funny - it's just fucking tragic.

He's No Merle Haggard, This Okie From Muskogee

Congress has been working for a while now to pass the "Emmett Till Cold Case Bill," an act that would create and authorize funding a unit at the Department of Justice to re-open cold murder files from the civil rights era. So, what's a nutjob Senator from Oklahoma to do?

Prevent passage of the bill, of course. Luckily, there's good news, as the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi trumpets in its editorial today:

On Thursday, spokesman John Hart said Coburn will drop his "hold" on the bill and introduce an amendment that would cut Justice Department funding in other areas by the same amount - as long as that amendment gets a fair vote on the Senate floor.

But Hart said, even if senators reject that amendment in a floor vote, Coburn won't reinstitute his hold.

Seriously, this is what the "greatest deliberative body in the world" has been reduced to? One idiot preventing ten million dollars from being spent over the next ten years (for those who, like Sen. Coburn, apparently can't do math: that's one million dollars per year), which money would be used to solve some of the most heinous, vile, and atrocious murders in the United States during the twentieth century, so that he can be "against earmarks?" Can we point out that Sen. Coburn has NEVER ONCE voted against authorizing the funding to pay for the (private) security provided to American diplomats in Iraq by Blackwater. Who, oh yeah, do things like this.

Well, I get that in Muscogee they don't "smoke marijuana" or "make a party out of lovin'," and I'm okay with that - diff'rent strokes, and all. But seriously, do they not investigate murders in Muscogee? Or is it just that they only investigate murders of white people and Christians?

Shame on you for letting this bill sit, Sen. Coburn. I sincerely hope that in 2010 the good people of Oklahoma come together to throw you out of that Senate seat you defile with your presence.

Presidential Question Time?

Globalization is a funny thing. Just as the British government is debating an American-style Bill of Rights, a U.S. leader wants to emulate a prominent part of the British political system:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Thursday that, if elected, he would like to take a page from the British government and appear in question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers.

"I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons," McCain said in excerpts of a speech he is to deliver later in Columbus, Ohio.

This is fantastic. I watch PMQ (Prime Minister's Questions) on C-SPAN every Sunday evening. The theatrics are hilarious, the discussion is lively, and the system works - ordinary members of Parliament can hold the prime minister accountable for his actions. MPs (members of Parliament) can often get the PM to agree to attend a meeting on an issue of local concern (remember there is no state-level government in the UK). Could you imagine if W. got invited to a meeting to discuss the crime rate in Akron, Ohio?

If you have never seen PMQ, check this out:

Thanks for the traffic

In the past two days, the Dicta has received a few links from much bigger and better blawgs than this one. And the result has been fantastic!

Thanks Quiz Law and Above the Law! You're the best.

P.S. We got on a New York Times blog too...very exciting!

Justice Clinton? God PLEASE save this honorable Court

I usually love the Washington Post, but yesterday they published the dumbest op-ed I have read in quite a long time. James Andrew Miller, a former aide to Sen. Howard Baker, wrote:

If Obama were to promise (Hillary) Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

OK so maybe such a shotgun marriage would have some beneficial political repercussions, but I doubt it. The conventional wisdom is that no one punches their ballot based solely on the VP nominee. If that is true, it is even less likely that someone will vote on a potential Supreme Court nominee. You don't even have a guarantee that there will be a vacancy on the Court (just ask President Carter). Such a plan might even backfire and cost Obama votes because it would motivate conservatives to turn out in greater numbers to vote against Hillary.

And from a judicial perspective, this is a truly rotten idea. Miller attempts to deflect this criticism:

Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.

Sen. Clinton has not served as a judge, and she hasn't even practiced law in almost 20 years. The Supreme Court takes a ton of cases filled with legal minutiae that she has never tackled before. Yes she is a bright woman, but I think it's a stretch to call her the next Hugo Black or Earl Warren. The better analogy is Harriet Miers, who lost support from members of her own party due to her lack of experience in constitutional law.

There is a reason why people who excel at fantasy football do not become GM for an NFL team. Leave the selection of judges (or quarterbacks) to the trained professionals, please.

Retarded state legislation: Alabama edition

Given some of the nutjobs that have been part of Alabama politics, I am surprised that I had to wait this long to write this entry.

As Justice Brandeis said, state legislatures are the "laboratories of democracy." Well in some cases, a well-intentioned laboratory can produce a Frankenstein monster...or in this case a referral to the Dog Whisperer. Confused? Read on...

HR836
By Representative Galliher

CONDEMNATION OF ARCHIE MORROW.

WHEREAS, Archie Morrow is a canine citizen of the State of Alabama; and

WHEREAS, Archie Morrow is well-known and much feared in his hometown of Red Bay, Alabama; and

WHEREAS, Archie Morrow has established a fearsome reputation among members of the Alabama Legislature and the inhabitants of Montgomery County above and beyond all other Yorkies across the state; and

WHEREAS, Archie Morrow's aggressiveness in defending his master against all lobbyists and other n'er-do-wells is increasingly a cause of concern; and

WHEREAS, Archie Morrow's repeated display of violence only when in close proximity to his master is viewed by many as an early sign of mental illness; and

WHEREAS, Archie's master is an enabler and is in a complete state of denial regarding Archie's inexcusable behavior; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, That the members of the House of Representatives do hereby declare and urge that Archie's master, Representative Johnny Mack Morrow, deliver Archie to the Dog Whisperer for immediate psychological observation and treatment.

Unfortuantely, we can't write this resolution off as an April Fool's Day prank as it was filed a couple days ago. But seriously...(if one can be serious about this crap), Alabama ranks 41st among the states for per capita spending on mental health and that's for humans. Now the legislature is talking about improving mental health for dogs.

Also, given the Siegelman corruption scandal, having a dog defend his master against all lobbyists is probably a good thing. Maybe a lobbyist is responsible for writing this resolution.

Finally the dog is a Yorkie. When has a Yorkie ever acquired a "fearsome reputation"? You want a dog with a fearsome reputation? Here you go:

Currency: Ribbed for Your Pleasure

Paper money is an entirely visual affair in the United States. Close your eyes, and you can't tell the difference between a single, a sawbuck, or a benjamin. If you're blind, and I know this will come as news to some, it's like having your eyes closed all the time. So what's a blind person to do?

According to the United States Government, fall through your asshole and die. Not really. But apparently, blind people have to

"adapt - [by relying] on store clerks for help, [using] credit cards, [or] folding certain corners to distinguish the bills."

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Tell someone, "Oh, you can't tell which bills are which? Then you can just fold the top left corner of singles, the top right of five-dollar bills, the bottom left of . . . what? You can't tell which pieces of paper you should fold which corner? Well, then, you clearly don't deserve any help from us - go ask the private market to protect you." 'Cause, you know, there's NO INCENTIVE for a business owner to cheat on telling the blind person what they're getting handed. And every store clerk in the whole entire world is honest.

Luckily, as you might know if you followed the link above, the D.C. Circuit (!) had none of it. A 2-1 panel told the government to #$*% off today. In an opinion that is positively non-Dicta-licious, the court points out (Dicta-licious-ized for your pleasure):

1) The U.S. is bass-ackwards because it's the only country that still prints all its paper money in the same size and color.

2) Money's designed to screw the blind (not intentionally, but still).

3) The Government lied its head off in estimating the costs of the changes sought (what a surprise).

4) Blind people shouldn't, in this day and age be required to "rely on the kindness of strangers."

But in two Dicta-worthy passage, the court writes:

"The Secretary's argument [that blind people have developed coping mechanisms] is analogous to contending that merely because the mobility impaired may be able either to rely on the assistance of strangers or to crawl on all fours in navigating architectural obstacles, they are not denied meaningful access to public buildings."

and then goes on

"The Secretary contends that the visually impaired have not been denied meaningful access to U.S. paper currency in view of the absence of evidence of their being frequently defrauded. A somewhat astounding proposition on its face, the Secretary implies that criminal victimization is a necessary predicate for the disabled to invoke the rights protected [here]."

That's right! Fish gotta swim, bird gotta fly, cripple gotta crawl, blind gotta use credit cards and get defrauded. Clearly our Government is focused on protecting the "least of these."

Finally, the court addresses their dissenting colleague, who found the interlocutory appeal (it's an appeal from a partial summary judgment) premature. The dissenter holds that the appeal should have been dismissed because no "effective accommodation the government could implement without imposing an undue burden" existed in the record. Thus, according to the dissenter, "my colleagues have not identified a single accomodation that is indisputably reasonable effective, and feasible." The majority points out in response that the Secretary never argued that the accommodations proposed wouldn't work, or that they couldn't do them. "Instead, the Secretary relied on costs to establish that implementing all accomodations would be unduly burdensome," and to take the dissent's position "is to rewrite the record" and "[purports] to find disputed facts with respect to issues the Secretary has not raised."

Thus, shorter D.C. Circuit:

Dissenter: The record is incomplete on these legal issues!

Majority: Did you hear the same case we did?! Defendants dropped those issues.

This seems a cert-worthy moment, if the Solicitor General decides to pursue it. Consider: the burden on both the government and the public is fairly great, but the stakes are fairly high in that the plaintiffs are seeking vindication of their basic Constitutional rights. The question is squarely presented - does the Government have to accomodate low- or no-vision people in making currency?

Coming soon to a Supreme Court near you: Foil-wrapped and ribbed dollar bills. I think I need to go lie down.

Here's the opinion:
Amer. Coun. for the Blind v. Paulson, slip op. (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2008).

Best Voir Dire Ever!

If you were a potential juror in R. Kelly kiddie porn trial, how would you go about getting yourself excused from service?

• I have a teenage daughter, so I am not objective.
• I'm getting married during the trial.
• I'm currently involved in a lawsuit.
  

Ho-hum. Those are pretty run-of-the-mill excuses. But this is no ordinary trial. Please someone bring the crazy!

How about these actual quotes from actual members of the jury pool:

• "Nature already had an age of [sexual] consent: puberty."
• "R. Kelly may have led the Taliban in attacking us on 9-11, but you can't prove it."

That's what I'm TALKING ABOUT! I haven't heard of jurors this stupid since the O.J. trial. And this trial isn't even in Los Angeles, where the entire city is brainwashed by celebrities. The trial is in Chicago, and I'm glad to know that at least one brave citizen of the Windy City isn't afraid to tell a judge and an open courtroom (full of reporters) that his personal jurisprudence is: "If there's grass on the field, play ball."

And given the level of enthusiasm for 9-11 conspiracy theories, I expect www.rkellycaused911.com will be purchased by day's end. And, for the record, where was R. Kelly on 9-11? Was he at the Book Depository? Enquiring minds want to know.

Crazy Father v. Son's Wee-wee Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

This January, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that before a father could force his 13 year-old son to undergo a circumcision that a trial court judge must ask the kid what he wants. This was a Solomon-esque decision, in my not-so-humble opinion, which I have blogged about previously.

Now the dad is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court! Boy would I like to be a fly on the wall during the cert. discussion at conference on this case! We know Justice Thomas will vote yes, so that leaves only three other votes before the Supremes will be discussing foreskins in an oral argument...I can't even write that with a straight face.

BTW this father is a serious douche-bag. He refuses to call his son by the same name his mother calls him. He's been trying to get his son circumcised for almost four years winding his way through the court system. And when he represented himself in front of the Oregon Supreme Court he said: "The child’s wishes, while of course they should be considered, are not legally decisive or, legally speaking, relevant," he said. I know a 13 year-old is not an adult, but seriously, he has no say over what happens to his body? If a 16 year-old girl got pregnant and both her parents wanted her to have an abortion and she wanted to carry the baby to term, no court in the country would uphold the parents wishes.

Dude your son is 13, and his name is now becoming nationally known because of your obsession with his ding-dong. The two of you are going to get along so well during his journey through puberty.

Mind of Scalia

They don't cover the Supreme Court much, but when they do it's pretty awesome...

Call me old fashioned...

...but if you are a multi-million dollar corporation (and therefore subject to Sarbanes-Oxley) you might want to hire an expert, not a dummy.

From the product description on Amazon:

Whether you’re a CEO or a file clerk, it’s important to understand Sarbanes-Oxley, the post-Enron legislation aimed at keeping corporations honest and ethical. However, with over eighty pages of dense, wordy language in the statute and thousands of pages of related congressional hearings, getting a firm grip of SOX can fluster even the most well-informed businessperson.

I'm pretty sure the only thing that file clerks need a good understanding of is how to alphabetize. And who hires file clerks these days?

Some time I really do fear for this country.

I'll have the Reuben with a side of intercourse, please

Breaking news! A Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled that sex is not an accessory use of a restaurant. Who says being an appellate judge isn't any fun?

In MAJ Entertainment Inc. v. the City of Philadelphia, the panel consisting of President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter and Judges Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Robert Simpson and Doris A. Smith-Ribner -- with Judges Dan Pellegrini and Mary Hannah Leavitt concurring -- ruled that the MAJ-owned Club Kama Sutra violated its restaurant permit by providing an area on the premises where patrons could openly engage in sexual activity with one another.

Judge Rochelle S. Friedman dissented.

I think it's kind of hot that the lone dissenter in this case is a female judge. Is that wrong?

The Club's permit does allow it to provide "live entertainment," which they maintained allowed them to set up rooms for their customer to have sex. The court's majority claims the Club would need a special license to operate a sex club, which - under the quaint wording Philadelphia zoning laws - is called a cabaret permit. They cited the club's pricing policy, which charges single men at a higher rate than single women. "This pricing structure seems geared more toward maintaining a felicitous gender balance for the operation of a swingers' club than to the operation of a restaurant," Judge Cohn Jubelirer wrote. Apparently Judge Jubelirer has never been to a nightclub before. If this court uses this as a precedent to crack down on Ladies' Nights at bars, we need to take up arms in revolt.

The dissent argues that so long the people having sex are not paid to do so, then the Club does not need a cabaret permit:

The majority and concurring opinions suggest that MAJ needs a permit to operate a “cabaret” under section 14-102(24) of the zoning code. However, I submit that MAJ’s 2000 Permit is, in effect, a permit for a “cabaret” under section 14-102(24) of the zoning code. MAJ’s entertainers are not paid performers. Thus, MAJ’s restaurant fits within the definition of a “cabaret” in section 14-102(24), but not within the definition in section 14-1605. Thus, a section 14-102(24) “cabaret” without paid performers is not prohibited by the 2000 Permit, which makes the 2000 Permit, in effect, a permit for a “cabaret” without paid performers.

That is the hottest discussion of zoning laws ever (sorry for sounding like Paris Hilton).

The Founders were visionaries...

Why I love The Onion (and the Washington Nationals)

Nationals Book It After Foul Ball Accidentally Smashes Capitol Rotunda

WASHINGTON, DC—An 8,976-foot foul ball off the bat of Washington third baseman Ryan Zimmerman crashed through the U.S. Capitol Building rotunda Sunday afternoon, prompting both the Nationals and the opposing Pittsburgh Pirates to gasp, turn to each other in shock, and immediately run full speed out of Nationals Park.

"As soon as I hit it, I knew it was headed straight toward Capitol Hill—I just kept saying to myself, 'Not the dome, not the dome, not the dome,'" Zimmerman said. Both teams, all four umpires, and the 32,457 fans in attendance winced in horror, however, as the ball kept carrying, made a loud smashing noise, and left a gaping hole in the rotunda's neoclassical architecture.

"We are so dead," Zimmerman added.

As the teams grabbed the bases and scrambled out of the stadium, the Pirates yelled to the Nationals that they were in "big trouble." The Nationals refuted that claim, screaming that "if [Pirates left-fielder] Jason [Bay] could run at all, he would've tracked down the ball and caught it" before it struck the 200-year-old structure, which stands 1.7 miles from the ballpark.

However, as soon as the teams heard the Capitol Building's front door swing open, they put their differences aside and sped frantically back to their hotel rooms.

"Congress is going to be so mad," said Nationals first baseman Nick Johnson, peering out his window, expecting to see the 535 members of the House and Senate pull into the hotel parking lot. "This was the worst time to do it, too, because they're already in a bad mood, what with the election stuff and the war and the recession, and all."

"Aw, man, we're never gonna get that ball back," Johnson added.

The team, however, has urged outfielder Lastings Milledge to dress up in a suit, sneak into the Capitol Building, retrieve the ball, and make the necessary repairs on the shattered sandstone walls of the dome before anyone notices.

According to eyewitnesses in the Capitol, the ball smashed into the dome at about 3:35 p.m., tore through the Apotheosis Of Washington—a 150-year-old, 4,664-square-foot fresco painted on the inside of the rotunda—and broke the arm off of a National Statuary Hall sculpture of William Jennings Bryan. The ball then bounced into the Senate Chamber, where it interrupted a vote on a $542.5 billion defense authorization bill, and landed directly in the mashed potatoes of early-dinging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), covering him with gravy and prompting him to exclaim, "Zimmer-maaaaannnn!"

Although McConnell had no evidence at the time that Zimmerman was responsible for the damages, he was the chief suspect, as he is the only National able to hit the ball farther than 300 feet. Furthermore, Zimmerman dented McConnell's 1998 Buick LeSabre last week when he overthrew first base by 15,000 feet on a routine grounder.

"This is unacceptable—Capitol rotundas don't just grow on trees, you know," read a statement drafted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following the event. "Not only are these damages going to cost a fortune—a fortune—to repair, but we specifically told the Washington Nationals baseball organization a thousand times before the season started to be extra-careful and to try not to hit the ball to left field."

The statement went on to demand that the Nationals pay for all the damages, which total over $400 million—more than five times the entire team payroll. Because of this, players are expected to either find part-time jobs to cover the cost or work off the expenses by taking positions as congressional aides in the offseason.

The Pirates have promised to chip in $5, claiming that is all they have right now.

"This stinks," said Zimmerman, who attempted to persuade local resident Henry Adelson, a Nationals season-ticket holder and D.C.-area insurance claims adjuster, to take the rap for him and say he was the one who hit the ball. "We shouldn't have to stop playing just because the lousy U.S. Capitol got in the way. And also hitting the Capitol Building should be an automatic home run."

On Tuesday, Congress announced an initiative to move the Nationals franchise from D.C. to Oklahoma City, Portland, or anywhere far enough away that a batted ball or errant throw will not cause significant damage to American landmarks.

However, President Bush has called such actions "unnecessary" and "too harsh," saying that all will be forgiven if the players come down from their hotel rooms, say they're sorry, promise to be more careful, and allow Bush to participate in team batting practice every day from now through the 2016 season.

Retarded state legislation: California edition

As Justice Brandeis said, state legislatures are the "laboratories of democracy." Well in some cases, a well-intentioned laboratory can produce a Frankenstein monster... or in this case, a GED for your governor! God I love California, they are very dictalicious.

N.B. Usually I insert some choice phrases into the text of a bill to spice things up a little. The following, however, is not adulterated in any way:

BILL NUMBER: SR 28
INTRODUCED BY Senator Florez

Relative to the Governor.

WHEREAS, California's high school exit examination is one of the cornerstones of California's accountability system in assessing the acceptable minimum level of knowledge and basic skills for earning a California high school diploma; and

WHEREAS, Pupils from every region of the state are required to meet the expectations of the high school exit examination; and

WHEREAS, The high school exit examination brings consistency across all of California's varied school districts; and

WHEREAS, The Governor is charged with the duties of supervising the executive branch of the state government, submitting an annual budget to the Legislature, appointing judges and certain members to state committees and boards, communicating with other states and the federal government on behalf of the state, and otherwise overseeing the operations of the state; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, That the Senate requests the Governor demonstrate his command of the acceptable minimum level of knowledge and basic skills for earning a California high school diploma, as shown by high school graduates throughout the state each year; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate requests the Governor take, as many times as necessary, and pass California's high school exit examination, in the language of the Governor's choice, within one year of the effective date of this resolution, or resign the office to allow the Lieutenant Governor to serve as Governor until passing the examination, or the natural expiration of the current term of office, whichever is sooner; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

I feel like it is 1849 again because this resolution is a God damned California gold mine!!

Where do I begin? This is the greatest litmus test for public office I have ever heard of. And it sets up an orderly process of succession in case the Governator is as dumb as we think he is.

If this passes, I can predict the Governator's response - introduce legislation to make high school exams based solely on physical education. That way he's guaranteed to pass. In fact he would probably be the "smartest" governor in the country.

Also, why can't some crazy liberal in Congress introduce similar legislation to earn the right to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

We are a little less Loving today

No snarkiness in this post. Just a solemn, grateful remembrance.

Mildred Loving, matriarch of interracial marriage, dies

By DIONNE WALKER – 11 hours ago

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She did not disclose the cause of death.

"I want (people) to remember her as being strong and brave yet humble — and believed in love," Fortune told The Associated Press.

Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

Her husband died in 1975. Shy and soft-spoken, Loving shunned publicity and in a rare interview with The Associated Press last June, insisted she never wanted to be a hero just a bride.

"It wasn't my doing," Loving said. "It was God's work."

Mildred Jeter was 11 when she and 17-year-old Richard began courting, according to Phyl Newbeck, a Vermont author who detailed the case in the 2004 book, "Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers."

She became pregnant a few years later, she and Loving got married in Washington in 1958, when she was 18. Mildred told the AP she didn't realize it was illegal.

"I think my husband knew," Mildred said. "I think he thought (if) we were married, they couldn't bother us."

But they were arrested a few weeks after they returned to Central Point, their hometown in rural Caroline County north of Richmond. They pleaded guilty to charges of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth," according to their indictments.

They avoided jail time by agreeing to leave Virginia — the only home they'd known —for 25 years. They moved to Washington for several years, then launched a legal challenge by writing to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred the case to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorneys later said the case came at the perfect time — just as lawmakers passed the Civil Rights Act, and as across the South, blacks were defying Jim Crow's hold.

"The law that threatened the Lovings with a year in jail was a vestige of a hateful, discriminatory past that could not stand in the face of the Lovings' quiet dignity," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the ACLU.

"We loved each other and got married," she told The Washington Evening Star in 1965, when the case was pending. "We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."

After the Supreme Court ruled, the couple returned to Virginia, where they lived with their children, Donald, Peggy and Sidney. Each June 12, the anniversary of the ruling, Loving Day events around the country mark the advances of mixed-race couples.

Richard Loving died in a car accident that also injured his wife. "They said I had to leave the state once, and I left with my wife," he told the Star in 1965. "If necessary, I will leave Virginia again with my wife, but I am not going to divorce her."

Girl fight = hot!

It is on!!!!! According to The Manchester Guardian:

What a cat fight it is turning out to be. Later this month, in a courtroom in Riverside, California, Barbie will go head to head with her nemeses, that streetwise gang of four known as Bratz. At stake is not just the future of the multibillion-dollar doll market, but also the ownership over images of femininity that influence the imaginative lives of millions of girls around the world.

This week a federal judge in California gave permission for a trial. When it starts, probably on May 27, a jury will hear claims from Mattel, the makers of Barbie, that it owns the copyright of the Bratz designs, which were created, it claims, by an employee and smuggled to a rival, MGA Entertainment.

Yes that's right. In 2000, MGA Entertainment wanted to make a doll that represented everything that Barbie did not- girls in tight-fitting shorts and exposed midriffs. Move over all American Ken and Barbie, make way for Chloe, Jade, and Yasmin. Unfortunately, sex sells (even with four year-olds who play with dolls) and Bratz has taken away a lot of marketshare from Barbie, hence the copyright lawsuit.

A couple comments. First of all, where's the American media on this story? This is the exact type of bull#$^& that the our press corps covers in excellent detail (unlike reporting on things such as weapons of mass destruction, when the American media looks more like this).

Second of all, I saw this one coming a long ways down the road. Remember the SNL sketch featuring Gangsta Bitch Barbie? Awww yeah, you just knew she was gonna throw down!

Gangsta Bitch Barbie | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Red Sox Nation has its own police force

From today's Boston Globe:

Federal authorities are investigating whether the head of the US Marshals Service in Boston assigned deputy marshals, normally charged with tracking fugitives and protecting judges, to ferry Fox Sports broadcasters Tim McCarver and Joe Buck between their hotel and Fenway Park during last year's World Series.

Investigators are looking into whether the deputy marshals activated their blue lights to cut through traffic as the sellout crowd jammed the streets around the ballpark. The deputy marshals allegedly flashed their badges to gain entrance to the park, according to those familiar with the probe.

First of all, let me say, it is a huge relief that we have a sports corruption scandal that doesn't involve steroids being injected into Roger Clemens' ass...or Roger Clemens doing some injecting with a 15-year-0ld country western singer. This is some good, old-fashioned, family-friendly corruption that all Americans can rally behind.

Later in the story, the Globe reports that one of the agents had misgivings about abusing their authority in this way. Bullcrap! These two marshals got to watch a World Series game from the pressbox at Fenway and hang out with the TV announcers. No one gets hurt by this action, and I am very surprised someone even noticed.

But someone did notice, and now there is a big investigation. I can imagine a Tommy Lee Jones-like Chief Marshal saying: "I want to search every pressbox, batter's box, coach's box, and catcher's box, until we get to the bottom of this."

My biggest objection is that these marshals are in hot water after escorting two of baseball's lousiest announcers. Seriously, FOX, is this the best you can do for the World Series? I usually flip on the radio during the World Series to hear John Miller.