Thursday, June 26, 2008

Heller Decision Today

I must apologize in advance to all 3 of my readers. Due to a scheduled court hearing, I will not be able to blog immediately following the release of the opinion today in D.C. v. Heller.

I will, however, read the opinion as soon as I return from the Courthouse, and will have something for you then.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Four Cases Decided Today -- Heller Decision Tomorrow

The Supreme Court issued four opinions today out of the 7 it had remaining.

Links go to SCOTUSWiki

Giles v. California (Justice Scalia writing for a 6-3 majority)

Exxon v. Baker (Justice Souter writing for a 8-0 Court, Alito took no part)

Kennedy v. Lousiana (Justice Kennedy writing for a 5-4 majority)

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle (Chief Justice Roberts writing for a 5-4 majority)



For the best commentary on the decisions above, keep a close eye on SCOTUSBlog and SCOTUSWiki.


And, tune in tomorrow to SCOTUSBlog's live blog coverage as the Supreme Court issues its opinion in D.C. v. Heller.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Obama's Birth Certificate -- Shocking Revelation!

Okay, by now you've all seen that Barack Obama has released his birth certificate in response to the rumor floating around about him not being an American citizen. He did so on his "fight the smears" website, which he started for the purpose of, well, fighting smears.




Here's a picture of the document I got from DailyKos:





Aside from the fact that it's obviously not genuine (I mean, c'mon. Look at the black bar next to "Certificate no." Mine doesn't have that bar.), I have more news regarding this obvious sham that I'd like to discuss...



Here it comes...


Prepare yourselves...



It's a fake.


I personally spoke with my next-door neighbor the other day. He told me that his cousin's girlfriend's best-friend's half-brother said that Barack Obama is...


An alien.


Yes, you heard me right. I said an alien. And I don't mean your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill undocumented immigrant, either.


No, Barack Obama is really from the planet Zoltar (hang a right at Alpha Centauri, and straight on till morning).


I know. Shocking, isn't it? See, my next door neighbor's cousin's girlfriend's best friend's half-brother said that he himself is also from Zoltar (his name is Kragnor, btw). Kragnor said that he grew up with Barack (real name: Baracknor), and that they were actually squeezed from the same bio-pod.


So, by our reckoning, Kragnor and Baracknor are actually brothers, although they don't reckon biological relationships the same way we do here.




Since this information has come to light, there are some "hard questions" I'd like Baracknor to answer:


1. Why wouldn't you embrace your heritage instead of trying to pass off an obviously fraudulent birth certificate? You could have simply given us your Men-In-Black issued alien identification documents, and we'd have called it a day. Shame on you, Mr. Senator (or Senatnor).


2. Now that this information is public, are you going to own up, or will you continue to assert that you were born in "Hawaii," which we all know is a made-up place anyway?


and


3. If you are elected President, will you do whatever is within your considerable Superman-like powers to make sure our lives are made easier through the application of alien technologies?





Thank you in advance, Baracknor, for just answering the questions instead of putting my post on your "fight the smears" website. It'll be refreshing to hear a presidential candidate actually address the concerns of the earth-born public, even if he's not technically one of them.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

FLDS Mandamus Granted

Well, folks. The Texas Court of Appeals in Austin has decided what any critically-thinking person could see all along...

Texas' CPS did not meet their burden of proving that there was immediate danger to the physical health or safety of those kids on the Eldorado ranch.


PDF Opinion issued today.


Shame on CPS. Either way now, they've doomed those children.

Either CPS was right all along about the abuse but, because they didn't even attempt to substantiate it, they've hamstrung their own department's ability to ever get to the bottom of things; or

They were wrong all along, and despite their attempts to pump their case in the media, they've now opened the State to the possibility of litigation.



I'd like to see some serious reform of Texas' Department of Family and Protective Services over this.

Sadly, though, to judge from the public's reactions so far, the rule of law will likely be made less strict so that, in the future, CPS can do what they did in this case without fear of reprisal.

That's been our legislature's answer in the past. Problems at CPS? Give 'em more money and a broader brush with which to paint!


We'll see.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Which Is It?

Is Wright right? Or not?

'Cause you Democrats out there need to decide. First it was, "You're taking Wright out of context!!"

Now it's, "He belongs in the right wing!"

Sheesh! Make up your minds, already.

Barack Obama has now disowned his pastor. Really, this time. Oh Discordia! But does it confuse anyone else that the Obama campaign obviously believed Wright would simply shut up after the last foofaraw?

He's a fiery preacher, for heaven's sake (no pun intended). It's what he does.


I'm sorry, but I'm starting to believe Wright is right, at least about Obama being your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill politician.

[[gasp!]]

Now I'll just sit back and wait for the recriminations from Obama supporters (or adherents, or disciples, or acolytes, or whatever you consider yourselves now).

Happy Birthday To You

I'm beginning to think I should re-name this blog "VolokhWatch."

Guest-blogger Robert Brauneis has an interesting post about the copyright status of the words-and-melody to "Happy Birthday To You," currently "owned" by Warner Music Group.

The post discusses the possibility that copyright protection for this song may extend to the year 2030. Yuck! So I've got to endure 22 more years of restaurants making up their own idiotic birthday songs to keep from paying fees to WMG?


I wonder if anyone's copyrighted, "Happy birthday to you. You live in a zoo. You look like a monkey, and you smell like one too."

Maybe I can get some cash out of that.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

BarBri Parody Video

I needed a laugh today.

Thanks to Volokh for the link:


Trans-Texas Corridor Update

Well, folks, Governor Perry is still gunnin' for your land.

CorridorWatch.org just sent me an email update containing the entire speech Rick Perry made to TxDOT's Transportation Forum yesterday. I went to Corridor Watch's website, and they haven't yet posted the remarks there, but I'm sure they will soon, so keep checking.

Here's a couple of snippets I'd like to comment on:

If anything, those challenges have grown larger, and this moment in time finds us at a crossroads. Our population continues to grow by roughly 1,500 people per day. For you Aggies in the audience, that means we could fill Kyle Field up with newcomers every 55 days, or fill it up 66 times in the next ten years.

That's a whole lot of people with a whole lot of needs, but that's not the only factor in play. We're also dealing with a funding crisis brought on by a less-than-reliable federal gas tax system. inflation at the national level for everything from materials to labor, and the fact that the bonds passed in 2003 have been spent. As of right now, TxDOT construction lettings are projected to be half of what they were in 2005.

That is not what I call progress. It's what I call a problem.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I travel around Texas and the country, one of the things I enjoy the most is bragging about the Texas economy. Texas is leading the nation in job growth and has been voted the top state in the nation to do business. Just yesterday, I read where we are now the leading state in the nation for corporate headquarters, recently surpassing New York.

Companies are moving to Texas in droves, creating thousands of new jobs for our people and investing billions in our economy. If we can't find a way to move their goods, services and workers around this state, they will leave just as fast.


The simple truth is: When it comes to roads, we need more of them.

Because I'm sure as heck not going to stop inviting companies to relocate their operations to our state. Those jobs mean income for Texas families, tax revenues for local communities, and a continually rising economic tide. And good roads mean a better quality of life for our citizens.


Unfortunately, folks on the various sides of this issue have lost sight of these simple facts. Too often, we have seen the issue of road construction driven by emotion, rather than reason. When this happens, honest debate is stifled, and solutions are sacrificed at the altar of politics.



Those "challenges" our illustrious governor speaks of are the challenges of ramrodding through a plan that the people of Texas overwhelmingly do not want. And yes, he seems committed to overcoming them.

He doesn't even pay lip service to the possibility that, with such a robust and growing economy, the increases in tax revenues alone should be more than adequate to keep our roads Texan-owned and Texan-operated. Sure, there's emotion involved. Texans care deeply about autonomy. We care deeply about our land and our rights. And most importantly of all, we care deeply that we should be able to rely on our elected officials to represent Texas, and not the interests of corporations and profits.

What he says he wants is:

...we need to innovate. We need to thoughtfully debate. And we need to bring all ideas to the table to tackle the overwhelming need our state faces. And we already have some pretty innovative ideas on the table.


I'm sorry, Mr. Governor, but your actions on this matter so far (and those of your appointees) have shown that you do not care about "thoughtful debate." You don't care about bringing "all ideas to the table." Because you've got your "innovative ideas," and you've shown so far your absolute disregard for not only the voices of the regular citizens of this great State, but also the voices of those folks in Austin elected to represent us. You've disregarded our voices solely so that you can force this corporate boondoggle, this monumental land-grab down our throats, and we're not going to be silent just because you're not listening.

A good portion of our legislators are listening, Mr. Governor. And it is my sincere hope that they keep their ears open. That they hear the concerns of ranchers who will have their lands split by a quarter-mile-wide monstrosity with no access points. That they hear the concerns of small communities that will be swallowed up and turned into ghost towns. That they hear the concerns of Texans who have paid for our highways all these years and don't want to turn them over to a corporation.


In closing, Mr. Governor, I'll leave you with the words of a song I learned as a small child. I think they're particularly appropriate:



The eyes of Texas are upon you,
All the live long day.
The eyes of Texas are upon you,
You can not get away.
Do not think you can escape them,
At night, or early in the 'morn.
The eyes of Texas are upon you,
'Til Gabriel blows his horn.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Eldorado Bombshell

*************************************************

Maybe that little voice I was talking about in my last post wasn't far off the mark.

From DenverChannel.com (link)

DENVER -- A Colorado Springs woman was arrested on charges of false reporting to authorities and is being investigated in connection with her alleged involvement in the call that tipped authorities off to possible abuse at a Texas polygamist compound.

Police said they arrested 33-year-old Rozita Swinton at her home on Wednesday.

The Texas Rangers were in Colorado Springs Wednesday as part of their investigation involving the compound in Texas. They left and have not filed any charges on Swinton, said Colorado Springs police spokesman Lt. Skip Arms.



If you read the entire article, it looks like Jessop's hotline has been recording calls from "Sarah" for two weeks (at the Texas Rangers' urging). It was two weeks ago that the first affidavits were filed in the case affirmatively stating that the girl was calling from inside the ranch.

And those calls were traced by the Texas Rangers to Colorado Springs.

When were they traced there?


I wonder about the other calls allegedly made to the San Angelo shelter and to CPS. While they may not have "caller ID" hookups (in order to protect privacy), that doesn't mean they can't, at very short notice, get usage logs from the phone company showing the numbers people are calling from.



So the question I have for my fellow lawyers out there...


What does (or should) happen to CPS' case if it's proven the original warrants were based upon a fraud?



I've been monitoring the play-by-play from the hearing in San Angelo, and I can't find where anyone's mentioned this. The story was just released about 2 hours ago, so maybe they're too busy and don't know about it yet.

Although the CPS reps down there probably do. And the Texas Rangers down there certainly do.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

My Take on Eldorado

Yes, I'm an attorney in West Texas. So let me start off by saying that I am not one of the 350-odd attorneys serving as volunteer ad litems in the case. I say that only to let everyone know that I know nothing more about the case than the national and local media are saying, along with a bit of West Texas gossip thrown in for good measure.

I don't place much stock in the gossip. You can't really believe most of it anyway, so I'm not going to dwell on it here. I also won't be providing any links to news stories. There's too many of them, and I wouldn't want to pick and choose which ones to include and which ones to leave out.

I will provide a link to a page where you may find the affidavits (in the green box on the left-hand side) filed in the case, but only because a newspaper has already done so.



I'm a lawyer, but I'm also a plain ol' average everyday human being. My first reaction to the "raid" was probably the same as most others'. That anyone could force a child into a "spiritual union" is abhorrent to me. If what they're saying is true, and we've been given no clear reason to doubt that it is, then the State was pretty clearly justified in taking most, if not all, of those kids into custody.

But that depends on a bunch of stuff that the State, I believe, will have a hard time proving.


See, they received some phone calls from a 16-year-old girl who says she was forced into a "spiritual union" with a much older man. She apparently gave birth to one child (at 15) and, at the time of the calls, was pregnant with another.

This was the basis for the initial warrant.

They have yet to locate the girl, and the man she named apparently is on probation in Arizona. His probation officer says he hasn't left the state.



Now for my lawyer side to come out.

The natural thing, at least if you've ever been exposed to Texas CPS, is to have a tiny little annoying voice buzzing in the back of your head. That voice is saying,"Surely they didn't make that girl up just to get inside?" If not, where is she? Where's the phone records showing the number she called from? Was there a recording of the calls themselves?


I know that the Texas Family Code provides for "post-deprivation" procedures (essentially, the adversary hearing they're having today) when a child is seized in the absence of probable cause, and that those procedures have been deemed sufficient to protect the Due Process rights of families.

But, I can't get past the fact that they had one unsubstantiated allegation of abuse. One. And that entitles them to take all of the children from the entire ranch?

Yes, I know, the Family Code allows them to remove the subject child and others "similarly situated." That, however, has normally meant other children in the same home. Are there possibly families in this sect who haven't engaged in polygamous and pedophilic pursuits? Doesn't the law entitle them to that presumption until there's something to rebut it?

I think it does.


I've got to close by stating my clearly held opinion that anyone who harms a child should have the full force of the law brought to bear on them. That law, however, must be tempered by the protections of the Constitution. These people must be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves without being prejudged.

To those of you who would accuse me of condoning pedophilia, I can only say that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely defending the rights of accused persons in this State to have their cases fairly heard.

Scalia-Stevens Smackdown in Baze v. Rees

Saw this on Volokh (Paul Cassell).

Scalia, writing about Stevens' separately written opinion says:

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress-who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment-is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” Ante, at 11. It is Justice Stevens' experience that reigns over all.


Beautiful!


Orin Kerr, apparently, concurs:

The Stevens concurring opinion is certainly a throwback to an earlier age. I think Scalia's response was devastating, as the Stevens opinion does seem remarkably uninterested in distinguishing good policy from what the Constitution demands. Perhaps the most puzzling line in Stevens' concurrence was his statement that the Supreme Court's decisions "retain[ing] the death penalty as a part of our law" have been "the product of habit and inattention." The Supreme Court is inattentive to the death penalty like college guys are inattentive to women and beer.




Couldn't have said it better myself.
I guess that's why I just linked it.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Bitter?

Okay, so I'm going to weigh in on the Obama "bitter" comments.

First of all, I don't care what Obama says about voters in Pennsylvania. What I think voters in Pennsylvania are most "bitter" about is that the Eagles can't win the Superbowl.

But let's look at the argument from both sides...

1

Those against Obama (Hillary, McCain, the right wing, half of the Democratic Party, and one or two media folks who haven't "gotten the memo") are saying his comments were "elitist." They point out the utter gall it takes to presume to speak for the feelings of such a large group of people. They point out also that it's pretty demeaning to suggest that just because government hasn't accomplished anything economically worthwhile in oh, about 6 decades, voters are going to become single(or double, or triple)-issue automatons so disaffected with the whole shebang that all they care about anymore is their guns. Or their church. Or their Klan buddies. Or their national isolationism. Or their economic isolationism.

Well, certainly some folks are bitter. And certainly some folks are bitter because the government (or lack thereof) has led to them being so.

But saying what he's said has effectively marginalized those issues he brought up. We'll leave out the comment about "people who aren't like them," since it's a cleverly worded play of the race card (good show, old chap!). Is he actually suggesting that people who value their faith would just give it up if an "economic Messiah" came along? Or that people who value their 2nd Amendment rights will be first in the "gun buyback line" if a factory's coming back to town?

Not bloody likely. And when you elevate economy above faith in one of your speeches, you've attempted to elevate yourself above that faith, as well.



2

Those who are for Obama (everybody else) say that his words are "the truth." Well of course they are. Especially when there's no way for them to be objectively proven. I've seen them actually referred to as "'unartful,' but not inaccurate." (Donna Brazile said that, and she'd know all about unartful comments and inaccurate ones).

Obama's response to the wave of criticism was essentially to say that he meant what he said, just not exactly the way he said it.

Huh?

He said he apologizes to those who were offended by what he said. Great.


But does it bother anyone but me where he chose to say it? A closed fund-raiser in that last bastion of the liberal "we-know-better-than-you" elite?

That's right, folks. San Francisco.


I can't for the life of me figure out why he chose to address his comments not to the downtrodden, rural voters of Pennsylvania, but to the upscale $500-a-plate crowds in S.F. I'd really like to hear an explanation of that part of it.

Wouldn't you?





P.S. -- Obama supporters, please stop posting youtube videos of rural Pennsylvania voters saying, "You're darn tootin' I'm bitter." It proves nothing.

'Cause we all know by now that if Obama had stood on stage and said, "All those rural Pennsylvania voters want is a ham sandwich! And I intend to give 'em one!" You'd all be falling all over yourselves to video rural Pennsylvania voters saying, "Boy, I sure could go for a ham sandwich right now."

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Trans Texas Corridor Update

Some have said it's dead. But, to borrow a line from Stephen King...

Sometimes they come back.


Now, apparently, TxDOT is lying about funding problems, saying they have to scrap current projects, even though State Senator Troy Fraser has said they have plenty of money for the current projects.


Now, do they honestly want to threaten like this? Are they trying to make transportation problems worse, in order to bring Average Joe Texan on board with their idiotic TTC boondoggle?


Governor Perry, stop serving corporate interests and start serving the people of this State. You weren't elected to shill for foreign corporations, and the people of Texas aren't interested in your land-grab.

Monday, March 31, 2008

Archiving is Fair Use?

Rebecca Tushnet has an interesting blog post about a recent federal court decision. A group of students sued a company called iParadigm, L.L.C. over that company's archiving of their term papers in a database.


Apparently, iParadigm does this via a service called "Turnitin," so that they can authenticate the originality of a student's submitted paper.


The school districts these students attend have contracted with this company to provide this service.


From Tushnet's post:


Turnitin is a plagiarism-detection service. Schools using Turnitin require students to submit papers through Turnitin’s system, which compares their papers to Turnitin’s database and, if there’s a suspicious match, generates a report for the relevant teacher. Schools can also choose to allow their students’ papers to be added to the database to improve Turnitin’s ability to detect among-student cheating. Plaintiffs objected to Turnitin’s approach and sued for copyright infringement based on papers they’d been required to submit as a condition of receiving school credit.


The plaintiffs were, understandably, miffed at a company being able to use their works to generate a profit.


Well, the court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were without merit. Apparently, a contract of adhesion (I'm sorry, a "clickwrap license") is only a bad thing if you're not signing it at the insistence of a third party.


The court said that iParadigm's use of the papers is "fair use" under copyright law, mainly because they're not using the papers for anything but plagiarism detection...


So, for those of you out there who care...


That huge library of unlicensed songs you've got on your computer is no longer a "library." It's a "database of songs for use in determining if there's anything new under the sun."


Hope that helps.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Medellin Decision Handed Down

The Supreme Court has handed down its opinion in the case of Medellin v. Texas.

Here's a link to the opinion (89 page pdf).

I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but here's the holding from the syllabus:


"Held: Neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions."



Johnathan Adler at Volokh writes:

"Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which held that neither a judgment of the International court of Justice nor the President's executive order directing state courts to follow the ICJ's judgment constituted federal law that pre-empts a state's pre-existing bar on the litigation of subsequent habeas petitions. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, while Justice Breyer wrote a dissent on behalf of himself and Justices Souter and Ginsburg."




There's some great links from that Volokh page, too.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama: "Yes We Can" Mortgage Our Future

U.S. News is reporting on Obama's let's-help-the-poor-of-other-countries-and-dance-to-the-U.N.'s-irrelevant-tune bill that's on its way to the Senate for consideration.


Good grief! Does this seem like biting off more than we can chew? With the Democrats constantly harping about how our economy is tanking, should we really be even discussing the possibility of increasing foreign aid?


I was really hoping against hope that the candidates for President would do something to rein in the out-of-control spending we've been saddled with by the Bush Administration.

Obama's not one of them.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Heller Briefs

Here's a list of links to all the briefs filed thus far in D.C. v. Heller. (Thanks to ABAnet)


District of Columbia v. Heller, Docket No. 07-290
Questions Presented
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C. CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007QUESTIONS PRESENTED: Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.


Merits briefs
Brief of Petitioners District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia
Brief of Respondent Dick Anthony Heller


Amicus briefs
Brief for Violence Policy Center and the Police Chiefs for the Cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Major American Cities, the United State Conference of Mayors and Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler, as in Support of Petitoner
Brief for American Public Health Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Trauma Society, and American Association of Suicidology in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials in Support of Petitoner
Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in Support of Petitioner (reprint)
Brief for DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, D.C. Chamber of Commerce, D.C. for Democracy, D.C. League of Women Voters, Federal City Council of Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Childrens Defense Fund, Women Against Gun Violence, and Youth Alive! in Support of Petitioner
Brief for District Attorneys in Support of Petitioner (reprint)
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Support of Petitioners
Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National Black Police Association, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, School Safety Advocacy Council, and the Police Executive Research Forum in Support of Petitioner
Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Ph. D, Richard W. Bailey, Ph. D, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the the American Jewish Committee et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for American Legislative Exchange in Support of Respondent
Brief for GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, National Council for Investigationand Security Services, Ohio Association of Private Detective Agencies, Inc., DBA Ohio Association of Security and Investigation Services (OASIS), Michigan Council of Private Investigators, Indiana Association of Professional Investigators, and Kentucky Professional Investigators Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in Support of Respondent
Brief for Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, and the Claremont Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Alaska Outdoor Council, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, SITKA Sportsman's Association, the Juneau Rifle and Pistol Club, the Juneau Gun Club, and Alaska Territorial Sportsmen, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., Lieutenant General Charles E. Dominy, Lieutenant General Tom Fields, Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, General Ronald H. Griffith, General William H. Hartzog, Lieutenant General Ronald V. Hite, Major General John. G. Meyer, Jr., Honorable Joe R. Reeder, Lieutenant General Dutch Shoffner, General John Tilelli, and The American Hunters and Shooters Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Libertarian National Committee in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for 55 Members of the United States Senate, the President of the U.S. Senate, and 250 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Respondent
Brief for 126 Women State Legislatures and Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Virginia1774.org in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for Paragon Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the CATO Institute and History Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm in Support of Respondent
Brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, California Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, the National Police Defense Foundation, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the Independence Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washignton, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in Support of Respondent
Brief for Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Right-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania Joseph B. Scarnati, III in Support of Respondent
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Former Senior Officials of the Department of Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Respondent
Brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of California, Inc., the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for State Firearm Associations in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Second Amendment Sisters, Inc., Women Against Gun Control, 60 Plus Association, Inc., Robert B. Smith, J.D., Christie Davies, M.A., Ph. D. Joe Michael Cobb, and Mrs. Minnie Lee Faulkner in Support of Respondent
Brief for Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C. and the Liberty Legal Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Center for Individual Freedom in Support of Respondent
Brief for Retired Military Officers in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Heartland Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for Goldwater Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for American Civil Rights Union in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jeanette M. Moll et al. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Reversal


That's 66 Amicus Briefs. By my count, 47 of them are in favor of Heller's arguments.


I haven't read them all, but I'm going to.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Clinton in Odessa

Former President Bill Clinton is in Odessa today, stumping for the wife.

Just goes to show how hotly contested the Texas Democratic primary is, considering the lack of voters turning out for our most recent elections.


I thought about going, but I figured this would be such a big day for all 20 or so Odessa Democrats, I didn't want to rain on their parade.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Clinton or Obama?

I don't understand the Democratic Party. Bunch of fickle wierdos, if you ask me.


I've listened to my liberal friends (yes, it's possible to have some) for 7 years now whine about how much better it would have been to keep Bill Clinton in office...

And now,... Ummm. They're doing everything they can think of to keep Bill Clinton out of the Whitehouse.


Okay, so he's not actually running again, but does it seem strange to anyone but me?

I mean, as early as 6 months ago all we heard from the left was that Hillary was a genius. "Smartest Woman Alive." Couldn't do better for the country than elect her to the Presidency. Right?




Has Barack Obama done anything but talk for the last 6 months? What's changed? Is Hillary not smart anymore? Does this mean I can stop listening to how "maverick" she is? Or how she's "broken down barriers?"

Probably not. The Democrats just decided they'd try breaking down a different barrier this time, I guess.



My head hurts.

Monday, February 04, 2008

To Infinity... and Beyond!

This guy's a regular Buzz Lightyear.




Who's with me in thinking his next Youtube video is gonna be of him getting blown to smithereens?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

I'm Officially in Mourning

Fred's dead. (Link goes to Volokh Conspiracy)

No, not really dead. He's dropped out of the race for President.

Okay, so I realize his poll numbers were abysmal not too long after the post-announcement honeymoon. But now I can't vote for him. My choices now apparently have been reduced to Rudy Bolonioniagni, the Romneybot, and Great-Great-Great-Great Grandpa McCain.


I just don't know what to do now. I've been a "Friend of Fred" since September 12 of last year, and now I'm a ship without a rudder. A sailboat without wind. A dinghy without an oar. A canoe without a paddle.

I didn't even get a break-up email. I don't know why. I'm on the mailing list, along with all of Fred's other Friends, and he didn't even have the common courtesy to call me first. I would have convinced him not to quit.



Seriously, if my vote now is to be a protest vote, shouldn't I be able to cast it for a conservative candidate instead of Pollyanny, Romneybot, or John-Jacob-Jingleheimer-McCain?

And don't get me started on Huckabee. I've had quite enough of allowing Arkansas to determine the future of the nation, thank you very much.





And so, with great reluctance, I will remove the "Fred '08" widget from this page. I will add in its place a similarly widgety widget for Ron Paul, if I can find one.

If not, oh well. Maybe I'll vote for a Democrat. It'd be the same as voting for a Republican now, anyway.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Bands of Fury

I can't resist re-posting this. The link was sent to me in an email.

Some fella in the UK decided the world needed a "rubber band mini-gun."


To that I say: Amen, my brother.


It makes me happy just looking at it.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Solidarity.

That's what it's all about, folks. Solidarity.

Stand firm and unite against the oppressive regimes who won't give us our well-deserved slice of the pie.

It doesn't matter if we don't really know what the pie is worth.

It also doesn't matter if, in the course of our protests, nobody else in the industry gets to work, either. And that includes folks who work on TV programs who are a lot less well-paid than the writers are, doesn't it?

How long are the janitors, assistants, latte-gofers, cameramen, set-builders, grips and gaffers (I must admit I don't even know what the last two do) going to have to remain out-of-work so that the WGA can secure an extra 10% or so in compensation?

It makes you wonder: How many people standing there on the picket lines are actually in support of the writers? If I'm a cameraman, for example -- whose work apparently would not entitle me to compensation in perpetuity -- and the writers go on strike, I can exert no force to resume my job except by standing next to the writers, right? Oh, sure, me and my camera-colleagues could protest the work stoppage, effectively starting a three-way strike; but what good would that really do?

Let's look one step further. Say I'm a writer, and I've got 6 or 7 mouths to feed. I need my job. Sure, I'd like to get paid for internet broadcasts too; but it pales in comparison to the importance of feeding the starving chicks back at the nest. As it is now, I can't cross the picket lines to write decidedly un-funny jokes for Jay Leno; because if I do, I'll be ostracized completely. So therefore, even though the money from internet broadcasts isn't all that important to me, I'm forced to join the lines instead of what's really important to me (i.e., survival).


I know. The studios are greedy. Much more greedy than the writers. I get it. We all do. It's impossible to argue otherwise.

But it seems to me that it'd be easier to negotiate from a position of power if the WGA simply said, "Give us the extra money or we'll go back to turning out stuff like Hope and Faith."

--shiver--




UPDATE:

I am a prophet.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Writers' Strike May Go Too Far -- Say It Ain't So!

I've just learned something that has shaken me to my very core. This type of world-shattering news comes along only once in a lifetime, and I now believe I will never be the same again.


The writers' strike may have an adverse effect on...


Wait for it...


Awards shows? GASP!

I've started wearing a black armband now, just in case this actually happens. I'm trying to find a suitable-colored lapel ribbon, but all the good ones are already taken. Maybe I'll just use white, and have somebody print the Bic logo on it for me.


To think that, this year, I may have to go without surfing past Hollywood's annual parades of nobody-really-cares! It's horrible. I haven't eaten in over 12 hours. Wait... I had a peppermint candy a couple of minutes ago, but it's only 11:00a.m. and I don't eat breakfast. But I promise, right here and now, that I absolutely refuse to have an extra taco with my lunch. Solidarity is important to me, you know.

If there's no awards shows this year, how will we regular people ever find out about the goodie bags? Or who's drunk on stage? Or which rushed-to-production anti-Iraq-war movie is going to get the thumbs-up from the Hollywood paragons of hypocritic virtue? Oh the humanity!



On a related note, we here at CreTIN are working furiously (by which I mean doing virtually nothing) to see that this strike ends quickly. To show support for our fellow Knights-of-the-Word-Processor, we have been refusing to write anything. Anything at all.

As a matter of fact, I didn't even write this post.

I ain't no scab.