Law

by

Supreme Court ready to once again side with corporations over people

Based on the arguments presented at the Supreme Court today in the Hobby Lobby case, the conservative members of the Supreme Court once more appear ready to hold that corporations have more rights than people.  This is not a surprise to anyone who follows the court.

New U.S. Supreme Court Poses For "Class Photo"

It seems that corporations are people, and a corporation can have a religion.  What’s more, their religion is more powerful than your religion, and if you work for them, they can force their religious views on you.

Where is this in the Constitution?  Ha ha!  Didn’t you read the word “corporation”?  That’s all you need to know to determine how Scalia and his pals will vote.

The more liberal members of the Court (the three women especially) questioned how you could determine a corporation’s religion.  “How does a corporation exercise religion?” Sotomayor asked.  A poll of shareholders?  What about shareholders that do not share the same religion as the CEO?

Opponents rightfully pointed out that this could lead to corporations deciding that they could use their religion to justify firing all gays, prohibiting women from working, and otherwise taking away our basic rights.

This has the possibility of rising to the level of “terrible decisions” reached only previously by the Citizen’s United decision which found two fictions to be law:  that not only are corporations people, but  money is speech — therefore corporations have the right to speech much greater than those of us poor individuals.

Well, it will be the most terrible decision until the Supreme Court tops it with the follow-up case later this year that holds that individual limitations on campaign contributions are also invalid … at which time it may just be easier to allow the billionaires to vote for us.

by

Snobby Hobby Lobby

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear one of the silliest cases ever.   Allow me to reprint my thoughts on this from a blog post months ago:

Hobby Lobby claims they are being discriminated against because they are being forced to provide health care which could provide birth control to those heathen women — you know, those hussies who can’t control their libido that Mike Huckabee warned us about.

hobby

Hobby Lobby claims to be a Christian corporation. They refuse to even sell Jewish merchandise in the store. (“Want Hannukah gifts? Go elsewhere, Christ-killer!”) They have no problem whatsoever in buying cheaply-made crap from China because after all, the Bible approves slavery.

Most importantly, they claim they have the right to force their religious views on their employees.  Amazingly, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed with them and held, for the first time that I can see, that a corporation can actually have a religious view.

Fortunately, this is now on appeal, and hopefully clearer minds will prevail.   Many groups are filing briefs opposing Hobby Lobby.

The issue is whether a business can refuse to give health insurance to its employees because of religious reasons.  I am shocked that some of my friends think that this is perfectly fine.  What’s next?  Will they refuse to give you your salary if you buy alcohol with it against their religious views?  Will we have to reduce our own freedoms to make our employers happy?

Should I, as a business owner, be allowed to force my beliefs on my employees? What if my religion believes women should wear burkas and never speak? Should I make all my female employees wear burkas?

The lower court apparently believes employers have powers to ignore laws they don’t like. “If you work here, you have to live by my beliefs, not yours. Don’t like it? Tough!”

I think we instead should say to business owners, “These are people who work for you, who have the right to make their own decisions about health care. You will give them the option, because this is America where we value individual decisions. Don’t like it? Tough!”

Your religion does not give you the right to disobey the law. There are Jamaican religions that believe in smoking marijuana during their ceremonies — tough, that’s illegal. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is illegal. Refusing to give your child medicine in the name of religion is illegal. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from the law just because they “really really believe” something. That’s not what America is about.

Look, if you start a business in America, we expect certain things from you. You have to pay a minimum wage; you have to have a safe working environment; you have to pay business taxes; you have to pay for worker’s compensation; you have to provide health care. Keep in mind that your employees may decide to use their money or benefits to do things you personally disagree with. Don’t like it? Tough. Don’t open a business.

If you don’t like the fact that we have freedom from religion in America, then maybe you should open a business somewhere else, like Iran. I understand they have no problem with you forcing religion on people who work for you.

by

Legal upskirt photos?

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that it is not illegal to take pictures of women in public who wear short skirts.  Well, sort of.  I guess the perverts aren’t exactly taking pictures of all of the women, just the skirts.  Or the parts under the skirts …

Anyway, here’s the thing that people aren’t getting about this decision.

When I did a search for "upskirt photographer" it didn't quite give me anything safe for work. So here's a picture of Massachusetts.

When I did a search for “upskirt photographer” it didn’t quite give me anything safe for work. So here’s a picture of Massachusetts.

The court is not saying “This is a good thing” or “We approve of this practice.”  They merely pointed out that under the current law, it was not prohibited.  It was a loophole, if you will.

The law in question made it illegal to photograph people in “partial nudity” — and the court said, rightly, that the law did not apply in this instance, because no one on the subway was “partially nude.”  Further, you do not have a complete expectation of privacy on a subway.  (Existing Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas.)

Anyway, the Massachusetts legislature has already snapped into action to update the law to include this, so it should be fixed soon.

 

by

Helping criminals means you’re unfit

Despite the fact that our system of justice works when accused criminals are allowed to have at least one lawyer to fight against the full might of the government, we defense attorneys are still daily insulted by people who think that if we defend bad guys, we must be bad guys too.  This is despite the fact that defense attorneys are the ones who are making sure the government doesn’t just stop and search everyone all the time, ignore all your rights, and lock you up without reason.gavel

Not good enough for the US Congress.  They denied the appointment of one of our nation’s greatest defense attorneys today to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights division because the guy had spent his career defending people’s civil rights.  Clearly, this makes him perfectly unsuitable for the position.  Worse yet, many Democrats (including my own Senator) voted against him.

Obama rightly criticized those who voted against him:  “The Senate’s failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant. As a lawyer, Mr. Adgebile has played by the rules. And now, Washington politics have used the rules against him. The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice — and those who voted against his nomination denied the American people an outstanding public servant.”

Apparently the only person who should be eligible to head the Civil Rights division is someone who has absolutely no experience with it.  Because otherwise, he or she may actually take action to address problems or something, and we can’t have that.

All lawyers should be insulted by this.

by

Florida is crazy

So Michael Dunn gets upset at some kids playing what he calls “thug music” (that means “black” for those of you keeping score).   He walks back to his car, gets his gun, and shoots them.  Then he calmly goes back to his room, orders a pizza, and doesn’t call the police.

Yesterday, a jury in Florida found him guilty of attempted murder on all the kids who were in the car that he didn’t kill.  gavelThey were deadlocked on Jordan Davis, the kid who was actually murdered, whose 19th birthday would have been today.  There was at least one person on the jury who believed Dunn’s incredible story that he was “scared” and that Jordan had a gun (which was contradicted by every other witness).

Even if Jordan had a gun, Dunn was the one who walked up to the car with his gun first, looking for a fight.

Hey, this sounds familiar.  Wasn’t it George Zimmerman who, with a gun, chased down Treyvon Martin and then shot him when Martin didn’t like having a gun pointed at him?

At least one juror on the Dunn trial still believes that this is absolutely fine.

Dunn himself was astounded by the verdict — as are some gun advocates who apparently interpret Florida’s crazy “Stand Your Ground” law to mean “Shoot whoever bugs you.”   Dunn, being an unapologetic racist (although he prefers to refer to himself as “prejudiced”), thinks that the world would be better “if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots.”    I am not making this up.  These quotes are from letters he wrote from jail.  Somehow, these letters were kept out of the trial, even though they seem absolutely relevant to show his mindset and to counter his claim that this was in self-defense.  I wonder if the result would have been different otherwise.

Anyway, what also surprises me about this verdict is that Florida allowed a conviction and a mistrial in the same verdict.  I’ve never seen such a thing before.  I guess that means they can retry him on the murder charge and the other charges stick (assuming they’re not thrown out on appeal).

Florida is crazy.

by

Killing the death penalty

Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington, announced that his state will be joining the growing list of states that will no longer have the death penalty.

“Blah blah!” you scream.  “Blah blah blah blah!”   

Yes, yes, I know.  Some people deserve it, vengeance should be part of our legal system, and even though there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent, it is a deterrent. death Yes, I know.  Thank you.  You can stop now.

I will never shed a tear for certain people who received the death penalty in America (Good riddance, Timothy McVeigh). But I am very familiar with our judicial system.  It’s what I do for a living, you know.  And all of us who do this for a living will admit that our system is not perfect.  Innocent people get found guilty all the time, and guilty people get found not guilty.   Sometimes we don’t realize our mistakes until way later.  And then it is often too late to do anything about it.

We should not have a punishment that is 100% irreversible in a system that is not 100% perfect.  Too many innocent people (mostly poor, largely minority) have been put to death only to be exonerated much later by DNA evidence, witnesses recanting their testimony, or proof of DA and/or police conspiracies.  It does happen, and more often than we would like to admit.

And we as a country should not stand for it.

That doesn’t mean we free everybody.  Governor Inslee made that very clear with his announcement.  “No one is getting out of jail!” he said.

So good job, Washington.  Maybe soon the US will join the rest of the advanced civilized democratic world in getting rid of the death penalty completely.   But by then, how many more innocent people would we have killed?

by

Net Neutrality

What is net neutrality, anyway?

Everyone keeps talking about it, and it sure sounds good.  But what is it?

Basically, the idea is that internet providers currently have to allow you to go to every site the same. NetNeutrality They provide access but have no control over whether you want to watch movies online or just browse Facebook for hours.

This is, of course, completely unacceptable to internet providers who, being businesses, have no soul.   (Well, unless the Supreme Court rules that they can have a religion.)  Instead, they want to treat the internet the way they treat cable television, where you pay a small fee for general access but where they can block you from certain sites unless you pay them lots of money.

This is a very bad idea, of course.  One of the great things about the internet is that it is available for everyone.  Anyone can start their own web page or blog, and everyone can access it.  If internet providers are allowed to decide what we can access, we may end up with a type of censorship we don’t need.  “Sorry, we don’t allow anyone to access sites that don’t conform to our political beliefs.”

Without neutrality, providers can also make other decisions about access, and can do things like make access very quick for certain websites and tremendously slow for others.

This is in the news because a federal court ruled in favor of the big corporations over the consumer.  (I know, I know, you’re absolutely shocked that Big Money has won in court.)  OK, fine, it’s a bit more complicated than that — the decision had to do with whether the FCC could make certain regulations — and it could become moot if the regulations are rewritten.  However, at the moment, the future is up in the air.

Enjoy the freedom while you have it.

by

Corporations are people, just like Soylent Green

Hobby Lobby claims they are being discriminated against because they are being forced to provide health care which could provide birth control to those heathen women — you know, those hussies who can’t control their libido that Mike Huckabee warned us about.

hobby

Hobby Lobby claims to be a Christian corporation. They refuse to even sell Jewish merchandise in the store. (“Want Hannukah gifts? Go elsewhere, Christ-killer!”) They have no problem whatsoever in buying cheaply-made crap from China because after all, the Bible approves slavery.

Most importantly, they claim they have the right to force their religious views on their employees.  Amazingly, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed with them and held, for the first time that I can see, that a corporation can actually have a religious view.

Fortunately, this is now on appeal, and hopefully clearer minds will prevail.   Many groups are filing briefs opposing Hobby Lobby.

The issue is whether a business can refuse to give health insurance to its employees because of religious reasons.  I am shocked that some of my friends think that this is perfectly fine.  What’s next?  Will they refuse to give you your salary if you buy alcohol with it against their religious views?  Will we have to reduce our own freedoms to make our employers happy?

As I said previously:

This is an absolutely ridiculous decision. Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization; it’s a for-profit business. A business owner should not have the right to decide health care decisions for his or her employees. This is not comparable to a church, for instance, being forced to disobey its beliefs.

Should I, as a business owner, be allowed to force my beliefs on my employees? What if my religion believes women should wear burkas and never speak? Should I make all my female employees wear burkas?

The Court apparently believes employers have powers to ignore laws they don’t like. “If you work here, you have to live by my beliefs, not yours. Don’t like it? Tough!” I think we instead should say to business owners, “These are people who work for you, who have the right to make their own decisions about health care. You will give them the option, because this is America where we value individual decisions. Don’t like it? Tough!”

Your religion does not give you the right to disobey the law. There are Jamaican religions that believe in smoking marijuana during their ceremonies — tough, that’s illegal. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is illegal. Refusing to give your child medicine in the name of religion is illegal. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from the law just because they “really really believe” something. That’s not what America is about.

Look, if you start a business in America, we expect certain things from you. You have to pay a minimum wage; you have to have a safe working environment; you have to pay business taxes; you have to pay for worker’s compensation; you have to provide health care. Keep in mind that your employees may decide to use their money or benefits to do things you personally disagree with. Don’t like it? Tough. Don’t open a business.

If you don’t like the fact that we have freedom from religion in America, then maybe you should open a business somewhere else, like Iran. I understand they have no problem with you forcing religion on people who work for you.

by

New Hempshire

The New Hampshire House has voted to legalize marijuana.

This is important.  Marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington were voter-driven referenda. medical-marijuana-dea  Most politicians are afraid to take a stand on this for fear of being labelled as “soft on drugs” or something else equally stupid, but given the popularity of sudden vacations to Colorado, they’re rethinking their old ways.

And rightly so.  Legalized marijuana can make a state a lot of money.  They can tax it heavily and require sellers to pay for expensive licensing. But they also save money — less people in jail over marijuana possession, less police wasting time on marijuana cases, fewer probation officers needed, fewer court hours spent on hearings and trials.

New Hampshire is a conservative state in many ways, filled with people escaping from liberal Massachusetts and socialistic Vermont.  New Hampshire is quite libertarian —  they’re individuals who don’t like government telling them that they can’t smoke a joint. “Life free or die” is their credo (even though it doesn’t make any sense).

Will they be the next state to legalize?  Not likely.  The Governor has vowed to veto the bill.  (And she’s a Democrat, too; you’d think otherwise.)  So why would she be against this with all the benefits it will bring?

Who knows?  Maybe she’s high.

by

Government says Government is illegal

An independent government committee has determined that the NSA program targeting American citizens is (surprise!) illegal.  obama-shepard-fairey-nsa-prism-1Well, most of the committee did — the two Bush appointees dissented.

Their report concluded that the collection of bulk phone records has provided only minimal protections at a huge cost to our freedoms.

Obama’s recent speech on this topic was about as weak as it could be.  He spoke of the need to have spies and intelligence gathering (which no one disagrees with) and tried to convince us all that therefore, this was not too great or unusual.   Admittedly, he also said the program should be cut back, but he wouldn’t go so far as to question the need for it in the first place.

The Bush people disagreed that the program was illegal (let us not forget that the program started under Bush, with his “Patriot” act) but did agree that it should be stopped nonetheless.

But seriously, the blame falls on all of government — Congress approved the Patriot Act, after all, and for Congress to now claim that they are shocked that the NSA is doing things they gave them permission to do is ridiculous.  Obama is also responsible.  He voted against the Patriot Act extension as a Senator but expanded it once he became President.  (Ironically, he has spoken of the need to cut it back once he’s out of office, with the pretentious idea that he can handle this but some other President couldn’t.)

Let’s hope this leads to the Supreme Court finding the Patriot Act unconstitutional.