I Wonder Why That Might Be

Tue   2 Oct 2007   12:00 by McGehee 73° and fair in Coweta County, GA [Courting Disaster] [Here's Your Sign]

I can kind of sympathize with Britney Spears’ lawyer—apparently it’s not necessary to represent oneself to have a fool for a client—and I guess I can’t really blame him for trying to spin this even though, as he says, the order in question was handed down before he boarded the leaky rowboat that is Spears’ defense (or whatever you call it in family court). Trope says another reason behind the judge’s temporary custody ruling “was a claim by Mr. Federline’s attorney that she had not complied with a previous order the court had made—before I came on board (as lawyer)—about having a random drug and alcohol test.” Trope adds: “There’s no evidence that she actually failed a test.” However, the courts see the failure to take a test as the same thing as not passing the test. » Britney’s Lawyer Reveals Reasons Behind Custody Ruling Back when I was in school, it was generally pretty clear that you couldn’t pass a test if you didn’t take the test. Again, it’s this poor sap’s job to try to put a positive less negative face on the whole thing, but I think most people understand that the court didn’t order Britney to “not fail” a drug test.

Holy $#!t

Tue   4 Sep 2007   19:44 by McGehee 83° and cloudy in Coweta County, GA [Courting Disaster] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [Here's Your Sign]

I can’t believe I’m going to endorse something Bill Clinton said, but he just happens to be right. Dave: “Now there was a discussion last week, and there is I guess a greater discussion, and there’s some confusion, and maybe I’m the only one confused about the eligibility of a man who has been elected twice as President to possibly be named later on the ticket as Vice President. Constitutionally speaking, can that happen?” Clinton: “I don’t believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you’re supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they’re consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean ‘to serve,’ not ‘to run for.’ But I just don’t believe it’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who’s been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don’t think it’s Constitutional. I don’t think it’s right and I wouldn’t want to do that. I’d want to do whatever I could do to be of highest and best use for her, but there are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents. And, that’s just not in the cards.” » Drudge Flash: WJC Says No VP for HRC As for the thing from 2004 I linked above, here was my conclusion: The 12th Amendment includes the following: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Any reasonable person would interpret this, in conjunction with the 22nd Amendment, as meaning that since Bill Clinton has been elected twice to the presidency, and is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be elected to the presidency again, he is also constitutionally ineligible to be elected Vice President. This may be the first time in history that anything relating to a Clinton was interpreted by one of them using the standard of reasonableness. Properly. Good on you, Bill. Imagine the trouble you could have avoided if you’d been that reasonable when you were actually president.

This One Time, in Pre-Law Class…

Tue   12 Jun 2007   20:08 by McGehee 82° and fair in Coweta County, GA [Humor?] [Courting Disaster]

Years ago, when I was in college, one of my professors noted a theory that you could get a better idea of how a judge was going to rule on any given matter before his court, not by researching his legal philosophy, but by determining what he had for breakfast that morning. I can’t source this, but allegedly there was a case in state court somewhere in the western half of the U.S. where a rancher was suing to overturn a law, authored by a legislator named Kellogg. The argument was that the bill was incomprehensibly drafted and that the state department of agriculture therefore couldn’t come up with sensible regulations applying the grazing restrictions said to be required by the law. As a result, in effect all grazing permits issued for state-owned rangeland had to be canceled—thus giving the petitioner his cause for suing. The judge’s ruling may have offered a clue as to what he had for breakfast that morning: » Read more "This One Time, in Pre-Law Class…"

New York and Boston Wake Up Screaming—California Faints Dead Away

Fri   9 Mar 2007   14:22 by McGehee 58° and fair in Coweta County, GA 2 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yee-haw!] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia’s long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia.” A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection. The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment’s scope. » AP:   Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban I spent most of the 1990s enraged at the National Rifle Association because it didn’t seem to be pressing this fundamental issue in court. The mere fact that a panel of the D.C. Circuit has issued this ruling is startling (in a good way), but there remain a variety of possible final outcomes. The D.C. Circuit may decide to hear the case en banc (usually all of the judges, except on larger circuits), and uphold the panel’s conclusion. The D.C. Circuit may hear the case en banc and overturn the panel’s conclusion. The D.C. Circuit may choose not to hear the case, effectively upholding the panel’s conclusion. And then, depending on what the losing side decides to do, the U.S. Supreme Court gets the same set of options as the en banc D.C. Circuit. Given the Supreme Court’s history on Second Amendment questions, my money would be on them not hearing the appeal. Which means whatever comes out of the Circuit will contribute further to a nationwide hodgepodge of Second Amendment jurisprudence. And I’m not all that confident the outcome before an en banc D.C. Circuit will be to uphold. But let us hope.

It Should’ve Happened a Generation Ago

Tue   6 Mar 2007   21:17 by McGehee in Coweta County, GA [Courting Disaster] [Media Ochre] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

The case was hard on the news media, too. “The trial has demystified the priestly practices of Washington journalism,” said Roy Peter Clark, a senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a school and resource center for working journalists. “I think we’ll see prosecutors going after journalists more often.” Nearly a dozen of Washington’s best-known journalists took the stand during the five-week trial to recount confidential interviews. Most of them testified unwillingly, under court order. Only 13 media subpoenas had been granted in the previous 15 years involving confidential sources, according to the Justice Department. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald obtained waivers from several government officials that released journalists from their confidentiality promises, a tactic that media advocates say is coercive and chilling on potential whistleblowers. » AP:   Libby Trial Prompts Scrutiny on Media Tough shit. The “news” media have been using their power to promote the criminalization of political disagreement since the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. You can only sow the wind so many times before the whirlwind crop finally comes in.

The Fitz Who Stole Fitzmas?

Tue   6 Mar 2007   21:10 by McGehee 43° and fair in Coweta County, GA [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

Well, Fitzgerald managed to get a scalp, of sorts. Scooter Libby was convicted of four counts according to the legal paperwork. What the jury actually considered him guilty of when they voted to convict, is another matter. Meanwhile, any hopes of the Get Rove bunch that Libby’s trial would lead to more appear to be ... unrequited. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says the CIA leak investigation was now inactive. “I do not expect to file any additional charges,” he said. “We’re all going back to our day jobs.” » Reuters:   Former US aide Libby found guilty in CIA leak case This is the politically motivated prosecutorial equivalent of a one-night stand that takes 45 seconds. All the poor little Whos in Whoville are boo-hooing—such a disappointing Fitzmas.

Anna Nicole’s Lawyers Have Got Some ‘Splainin’ to Do

Sun   18 Feb 2007   11:52 by McGehee 39° and sunny in Coweta County, GA 2 comments [Our Times] [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

After the crazy business over James Brown’s estate, the future of Anna Nicole Smith’s millions, and her baby daughter, are in an even bigger mess. Apparently her will hasn’t been updated since before her nonagenarian husband died some years ago. You’d think her lawyers—and someone with that much money always has lawyers, or they don’t keep the money for very long—would have grabbed her in a headlock and forced her to sit down with them and update the blasted thing at some point. When the old man died, for example. Or after the big court fight over his estate. Or when the baby girl was born and the older son died. You know, those little family events. Justin Levine’s post and the comments appended thereunto (see what happens when I peruse lawyers’ blogs?) are fascinating reading even for those of us who aren’t remotely interested in Anna Nicole per se. Her talent for making headlines has survived her.

What Would We Do Without Congressional Researchers?

Tue   13 Feb 2007   12:07 by McGehee 61° and light rain in Coweta County, GA 3 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

H/t the former Juan Non-Volokh: The research arm of Congress says that legislation to give the District a vote in the House of Representatives is probably unconstitutional, a finding that could jeopardize its chances of passage, officials and analysts said yesterday. The report by the Congressional Research Service is not binding, and its conclusions reflect what some prominent legal scholars have been warning for years. But it could carry extra weight because the service generally gets high marks for its nonpartisan advice to the House and Senate. The report, dated Jan. 24 and made public yesterday, declared: “Although not beyond question, it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District.” The bill’s chief sponsors, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), have lined up other legal opinions to counter the research service’s conclusions. But the report gives added ammunition to lawmakers who want to torpedo the bill and could signal a court fight if the legislation passes. The report lands at a time when the D.C. voting rights effort has been gaining momentum. The new Democratic majority in the House has vowed to move quickly on such legislation. » Washington Post:   Report Questions Constitutionality of Giving D.C. a Vote I, of course, questioned the constitutionality back in December.

Did Bill Clinton Become a California Judge, and I Missed It?

Sat   10 Feb 2007   7:14 by McGehee in Coweta County, GA [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

Does it all depend on what your definition of “active” is? A judge on Friday denied a long-shot bid by GOP operatives to have state Attorney General Jerry Brown declared ineligible for office. In a lawsuit first brought during Brown’s campaign last fall, several Republican Party officials claimed that Brown did not meet the qualification that an attorney general be an “uninterrupted, active member” of the State Bar for the five years prior to the primary election for the office. Brown, a Democrat, was admitted to the California State Bar in 1965. But he went on “inactive” status in January 1997 and did not reactivate until May 1, 2003, allowing him to pay lower bar dues. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the change in status is “purely ministerial” and that “active status” is not a requirement. » Bee:   Judge tosses anti-Brown suit What am I missing here? Does the law say the attorney general must be “an ‘uninterrupted, active member’ of the State Bar for the five years prior to the primary election for the office,” as claimed by the petitioners, or doesn’t it? And if it does, where does this judge get off ruling that a requirement of active status doesn’t really mean active status is required? “Purely ministerial” or not, it looks to me as though the law requires a certain status, and Brown didn’t meet the requirement. Somebody with a grasp of non-Euclidean legal geometry (is that redundant?) is going to have to explain this to me. Update: I just figured it out! The judge has determined that California law doesn’t require the attorney general to be qualified! That actually does make sense. It being California.

You Know What I Just Noticed?
Sat   16 Dec 2006   14:09 by McGehee 71° and fair in Coweta County, GA 3 comments [War] [Courting Disaster] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]	I just noticed there hasn’t been any big reverberations in blogdom about developments in the Scooter Libby prosecution. What’s up with that?

Page 2 of 30 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »