politics
- Why?
- Why??
- Why???
A month after dismissing federal prosecutors, Justice Department does not have any U.S. attorneys in place
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a lot of things. But so far, none of those things include “good at being Attorney General.”
Would you hire a builder who, when he finds out you want a new house at some point down the road, just knocks down the one you have now, without thinking about where you’ll live until the new one is ready?
If you would, then Jeff Sessions is your man. Because he knocked down the Justice Department before even making the vague outline of a plan to put a new one in place.
Oh, and just in case you forgot, he’s a racist son of a bitch, too.
Alex Jones' rock and hard place: Authentic lunatic or performance artist and fit parent?
In Travis County custody case, jury will search for real Alex Jones
Jonathan Tilove reports this story for American-Statesman:
Beginning Monday, a jury will be selected at the Travis County Courthouse that in the next two weeks will be asked to sort out whether there is a difference between the public and private Alex Jones, and whether, when it comes to his fitness as a parent, it matters.
Kelly Jones' attorney, Bobby Newman, is engaged in some quality tactical litigation:
[Judge] Naranjo, meanwhile, said she had never seen or heard Jones on Infowars until Wednesday’s hearing, when Kelly Jones’ legal team started previewing Infowars videos it would like to play for the jury.The first was a clip from a July 2015 broadcast in which Jones had his son, then 12, on to play the latest of some 15 or 20 videos he had made with the help of members of the Infowars team who, Jones said, had “taken him under their wing” during summer days spent at the South Austin studio between stints at tennis and Christian camps.
“He is undoubtedly cut out for this, and I intend for him to eclipse what I’ve done. He’s a way greater person than I was at 12,” said Jones, turning to his son. “I love you so much, and I didn’t mean to get you up here, sweetheart, and tell people how much I love you, but you’re so handsome, and you’re a good little knight who’s going to grow up, I know, to be a great fighter against the enemy.”
“So far this looks like good stuff,” [Alex Jones' Attorney Randall] Wilhite said. Naranjo OK’d it for viewing by the jury.
But Bobby Newman, the attorney for Kelly Jones guiding the court through the Infowars clips, was laying the groundwork for the argument that there is no separation between Alex Jones, father, and Alex Jones, Infowarrior.
It’s a solid argument, and Alex Jones is in a bit of a bind here, forced to choose between maintaining the authenticity of a lunatic his inexplicably massive fanbase worships and sacrificing that authenticity in an attempt to hang onto custody of his young children.
Unenforceable ban on atheists holding public office still on the books in 8 states
Unenforceable ban on atheists holding public office still on the books in 8 states
This is an old story but after reading an article about a study [PDF] suggesting there are many atheists who don’t want to admit they’re atheists, I remembered reading about how a country which prides itself as a world leader in personal freedom still has laws banning atheists from public service.
My memory was correct, and that country is the United States. Oyez, which publishes Supreme Court resources including audio of oral arguments, has a great page on the 1960 case which declared such laws unconstitutional (as if anyone should have needed the Supreme Court to tell them that…).
In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court held unanimously that, quoting Oyez:
such a requirement places the state of Maryland firmly on the side of those people who believe in God and are willing to state their belief. With this requirement, Maryland effectively aids religions that profess a belief in God at the expense of any other form of belief or disbelief. The First Amendment expressly prohibits a state from taking this position. Although the candidate has the option of not pursuing public office rather than declaring a belief in God, the test is an unconstitutional encroachment on the freedom of religion.
So these laws aren’t enforceable, but the fact that they’re still on the books is an affront to the Constitution and should embarrass any lawmaker who claims to respect that Constitution.
The magnificent stupidity of the "nuclear option"
The magnificent stupidity of the “nuclear option”
It’s a trainwreck. Republicans undoubtedly stole the nomination from Merrick Garland, which makes calls by the GOP for Democrats to stop being obstructionist rich in hypocrisy.
But then again, there’s plenty of hypocrisy in Democratic criticisms of today’s use of the “nuclear option.” After all, they made a similar move in 2013, explicitly eliminating the filibuster for all nominations except the Supreme Court.
It was a stupid thing for Democrats to do in 2013 and it’s a stupid thing for Republicans to do in 2017. Why? Because these rules apply to everyone going forward, no matter which party is in power.
The lack of foresight and critical thinking the nuclear option displays when any party uses it are staggering, and illustrative of Congress’ toxic tendency to put pettiness and blind party loyalty before the best interests of their constituents.
This post originally appeared in my newsletter, Modern Law.
Re: Dumb conspiracy theories on Scalia's death
Enough with the conspiracy theories about Justice Scalia’s death
I read this earlier today:
"As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia," William O. Ritchie wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday, according to reports. After seeking to cast doubt on the conclusion of the deputy U.S. marshals who responded to a call from the ranch, he added, "My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas."
My gut tells me there is some fishing for attention going on in the head of the former D.C. police officer who said that.
Why?
Let’s consider this:
Was it a Liberal conspiracy to get President Obama one more lasting decision about the future of United States legal policy?
Was it a “Conservative” conspiracy to give Congressional Republicans and presidential candidates something “meaningful” to “stand up” to Obama about?
Was it Ancient Aliens?
There was no autopsy, they say! There was a pillow above his head, they say! The President was told long before anyone else, they say (as if the President doesn’t get most of the news before everyone else…)!
Conspiracy theorists demand: “What is your proof Scalia wasn’t murdered?”
These stupid theories remind me of one of the frequent arguments levied against atheists: “What is your proof that there is no god??”
Who proved god exists in the first place?
Pillows
Many articles note the ranch owner who found Scalia said there was a pillow above his head, and many conspiracy theorists point to this as suspicious. I sleep with a pillow over my head every night, and another one underneath it, using the two to drown out the sounds of an increasingly conspiratorial world so I can maintain my slumber all night long.
No conspiracy. Just a light sleeper.
Politics aside
I disagreed with much of Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court jurisprudence but his presence on the Court was invaluable to the development of United States law and the debates from which it springs.
He articulated his positions in such a way that I (almost always) respected them, even when I found it hard to believe someone so intelligent was seriously asserting them. He was rarely conclusory, giving reasons for his views, and whether you agreed with those reasons or not, that’s more than most politicians (and lawyers) usually do.
His death is a loss, but there are few more certain paths to some sort of immortality than thirty years on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Photo: Then-nominee Antonin Scalia, right, with President Ronald Reagan in 1986, via Wikipedia
Democracy.io - Contact your Members of Congress
Democracy.io - Contact your Members of Congress
Great stuff from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Failure to effectively reach members of Congress has disastrous consequences. Studies show that politicians fundamentally misconceive their constituents’ views, making it harder for them to represent us in the lawmaking process.That’s why we built Democracy.io: a new tool to put you in touch with your members of Congress—with as few clicks as possible.
Obama Plans Broader Use of Clemency to Free Nonviolent Drug Offenders
Obama Plans Broader Use of Clemency to Free Nonviolent Drug Offenders
Peter Baker of The New York Times:
In his second term, Mr. Obama embarked on an effort to use clemency and has raised his total commutations to 43, a number he may double this month. The initiative was begun last year by James M. Cole, then the deputy attorney general, who set criteria for who might qualify: generally nonviolent inmates who have served more than 10 years in prison, have behaved well while incarcerated and would not have received as lengthy a sentence under today’s revised rules.
Overincarceration is a real problem. Like any decent lawyer, I’ll cite a few reliable sources.
I don’t have an answer. Longtime readers will know I’m a cynical bastard, despite my best efforts to the contrary. It seems to me like this move is more for the “optics” and less for real effect, but I’d love to be wrong.
Primary source: White House press release
Photo by me
Larry Lessig fighting for campaign finance reform with Mayday PAC
Larry Lessig fighting for campaign finance reform with Mayday PAC
Lawrence Lessig’s Mayday PAC is using the very system it decries to attempt to bring that system down. In other words, Lessig et al are hijacking the virus (the influence of big donors on American politics via election contributions) to deliver the vaccine (funding for politicians committed to proposals which would limit big political contributions).
If you support the cause, be heartened: Lessig likes to fight, and is good at it.
If you don’t support the cause, it’s probably time to start taking Mayday seriously. Your candidate’s job may depend on it.
FBI asks DOJ to investigate source of Calderon leak to Al Jazeera
FBI asks DOJ to investigate source of Calderon leak to Al Jazeera
It could be that I’m new to the journalism industry and only recently interested in its developments. But it seems to me as if journalism and law are converging like never before, and on an international stage.
While Al Jazeera America is unlikely to face direct legal action, the American arm of the Qatari news network only launched in August 2013. It’s new, and if its current sources face investigation and potential federal charges, prospective sources may decide not to become sources at all.
Liberals, Tea Partiers unite to protest NSA in DC
Liberals, Tea Partiers unite to protest NSA in DC
The march attracted protesters from both ends of the political spectrum as liberal privacy advocates walked alongside members of the conservative Tea Party movement in opposition to what they say is unlawful government spying on Americans.
What a weird image.
On Law, Policy, and (Not) Bombing Syria
On Law, Policy, and (Not) Bombing Syria
Ian Hurd, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University, writing at preeminent international law blog Opinio Juris:
It is well known that the [U.N.] Charter forbids the use of force except as self-defense or as sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Everything else amounts to aggression and is illegal.
The issue of whether and how the U.S. and/or the rest of the world should react to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is open to debate on ethical, moral, political, and practical levels.
But it is not open to any debate from an international law perspective: the U.S. proposal, whether approved and implemented by President Obama or the Congress to which he has deferred on the decision, is prohibited generally by international law and specifically by the United Nations charter.
Minnesota governor signs same-sex marriage bill into law
Minnesota governor signs same-sex marriage bill into law
Number twelve and counting; this looks to be a big year for marriage equality in the United States.
Confessions of a Liberal Gun Owner
Confessions of a Liberal Gun Owner
Novelist Justin Cronin presents a very well-written and reasonable take on why knee-jerk reactions on either side of the gun debate are misinformed and unrealistic:
[…] in the weeks since Newtown, I’ve watched my Facebook feed, which is dominated by my coastal friends, fill up with anti-gun dispatches that seemed divorced from reality. I agree it would be nice if the world had exactly zero guns in it. But I don’t see that happening, and calling gun owners “a bunch of inbred rednecks” doesn’t do much to advance rational discussion.
Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party
Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party
The Hill’s Erik Wasson, quoting Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots:
She described Romney as a “weak, moderate candidate hand-picked by the country club elite Republican establishment […] They didn’t see a clear distinction so they went with what they know,” she said of voters.
"Conservatives" is not an accurate descriptor of Tea Party sympathizers. "Extremists" and "fundamentalists" are better descriptors.
Actually, I think Romney’s farthest-right positions are the very ones that lost him this election. I keep hearing and reading about a growing movement among moderate Republicans (the original and, many would argue, “real” Conservatives) to take back their party.
If that narrative is accurate, and if that movement succeeds, the Republican party has a chance to put someone in the Oval Office in 2016. Those who would prefer a president with an (R) next to their name would do well to show the extremists and fundamentalists in their ranks the door.
Marriage rights tide turns decisively against US bigots
Marriage rights tide turns decisively against US bigots
I hope this is the beginning of an acceleration in the death of “traditional” marriage in the United States of America. Fear, ignorance, and religion are all equally insufficient and shameful excuses to deny universal marriage rights for one more moment.
A Map Of America’s 284 Drone Strikes Against Pakistan
A Map Of America’s 284 Drone Strikes Against Pakistan
Cliff Kuang of Co.Design:
Whatever your stance on drone killings, the fact remains that there’s been very little national dialogue on the topic. Indeed, some would say that’s a direct result of the main problem with the policy: Its complete lack of transparency.
Mr. Kuang points to the New York Times piece from this past June. It’s a good place to start, and taken along with this the infographic, starts to bring the severity of the issue into focus.
Perhaps reasonable people will come to different conclusions, but if you don’t at least have an opinion on this, get one.
Microsoft's Election 2012 hub on Xbox Live heralds the interactive TV future
Microsoft’s Election 2012 hub on Xbox Live heralds the interactive TV future
Samit Sarkar, reporting at The Verge:
The interactive element of the hub is a live polling system. It will gather impressions from Xbox Live users as they watch live broadcasts of the three scheduled presidential debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
It’s not exactly the cross-examination inspired debate format pushed for by Will McAvoy in The Newsroom, but I think it’s a forward-thinking use of the platform.
Remember: 39% of North Carolinians are not fearful and ignorant
The North Carolina amendment alters the constitution to say that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” in the state.
—CNN
I don’t often take a preachy tone, and this story has little to do with how the law and technology intersect, which is my usual topic on this website. However, I think people should be treated the same, and when they’re not, I get angry. When masses of people vote for something so clearly despicable that it can accurately be called evil, I have to get my thoughts about it out of my system.
And my thoughts about North Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage are the following:
One day, the descendants of the 61% of North Carolinians who voted discrimination into their constitution today will look back on what their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents did on Tuesday, May 8, 2012 with disgust, much the same way we do when we read the state’s nonchalant 1875 ban on interracial marriage.
To the 39% of folks in North Carolina who voted with morals, ethics, and plain old common sense:
I implore you, for the sake of your children, to leave your state. Seek refuge from those among your neighbors who would so blight the wonder of democracy.
You are the 39%, who refused to institutionalize hate, to legalize discrimination, to dress up ignorance in the guise of religion, or to use family as a pretext for subjugating a minority. Be proud.