Telling Stories

Sad, But True: Gay People are Just Like the Rest of Us

I support same-sex marriage.  Personally, I think it's a civil rights issue, not a sexuality issue or a morality issue.  I am convinced that, for gays and lesbians, feeling attracted to members of their same gender is as natural as it is for heterosexuals to find a partner of the opposite sex.

One of the things I used to kid about was that, as a lawyer, I had to be in favor of gay marriage because after gay marriage comes gay divorce and there are legal fees to be made there.

Unfortunately, it appears that I was more than right on that one:

A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts have filed for divorce.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

The divorce case was filed last week in Suffolk Probate and Family Court and was not unexpected. The couple announced they were separating in 2006.

For those who think that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, think again.  They fall in love, get married, and get divorced, just like we do.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Burris Loses His Illinois Supreme Court Case; Still Should Be Seated

Ronald Burris lost his petition before the Illinois Supreme Court.  As a lawyer, it's one of those strange situations where the party who "lost" is probably just as well off now as he would have been had he "won."

Here's Burris' case before the Illinois SC, in a nutshell: He went to DC to get seated but he was turned away because his certificate of appointment lacked the signature of the Illinois Sect'y of State.  So Burris went to the Illinois SC with a writ of mandamus, basically trying to get the court to direct the Illinois SoS to sign the certification.

Burris lost.  But the reasons for his loss actually strengthen the odd that he will eventually prevail and get seated.

The Court found two key things:

The issue presented by this original action for mandamus is whether Jesse White, the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, is required by section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to countersign and affix the seal of the state to the document issued by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich on December 31, 2008, certifying the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate. For the reasons that follow, we hold that section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) is inapplicable to the Burris appointment, and that no further action is required by any officer of this state to make that appointment valid. We further hold that the only ministerial act required of the Secretary of State in this case is that he register the appointment in accordance with section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)). The Secretary of State having performed that responsibility on December 31, 2008, the writ of mandamus is denied. . .

Because gubernatorial appointments only require issuance of an actual commission when the governing law so provides and because no provision of law makes issuance of a commission necessary for the validity of a gubernatorial appointee to a United States Senate vacancy, no commission was required by law to effectuate the appointment of Mr. Burris to the United States Senate. And because the Secretary of State’s “sign and seal” duty is triggered only in cases where commissions are required by law, it necessarily follows that the Secretary of State had no duty to sign and seal the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor in this case.  Under section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), the Secretary of State’s sole duty was to register the appointment, which he has done.

Emphasis added.  In other words, Illinois SoS did what was required of him to do and did not need to do anything else.

The second thing is, perhaps, more important:

In their pleadings, Petitioners [Burris, et al.] suggest that the United States Senate has taken the view that the Governor’s signed, hand-delivered certificate of appointment is insufficient to meet the requirements of the Senate’s own internal rules. We note, however, that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the seventeenth amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution.

Emphasis added.  Both points are worth considering separately.  First, the Court is absolutely correct that Rule II of the Standing Rules of the Senate does not require that the certificate of appointments made in situations such as Burris' - and, eventually, for Hillary Clinton's replacement - be signed and sealed by the state's Secretary of State.  This was news to me, because Reid's position is that such signature was required.

Rule II of the Standing Rules of the Senate state, in relevant part, as follows:

1. The presentation of the credentials of Senators elect or of Senators designate and other questions of privilege shall always be in order, except during the reading and correction of the Journal, while a question of order or a motion to adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum; and all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of.

2. The Secretary [of the Senate] shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a wellbound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the same, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed.

3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit.

Emphasis provided.  It is clear that nowhere in Rule II is there a requirement that the forms contain the signature of the state's SoS.  Further, it is evident that the States don't need to use these forms at all.  As the Court correctly noted, the requirement that the signature of the governor and the secretary of state be included in the certification is "merely a matter of tradition."

Now, if this isn't shattering enough, the next sentence is the final nail in the coffin: the rules of the Senate are not above the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution, through the Seventeenth Amendment, vests the power of appointment on the States.

Burris' hand is so strengthened that if Reid and the Democrats persist in keeping him out of the Senate and he challenges that decision in Federal Court, Reid would lose.  If it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, it wouldn't even be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision.  I don't see how it would be anything other than 9-0.

So, if Reid wants to avoid further embarrassment, he should quit while he's not far behind, seat Burris, and live to fight another day.

"Down Goes Simpson! Down Goes Simpson"

The news is out!

LAS VEGAS — O.J. Simpson, the one-time football great who was acquitted in perhaps the most-watched murder trial of the 20th century, was sentenced Friday to a minimum of nine years in prison for his role in a 2007 raid on a Las Vegas hotel room in which two collectibles dealers were robbed of a trove of sports memorabilia.

And here's O.J. saying "I'm so sorry.  I didn't mean to kill the b... Ooops! Wrong trial your honor!"

It reminds me of a quote I heard an inmate say in one of those Lockdown-type shows.  To paraphrase, "you may not have done what you were sent in for but if you're here, you have done something worth being here for."

To the Female Clinton Supporters Who are Considering Voting for McCain or Sitting it Out

Consider this an open letter.  I'm a male, so I can only begin to appreciate your disappointment and frustration.  And I understand why, at this stage, you'd rather sit it out in November.  I cannot understand for the life of me why you would vote for McCain since most of his positions are 180 degrees from Clinton's.  I think that's what they call "cutting your nose to spite your face."  Whatever choice you're contemplating, my sincerest plea is this:

Don't do it.  Please, don't do it.

If you really believed in what Hillary Clinton stands for and you didn't support her just to see a woman in the White House, there are a number of reasons why you should be leery of "President McCain."

On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.

You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.

Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.

But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn."

In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given half a chance." . . .

An intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly antiabortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again.

McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

It would be the epitome of irony if by your lack of participation or by your support of McCain you end up electing a President who will have a shot at limiting the reproduction rights women have fought long and hard to earn and keep.

And if that wasn't enough, think about what you'll be doing to millions - maybe billion - of women across the globe.

McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective groups.

More info here, here,

“During his 25 years in office, Sen. McCain has consistently voted to block low-income women’s access to birth control,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said in a statement Friday. “Voters need to know that John McCain is not only against abortion, he is against birth control.” 

and here.

As St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, an enthusiastic Clinton backer,said this week, “You don’t spend your life fighting for women’s rights and then vote for Sen. McCain.”

The thing is, staying at home, or voting for Clinton via write-in is just as counterproductive as voting for McCain.

So, please, don't do it.

Be Careful What You Wish For . . .

I meant to comment about this a couple of days ago but life gets in the way of blogging sometimes.  Anyhow, if this is not the law of unintended consequences at work, I don't know what is.

RIVERSIDE, N.J., Sept. 25 — A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.

The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town’s already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.

So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.

“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”

Emphasis added.  Sometimes I'm amazed at the utter stupidity and cluelessness of some people.  If you lived in a boarded-up, middle-of-nowhere, lucky-to-be-on-a-map town before immigrants moved in, and the town came alive after immigrants moved in, what did you think would happen if you forced immigrants to move away?  Where did you think all that extra money came from?

“It changed the face of Riverside a little bit,” said Charles Hilton, the former mayor who pushed for the ordinance. (He was voted out of office last fall but said it was not because he had supported the law.)

“The business district is fairly vacant now, but it’s not the legitimate businesses that are gone,” he said. “It’s all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens.”

Emphasis added.  Makes you want to rush back to Riverdale, doesn't it?  Particularly when neither he nor the current mayor has any way of proving how many of the so-called immigrants in Riverdale were illegal.

Immigrants from Latin America began arriving around 2000. The majority were Brazilians attracted not only by construction jobs in the booming housing market but also by the presence of Portuguese-speaking businesses in town. Between 2000 and 2006, local business owners and officials estimate, more than 3,000 immigrants arrived. There are no authoritative figures about the number of immigrants who were — or were not — in the country legally.

It is unclear whether the Brazilian and Latino immigrants who left will now return to Riverside. With the housing market slowing, there may be little reason to come back. But if they do, some residents say they may spark new tensions.

If there's no reason to go back, i.e., no jobs or community, they won't go back.  They - the documented and undocumented immigrants - will go somewhere else where they can make a living.

And Riverside can go back to being the dying, middle-of-nowhere town it was before.

Tags: Immigration, Economics, Law

Immigration Enforcement is Far From Color (or Language)-Blind

The next time you think that enforcement of immigration laws is the solution to illegal immigration in the U.S., keep this in mind:

A federal lawsuit filed yesterday charges that agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement unlawfully force their way into the homes of Hispanic families in the New York area without court warrants or other legal justification, sometimes pushing down doors in the middle of the night, in search of people who do not live there.

The 15 plaintiffs — all but one are residents of Suffolk County and seven of them are United States citizens — describe abusive predawn raids on their homes this year by armed immigration agents. They seek an order prohibiting I.C.E. from conducting home raids until the agency develops clear guidelines to end unlawful entries, and unspecified damages.

The complaint contends that “the unstated goal of these raids is to gain access to constitutionally protected areas in hope of seizing as many undocumented persons as possible” to meet annual arrest quotas recently increased by the agents’ superiors to 1,000 per fugitive team, up from 125 arrests in 2003. Mark Thorn, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the New York region, said that he was not familiar with the lawsuit, and that the agency does not comment on litigation.

But earlier this year, agency officials vigorously defended the program, while acknowledging its imperfections, in response to questions about the early-morning raid on Feb. 20 on the East Hampton, N.Y., home of the Aguilar and Leon family. All members of that family are either United States citizens or, in the case of one of the children, a legal resident awaiting naturalization.

Emphasis added. U.S. citizens and legal immigrants harassed basically because they are Latinos.

In the case of Ms. Aguilar’s family, immigration agents burst into their home in East Hampton to hunt for an illegal immigrant without a criminal record — Ms. Aguilar’s ex-husband, who had not lived in the house since 2003, when they divorced and he was ordered deported.

Emphasis added.  No warrant, no court order, not even probable cause since the Aguilars  had divorced.

This is what the neo-Fascist Republican Party stands for.  No wonder Univision couldn't get them to appear at a debate.

Tags: Immigration, Latino Matters, Law

It's Bastards Like Him . . .

. . . that make me want to reconsider my opposition to the death penalty.

Defendant guilty in girl's gator death

Harrel Braddy stood quietly Tuesday as a court clerk read the decision he has spent almost nine years trying to avoid.

Guilty of trying to escape. Guilty of burglary. Guilty of attempted murder and two counts of kidnapping.

And the final verdict: guilty of murdering a little girl by leaving her in the middle of the night in the Everglades.

Quatisha Maycock was killed by alligators in November 1998 after Braddy dumped her by the side of Alligator Alley.

Braddy had already left the little girl's mother, Shandelle Maycock, for dead in a sugarcane field after choking her repeatedly.

That is quite heartless, but, believe it or not, it's worse.

Prosecutors said Braddy then drove to Alligator Alley where he dropped Quatisha in the water. She was alive when alligators bit her on the head and stomach, a medical examiner said.

Authorities found the girl's body two days later floating face up in the alligator infested waters, her left arm missing and her skull crushed, prosecutors said.

Out of principle, I couldn't have voted in favor of the death penalty.  But I can't say I'm particularly distraught over this sentence for this person.

Tags: Law

Nail, Meet Coffin

I remember a line from the movie Training Day that I loved from the moment I heard it: "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

Well, I don't know whether Gonzo "knew" about this, but at least you can prove that he should have known:

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Emphasis added.  Neither plausible explanation is reassuring.  Gonzales either (a) knew and mislead everyone, (b) didn't know because he didn't bother to read the reports, (c) didn't know because he purposely avoided reading the reports (you know, the "plausible deniability" angle), or (d) purposely misled Congress by making statements that, while technically correct, did not reveal what he knew.

Justice officials said they could not immediately determine whether Gonzales read any of the FBI reports in 2005 and 2006 because the officials who processed them were not available yesterday. But department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking "in the context" of reports by the department's inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.

Yep, the "well, that's not what we were talking about" explanation.  However, I fail to see how, when the FBI itself acknowledges that they shouldn't have received certain information, you can say that there are no verified civil rights violations.

At this rate, he won't get a chance to quit or to get fired.  He'll get indicted.  Not that it matters, since Arbusto would most likely commute his sentence anyhow . . .

Tags: Politics, Law

Isn't it Ironic: The Law of Unintended Consequences

Sometimes, the Universe reminds us that we should be mindful of the things we wish for:

ALLENTOWN, Pennsylvania: Prosecutors have dropped homicide charges against two men cited as the inspiration for a contested Pennsylvania city law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta has named the May 2006 shooting death of 29-year-old Derek Kichline as the impetus for a city law penalizing landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and the businesses that hire them. The law has been copied by municipalities around the United States.

This, however, is not the ironic part.  This is:

Assistant District Attorney Mike Vough said Friday he was forced to drop the case because a key witness, Cesar Ariel Jacquez, had been inadvertently deported, and two other important witnesses had credibility issues.

Police found the murder weapon in Jacquez's apartment, and Jacquez would have testified that Cabrera and Romero gave it to him after the homicide, Vough said.

Prosecutors traveled to the Dominican Republic last month, but could not persuade Jacquez to return to the United States to testify.

Emphasis added.  "Credibility issues" means they'll say anything you'll ask them to say regardless of whether it's perjury or not.

But the thing about not being able to try the case because they deported the illegal immigrant who could have provided key testimony is just karma/dharma at work.

Hey, the law did what it was intended to do, right?  It did get rid of those pesky immigrants, rights?  So, who cares about justice?

And, can you blame the witness for not wanting to return and testify?  What's in it for him?  As soon as he's done testifying he'll be deported again to the Dominican Republic, where, coincidentally, the two alleged murderers will be deported to.   If the alleged murderers are not convicted, guess who'll be looking for Jacquez back in the D.R.?

This is what happens when you have people pulling laws out of their . . . ignorance.

Tags: Latino Matters, Law, Immigration

Can You Say "Lawsuit"?

UPDATE 06-29-07: Thankfully, the not-drunk guy was found safe.

Sims was found around 9:40 p.m. Thursday night walking along railroad tracks two miles from where he was kicked off the train.

He is in good condition.

An Amtrak spokesperson says while it is an unfortunate situation, the crew acted appropriately by stopping the train and waiting for the authorities.

Sims' family believes he was treated unfairly.

Emphasis added.  That is the understatement of the week!

 

I think someone should throw some "we've hired dumb-asses and now regret it" money into Amtrak's budget.  Because Amtrak is going to need it.

Police: Diabetic Man Missing After Being Kicked Off Train

PHOENIX -- A 65-year-old St. Louis man is missing after Amtrak personnel, mistaking his diabetic shock for drunk and disorderly behavior, kicked him off a train in the middle of a national forest, according to police in Williams, Ariz.

Police said Roosevelt Sims was headed to Los Angeles but was asked to leave the train shortly before 10 p.m. Sunday at a railroad crossing five miles outside Williams.

"He was let off in the middle of a national forest, which is about 800,000 acres of beautiful pine trees," Lt. Mike Graham said.

Emphasis added.  Unless pine trees or pine needles are some sort of new or homeopathic treatment for diabetes, their beauty is purely subjective to Mr. Sims.

Police said there is no train station or running water at the crossing, which is about two miles from the nearest road, at an elevation of about 8,000 feet.

Emphasis added.  Well, the no-train, no-running-water, two-miles-from-the-nearest-road description is consistent with "the middle of a national forest."

Amtrak personnel told police dispatchers that Sims was drunk and unruly.

The Sims family said Sims is diabetic and was going into shock.

Whoops.

Williams police told CBS 5 that Amtrak has used the abandoned crossing as a drop-off site in the past. Graham said that whether drunk or not, no one should be dropped off there.

"You don't put anyone off in an area like that," Graham said.

Gee, YA THINK???!!! Then again, it's not so obvious, now, is it?

Amtrak said the company is looking into the matter.

Translation: Is our liability insurance current and up to date?

"I just want to find him," [Sims' brother Brian] Mason said. "I'm not mad at anybody."

Once he finds an attorney that lets him know how much $$$ they can sue Amtrak for, he'll get mad.  Heck, he'll even get all sorts of weird mental syndromes and everything.

"Our thoughts and prayers are that there's no way he's out there in those woods," Graham said.

Amen to that.

Tags: Law, Odd News