Friday, May 28, 2010
GOP moves to repeal healthcare law - TheHill.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
In addition, I stopped by two other firms where I'd sent resumes. I received a kindly "no" at one and was unable to get any information from the other as the attorney was out of the office. This one I'm kind of crossing my fingers for, though, as it might be what I am looking for...
That's about it at this time. Hope all is well with you guys!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
I understand that you can't paint an entire party by the actions of a few individuals. But it would be an error to completely dismiss this action, as well as so many others taken under the Republican umbrella over the past several years.
Gotta love the embrace of Tea-Party talking points for a Republican Platform, too.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Boy's concert is tonight. I'm looking forward to hearing the band and how much they've improved this year.
He does such an outstanding job summarizing the steady erosion of rights taken from us in the name of Security. Of course, many people support these changes, because "it's not going to happen to me." The problem, of course, is that once everyone else is eliminated, you are what's left to go after. Do we really need legislation stripping citizenship of Americans ACCUSED of being terrorists? Of course, it's unconstitutional, but who cares about that? We have to worry about children seeing the Lion King in Times Square.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Constitution of the United States is a law
for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace,
and covers with the shield of its protection
all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.
No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences,
was ever invented by the wit of man than
that any of its provisions can be suspended
during any of the great exigencies of government.
Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism,
but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false;
for the government, within the Constitution,
has all the powers granted to it,
which are necessary to preserve its existence;
as has been happily proved by the result
of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis
(1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877
Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Though it does show the hypocrisy of those who embraced Bush yet condemn Obama...
Saturday, May 08, 2010
One might suggest he could do nothing right according to the Right. And Lieberman.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Now, even though I haven't ever watched Survivor, that doesn't mean that I've not been inundated with "Russell." I can't stand the guy. I don't understand what kind of control he exerts over anyone. I think he looks like the Dwarf from Lord of the Rings and really can't understand what he charisma/appeal is...
Mostly, though, I'm sick of hearing his name on all the commercials. I actually prefer Boston Rob to the guy and I REALLY can't stand Boston Rob.
Glenn Greenwald touches on this and several other topics, including how the potentially illegal predator drone attacks on pakistani civilians may have led to Faisal Shahzad's alleged "attack." I say attack in quotes because it was non-explosive and covered in useless wires. One could argue that the attempt was actually not to inflict actual damage but rather to do what actually has happened, which is irrational frothing at the mouth...
Thursday, May 06, 2010
There's a lot going on right now, I'm just not exactly a part of it yet...
Hopefully I'll be back in the employment group here soon enough.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
What Gerson wrote: It must be awkward to have risen to the vigorous defense of legal language that even its authors, in the end, could not defend. But the law’s advocates are making the best of things out on their sawed-off limb. The law is now more “explicit” about its true intention. It is a “clarification.” But this isn’t a clarification; it is retreat. The authors of the Arizona law initially wrote it as broadly as they thought they could get away with. But they were caught. Their retreat does not confirm their intentions were good. It confirms that the original law was deeply flawed -- a dramatic, disturbing overreach.
He goes on to note that "lawful stop" can still be quite broad, as it allows investigation for violations of community ordinances, property or rental codes, such as having a car on blocks...
In addition to all this, someone needs to address how this new law will impact border security or prevent illegals from crossing the border, it just serves to harass those who are already here, both legal and illegally.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Senator McCain came within 7 Million votes of becoming President. He's now openly lamenting if a criminal suspect may have had his Miranda Rights read to him.
Rep. King probably says it all: "I know he's an American, but still..."
Does anyone need to hear anything else to understand today's Republican Party?
Republicans warn against Miranda rights for terror suspect - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com
Years and years ago, circa 1793, President Washington asked the Supreme Court (specifically John Jay) to opine on the 1778 Franco-American Treaty and America's obligations stemming therefrom. John Jay sent a letter to President Washington at the time declining to offer an opinion unless there was an actual controversy - the Court was the "Court of last resort," and could not offer advisory opinions, which generally speaking, the Court has done a decent job of respecting.
I think the question on whether a felon should be deprived their right to vote is an interesting one. As a general principle, I don't object to stripping felons of the right to vote. I think that this should serve as a strong deterrent to committing felonies. I also understand that voting is a "Fundamental right" and as such is a right available to all American Citizens. I do think there could be some precedent against denying the vote to convicted felons. There's an old case from the last century involving forced sterilization of people convicted of 3 felonies in Oklahoma. The statute was struck down because of the technicalities in filing charges - stealing chickens could be either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on certain circumstances (this is a VERY abbreviated version of the case). I would think that this case which involved a fundamental right would be pertinent to the instant question...
I guess I'm split. I like the idea of denying the vote to people who show such disdain for our laws that they commit felonies, but on the other hand, I think there's a strong question about the Constitutionality of the ban...
If I had the financial resources to do so, I'd like to volunteer with Lawyers Without Borders as a legal observer in Africa or something like that. I think that would be a terrific opportunity.
More job searching today.