The ACLU has long refused to acknowledge an individual right to bear arms, insisting on a narrow, collective-militia-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. That's unprincipled. It's not unprincipled because the collective rights interpretation is self-evidently stupid or dishonest; that interpretation is a perfectly arguable, though wrong. The ACLU's position is unprincipled because it bills itself as a defender of individual rights and has consistently taken the most pro-individual-right position possible in interpreting the rest of the Bill of Rights. Their flat declaration that "in our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue" is entirely inconsistent and unconvincing.

It's fairly clear that this is an example of political expedience and bias (as pro-gun advocacy is traditionally aligned with political forces that take more narrow views of other rights) and cultural squeamishness or snobbery. That's disappointing. But nobody's perfect, I suppose.

Anyway, the ACLU is now somewhat snippy about the United States Supreme Court recognizing a personal right in Heller that they had refused to recognize or defend. Perhaps the ACLU can't remember a time when SCOTUS has recognized an individual right that they have not. Maybe they should ask themselves why that is. Maybe if a few of their local branches jump ship they will finally be moved to do so.

So, let's say Demented Diane sends Prat Perez an obscene, abusive email. Would Prat Perez be violating Demented Diane's rights if he published the email, complete with her email address and other personal information obtained from her email?

If you know the answer, you might want to tell annoying celeb trash-blogger Perez Hilton. Or maybe his lawyers.

Continue Reading »

Many people — at least, many people who have not had prolonged contact with the legal system — believe that judges must adhere to the rule of law, because there are checks and balances and courts of appeal and stuff, so judges just can't go off on lawless rampages.

Isn't it pretty to think so.

Continue Reading »

I'm pretty sure that I agree with Judge Easterbrook that a neutral condo association rule that bars residents from posting things outside their door in the hallway does not violate the Fair Housing Act, even if devout Jews would like to post a mezuzah over their doorway.

However, I think I also have to agree with Judge Wood that if you are the lawyer defending the condo association, and you describe the Jewish plaintiffs as wanting to extract "a pound of flesh," you are the world's biggest dipshit.

(Note that I am paraphrasing Judge Wood.)

Marc Randazza has a quote of the week:

I don’t think it’s the job of the law to limit the options of law-abiding citizens and businesses because of the potential harm to the Darwin-Award-winning segment of our society.

-Attorney Kevin Grierson

There are plenty of prudential and political reasons to be concerned that federal criminal law is broad enough to criminalize nearly any transaction that seems wrong to a creative prosecutor. That leads to abuse and undue federal power. Nevertheless, there are definitely times that I miss the flexible, broadly drafted federal fraud laws. Case in point: trying to draft a civil complaint against someone who ripped off your client by making misrepresentations to a third party — for instance, by forging their name on a document in order to sell their property out from under them.

Continue Reading »

While the Supreme Court has just held that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms, I'm rather surprised that public ignorance of the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, is so high. After all, the courts interpret and apply the Fourth Amendment every day.

Continue Reading »

Remember John Freshwater, the Mt. Vernon, Ohio public teacher who taught Intelligent Design, told kids they were going to Hell, and oh yeah, branded a cross onto at least one kid?

Over at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub Ed Darrell's got some interesting updates, including picutres and technical specifications for the device Freshwater used to brand the kid. Liberals will object, but you know what they say: spare the High Frequency Generator Detector, spoil the child.

Back in November I wrote about how Dan Levin, a former colleague of mine from the U.S. Attorney's Office, submitted to waterboarding as part of a process of writing a memorandum on torture while at DoJ. At the time ABC reported that he had been forced out after writing a memo harshly criticizing torture and classifying waterboarding as torture.

ABC News has a new report discussing Levin's recent Congressional testimony and additional information from DoJ sources confirming that Dan was forced out. Moreover, the sources suggest that former AG Alberto Gonzales dangled a potential future U.S. Attorney spot in front of Levin to smooth over the transition to a far less prestigious position at the NSC. That explains why DoJ would have been putting Dan on a short list for USAO spots even after he had been forced out.

But Dan's no dummy.

Levin took the NSC job in March 2005. The U.S. attorney position never materialized, and sources close to Levin say he never believed Gonzales was serious. He went on to take a job in private practice.

I've blogged several times previously about Kathleen Seidel, author of the Neurodiversity weblog, who was hit with a harassing subpoena by asshat anti-vaccine lawyer Clifford Shoemaker in evident retaliation for criticizing Shoemaker and his client Lisa Sykes. Seidel triumphed, succeeding in getting Shoemaker's subpoena quashed (a real feat for a non-attorney filing a pro se motion), and Shoemaker is now awaiting (anxiously, I hope) the judge's ruling on whether he should be sanctioned. So Kathleen Seidel — who explains a wide array of scientific issues in terms that even a big dummy like me can understand — is all that.

Continue Reading »

Since we've devoted a lot of attention to Judge Kozinski's recent rough education in computer security, it's only fair that we offer more details about the ugly background of the lawyer who tipped off the press, Cyrus Sanai. Overlawyered has the quotes from some orders decrying Sanai's vexatious litigation. He's no hero in this story.

Edited to add:

Also, John Katz of Underdog has links to filings (including the recusal order) from the obscenity case over which Judge Kozinksi was to preside.

As a result of the California Supreme Court's decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriages, same-sex marriages will be legal — and will begin — next week.

Across California, as is the case elsewhere in the country, you can usually get hitched at the County Clerk's office. Don't count on that being the case everywhere any more. In rural, conservative Kern County, California, County Clerk Ann K. Barnett has canceled all solemnization of marriages by the County Clerk's office rather than marry gays and lesbians. She tries to offer a neutral excuse:

The County Clerk’s office will not solemnize weddings after June 13, 2008. We will not have the staff or space to deal with an increase in both licenses and ceremonies. Because of long-term administrative plans, budgetary reasons, and the need to increase security for elections, the Clerk’s office will cease solemnizing weddings, which is discretionary on the part of the County Clerk. As done in other counties, information necessary to solemnize marriages will be made available to those acquiring licenses.

Sorry, Ann K. Barnett, but that's bullshit. The notion that same-sex marriages are going to overwhelm the County Clerk in rural, conservative Kern County is ludicrous. This is simply about your moral opposition to the enforcement of the rule of law — as is suggested by your appeal to conservative legal organizations for help.

On Monday, The Bakersfield Californian published e-mail messages between her office and a conservative legal group, the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona, which had unsuccessfully argued against same-sex marriage in front of the State Supreme Court.

In one message, a member of Ms. Barnett’s staff requests legal assistance, saying Ms. Barnett “fully expects to be sued” for stopping the weddings.

Here is the Bakersfield Californian story that has the emails and the details. The story cites financial records suggesting that courthouse weddings are a source of revenue for the clerk's office, not a drain on resources.

So Ann K. Barnett personally opposes gay marriage. She has the right to feel that way and to advocate her viewpoint. But I can't respect her cowardice and dishonesty. The I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home approach of stopping all clerk-solemnized weddings is a petty trick. But engaging in that petty trick and then offering a dishonest pretext for it is even more offensive. If she wants to stand up for her beliefs, why doesn't she just straight up refuse to abide by the law and admit why she is doing it? Then she could face the consequences of her actions according to the rule of law. It appears that she lacks the character.

Patrick capably documented and commented upon the strange case of Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski, who shortly after he started a district court obscenity trial was discovered to have publicly accessible pornographic material on his personal server, and who later made some comments to the press minimizing those images. A few developments and comments:

Continue Reading »

Force people to watch 8 hours of urination, vomiting, and violent sex at Guantanamo Bay, and you're a war criminal.  Force them to watch it in the Tampa Federal Courthouse, and you're a hero.

Continue Reading »

My co-blogger Patrick, who occasionally writes rude things about our friend Vladimir Putin, may be in trouble:

As the International Herald Tribune article linked above points out, virtually of Putin's prominent political opponents are banned from making statements on TV by the "stop list" – including former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, leader of the main liberal democratic opposition party. Since he became President in 2000, Putin's regime has taken control of every major TV station in Russia, all of which are now either owned by the government or have been forcibly transferred to private owners who are Putin allies. So the regime can impose its "stop list" across the board.

The underlying article is chilling:

Political humor in general has been exiled from television here. One of the nation's most popular satirists, Viktor Shenderovich, once had a show that featured puppet caricatures of various politicians, including Putin. It was canceled in Putin's first term and Shenderovich has been all but barred from television.

Senior government officials deny the existence of a stop list, saying that people hostile to the Kremlin do not appear on television simply because their views are not newsworthy.