“Democracy Should Never Be Sacrificed”

So says George McGovern…and good for him!

One Vote

Glenn Reynolds, writing in The New York Post, discusses the very narrow decision by the US Supreme Court affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms. The "victory" for gun rights was made with a single vote.

I confess that I was one of the Second Amendment scholars who doubted that there were five votes on the high court to support an individual-right view of the Second Amendment.

I'm happy to be wrong about that, but there were only five such votes - demonstrating how narrow the margin was, and how out of touch the court is with the American public, which believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms by a 3-1 margin.

If, as some have been calling for, we had a "Supreme Court that looks like America," this case wouldn't even have been close. Ordinary Americans have generally believed that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied to, you know, the people.

It takes politicians, law professors (and, it turns out, four Supreme Court justices) to believe that a "right of the people" somehow actually doesn't belong to the people at all.

One lonely vote affirmed the Second Amendment rights, folks. One vote. Still think this election is not about the courts? The next President could appoint at least four justices. Think really hard about that. And think about how close we came to losing our rights.

Think hard before you decide who you will vote for. Or before you decide sit this election out.

One vote. Think.

Protection For Monsters

Despite the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday banning the death penalty for child rapists, state politicians are vowing to fight on. It is unlikely they will succeed.

"Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up."

The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child — and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage.

At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery.

Michelle Malkin has the description of the damage done to the victim during the rape in question. It is not for the weak of stomach. The Supreme Court has effectively given protection to monsters.

Consider what the makeup of the Supreme Court will be like if a leftist appoints the justices. Remember this in November, folks.

It’s The Courts

I have been saying for a very long time that this election is about the courts. Conservatives and anyone that is right-of-center should be paying attention to this. According to Human Events (an outlet I seldom link to) John McCain would appoint Fred Thompson to help vet judicial appointments.

In a McCain administration, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments, sources close to the McCain campaign and to Thompson tell us.

That would be a very smart thing to do. Fred Thompson would be a powerful, credible public voice for John McCain in that arena. Thompson doesn't just play a lawyer on television, after all.

Even though I dislike some of McCain's positions, I dislike them considerably less than I dislike the thought of a left-wing packed Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary. Keep that in mind folks.

On The Wrong Side

John Fund points out that Barack Obama is on the wrong side of voter identification laws - as yesterday's Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's voter ID law shows.

In ruling on the constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID law – the toughest in the nation – the Supreme Court had to deal with the claim that such laws demanded the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because they could disenfranchise voters. All nine Justices rejected that argument.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three dissenters who would have overturned the Indiana law, wrote approvingly of the less severe ID laws of Georgia and Florida. The result is that state voter ID laws are now highly likely to pass constitutional muster.

But this case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, also revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, the city neighborhood where Sen. Barack Obama – the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws – lives now. Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years, with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.

That fraud became nationally famous in 1960, when the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's extraordinary efforts swung Illinois into John F. Kennedy's column. In 1982, inspectors estimated as many as one in 10 ballots cast in Chicago during that year's race for governor to be fraudulent for various reasons, including votes by the dead.

Fund points out Obama's long association with ACORN, a group that has had numerous run-ins with the law over its questionable voter registrations. Obama filed a brief with the Supreme Court for this case - and was on the wrong side of the decision. (ACORN did so as well.)

I Gotta Get Me A New Dictionary

I simply can't keep up with the Associated Press's redefinition of words. Describing the Supreme Court's rejection of a suit trying to get lethal injection declared cruel and unusual, the AP describes the decision as "splintered."

The court decided the case 7-2 against the plaintiffs.

WASHINGTON - The longest pause in executions in the U.S. in 25 years is about to end. A splintered Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday, approving the most widely used method of lethal injection.
 
Almost immediately, Virginia lifted its moratorium on the death penalty. Mississippi and Oklahoma said they would seek execution dates for convicted murderers, and other states were ready to follow.

A nearly seven-month halt in executions was brought on by the court's decision to review Kentucky's lethal injection procedures, which are similar to those in roughly three dozen states. The break is the longest since a 17-month period ending in August 1982.

Voting 7-2, the conservative court led by Chief Justice John Roberts rebuffed the latest assault on capital punishment, this time by foes focusing on methods rather than on the legality of the death penalty itself. Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority on the question of lethal injections but said for the first time that he now believes the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Personally, I would have used another term. I understand why the AP has chosen to spin this as they did; the case was actually quite narrow and only a minority of the large majority backed the Chief Justice's opinion. But it certainly seems odd to call a 7-2 decision splintered. I just can't wait to see the AP describe a 9-0 vote they disagree with. I'm sure they'll call it fractured or something.

An Individual Right

Every press report that I am seeing on the United States Supreme Court hearing on the Washington, DC gun ban echoes what the Los Angeles Times report is saying: There appears to be solid support on the court for upholding that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.

But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.

The LA Times seems to think the impact of such an outcome will be minor. I rather suspect that it might be more far-reaching than they do. States like Illinois which do not grant carry permits could find themselves in court, as might states like New York which have a virtually impossible to get carry permits. I've been a bit worried about this case for a while. Today's news is encouraging.

Trying To Stop Terrorists With Lawsuits

The Regents of the University of California have filed a lawsuit against "animal activists" who have been harassing university researchers at their private residences. The increasingly violent terrorists - and they are terrorists - have been aggressively attacking the researcher's homes and families. There is a chilling note buried in the story as well.

The University of California regents have responded by suing UCLA Primate Freedom, the Animal Liberation Brigade, the Animal Liberation Front and five people allegedly affiliated with them. It is a tactic that the regents successfully employed nine years ago.

The regents hope to win a permanent injunction similar to one granted against Last Chance for Animals in 1989. But some experts note that the regents now are battling more violent, Internet-savvy foes who thrive in online communities, post faculty "targets" on Web sites and upload how-to guides for their attacks.

"The reality is that, unlike in the past, where movements really relied on interpersonal communication and gatherings to ferment this radicalization, all this is happening online now," according to Oren Segal, co-director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism in New York. "The ability for people to learn about the movement and how to carry out attacks on behalf of it are easier than it's ever been because of the Internet."

Indeed, a temporary restraining order — prohibiting harassment and posting of faculty members' personal information on the Internet — was granted Feb. 21 by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. But three days later, six masked protesters reportedly disrupted a child's birthday party at the home of a University of California at Santa Cruz researcher and confronted her husband at the door, hitting him on the hand.

It is unclear whether the protesters are connected to those named in UC's lawsuit.

Harassment by violent animal rights activists has climbed at universities across the country, including Oregon Health and Science University, the University of Utah, and Ohio State University, where researchers have been victims of home visits or, in one case, found their windows slathered in glass-eating acid. Scientists, administrators and lawyers are closely watching the effectiveness of the California regents case.

Experts say the shift toward more personal attacks is a response to increasingly fortified laboratories, which universities began securing in the 1980s and 1990s as attacks heightened.

Now, groups have shunned "Fort Knox" in favor of ill-prepared homes, said Jerry Vlasik, the former vivisector turned spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. Vlasik has repeatedly advocated for using "whatever force against animal research scientists necessary."

"If killing them is the only way to stop them," he said in a telephone interview, "then I said killing them would certainly be justified."  (Emphasis added)

I have said before that it is only a matter of time until someone is killed by the environmental terrorists. I'm afraid that the above statement indicates that there is little time left. The authorities had better get serious about stopping these people and their illegal acts now, before they escalate even further.

Organ Grind

I first caught wind of this story in the British press. Now it has hit ABC News. A California doctor faces charges of hastening the death of a disabled man in order to take the man's organs for transplant. Medical experts are frantic, worried that this will make even more people reluctant to become organ donors.

A court case in which a doctor has been charged with hastening a disabled patient's death, in order to harvest his kidneys and liver, has sparked concern among ethicists and organ transplant experts alike.

According to a report in the New York Times, preliminary hearings began Wednesday for Dr. Hootan C. Roozrokh. The California doctor faces three felony counts, including the charge that he prescribed excessive and improper doses of drugs to 25-year-old Ruben Navarro in 2006. Navarro suffered from a rare metabolic disorder that had left him disabled and brain damaged.

Prosecutors allege that Roozrokh prescribed additional doses of sedative drugs in order to hasten Navarro's death and harvest his organs sooner. However, when Navarro died on Feb. 4 at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, about 150 miles northwest of Los Angeles, his organs had already deteriorated to the point that they could not be used.

Roozrokh has pleaded not guilty to the charges. If he is convicted on all counts, he could face up to eight years in prison. 

Here's a report from the Telegraph that describes the doctor's alleged actions:

Roozrokh arrived at the hospital as part of a transplant team. He stayed in the room while Mr Navarro's respirator was removed and ordered the drugs, according to a nurse who was present.

The nurse also told police that Roozrokh asked another nurse to find and administer more "candy" - drugs - when Navarro did not die immediately. According to protocol, transplant teams are not allowed into a prospective donor's room before they are declared dead.

The case comes amid debate in Britain over allowing a system of presumed consent, where patients would be required to opt out of organ donation. Civil liberty groups have expressed concerns that presumed consent might rob individuals of the right to decide the fate of their body.

The case will make some people more reluctant to be donors, of course. The experts are worried for good reason. There should have been better controls in place - obviously, Roozrokh should never have been in that room, much less issuing orders to nurses.

Missiles In Laramie!

Three 13-year old girls have been cited with "hurling missiles" in a junior high school lunchroom. The weapon of choice?

French fries.

LARAMIE, Wyo. (AP) — Three 13-year-old girls accused of throwing french fries during lunchtime at their school were cited for "hurling missiles," an adult infraction covered by city ordinances.

The principal of Laramie Junior High and a police officer had warned students during an assembly the day before the french fries' launch that if they threw food, they had to suffer the consequences, Police Chief Bob Deutsch said. The warning came after school officials had heard rumors of an impending food fight.

"They saw it as really the planning of a riot, when you think about it," Deutsch said.

The girls decided to test the warning, he said.

"It wasn't a spontaneous thing — a couple of kids giggling, throwing a french fry at each other," Deutsch said. "They intended on getting everybody involved in this and starting something that no doubt would have the potential of getting out of control."

Of course, there is much uproar about the citations and very little about the deployment of ketchup-seeking missiles. Even the ACLU is getting into it - but that may have more to do with the fact that they are already on the warpath against the Laramie school system over police in schools.

We don't recommend french fries for food fighting, by the way. Insufficient splash. 

Gordon Brown Slaps Sharia Law In Britain

Contrary to the views of Rowan Williams, Gordon Brown has slapped rather hard at the idea of Sharia law being installed in Britain. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

His comments in a BBC interview and a lecture to lawyers were condemned at a time when government ministers are striving to encourage integration and stop the nation from "sleepwalking to segregation".

The Prime Minister rapidly distanced himself from Dr Williams's view. Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Dr Williams's words opened a chasm over Islam between senior leaders of the Church of England, who are already trying to deal with an Anglican war over gay rights which broke out after he was appointed archbishop.

Williams, who I have referred to as the Archbishop of Culture Buried,  will be remembered as the most misguided person ever to have held the office. He appears to be determined to shatter the entire religious community he is supposedly leading. He appears to be succeeding. 

I'm not familiar with Anglican rules, but is the Queen, as head of the Church of England able to remove an Archbishop? Because this guy is a piece of work. But he is one cruddy Archbishop. 

Nightfall In Britain

Here's a news item coming out of Britain that should shock and appall everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The Archbishop of Canterbury is calling the imposition of Sharia law on Britain "unavoidable ." His "reasoning", such as it is should outrage you.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody… I think that's a bit of a danger".

The concept that one law applies to everyone is dangerous? A concept that people have campaigned for for centuries needs to be thrown away and a religious law imposed?  That quaint little ideal of equal treatment is now outmoded?

Only to the likes of the Archbishop of Culture Buried. Williams has been a source of major stupidity before, but this takes some sort of prize.  Not a good prize, either.

UPDATE: Others: Samizdata.net, Biased BBC, Wake up America, Bookworm Room, Hot Air, JammieWearingFool, Tim Blair, Neptunus Lex, Cold Fury, Poligazette, Black Shards, Opinionator,

Many thanks to all who linked this post. 

A Clash Of Green

Beggars belief, it does. California prosecutors are pursuing charges against a couple on behalf of their aggrieved neighbor. The neighbor alleges that his solar panels are being shaded by the couple's sequoia trees. No, I really am not making this up.

Talk about a clash of cherished green values.

In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office is pursuing a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels.

Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett own a Prius and consider themselves environmentalists. But they refuse to cut down any of the trees behind their house on Benton Street, saying they've done nothing wrong.

"We're just living here in peace. We want to be left alone," said Bissett, who with her husband has spent $25,000 defending themselves against criminal charges. "We support solar power, but we thought common sense would prevail."

Their neighbor Mark Vargas considers himself an environmentalist, too. His 10-kilowatt solar system, which he installed in 2001, is so big he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills. He drives an electric car.

Vargas said he first asked Treanor and Bissett to chop down the eight redwoods, which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards. Later, he asked them to trim the trees to about 15 feet.

"I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let's try to work something out," Vargas said. "They said no to everything."

He installed the panels.

After several years of squabbling and failed mediation, Vargas filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County district attorney arguing that the trees reduce the amount of electricity he can generate. In 2005, prosecutors agreed.

They sent Treanor and Bissett a letter informing them that they were in violation of California's Solar Shade Control Act and that if they didn't "abate the violation" within 30 days, they would face fines of up to $1,000 a day.

The law in question was signed into effect by Jerry Brown in 1978. Elsewhere in the state it is widely ignored. This is a nasty little situation. It appears that the solar panels were installed after the trees were planted. This essentially puts the people who have trees at a distinct disadvantage. I could see this being used - intentionally - as a weapon against people, and that makes it a real problem.

Yet Another Thing To Worry About

How about your laptop testifying against you in court? That, says the New York Times, appears to be the way the legal precedents are heading.

A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories,” the officer found child pornography.

The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit.

There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold.

“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”

Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and — the clincher, of course — information about reporters’ “confidential sources and story leads.”

But Judge Pregerson’s decision seems to be headed for reversal.

The case in question is, of course, about as distasteful as it can be. Child porn is utterly depraved. But the precedents here could be problematic for many people.

An interesting supporting brief filed in the Arnold case by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said there have to be some limits on the government’s ability to acquire information.

“Under the government’s reasoning,” the brief said, “border authorities could systematically collect all of the information contained on every laptop computer, BlackBerry and other electronic device carried across our national borders by every traveler, American or foreign.” That is, the brief said, “simply electronic surveillance after the fact.”

Another case - unfortunately also involving child porn - does give a hint how constitutional protections can help out. Encrypting one's files - and refusing to give the decryption key to an official - may invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination:

“The core value of the Fifth Amendment is that you can’t be made to speak in ways that indicate your guilt,” Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, wrote about the Boucher case on his Discourse.net blog.

But Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at the George Washington University, said Judge Niedermeier had probably gotten it wrong. “In a normal case,” Professor Kerr said in an interview, “there would be a privilege.” But given what Mr. Boucher had already done at the border, he said, making him provide the password again would probably not violate the Fifth Amendment.

There are a number of encryption programs out there, both freeware and paid software. One freeware program that CNET rates as a five-star is TrueCrypt. I have not tried it, can't vouch for its ease of use and anyone who does try it should read all the cautions carefully. I have no idea where these legal precedents are heading. It might be a good time for people to start paying attention, though. One thing that troubles me about this is that a warrant would be required to search your computer in your home, but customs is arguing that it is fair game if you carry it with you. I am not comfortable with that at all. And out of a sheer sense of contrariness, I plan on encrypting even my grocery lists.

Bad Sign

Lightning smokes on the hillrise
Brought the man with the warning light
Shouting loud you had better fly
While the darkness can help you hide
Troubles comin without control
No ones stayin thats got a hope
Hurricane at the very least
In the words of the gypsy queen

Sign of the gypsy queen
Pack your things and leave
Word of a woman who knows
Take all your gold and you go
(Lorence Hud, Sign of the Gypsy Queen)

A feud between two gypsy families in Southern California has offered a very rare look at a normally very secretive culture. Instead of settling their dispute the old-fashioned way, it has spilled out into the California courts.

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. - A dispute between two Gypsy clans over control of the fortune telling trade in this Southern California city has spilled into court, offering a rare glimpse of an insular culture that has long settled scores according to its own Old World rules of honor.

The turf war in well-to-do Orange County has unfolded like a gangster movie, with allegations of death threats, a graveside scuffle, and nicknames like “White Bob” and “Black Bob” — details revealed in a police report and requests for restraining orders.

“The older Gypsies are pulling out their hair, not wanting the courts in our business because they’ll find out too much about us,” said Tom Merino, who is distantly related to one of the clans but has spurned his heritage. “Ignorance is the Gypsies’ weapon against the outside world.”

The Stevens and Merino clans, like other Gypsy families, have run numerous fortune telling businesses in Southern California for decades.

Apparently the Merino clan opened a fortune telling parlor in what the Stevens clan considered their turf and the dispute just escalated. Interesting look at how the old culture is giving way under modern pressures. One question: since they are fortune tellers, couldn't they already see how it would turn out and avoid the lawyer's fees?