Before Big Show decided to use the SCOTUS decision in Louisiana v. Kennedy as cover for the Federalist Society talking points, I found myself considering the “punishment” that the Court found appropriate on for an individual defendant and a corporate one.
If you’re going to allow capital punishment at all, the rape of a child seems more than a reasonable basis for it. As long as a state can demonstrate that the process was fair – that the defendant was represented by adequate counsel, no gross errors in evidentiary process, the judge was not of the “hanging” variety – then if they want to execute someone for this crime, so be it. I simply do not understand why the Court found this violated the 8th Amendment. Continue reading ‘Crime and Punishement?’
So I’ve just finished reading Scalia’s opinion in D.C. v. Heller (my apologies to my current employer), and I think my punt analysis was close to the mark. Yes, the D.C. gun ban went the way of the buffalo, based on a sophisticated analysis of the role of guns in society.
The decision states that the weight of historical research supports the position that the right of law abiding citizens to secure their other rights through force of arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. The D.C. gun ban failed because it included “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” (Being churlish for a moment, I wonder what will happen if the citizens of the District decide to use their new found gun right to secure their right to vote?)
Other than that finding however, (which I grant is significant) not a whole heck of a lot seems to change in terms of the regulation of firearms under the police powers granted to the state. The decision expressly notes that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It goes on to note that
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
and
we think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.
So Big Show’s dream of rocking himself to sleep while cuddling an AK-47 are probably not right around the corner. Keep hope alive buddy!
It seems to me that this has just opened up the court system to another 30 years of regulations and lawsuits, trying to flesh out the boundries of what constitutes appropriate regulation outside of a complete ban. Finger printing? Registration? Licensing requirements? If none of these prevent a law abiding citizen from using a firearm in a lawfully contemplated manner (e.g. home defense), is that a problem?
As I mentioned before, I’m sure this will be hotly debated, so have at it.
I know that Dr. Bombay is working on a piece about the Court’s ruling in the child rape death penalty case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, which you can read here, but I wanted to get out ahead of him before his communist propaganda saps and impurifies all of our precious bodily fluids. (Ed Note: bodily fluids reference.)
The Supreme Court in this case basically stated that five Justices of the Supreme Court are better at determining the will of the people of the United States than Congress and the state legislatures are. This is the kind of judicial activism that makes people disgusted with the judicial branch.
I have a real problem with the the legal arguments behind this opinion. Kennedy’s reasoning seems tautological - no one has been executed for these crimes in 40 years, and only six states have enacted child rape capital punishment laws. He uses these facts as a means of justifying the argument that society has decided child rape should not be punished by the death penalty. This is a ridiculous conclusion, given that it was the Court’s jurisprudence that was the reason behind the amount of time since the last execution, and the Court’s dicta in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) that suggested that the death penalty for any crime not involving the death of the victim would probably not pass constitution muster, made states hesitant to go through the long process of creating a child rape death penalty law - why go through the process if the Court will likely strike the laws down anyway?
Determining whether society’s morals have evolved on capital punishment is not a role for the Court. It certainly shouldn’t be a part of any Constitutional anaylsis framework. It’s a question for Congress and the state legislatures. The Supreme Court here substituted their own morality for the views of the American people. They have now made it effectively impossible to impose the death penalty for any cases that don’t involve the death of the victim. That is a decision that should have been made by the elected representatives of the people themselves, not the Court.
So tomorrow, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its findings in D.C. v. Heller, the first substantive review of Second Amendment rights in over 70 years. Legal nerds that we are, we’re more than a little curious as to what the Court is going to conclude. While the decision will no doubt be endlessly debated here over the next couples of days, I’m going to make a prediction right now.
They punt.
I figure the D.C. gun ban is toast. I’m also guessing that since the Supremes realize that the total elimination of any sort of gun regulation would be highly problematic, they are going to figure some weasel out of it. The decision will include some sort of grand pronouncement about the Second Amendment representing and individual right, and some sort of nebulous statement as to how that doesn’t preclude the state from regulating everything. This (of course) will continue to be endlessly litigated. One important caveat. Scalia is expected to write the opinion, so who knows? He may mandate that every citizen car a broadsword.
Please note that if they do toss any regulation, we’ll be raffling off the Official Fight the Hypo Stinger Missile starting Friday.
So, the New York Time reports that in order to prove what the “community standards” are regarding obscenity in Pensacola, FL, a lawyer representing a porn website operator offered as evidence the fact that Google Trends shows that residents in the area search the web for “orgy” more than they do for “apple pie.” And “what could be more American than apple pie,” he asks.
Continue reading ‘Google Knows It When People Search For It’
I read this Article in Salon the other day, which related the story of Jean Brochu. Mr. Brochu, an attorney in Quebec, is a recovering gambling addict, and the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Loto-Quebec, the province’s gaming authority. His contention is that they bear culpability for his addiction because they employed increasingly addictive video lottery terminals that ultimately led him down the rabbit hole, which included stealing money from his union. This comes on the heels of a lawsuit brought against several Atlantic City and one Las Vegas casino by Arelia Margarita Taveras, (another attorney) after she lost a million bucks, including cash she skimmed from client escrow accounts. Whoops.
Continue reading ‘Whole Lotto Trouble.’
I’m a full-time PR guy and moonlight as a law student. So, I was intrigued to read the latest in a series of posts at Above the Law looking at alternative careers for attorneys: public relations. David Lat quotes an e-mailer who writes about PR:
While I have nothing quite as clever as Manager of Legal Sea Foods, I can propose a career that has unlimited earning potential, bonuses and still allows a JD the opportunity to be involved in interesting and high-profile issues: public relations. Several of the top agencies today, including those specializing in issues management or crisis communications, have positions available for lawyers (or recovering lawyers).
At my last agency, I worked with a total of seven, most of whom attended Top 15 law schools. Most of our clients were involved in product recalls, discrimination lawsuits, predatory lending practices, patent disputes, etc. The work was highly confidential and occasionally involved a good courtroom battle, aside with the typical battle with the NYT. Since we dealt with the general counsel’s office most of the time, it was a tremendous asset to have someone who understood their “language.”
I can’t disagree with the writer (except for the “unlimited earning potential” part). But it’s important to remember something up front. If you go into PR you need to appreciate the role that media and communications plays in the process. You will not be developing and defending your theory of the case or writing briefs or in the courtroom or negotiating for clients. You will not be doing the substantive legal work you trained for during law school.
However, communications can impact - and, at times, change - the outcome of the substantive legal process - or whateve process we’re talking about. Well-timed, well-executed communications can make up for a host of shortcomings in your client’s work and, more importantly, can help bring attention to the strengths of your client’s position, products, or issues. You become an expert at boiling your client’s problem/issue/message into a form that will play in the media and with those audiences. But you don’t develop the substance of those messages or issues - you just communicate them in the most effective way.
It’s fun. There’s no doubt about that. Just know what you’re getting into before you make the jump.
