Tag: law

Justice belatedly prevails

It doesn’t matter what you think of Adrian Peterson. It doesn’t matter if you think he should be hung, drawn, and quartered for the crime of overdisciplining his son, for which he has already been dealt the legal consequences. All that matters is the basic legal principle that the worse commissioner in NFL history, Roger Goodell, violated, the principle of retroactivity:

The 16-page ruling from Judge David Doty that reinstates Vikings running back Adrian Peterson turns on one fairly simple conclusion:  The NFL cannot apply its new personal conduct policy retroactively.

“There is no dispute that the Commissioner imposed Peterson’s discipline under the New Policy,” Judge Doty wrote. “It is also undisputed that in the [Ray] Rice arbitration, the hearing officer unequivocally recognized that the New Policy cannot be applied retroactively, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s broad discretion in meting out punishment under the CBA. . . . Consistent with that recognition, the Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy: ‘The policy change was forward looking because the League is “required to provide proper notice.”‘ . . . Yet, just two weeks later, the Commissioner retroactively applied the New Policy to Peterson.”

In other words, Judge Doty concluded that the NFL was making it up as went along.

This is further evidence that the Sports Guy was right and Goodell is a dishonest man who is overmatched by his responsibilities, overly concerned with PR details that he should leave well alone, and fundamentally out of control. As for those who feign concern for women and children, and claim that the likes of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson should be prevented from making a living, how can anyone possibly pretend that removing the ability of those who support them to do so going to help the victims of these petty domestic crimes.

And they are petty. It may, depending upon the circumstances, be wrong to punch a woman once. It is certainly too harsh to spank a child until he bleeds. But in a nation where not one single banker has been jailed despite the theft of literal trillions of dollars for a wide variety of shamelessly dishonest acts, it is ludicrous to pretend that these are the serious crimes that demand more significant punishments.

No God, no rights

Every now and then, the mask accidentally slips from the ghoulish face of the Left:

During a heated discussion over gay marriage, CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo opined that the unalienable rights endowed to all Americans do not come from God. Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men, Cuomo blurted out:

“Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man… That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

This is why the Left is so willing to abrogate and alienate what the Declaration of Independence declared to be self-evident and unalienable rights, among them being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. They simply don’t accept that God-given rights are not laws, or that laws that do not respect those rights are illegitimate.

Worst of all, the Left fails to grasp the obvious consequences of their ill-considered actions. If the law can legitimately permit a homosexual man to force a Christian man to bake him a cake, then it can legitimately permit a white man to force a black man to pick his cotton. If the law can legitimately deem a man to be a woman, or two men to be married, it can just as legitimately deem a Jew to be subhuman or an African to be a monkey.

But the Right can certainly play the game by the new rules that have been established. Indeed, across Europe, it is beginning to do so. In America, it is beginning to recognize the need to do so. And the Right will have no mercy on the Left once it begins playing by the Left’s rules; they will cry out in appeal to the very rights they denied and alienated in vain.

Hoist by their own petard

I usually don’t like to see bookstores going out of business, but in this case, even the most inveterate book-lover has to make an exception and see the black humor in the situation:

San Francisco specialty bookshop Borderlands Books is going out of business. The store will close its doors no later than March 31, 2015, but may close earlier, depending on how quickly the inventory can be sold. Owner Alan Beatts explains:

The recent change in San Francisco minimum wage law will prevent the store from being financially viable no later than July of 2018 (at which point our payroll will have increased by roughly 39%). It is quite possible that the store would lack viability before that date, as wages will increase incrementally between now and then. Rather than wait, we have chosen to close now to allow us to get the most value from the businesses. Though all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in principle, the minimum wage law passed in San Francisco makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to run a viable business when retail pricing is set by publishers and our main competitors are companies such as Amazon.com.

Leftists never seem to think through even the most obvious consequences of the policies they support. What percentage of the people who will be upset over the closing of their local bookstore do you suppose support both a) central banking and b) the increase in the minimum wage law in San Francisco?

The effects of ebooks, the concomitant growth of independent publishing, and the declining power of the gatekeepers to dictate what books readers are permitted to buy is going to continue to take down bookstores and publishers alike. Some of these losses will be a pity. Others are to be celebrated. But whether we like the changes or not, they are coming.

When speech is not speech

Vox Day ‏@voxday
#SJW logic: “They seem to believe that freedom of speech includes the freedom to say anything.”  … Yes, it does.

Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
No, it absolutely doesn’t. International human rights law MANDATES legal sanctions on hate speech.

Space Bunny ‏@Spacebunnyday
Hate speech being whatever #SJW’s find objectionable. Brilliant.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Of course it does. International human rights law is anti-free speech. No hate speech = no free speech.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Hate speech is free speech. There is no free speech without hate speech.

Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
Hate speech is not free speech.

Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
Hate speech is speech that violates fundamental human rights.

Space Bunny ‏@Spacebunnyday
There is no fundamental human right not to be offended or shocked, dear. Hate speech doesn’t violate any rights.

I wonder if the Left truly understands that they have now opened a door to banning Black speech, or Jew speech, or Female speech, or any other form of speech that the majority wishes to silence. The Muslims have already learned how to utilize the concept to their advantage; they won’t be the only ones. It’s time to bring back the blasphemy laws.

Why the US embraced torture

After reading the various defenses of the CIA’s torture program by various commenters yesterday, I can only conclude that Noah Millman has correctly diagnosed not only why the U.S. government embraced the use of torture, but also its endorsement by many of the very proponents of limited government who should have known better than to do so:

Willingness to torture became, first within elite government and opinion-making circles, then in the culture generally, and finally as a partisan GOP talking point, a litmus test of seriousness with respect to the fight against terrorism. That – proving one’s seriousness in the fight – was its primary purpose from the beginning, in my view. It was only secondarily about extracting intelligence. It certainly wasn’t about instilling fear or extracting false confessions – these would not have served American purposes. It was never about “them” at all. It was about us. It was our psychological security blanket, our best evidence that we were “all-in” in this war, the thing that proved to us that we were fierce enough to win.

I am astonished by the fact that those who are capable of grasping that government control of guns in the name of crime will inevitably be used against the people do not recognize that the government use of torture in the name of fighting terrorism will also be used against the people. And Millman’s observation that support for torture is more a public statement about one’s self-perceived toughness than anything else is particularly astute, and is supported by the language observed to be used by many of those who endorse torture.

At this point, I suspect the average American who does not travel to the Middle East runs a greater lifetime risk of tortured by his fellow Americans, or killed by them in a targeted drone strike, than he is to be killed by a jihadist.

It’s remarkable that anyone is still willing to defend the use of government torture, especially at a time when opposition to government gun control is at a two-decade high, having recovered 7 percentage points from the post-Sandy Hook dip. The libertarian rule is pretty simple. Don’t permit the government anything you don’t permit the citizenry. And don’t permit the government to do anything you don’t want it doing to any of its citizens.

There may be times when torture is deemed absolutely necessary by an individual. And in such cases, if it is so vital, then the torturer should be proud to accept the punishment for his civil disobedience without protest or complaint, and do so with a clear conscience. Many of us would torture a kidnapper who was concealing the location of a kidnapped child who was at risk of starving without a single moment’s hesitation. And I suspect most of us would do so without the slightest concern for whatever the legislated punishment subsequently awaiting us would be.

The deadly danger of the law

Stephen Carter points out how America’s legalistic culture is intrinsically dangerous:

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law.

The obvious racial dynamics of the case — the police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, is white; Garner was black — have sparked understandable outrage. But, at least among libertarians, so has the law that was being enforced. Wrote Nick Gillespie in the Daily Beast, “Clearly something has gone horribly wrong when a man lies dead after being confronted for selling cigarettes to willing buyers.” Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, appearing on MSNBC, also blamed the statute: “Some politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes, so they’ve driven cigarettes underground by making them so expensive.”

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law.

This is an aspect of “there oughtta be a law” that is seldom considered. The police can, and will, kill anyone in pursuit of their law enforcement orders. And, as is now eminently clear, it doesn’t matter what that law is. It can be anything from jaywalking to selling Beanie Babies without the proper license.

The law, and law enforcement, are a very blunt hammer, and it’s simply not possible for either to be utilized in the delicately fine-tuned, precision manner that most people envision when they suggest using them for the purposes of petty behavioral modification.

Presidential prosecutorial discretion

Obama leads the way in developing a useful tool. Republicans, take note:

President Obama completely fumbles when George Stephanopolous asks him how he’d respond if a future president takes the same action on taxes that Obama has taken on immigration. Incredibly, Obama responds as if he’d never heard or thought of this argument before, stumbling blindly along immigration talking points without answering the actual question.

Stephanopolous asked: “How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in and wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it; so he says ‘I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.’”

“The truth of the matter is George,” said the President, haltingly, “The reason that we, have to do.. uhm prosecutorial discretion in immigration, is that we know, that we – are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time…” Obama then pivoted to immigration talking points, without addressing the original question.

“The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes, and when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating,” said Obama. “We’re not going after millions and millions of people who everybody knows are here and were taking advantage of low wages as they’re mowing lawns or cleaning out bedpans, and looking the other way.”

“So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument?” Stephanopoulos said.

Obama: “With respect to taxes? Absolutely not.”

Now that the President of the United States of America has declared prosecutorial discretion in immigration to be an executive power, it is obvious that any future president will possess similar prosecutorial discretion in taxation. This is a weapon that any small government party should be able to wield with a considerable degree of effectiveness.

If it is genuinely a small government party…. The Republicans certainly can’t pretend they don’t have the power to starve the beast anymore, not once they reclaim the White House.

It’s always fascinating to see how SJWs have absolutely no ability to grasp logical consequences. Which tends to demonstrate the fundamental illogic of their thinking. It reminds me of the gay “marriage” proponents who genuinely couldn’t figure out how redefining the legal nature of marriage once would likely lead to future legal redefinitions of marriage.

The moral imperative of international law

I wonder if the Supreme Court will cite this new Gambian law when it finally gets around to considering the legality of the gay parody of marriage:

The president of Gambia has signed a bill into law that calls for life imprisonment for some homosexual acts, the latest African country to codify harsh penalties for the gay community…. Lawmakers approved the legislation in August, prompting an outcry from organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The law contains language identical to an anti-gay bill signed into law in Uganda earlier this year but later overturned by a court on procedural grounds.

It criminalizes “aggravated homosexuality,” which targets “serial offenders” and people living with HIV or AIDS. Suspects can also be charged with aggravated homosexuality for engaging in homosexual acts with someone who is under 18, disabled or who has been drugged. The term also applies when the suspect is the parent or guardian of the other person or is “in authority over” him or her.

People found guilty of aggravated homosexuality can be sentenced to life in prison.

All these new laws sweeping the international scene are obviously a sign of inevitable progress. It is pointless to resist it, after all, are we not reliably informed that Africans are magic and our moral superiors? It would be racist to refrain from the fierce moral imperative of following their example.

Mailvox: Vee have vays

Uff making you borrow, hein? JD asks about the prospective new Attorney General:

Wikipedia reports that the Black woman being considered to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General spent seven years on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank for New York. Fed alum as Attorney General.  Is that ominous?

It depends. If she’s a black woman of the sort you see at the DMV, everything should be fine. I would absolutely approve of such an appointment; that sort of AG isn’t about order children burned to death or automatic weaponry sold to Mexican cartels. All she’ll demand is to be left alone in the near vicinity of a well-stocked vending machine. If, on the other hand, she’s a true-believing freshwater Chicago School monetarist, Americans may soon find themselves being prosecuted for the federal crime of Willful Failure to Borrow.

That would be one way to boost L1, anyhow.

Perhaps he should read the book

It being November 5th, I’m assuming time is up and the ball is back in The Dunham Horror’s court. So to speak. The complete document can be found at The Hollywood Reporter:

November 1, 2014

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED

Dear Mr. Horowitz, General Counsel, Editor-in-Chief, and Mr. Thomas:

This law firm is litigation counsel for Lena Dunham in connection with her substantial claims against each of you (collectively, “you” and “your”) regarding your story dated October 29, 2014, bearing the headline “Lena Dunham Describes Sexually Abusing Her Little Sister”, which alleges that my client states in her book Not That Kind of Girl that she supposedly:

1. “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister Grace”;;
2. “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina”;; and
3. “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet”.
(collectively herein, the “Story”)….

In light of the malicious and hurtful nature of this Story, our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her, should you fail to immediately comply with the foregoing demands.

Please confirm within twenty-four (24) hours that you will comply with the foregoing demands.

If The Dunham Horror is determined to sue someone who has shown “the obvious tendency to subject [her] to ridicule”, she should probably sue her lawyer. I mean, did Charles J. Harder, Esquire, even bother reading the book before drafting this letter?