Tag: law

US women have more legal rights than men

Judgy Bitch punctures an equality myth by simply referring to the law:

I’ve had an opportunity lately to speak to a lot of feminists about why so many young women are rejecting feminism, and one theme that has come up repeatedly is that feminism is interested in equal rights for everyone. I have yet to meet a single feminist who was not completely astonished to discover that not only do women have equal rights to men, they actually have more rights than men. Most feminists will backpedal when confronted with that reality and try to justify why they are deserving of more rights than men, but the stark fact remains that in 2014, women do indeed have more rights than men. Here are five legally enshrined rights that women have and men do not:

1. Women have the right to genital integrity

Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of circumcision (I personally find it barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not.  Many feminists will argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and while that may be true, I do not find the “it’s only a little bit brutal” argument to be very compelling. It’s like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse. Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not

She’s taking the same approach I did to proving that religion doesn’t cause war. The rhetorically minded think that by ceaselessly yapping and conjuring up spurious logics, they can prove the unprovable. They can’t. A little dialectic bomb always suffices to blow away the obscuring fortress of words that they’ve woven, and with which they’ve confused the less insightful. 

The fact, the undeniable fact, is that if women wish to claim they support equality, they need to remove these legal rights granted to women and not granted to men. And there are considerably more. Just to give one more example, women are have the right of due process when accused of rape. Men on college campuses do not, a right that some young men are fighting for even now.

Judgy Bitch has demonstrated the facts. To be pro-equality, you must be anti-feminist, because feminism is observably anti-legal equality.

It’s not a fallacy when it’s real

A former advocate of assisted suicide warns of the consequences:

Legalising assisted suicide is a slippery slope toward widespread killing of the sick, MPs and peers were told yesterday. A former euthanasia supporter warned of a surge in deaths if Parliament allowed doctors to give deadly drugs to their patients. ‘Don’t do it Britain,’ said Theo Boer, a veteran European watchdog in assisted suicide cases. ‘Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely ever to go back in again.’

His native Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, has seen deaths double in just six years and this year’s total may reach a record 6,000…. Professor Boer, who is an academic in the field of ethics, had argued seven years ago that a ‘good euthanasia law’ would produce relatively low numbers of deaths. But, speaking in a personal capacity yesterday, he said he now believed that the very existence of a euthanasia law turns assisted suicide from a last resort into a normal procedure. A ‘slippery slope’ for assisted dying in Britain would mean that euthanasia would follow the same path as abortion, which was legalised in 1967. There are now nearly 200,000 terminations a year.

Note that in Holland, “assisted suicide” rapidly transformed into “doctors killing infants”. Assisted suicide is for cowards anyhow; it is only sought by those who don’t have the courage or the decency to kill themselves, but want to offload the moral burden onto someone else. Not that I don’t understand those who don’t wish to suffer through a lingering and painful death. If I ever had a terminal disease, I’d probably want to end it quickly myself, in a room full of my enemies, surrounded by fifty pounds of high explosive.

But I have a simple and just solution. Just make advocating assisted suicide a capital crime punishable by hanging. That way there is no risk of a slippery slope leading to the murder of innocent children and cowards like that old fraud Terry Pratchett will obtain the death at someone else’s hands they are seeking.

Apparently Mr. Hitler just needed better marketing. Had he simply utilized the term “Unterstütztfreitod” instead of “Endlösung” and been careful to get signatures from each individual boarding a train, he would be a modern hero.

The Japan That Can Invade

So much for the Japanese Peace Constitution. It lasted 72 years, from 1947 to 2014.

On July 1, Japanese PM Shinzo Abe announced that for the first time since the end of World War II, Japan would now be able to fight wars on foreign soil.

In the past, Japan’s military has been reserved strictly for defence – hence its official title, the Self Defence Force (SDF). But thanks to this new reinterpretation of the constitution, the only thing that is necessary for military mobilisation is for one of Japan’s allies to be “attacked”. This is a scary prospect if we consider that Japan’s biggest ally is the US (and when we consider how many enemies the US has made over the past few years).

Perhaps the pros and cons of re-militarisation is a topic worth discussing. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, and of the East Asian region, this discussion has never occurred, as Abe’s administration is making the decision for them.

In response, there has been an unprecedented amount of opposition. Protests are happening every other day, and seem to only be growing in size and intensity.

Some Euro-American press outlets have grazed the surface of this phenomenon, but they seem to be missing the gravity of the situation. Perhaps because reporters are unable to see the Japanese as anything but docile and passive, or because they are attempting to portray the protesters in a “respectable” light, they have overlooked the anger and confusion that is beginning to grip Japan.

Notice how useless constitutions are when they are permitted to be reinterpreted by judges and politicians. It is but a trivial effort to manufacture an emanation or identify a penumbra, or redefine black as white. This would appear to be a preparation for the second War of the Suns, the eventual renewal of hostilities between China and Japan.

What we have here is an opportunity

The politically correct brigade has gotten the USPTO to remove trademark protection from the Washington Redskins for the second time:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Redskins, ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language.

The U.S. PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in the case, brought against the team by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, Wednesday morning.

“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion, which is here. A brief explanation of how the Board reached its decision is here.

Setting aside the possibility that this decision will, like the 1992 case, be overturned, it is apparent that the anti-Redskins activists, most of whom appear to be in the media, are counting on Daniel Snyder to behave like the greedy monopolist of their fantasies.

The thing is, the value of Redskins-branded merchandise is relatively trivial compared to the overall value of the teams. Teams only make about $5 million per year from their merchandising and there is already a considerable amount of knockoffs available. For example, I once saw a guy lifting at a gym in Italy wearing a Minnesota Vikings shirt. The only sign that it was a knockoff was that the Vikings running back featured on the shirt was #33, and I knew the Vikes have never had a notable running back with that number.

But there is a very real potential benefit to Snyder and the Redskins in the loss of the trademark, because an increase in the production and distribution of Redskins merchandise could lead to the Redskins truly becoming America’s Team in a way that the Dallas Cowboys are not. And with or without the Redskins trademark, Redskins gear can’t be sold as Official NFL gear by anyone anyhow. But whether the PTO board’s decision stands or not, I think the loss of the trademark is very unlikely to create any significant pressure on Snyder to change the team name, despite the media’s bizarre portrayal of the decision as “a landmark”.

Instapundit goes after the IRS

It is remarkable how quickly the feared agency began acting like frightened gangsters once they found themselves in the investigative crosshairs:

When charges came out that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups for harassment, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto started calling Obama “President Asterisk.” His point was that this illicit assistance tainted the election, the way an athlete’s use of illegal performance-enhancers results in an asterisk on any records he sets.

Now it may be time for another asterisk. As Congress investigates the IRS chicanery, the IRS has responded to a request for emails to and from Lois Lerner, who spearheaded the Tea Party harassment, by saying, basically, that the dog ate its homework. Or, rather, the IRS claims, somewhat dubiously, that “a hard drive crash” on Lerner’s computer led to the loss of emails to outside entities “such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.” You know, the very people she’s accused of coordinating her harassment with….

Targeting Americans is unforgivable; covering it up is worse, and if the
IRS has made it impossible to target the individuals responsible, then
the IRS as a whole should pay the price.

I find it very, very difficult to believe that the “missing emails” defense is going to hold up. Too many people have suffered at the IRS hands for too long for Congress to give Lerner and company a pass.

Legalized fraud

Overturning centuries of English Common Law, false representation is now legal in the United States.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) won dismissal of a suit over $450 million in residential mortgage-backed securities, with a New York judge saying that the firms that bought the bonds should have done more research beforehand.

State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos dismissed the claims against Goldman Sachs today, saying the investors only reviewed data presented in offering documents for the securities and never asked to review files for the underlying loans.

“The true nature of the risk being assumed could, admittedly, have been ascertained from reviewing these loan files and plaintiffs never asked for them,” Ramos wrote.

In other words, it’s perfectly legal to present someone with a fraudulent document claiming to be selling them a pig in the poke, because if they don’t actually look in the sack to see that there is a dead rat, and not a live pig in there, it’s their own fault. This is another sign of the continued collapse of the rule of law in the USA.

Congratulations, Justice Ramos. You may have just destroyed the securitization market. Who in their right minds will ever purchase a loan security again? If you were going to review each and every loan and ascertain the risks involved, you would already be a mortgage bank.

Fortunately for Goldman Sachs, there should be enough con artists out there for the apex con artist to continue preying upon. But what sane and honest individual would ever choose to do business with them in light of their behavior here? And can you imagine if this standard were applied across the board? No one would ever dare to buy something in a box or order anything off the Internet ever again.

Now the fun begins

The Tokowitz releases the hounds:

Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s team of lawyers has hired four private investigation firms to dig up dirt on the NBA’s former and current commissioners and its 29 other owners, said a person familiar with Sterling’s legal strategy.

Investigators were given a six-figure budget over the next 30 days to examine the league’s finances, allegations of previous discriminatory conduct and compensation to past Commissioner David Stern and current Commissioner Adam Silver, said the person who spoke to The Associated Press on Thursday night on condition of anonymity. The person wasn’t authorized to talk publicly.

The person said the investigators also are looking into whether other owners made any off-color jokes, or racist or sexist remarks.

“The gloves are off, as they say,” the person said. “Have them dig up all the dirt they can find.”

Here is the interesting thing. If the NBA’s legal position is so strong, why was Adam Silver not only insistent upon Mrs. Sterling indemnifying it, but so quick to make a point about Sterling effectively suing himself? Sterling obviously decided to call Slender Man’s bluff.

It should be entertaining to see what happens if the dirt-digging team comes up with dozens of comments worse than anything Sterling was recorded saying.

“Retire, you selfish old bitch!”

The New York Times leads the campaign for Justice Ginsberg to step down while Obama is still president:

The “best way for her to advance all the things she has spent her life working for is to ensure that a Democratic president picks her successor,” wrote Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor and a former clerk to Justice Marshall, has argued that both she and Justice Breyer should retire. Former Justice Stevens, for his part, has said, “It’s an appropriate thing to think about your successor.” (Indeed, Chief Justice Warren deliberately resigned before the 1968 election, in an effort to prevent Nixon from naming his successor.)

On the other side of the issue, Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has written, “I have seen not a lick of evidence that Ginsburg is failing,” adding that the justice’s successor is not likely to be as liberal as she is, given today’s political climate.

This much seems clear: The decision is Justice Ginsburg’s, and people close to the court do not expect her to retire this year. No doubt, being a Supreme Court justice is more enjoyable and consequential than being a retired justice. Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006, has since regretted stepping down as early as she did.

At the same time, there is no denying that any justice who stays on the court into old age is taking a chance. Justice Ginsburg will do damage to the causes about which she cares most if she follows the path of previous liberal justices who allowed a Republican to replace them. Similarly, Justice Scalia or Justice Kennedy will hurt conservatism if either passes up a chance to resign under a Republican president in coming years — and doesn’t get another such chance.

Just think about what liberals would give to have had a Democratic president replace Justice Marshall. And think about how many major cases — on voting rights, campaign donations, the death penalty and other issues — might have turned out differently.

The most interesting aspect of this editorial is that it tends to indicate the NYT’s belief that the next president will not be Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. Personally, I’d love to see Obama appoint one more Supreme Court justice just to see how badly he’d screw it up. He’d likely appoint a corrupt black lawyer from Chicago, or, more likely, one of Goldman Sachs’s corporate attorneys, because Valerie Jarret wouldn’t accept the pay cut.

Reproductive equality

An Ohio bill addresses one long-ignored injustice intrinsic to current abortion law, reproductive inequality.

Legislation in the Ohio House of Representatives (House Bill 252)
requires written consent from the father of an unborn child in order to
perform an abortion.  The bill will put to test the “it’s my body, it’s
my right” notion of pro-choice activists by adding the rights of the
father of the unborn child into the equation.  Ideally, the decision of
abortion should be a consensus between both parents, with both parties
being involved in any decisions regarding the child.

This is a significant legal and social issue where parental rights
are heavily unbalanced due to the fact that a father plays no role in a
matter as critical as his unborn child’s life.  If a woman decides to
keep her child, the father is required to pay child support regardless
of whether he wanted to keep the child or not, or face future jail time.
 A father currently has no say.  Alternatively he cannot opt-out of
parenthood, but a woman can: She can do so by abortion.

Under the Ohio Bill, a woman must have written consent from the
father; if a woman is claiming rape, she must file a police report,
provide other court documents or an official complaint of the incident.
 If the woman chooses to undergo an abortion in this case, the physician
must have “reasonable cause” to believe the woman’s claim of rape and
thus, perform an abortion.  In cases where the father may be unknown, a
list of all potential fathers must be submitted to a physician.  They
will all be contacted and summoned to a paternity test.  If the father
is not found, no abortion can be performed.  The bill would turn
abortion without a father’s permission or naming a “false biological
father” into a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum $1,000 fine.  A
second occasion of providing false information would be considered a
fifth degree felony.

I’d vastly prefer to see abortion banned and prosecuted as manslaughter, but this is a realistic and not-unreasonable step in the right direction. After all, his DNA, his choice. A woman should no more be permitted to unilaterally choose abortion than a man should be permitted to force a woman to get one.

The ever-moving goalposts

The US Supreme Court has long made a habit of post-opinion editing:

The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include “truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.

The court can act quickly, as when Justice Antonin Scalia last month corrected an embarrassing error in a dissent in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency.

But most changes are neither prompt nor publicized, and the court’s secretive editing process has led judges and law professors astray, causing them to rely on passages that were later scrubbed from the official record. The widening public access to online versions of the court’s decisions, some of which do not reflect the final wording, has made the longstanding problem more pronounced.

Unannounced changes have not reversed decisions outright, but they have withdrawn conclusions on significant points of law. They have also retreated from descriptions of common ground with other justices, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did in a major gay rights case….

After-the-fact editing is not a new phenomenon. “The current court did not begin this practice, which finds its origins in the court’s earliest days and has extended to all justices over the years, liberal and conservative, but the court today can take the steps to correct it,” Professor Lazarus said. “Easy to do, and long overdue.”

The court seems to have been even more freewheeling in the past. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney added approximately 18 pages to his 1857 majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision after it was announced.

My police friends told me long ago that there is no such thing as a “law-abiding citizen”, that the traffic laws were explicitly written to permit them to exercise their judgment and pull over anyone, at any time. But it’s interesting to see that virtually no one has even a theoretical chance of knowing what the law is, given the way that interpretive case law not only trumps black-letter written law, but is susceptible to behind-the-scenes editing at any time.