To Hell With The Establishment Clause!
Content to ascribe the bad acts of several bishops on the whole hierarchy, and viewing the Church as nothing more than an international institution that is comparable to La Cosa Nostra, Car(b)ozo School of Law Pinhead demands that the Federal government criminally prosecute the Church under RICO.
A federal RICO prosecution would force the Church to confront its problems more directly by forcing it to face a federal prosecutorial juggernaut, as opposed to isolated local actions. While worthwhile, commendable, and necessary, these local prosecutions are not enough to prompt the thoroughgoing national, institutional reforms needed.
Friday, June 20, 2003
Dismissed
Norma McCorvy's Rule 60 motion to repoen and reverse Roe v. Wade was dismissed by a federal court judge. Failure to file the motion within a "reasonable time" is cited. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Norma McCorvy's Rule 60 motion to repoen and reverse Roe v. Wade was dismissed by a federal court judge. Failure to file the motion within a "reasonable time" is cited. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
A Potential SCOTUS Case
Kansas State Attorney General says all abortions performed on a child under 16 MUST be reported to state authorities. The rationale for the requirement stems from the fact that sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and the pregnancy may be a result and evidence of sexual abuse. Sounds perfectly reasonable and legitimate to me.
Kansas State Attorney General says all abortions performed on a child under 16 MUST be reported to state authorities. The rationale for the requirement stems from the fact that sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and the pregnancy may be a result and evidence of sexual abuse. Sounds perfectly reasonable and legitimate to me.
California Judges and The Boy Scouts (cont.)
By a somewhat surprising unanimous vote, the California State Supreme Court has revised the state's Code of Judicial Ethics to where state court judges will now have to seriously think twice about being associated with "anti-gay" groups like the Boy Scouts.
Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics. The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves from cases where membership in an anti-gay group could be viewed as a conflict.
I've read the language of the amendments, and I suppose it is somewhat of a comfort that the Court decided not to go full board and outright prohibit state judges from having an association with groups like the Boy Scouts (that would be unconstitutional). Nevertheless, there are some problems with the amendments that ultimately may have to be resolved through the litigation process. From a work standpoint, I would invite this, but from a taxpayer perspective, this is just another example of why liberals should never be given power to appoint judges.
By a somewhat surprising unanimous vote, the California State Supreme Court has revised the state's Code of Judicial Ethics to where state court judges will now have to seriously think twice about being associated with "anti-gay" groups like the Boy Scouts.
Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics. The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves from cases where membership in an anti-gay group could be viewed as a conflict.
I've read the language of the amendments, and I suppose it is somewhat of a comfort that the Court decided not to go full board and outright prohibit state judges from having an association with groups like the Boy Scouts (that would be unconstitutional). Nevertheless, there are some problems with the amendments that ultimately may have to be resolved through the litigation process. From a work standpoint, I would invite this, but from a taxpayer perspective, this is just another example of why liberals should never be given power to appoint judges.
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Virgin Mary Sighting
This one is at a hospital in Boston, and its apparently causing quite a fuss. Although I certainly believe there are, and have been, real apparitions of the Blessed Mother, I'm sort of curious how the number of alleged Virgin Mary sightings compares to the number of Elvis sightings.
This one is at a hospital in Boston, and its apparently causing quite a fuss. Although I certainly believe there are, and have been, real apparitions of the Blessed Mother, I'm sort of curious how the number of alleged Virgin Mary sightings compares to the number of Elvis sightings.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Taking on 'Drew
This may be one of my favorite all time 'blogs. I say "may" because given the relatively large attrition rate in blogville, who knows how long the owner will be committed to maintaining and updating it.
This may be one of my favorite all time 'blogs. I say "may" because given the relatively large attrition rate in blogville, who knows how long the owner will be committed to maintaining and updating it.
Rule 60
Regarding the post immediately below, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure basically says that a party seeking relief from a final judgment may have their case reheard for the purposes of overturning it if there was a mistake in the original proceeding, there is newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered at the time of trial, fraud, a void judgment, or any other reason that would justify relief. Especially worth noting in Rule 60 is the time period in which a motion can be made. As to mistake, discovery of new evidence, and fraud, a Rule 60 motion must be made within 1 year of the final judgment. For all other reasons, a motion must be made within a "reasonable time".
So does Ms. McCorvey have a shot? Again, I hope so. But the pessimist inside of me says probably not.
Regarding the post immediately below, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure basically says that a party seeking relief from a final judgment may have their case reheard for the purposes of overturning it if there was a mistake in the original proceeding, there is newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered at the time of trial, fraud, a void judgment, or any other reason that would justify relief. Especially worth noting in Rule 60 is the time period in which a motion can be made. As to mistake, discovery of new evidence, and fraud, a Rule 60 motion must be made within 1 year of the final judgment. For all other reasons, a motion must be made within a "reasonable time".
So does Ms. McCorvey have a shot? Again, I hope so. But the pessimist inside of me says probably not.
"Roe" Sues to Overturn '73 Decision
Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, has made the interesting procedural move of filing a Rule 60 motion to reopen the infamous case that made abortion a constitutional right. While I hope Ms. McCorvey, who is now pro-life and Catholic, succeeds, I personally don't think this move to try and overturn Roe v. Wade will work. I think there is a big time problem, and I'm not entirely certain that a winning party in a civil rights case can later come back to try and overturn a "favorable" decision. (Thanks Emily for the heads-up on the article link).
Update: Apparently, there have been instances where a winning party has come back on a Rule 60 motion to overturn a favorable decision. One such case would be Agostini v. Felton. Guess I need to pay more attention to some of the articles I link.
Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, has made the interesting procedural move of filing a Rule 60 motion to reopen the infamous case that made abortion a constitutional right. While I hope Ms. McCorvey, who is now pro-life and Catholic, succeeds, I personally don't think this move to try and overturn Roe v. Wade will work. I think there is a big time problem, and I'm not entirely certain that a winning party in a civil rights case can later come back to try and overturn a "favorable" decision. (Thanks Emily for the heads-up on the article link).
Update: Apparently, there have been instances where a winning party has come back on a Rule 60 motion to overturn a favorable decision. One such case would be Agostini v. Felton. Guess I need to pay more attention to some of the articles I link.
Monday, June 16, 2003
Persecuted Church Simulation Results in a Lawsuit
Why anyone would want to participate in a simulated situation where your life is conditioned upon renouncing your faith is beyond me. I don't know about you, but I sort of see this activity as being the equivalent of self-mutilation. It'll be interesting to see how this suit plays out.
Why anyone would want to participate in a simulated situation where your life is conditioned upon renouncing your faith is beyond me. I don't know about you, but I sort of see this activity as being the equivalent of self-mutilation. It'll be interesting to see how this suit plays out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)