What's Fair is Fair.

                                                        Image credit: Coto Report 

Greetings, fair maidens. Sorry for the delay in missives. I've been in trial and . . . trying to figure out this new blogger format. In the past, I'd put in a dysfunctional URL address to prevent inadvertent postings but so far, I can't figure out how to do that. So if this post pops up in mid-sentence, you'll know why. And how to center things?  Forget about it.  I may have to change platforms -- this old dog doesn't learn new tricks.

What I'd really like to write about is the new US Supreme Court opinion which authorizes the police to strip search us at any time, for any reason.  But the topic is awfully upsetting.  Say you're driving with your old insurance card on your way to carpool and you left your new one in your kitchen next to your computer? Criminal offense? Umm, yeah, technically. A get-down-bend-over-squat-naked-and-cough offense? Well it sure as hell is now.

So, just when I thought we were starting to get the TSA behind the 8-ball, I find out it's you and I who are the ones behind the 8-ball.  As I said, it's terribly upsetting.

Before I delve into the strip-search opinion and give us all nightmares, let me make you aware of another government trap: the "fairness" argument.

One afternoon after school, I picked up Mr. M from a classmate's house. And what a grand house it was. Huge, sitting on two lots, with a lovely swimming pool, a big outdoor patio . . . Well, let's just say, it was lots of cool. 

As we pulled away, Mr. M turned to me in the car and said, "Wow, mom. Joe sure does live in a nice big house. I wish we did."

Seizing the moment, I said to Mr. M, "would you like to know what Joe and his parents really wish for?" Yes, he said, he did.  "They wish that their little girl didn't have a fatal blood disease that could kill her. Did you know Joe's sister is very, very sick?"  Mr. M was stunned.

Fairness, I said to Mr. M, is in the eyes of the beholder. Someone might envy me, I told him, watching me walk briskly through the grocery store, thinking my legs were lovely.  But they'd never know I wear medical stockings and when they come off, it's "run for the hills."  In his thoughtful mind, I could see the wheels spinning, acknowledging.

Someone might envy a fellow who appears rich, I said to Mr. M., never knowing the man's father beat him when he was a kid and walked out on the family.  It didn't take long for Mr. M to get it.

There's no such thing as fairness. Period. We are not born equal.  Some of us are born with more intelligence.  Some of us are born with good looks.  And a very few of us, like Suburban Matron and Stiletto Mom, are born with both.

But there is such a thing as equal opportunity, and our country is the only one who offers it to all.  And the instant we stop falling for Obama's "fairness" gimmick -- because it simply cannot be defined -- the better off we will all be.

So watch this video about fairness in college GPAs and listen for the arguments in favor of taking away from the higher-ranking students to make it more "fair" for the "less-fortunate" others.  And pay particular attention to the students who are all for "spreading the wealth" -- because they are the very same students who hadn't earned a high GPA themselves.

Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

Probable Cause Affidavit in FL v. Zimmerman

The Dersh says it won't pass muster. Not only does it fail legally, it's unethical, he says. Wow.



A copy of the affidavit can be found here. The police report is here.

And not to go all Columbo or Monk on you, but about the only smidgen supporting "probable cause" I can see is Martin's mother's claim that it was Martin calling for help.

But if it was Martin calling for help and not Zimmerman, why was there not a single mark on Martin's body? The police report says the back of Zimmerman's head was wet and covered with grass and that he was bleeding. Why was Zimmerman the only one injured? Curious.

The Dersh thinks plea negotiations are underway at this moment, the arrest was based on political pressure, and the special prosecutor was making a campaign speech at her press conference yesterday.

Based on what Martin's mother said this morning (prior to her complete and utter illogical retraction), I'd say the Dersh just might be right.


(link to video here if it's not popping up)

Then again, maybe the Dersh is mad at Obama for authorizing Eric Holder to show up at Al Sharpton's "Trayvon Martin" rally yesterday and for Obama's connection with the blatantly anti-Semitic Media Matters.

Yes, it's all very curious.

Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

Voter Fraud: My Boston Pollwatching for Scott Brown

Photo credit: entertainment.time.com

A while back I wrote, tongue-in-cheek, about the voter ID laws. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says there is no problem, no fraud, nothing to worry about.

After my own experience as a poll watcher for now Senator Scott Brown, I can tell you -- if you had any doubt -- that Holder is flat-out wrong.

Brown was so concerned about integrity at the ballot box that his campaign paid travel and lodging expenses for lawyers all over the country who were willing to serve as poll watchers.

Photo credit: Onepennysheet.com

It's a good thing he did, because I sure saw fraud issues at the ballot box. I can only imagine what would have gone on, had there been no one watching.

At least twice, multiple ballots were handed out to one person. We caught the problem early, but only because the voter tried to feed both ballots into the machine at the same time. BEEP, the machine will only take one ballot at a time.

On one absentee ballot, an ambivalent voter unambiguously picked two candidates -- one was the Independent and the other was Martha Coakley.

Inches away from my face, the warden emphatically insisted the voter intended to vote for Martha Coakley. I emphatically insisted the voter's intent could not possibly be ascertained, and that either the ballot be rejected or the Elections Department be called.

But what if I and another poll watcher had not been there?

From my own experience, I know voter fraud is a problem. Requiring photo-identification may not solve the problems I saw, but it will certainly help remedy the problem captured in the video below.



Suppose the real Eric Holder decided to vote absentee. Would both votes be counted? What if the real Eric Holder showed up to vote the next day? Would he be denied a ballot? What then?

Yes, so-called "voter protection" laws protect votes, all right: multiple votes cast in one person's name.

The real Eric Holder needs to sit down and stop blocking states that want effective voter-protection by requiring voter ID.

Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

If It Fits the Narrative . . . (egg on my face update)

Don't call me unfair or unbalanced. Below is what I was going to post, before this email exchange (my personal stuff is redacted) captured between the underscores:
________________________________

commander@newsaxon.org commander@newsaxon.org

9:59 PM (38 minutes ago)

yes we have patrols going in sanford and seminole county currently. I authorized a press release its legit.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2012 8:57:58 pm
To: pr@nsm88.org
From: (me)
Subject: Re: Sanford patrols

Are you all organizing a patrol in Sanford? There's nothing on your
website to indicate you are, except an external link to a Miami New Times
blog claiming that you are. I am a blogger and I'd like to know if this is
a media fabrication or if it is accurate.

Thank you.
____________________________________


. . . it's fit to print. Even if it's fiction.

According to the Sanford Police Department, the claim by Miami NewTimes that "heavily armed neo-nazis" are now patrolling the town is simply not true. Nevertheless, the story has gone viral and is now being reported the national media as fact.

NewTimes posted the photo shown above with its story, stating the photo is an NSM patrol in Arizona. Image credit was given to nsm88.org. I did some digging on the NSM website, and the photo appears with a Mexican border patrol. The NSM is rabidly anti-hispanic but that doesn't fit the whites-side-with-Zimmerman narrative. Calling it an Arizona patrol is more inflammatory and makes for a perfect fit.

NSM doesn't claim to be patrolling Sanford either, at least on its website. The only mention of such a patrol is an external link to the Miami NewTimes story. Apparently, NSM posts about its patrols after the fact, in "After Action reports." Not that I'm any NSM expert -- I only heard of its existence tonight. But judging from the website, these whackos don't generally give any forewarning, which makes the NewTimes story even more curious.

I called the NSM to ask them directly and all I got was a recording, so I can't corroborate the NewTimes story with anything from the horse's mouth. But if anyone from NSM responds to my email query, I'll let you know on Twitter; don't hold your breath.

Maybe NewTimes has done more digging than I have at this point. But if not? And the Sanford police haven't seen a single patrol, so what? Who cares?

If it fits the narrative, it's fit to print.

(What an old-fashioned notion this is!)

Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

Fifth Circuit Tells Obama's DOJ Where to Stick It.

Image credit: Wiredacademic.com

Today the Fifth Circuit ordered lawyers at Obama's Department of Justice to state whether the DOJ believes courts have the power to overturn federal statutes. Put it in writing, ordered the Court, in (update) at least three pages, by Thursday.

Yowza. What a smack-down.

Not to diminish the office of the President in any way, but Obama's claim that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down a law passed by Congress was unbecoming to the Office. He was utterly un-presidential. And petulant. And his remark was embarrassingly stupid -- both politically and legally.



And not to diminish the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in any way, but its response is what I'd call going nuclear, which is to say, equally forceful. Certainly historic -- unprecedented, I'd venture -- though I haven't researched it yet.

(CBS News) — In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick — both Republican appointees — remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

Were it me, I'd crawl into court and submit a three-page paper that said "yes," continuously, in line after single-spaced line.

(h/t Weasel Zippers)

Update: Obama clarifies, in 3 pages or less!

Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

The Shameless Arbitraging of Trayvon Martin

Image Credit: Twitter/SleepisFoThRich

The arbitraging of Trayvon Martin's death has been relentless and shameless from the very start. But some in the African American community are beginning to take notice. Consider this Tweet, as reported by International Business Times:

"This whole Trayvon thing just making Skittles and Arizona richer - That's all y'all doing - The black dude gets killed and ppl make more $$," wrote Twitter user Adisa_SF2D.

Indeed, numerous folks "in the name of Trayvon" have urged people to buy Skittles and a whole lot more, and it's just plain wrong.

But Skittles' and Wrigley's profits from Trayvon's death were completely inadvertent and unplanned. Whatever uptick in sales can be laid squarely at the feet of people like Spike Lee, tweeting the purchase of those products in the "name of Trayvon."
Equally outrageous, many people, in and outside the African-American community, are taking advantage of Trayvon's death to advance their own interests and agendas -- gleefully grave-dancing for their own personal gain. Who are they? Let's take a look.

Image Credit: Oddpedia.com

We've got Roseanne Barr tweeting the address of the tried-and-convicted never-charged Zimmerman. This followed Spike Lee's tweet of the wrong address of Zimmerman's parents, forcing an elderly couple to flee their house. "Pay a visit," he ominously exhorted his twit-follies.

Only several days later -- after immense pressure -- did Spike Lee finally apologize to the harassed couple (who were barraged by the press and with death threats) and agree to reimburse them for their hotel costs.

Silly me, I thought liberals were our country's bedrock backstop behind the presumption of innocence, and the principle that justice was color-blind.

Image Credit: Thegrio.com

Al Sharpton says civil disobedience should be escalated until vigilante justice is served, which Sharpton defines as the arrest of George Zimmerman. Ironically, it was Martin's family who called Zimmerman a vigilante, and Sharpton has caused taken up their cause.

(As an aside, most lawyers would agree that if the police handcuff you, put you in the back of a squad car, take you to jail, and interrogate you for five hours, you have been arrested. But whatever. Lawyers don't know sh*t.)

But back to Sharpton and his helpful lesson: some vigilantes are good and some are bad. But only I you someone more qualified than you or I, can make that call.

Image Credit: Weaselzippers.us

Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson says Skittles and Arizona Tea are being unjustly enriched by all the extra purchases of their products and so some of their profits should go to _________. For all the press, Reverend Jackson is no worse for the wear.

President Obama exhorts his followers via Twitter to buy his "Go Obama" hoodie so his supporters can show everyone which team they are on. Nice unifying move, Obama. How very presidential.



Next up, the "p*ssy *ss cracker" t-shirt modeled by a young Boy Scout; the offensive words frame a picture of Mr. Zimmerman. (And if you doubt this young man is a Boy Scout, you are super-duper racist.)

Then, there's that strip club in Greensboro, S.C. that planned to host a party "in honor" of Trayvon Martin. It promised that all those who showed up before 11PM with an empty Skittles bag would get in with no cover charge.


After a "sensitivity" backlash, the strip club cancelled the event. The club says it intended -- just as Spike Lee had instructed them to do, in his twitter -- to send a bunch of empty Skittle bags to the Sanford PD. Alrighty then.

But where was the anguish, where were the marchers, when a white child was set ablaze by blacks youths, or a little black girl was killed in a Chicago-gang cross-fire? Who cares, and more specifically, when do they care? Must the crime story always suit an etched-in-stone anti-white, racial narrative before it gets any coverage, or, better yet, action in the opposite direction?

Image Credit: Huffington Post

When Obama uses Trayvon Martin's death to sell "Obama 2012" hoodies, it is just politics, but when others do it, it's reprehensible? Help me out here, because I'm just not seeing the difference.

Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.