This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Legal

  • So what’s really bothering you?

    Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma Chapter has filed a lawsuit against the state a few days after voters approved a measure by a 70% majority that instructs judges to ignore international law and Sharia law when adjudicating cases;

    But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state’s nearly 4 million residents ā€“ less than 1 percent.

    Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam. He said the measure is just another way to politically savage Muslims.

    The Islamic community in Oklahoma has complained about the past actions of the state legislature, including a proposal to forbid Muslim women from wearing head garments in driver’s license photos and refusing to accept a Koran from a Muslim advisory council at an official state ceremony.

    If the law is so unnecessary, what’s the problem with it?

    Thanks to ROS for the link.

  • DADT judge weighs DoJ request for delay

    Judge Virginia Phillips weighs a request from the White House to delay her injunction of the military policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell which she imposed on the Administration last week. Phillips says she’s inclined to deny the Administration’s request;

    On Monday, Phillips called the government request “untimely,” saying Justice Department lawyers had plenty of opportunity to modify her injunction before she ordered it last Tuesday.

    Phillips also said the government did not present evidence at the trial to show how her order would cause irreparable harm to troops.

    Justice Department attorney Paul Freeborne told her the government had no reason to respond until her order came down. He said her nationwide injunction was unrealistic.

    Maybe the Obama Administration, despite what they say, have found a perfect way to escape criticism from both sides letting the judicial branch take the fall for the collapse of DADT. That fits Obama’s history of voting present.

  • From the Supreme Court

    As I mentioned last week, our legal correspondent is at the Supreme Court this morning to monitor the Phelps vs. Snyder case involving the protest by the cretins of the Westboro “Baptist” church at the funeral of Matthew Snyder.

    The sides are lined up and TAH’s correspondent is on the scene as evidenced by this TAH exclusive photo from outside the court this morning.

    It’s nice to see some counter protesters out there.

  • Good news for SVA

    A vigilant ROS sends us link to an article in the Richmond Times Dispatch;

    Prosecutors in Colorado said yesterday that they’ll appeal a Denver federal court ruling that the Stolen Valor Act violates free speech. A California appeals court also found the law unconstitutional. On Thursday, prosecutors asked that court to reconsider.

    The best news we’ve heard since numbnuts Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the Federal Court District of Colorado decided that the Act is unconstitutional.

  • Westboro case makes it to the Supreme Court

    Al Snyder, the father of Matthew Snyder, a fallen soldier, will square off in the Supreme Court next Wednesday with Fred Phelps’ demented flock to have his $5 million settlement against the Westboro “Baptist” Church reinstated. (Stars & Stripes/AP link)

    Margie Phelps, a daughter of the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and the lawyer representing her family members at the Supreme Court, said that if the justices reinstate the $5 million judgment to Snyder, anyone who says anything upsetting to a mourner “is subject to a crushing penalty.”

    But Snyder said in an interview with The Associated Press that if he had the chance, he would tell the justices “that this isn’t a case of free speech. It’s case of harassment.”

    This Ain’t Hell’s legal correspondent has secured a seat at the oral arguments on Thursday.

  • DADT ruled unconstitutional

    Cortillaen and BooRadley sent us this link about a Federal judge in California who has ruled that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy of allowing gays to serve as long as they stay in the closet during their military careers is unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.

    Phillips says the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

    Whether I agree with the judge’s decision or not, if this is true (I haven’t read the decision) it seems to me that the judge is on a serious political high. Did I mention that she’s a Clinton appointee? First of all, who is she to determine what has a “”direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services”? Courtroom testimony? Please.

    I’m pretty sure that she overstepped her authority because no one’s rights were violated by the policy – there’s no right to serve in the military. Ask a recruiter how many prospective recruits get turned away every day for not qualifying for some other reason that being gay.

    Yeah, this judge is out to make a name for herself in the gay community

  • US Marines free German ship from pirates

    Fox News‘ Jennifer Griffin reports that a contingent of US Marines who happened to be in the neighbor of a pirated German vessel, the M/V Magellan Star, dropped in on the nine pirates early this morning and, after an hour long battle, freed the vessel from the Somali pirates (no word if Matthis or Bobby Whittenberg was among them);

    Navy commanders are often frustrated by not having ships or aircraft available to respond to attacks, considering the large expanse of ocean they are patrolling.

    A U.S. Navy spokesman said Thursday’s raid didn’t necessarily signal a change in tactics in the U.S. response to pirate attacks. But because commanders had resources available this time around, they decided to act.

    I hope the stars stay aligned for more operations against these barbarians.

    In related news, one of the Somalian pirates captured several weeks ago by the US Navy pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit piracy yesterday in a DC Federal Court Room.

    The U.S. Justice Department said in a release 38-year-old Jama Idle Ibrahim, aka Jaamac Ciidle, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to conspiracy to commit piracy under the law of nations, and conspiracy to use a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence for taking part in the armed takeover of the Danish-flagged vessel MV/CEC Future in the Gulf of Aden in November 2008.

    Under his plea agreement, the two sides agree a 25-year prison sentence is appropriate….

    The best thing that could have happened to him. He gets to live on the taxpayers’ dime for 25 years – beats riding in a shitbox boat miles out at sea waiting to get his ass shot off. I’m sure that the ACLU will find something wrong with this and get him released and sent back to the pirate life.

  • Xavier Alvarez; the reason the Stolen Valor Act was written (Updated)

    Back in 2007, Xavier Alvarez told a crowd while he was campaigning for the post of water commissioner, that he was a Marine and that he’d been awarded the Medal of Honor, neither of which was true. Melissa Campbell, a former active duty Marine herself, questioned the veracity of the statement. She was suspended from her job two weeks later for unprofessional behavior and fired two weeks after that.

    Now three years later, a bunch of clowns impersonating the judges of the Ninth Circuit appellate court, tell us that lying is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution (Fox News link).

    A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there’s no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

    The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.

    McQ from Blackfive writes;

    …Iā€™d love to hear the argument or see anything in writing from them which claimed the 1st Amendment was designed to protect liars in general.

    If i lied in court, they’d toss my ass in the hoosegow for what they call perjury. If I lied to a police officer, again, I’d get tossed in the Grey Bar Hotel for obstructing an investigation. Certainly speech that applies to the justice system is not protected by the 1st Amendment, so it follows that somewhere there’s some unprotected speech outside of the legal community.

    The truth is important in legal proceedings, so those judges have an obligation to “unprotect” speech that the rest of us have to deal with every day. But apparently, they’re just too lazy to protect the people they’re sworn to protect.

    I still think that anyone who defends the behavior of jackasses like Alvarez as protected by the Constitution are just contrary for the sake of being contrary. And, oh, what is the 9th Circuit going to say about Melissa Campbells right to free speech while she paid an actual price for questioning Alvarez’ lies?

    Jerry920 among others sent me the links, even though I’d written about Alvarez last night (thanks for reading, guys :eyeroll:)

    UPDATE: Some guy named Mark Seavey who is moving up in the world, has an excellent article on this subject in The Hill’s Congress Blog.