You've Got To Be Kidding, Right?

Kwame Kilpatrick hasn't been in jail for a month and already his lawyer is spouting off about some other grave injustice. What could it be? Is it malnourishment? Corporal punishment? An unfair media frenzied justice system?

Nope. It's the fact that he thinks it was wrong to take away Kwame's law license.

I don't know where this guy went to school, but there were few things drilled into me in law school more than ethics about letting a witness lie and going along with it. So you'd think that lying yourself would cause a great ethical dillema.

So what is this guy's glitch? Well, apparently he thinks that Wayne County Circuit Court doesn't have the power to take away your law license. Which is kind of true in a way, but semantics aside, you can't deny the fact that KWAME MADE A DEAL WHEREBY HIS LICENSE WAS REVOKED. Complaining about that now does nothing to solve anything. His license was already suspended when he pled guilty to felonies, what does this clown think he's going to get out of this?

This is one of those times when lawyer jokes are truly appropriate.

Smart business sense

Merck has decided to cut the games and settle the Vioxx lawsuits.

Very wise, Merck. You just saved yourself millions, if not billions, in attorneys fees, lost profit, lost share price, etc.

Let the insanity begin

And let it begin with them.

Can't even get that right

The mother of an executed prisoner in Ohio has sued the head of Ohio's prisons because her son's execution took 90 minutes. Apparently executions should only take 20 minutes or so. Who knew?

The most chilling part of the article:

Prison staff had problems finding a useable vein on Clark, and one vein they did use collapsed. The execution team also apparently tried to administer the lethal drugs through the original IV line by mistake, according to written accounts that the execution team is required to submit.

During the first injection attempt, Clark finally pushed himself up and said, “It don’t work.”

During the second attempt at finding a vein, he asked, “Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?”

Could you imagine having to wait that long? I mean, that is without even discussing the pain possibly involved.

I'm vehemently anti-death penalty. That is not a question here though...it's simply, how much torture must a person endure? And who are we to inflict that torture?

I * heart * Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

While I join Justice Breyer’s eloquent and unanswerable dissent in its entirety, it is appropriate to add these words.

There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice’s reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955) . The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.” Ante, at 40. This sentence reminds me of Anatole France’s observation: “[T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”¹ The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools.² In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court’s most important decisions. Compare ante, at 39 (“history will be heard”), with Brewer v. Quarterman, 550 U. S. ___, ___ (2007) (slip op., at 11) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting) (“It is a familiar adage that history is written by the victors”).

The Chief Justice rejects the conclusion that the racial classifications at issue here should be viewed differently than others, because they do not impose burdens on one race alone and do not stigmatize or exclude.³ The only justification for refusing to acknowledge the obvious importance of that difference is the citation of a few recent opinions—none of which even approached unanimity—grandly proclaiming that all racial classifications must be analyzed under “strict scrutiny.” See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PeÅ„a, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995) . Even today, two of our wisest federal judges have rejected such a wooden reading of the Equal Protection Clause in the context of school integration. See 426 F. 3d 1162, 1193–1196 (CA9 2005) (Kozinski, J., concurring); Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F. 3d 1, 27–29 (CA1 2005) (Boudin, C. J., concurring). The Court’s misuse of the three-tiered approach to Equal Protection analysis merely reconfirms my own view that there is only one such Clause in the Constitution. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 211 (1976) (concurring opinion).⁴

If we look at cases decided during the interim between Brown and Adarand, we can see how a rigid adherence to tiers of scrutiny obscures Brown’s clear message. Perhaps the best example is provided by our approval of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1967 upholding a state statute mandating racial integration in that State’s school system. See School Comm. of Boston v. Board of Education, 352 Mass. 693,227 N. E. 2d 729.⁵ Rejecting arguments comparable to those that the plurality accepts today,⁶ that court noted: “It would be the height of irony if the racial imbalance act, enacted as it was with the laudable purpose of achieving equal educational opportunities, should, by prescribing school pupil allocations based on race, founder on unsuspected shoals in the Fourteenth Amendment .” Id., at 698, 227 N. E. 2d, at 733 (footnote omitted).

Invoking our mandatory appellate jurisdiction,⁷ the Boston plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal in this Court. Our ruling on the merits simply stated that the appeal was “dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” School Comm. of Boston v. Board of Education, 389 U. S. 572 (1968) (per curiam). That decision not only expressed our appraisal of the merits of the appeal, but it constitutes a precedent that the Court overrules today. The subsequent statements by the unanimous Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 16 (1971) , by then-Justice Rehnquist in chambers in Bustop, Inc. v. Los Angeles Bd. of Ed., 439 U. S. 1380, 1383 (1978) , and by the host of state court decisions cited by Justice Breyer, see post, 25–27,⁸ were fully consistent with that disposition. Unlike today’s decision, they were also entirely loyal to Brown.

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little

In another blatant attempt to disregard the Constitution, precedent and everything holy, the John Roberts-led Supreme Court has set this country back 50 years again today. In a ruling to be released today, the Court found that a district cannot voluntarily engage in a program of desegregation.

I'm not even making this up. I'm not sure I could. I'm not that creative.

I can't WAIT for this opinion to come out.

I feel like I shouldn't be shocked, but I still am. No matter how bad things get, I always want to believe there's more hope than despair. Then something like this comes around.

Why don't we just bring Jim Crow Laws back because we don't want any "special" treatment for people of color? Why don't we just repeal the nineteenth amendment? Better yet, how about going against forty years of precedent to determine that the Voting Rights Act got it wrong?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg has to read from the bench anymore she's going to set up a tent over there so she doesn't have to commute back and forth from the office. I mean, why walk back to chambers when you'll just have to read your entire dissent from the bench again.

A whole bag of scissors is necessary to cut the games up in that Court today.

You have until the count of three. One..............Two.................Don't make me say three.

In a predictable yet ridiculous move, the Bush White House refused to hand over documents requested in a subpoena over the US attorney firings.

Is it just me or has GWB's method of executing his executive duties come down to a constitutional game of chicken? I mean honestly. Cut the games, GWB. Cut them.

Finally! Someone gets it!

I'm all over the New York Times today with good reason. This editorial denounces three rulings by the Roberts-led Court regarding the First Amendment. Basically it calls the Court out on it's blatant, yet unannounced, trashing of precedent. Ladies and Gentlemen, put the NYT editor who wrote this on line for Skia.

Crazy Little Thing Called Animal Justice

This story struck me as weird. In it, it details the sentence of a German Shepard to run guard duty at a prison instead of being put down after attacking a person.

I don't even know how I feel about it yet. I mean, I'm glad he didn't get put down, but the whole reason for criminal laws (or at least a main reason) is retribution and rehabilitation. The dog isn't going to know he's being punished. So the point is??? I guess sparing his life. It was a very creative move on the dog owner's part. I'm still on the fence.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it (or don't)

I cannot wait for the day when I enter a restaurant in Michigan and am not asked "Smoking or Non?" There are a few that are going that way, but it should be mandatory. I'm sorry--because you smoke shouldn't mean I have to have an asthma attack, smelly clothes, a stuffy nose or any of the above.

And it appears they might be inching closer to that day in the Michigan legislature as documented here.

I will be so happy.

I'm sorry, smokers. I'd like to breathe while I eat and drink. Thankyouverymuch.

The Bitch is Back

I started to write this entry and all of a sudden Elton John's "The Bitch is Back" came on my iTunes player, which is currently in shuffle mode. Call it fate, call it justice, call it what you will--but the subject of this blog fits perfectly. And I will continue to hit replay as long as I wish for inspiration.

Yes, dear readers, it's true--Paris Hilton is out of the clink.

It just sickens me to the core that someone who willingly and knowingly violated her probation TWICE is allowed to walk away after three days in jail. Mind you, in those three days she was in seclusion, not required to participate in events with other inmates, and given a private cell. Reportedly, she wasn't required to go through the cavity searches that other inmates are forced to endure. Sure as shit, though, she was released early. And I am sure that no excuse I hear will be a good one.

It's a sad day in our society. And I'm not giving Paris Hilton more credit than she deserves, because I'm talking about the state of celebrity and what it brings. If you or I willingly and knowingly violated our probation twice we'd be lucky to get the 45 day sentence she originally received, let alone the reduction to 23 days and now to 3. Granted, the prisons are overcrowded, but people who commit crimes and then are put on probation only to violate that probation should not be allowed to wander off to Rodeo Drive.

This is just another instance in a long line of celebrity crimes that goes without justification or punishment because the person at issue happens to have appeared on People or US Weekly a few times. And then we wonder why people don't respect the criminal justice system, or the legal system at all.

This is bigger than Paris Hilton. I'm not a fan of her, that's no secret. The issue here isn't really her...it's the disregard for procedure, punishment and process so blatant that causes Oliver Wendell Holmes to turn repeatedly in his grave.

Today, justice is not only going to the highest bidder, but the one with the most paparazzi following behind.

Thanks for nothing

This little diddy by the Roberts-led Supreme Court caught my eye yesterday. Basically it limits the amount of time in which a plaintiff can bring an equal employment claim.

Here's the gist of the situation:

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The problem with this ruling is this: if you can't show a pattern and practice, you can't make a case. But if you wait too long in order to establish a pattern and practice, or if you aren't aware of the situation because your employer covered up the facts, then you are screwed. Basically it's a golden ticket for bad boy employers.

And by the way, what about the EEOC's opinion on all of this?

Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the commission actively supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration disavowed the agency’s position and filed a brief on the side of the employer.

That's right, my friends--the Bush administration took a giant leap away from justice and decided to undermine the EEOC's administrative expertise. Great! Good for them!

Again, my girl and Skia Font Inc. Board Member Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her opinion from the bench. I'd like to know the actual stats on how often this is done, but homegirl has done this twice in the past few months--she's fighting mad.

In a vigorous dissenting opinion that she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority opinion “overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.” She said that given the secrecy in most workplaces about salaries, many employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had received a lower raise than others.

So another day goes by, and another door for battered employees is shut. It's a sad state of affairs and it keeps getting worse. The rights of the worker have been so diminished that they are almost non-existent.

And yet people keep voting Republican--especially poor or working class white folk afraid of people with darker skin, boys who like boys, or free-thinking feminists--notwithstanding the fact that the rights they had and thought they were protecting have eroded ever-so-steadily with the battering of the tide.