No Runny Eggs

(H/Ts - Jim Hoft and Ace)

Canada.com reports that the court-appointed lawyer of “suspected” Islamokazi Omar Khadr, the sole surviving member of a group of Taliban Islamokazis who initiated a firefight with American forces in July 2002, wants Khadr released because he wasn’t read his rights.

I support his release…from an aircraft flying at 35,000 feet sans parachute and oxygen tank.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (12:38 am 1/31/2008, H/T - Allahpundit) - Since Robert Novak has double-blind-sourced this (triple-or-more sourced assuming those two sources weren’t lying about not being John Fund’s source), this thing is back on the top after an initial posting at 1:53 pm 1/28/2008.

I had been unwilling to bring John Fund’s assertion that John McCain would not have nominated Justice Sam Alito to your attention, mainly because, like Bull Dog Pundit, I was concerned that it was unsourced and uncollaborated. However, since Kathryn Jean Lopez has collaborated it and Rich Lowry notes that the Straight Double Talk Express response doesn’t exactly deal with the charge, it’s time to toss it all out there:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” (John Fund’s column)

(Steve) Schmidt (of the McCain camp) was a major player in the Alito confirmation fight, and says this: “It’s absolutely false. Sen. McCain was instrumental is helping confirm Justice Alito. We relied on him a great deal during the confirmation process to reassure the American people that Alito was the kind of justice America needed. John McCain was a warrior to get Alito on the bench.” (McCain camp’s response per Rich Lowry)

The non-denial denial isn’t exactly selling. Bryan Preston sums it up best (as usual):

…Second, is Alito really too conservative by McCain’s lights to be a SCOTUS nominee under a McCain presidency? McCain needs to answer this immediately. Different types of conservatives vote based on many things, but judges have to rank in the top five for nearly all of us. While most conservatives have soured on the Bush presidency either because of spending or immigration or this or that policy, most of us still consider Bush’s SCOTUS nominees (minus Miers) to be reason enough to consider his presidency, on balance, worth support and certainly better than the alternatives that were available in 2000 and 2004. If McCain won’t appoint nominees similar to Bush’s, no speech at CPAC will help him repair the rift with conservatives, and conservatives don’t have much reason to support him if he’s the GOP nominee.

If McCain truly does consider Alito to be too conservative, then on judges even Rudy Giuliani is to McCain’s right and would make a less problematic GOP nominee than McCain.

I do take issue with the assertion that Giuliani would be better than McCain on the issue of judges. While Giuliani has said that he would appoint “strict constructionists”, he also signaled that he would reject any potential nominee that does not believe in stare decisis, specifically with regard to abortion.

Revisons/extensions (2:18 pm 1/28/2008) - Byron York got some face time with McCain and asked him point-blank about this:

“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”

“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.’”

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. “No, no, of course not,” McCain said.

I asked about the “wore his conservatism on his sleeve” line. “I’m proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,” McCain told me. “Remember, in all my remarks, I’ve said, look, we’re not going to take somebody’s word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time.”

On this issue of the quote/non-quote, the ball is back in Fund’s (and Lopez’s) court. McCain went on to defend the Gang of 14, and gave a piss-poor defense of that. It really is an issue for another post, but it reinforces the basic objections I have with McCain regarding conservative judges.

(Headline shamelessly stolen from Doubleplusundead, and no, I’m not going to spare anybody from the language)

I just got done quickly plowing through the brief US Solicitor General Paul D. Clement (friend of noted gun-grabber Rudy Giuliani) filed in District of Columbia v Dick Anthony Heller, (brief at SCOTUSBlog, H/T - Owen), and I have to say (language warning after the jump)…
(more…)

(H/T - Charlie)

Lest all the focus on the national get me termed “not a Wisconsin blog”, I really should turn the magnifying glass on the State Bar of Wisconsin’s attempt to monopolize all judicial races through the creation of the mis-named Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee. First, there’s the fact that it’s of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. The funny thing is, the state Constitution doesn’t say anything about the lawyers controlling the process of electing judges.

Then there’s the makeup of that Star Chamber. Club for Growth Wisconsin went through the donation and volunteer records of the 8 members (non-voting chair and 7 voting members) and found some interesting things:

- 3 of the 8 have ties either personally or through spouses to Louis Butler’s campaign.
- 5 of 8 had ties to Linda Clifford’s failed campaign last year.
- 0 of 8 have ties to Mike Gableman’s campaign
- This Star Chamber meets in secret and speaks only through its chair.

In short, I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to denounce Loophole Louie for speaking about the very same cases at Marquette University that they denounced Gableman for not denouncing some of his supporters because they spoke about those cases.

On a related note, please take a look at the right sidebar, and support Judge Michael Gableman for Supreme Court.

The Sheboygan city attorney, Stephen G. McLean, ignoring not only case law but Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution (which reads, for the dense, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”), ordered the proprietor of Sheboygan Shenanigans to pull links to the Sheboygan Police Department. After she complied, she became the subject part of a police investigation into the officer that maintains the Sheboygan Police site that was ordered by Sheboygan police chief David E. Kirk and Sheboygan mayor Juan Perez. Perez is still pissed that the private citizen led a recall effort against him, and is continuing to bully her.

Paging Mr. Van Hollen. Paging Mr. Biskupic. Something’s rotten in Sheboygan City Hall.

One more thing; Sheboygan Shenanigans is now on the blogroll, and the Sheboygan pols are part of a new section of that roll. Those pols will find I’m not a pushover.

Revisions/extensions (11:17 am 11/2/2007) - Jeni corrected who the police was conducting the mayoral witch-hunt against.

Revisions/extensions (10:58 pm 9/14/2007) - For those of you who can’t get the WMV embed to play, here’s the YouTube version. I do not as a rule embed YouTube videos as I can’t get the sound to work with either Internet Explorer or Firefox.

R&E part 2 (11:40 am 9/17/2007) - Patrick has a better video.

If you haven’t heard by now, Sheboygan County Circuit Judge Timothy M. Van Akkeren overturned a guilty verdict on a child enticement charge rendered by a jury against a slimeball serial sex offender by the name of Mitchell D. Pask. The Journal Sentinel has a quick, yet exhaustive, history on Pask, including his past and present history with Van Akkeren (which includes the charge he is still in jail for at the moment, indecent touching of a woman at a Sheboygan store), and Patrick over at Badger Blogger has a good starter’s list of other cases that Van Akkeren took the perp’s side, but let’s focus on this one.

In Van Akkeren’s instructions to the jury, he defined “secluded area”, a necessary condition for child enticement, as “a place screened or hidden from view or remote from others.” With that in mind, I took a little trip to Workers’ Water Street Park…

I seem to have found three spots that would meet the above definition of “secluded area”, one right at the picnic shelter itself, and two within easy walking distance. Then again, considering the Lawgiver-In-Black loves to let perps walk, I don’t suppose he thought of that.

I hope the fine folks in Sheboygan County act on this about the end of April, 2008, when Van Akkeren becomes eligible for recall.

(H/T - Dad29)

Just to refresh your memory, here is Section 13 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The California Supreme Court is currently considering a consolidated set of cases where the city of San Francisco and assorted nuts want to force California to recognize gay “marriages”. Before I get to the truly-mind-blowing part of the post, here’s a short history cribbed from VoteYesMarriage.com, an outfit seeking to enshrine marriage into California’s constitution:

- In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which became Family Code section 308.5, which read in entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Do note that, other than a grammatical anomaly and the substitution of “this state” for “California”, that is The First Sentence. Also, do note that the Family Code is part of California’s statutes, not its constitution.

- Between 2003 and 2005, the California Legislature systematically extended every right traditionally reserved for marriage to same-sex couples under the banner “domestic partnerships”, including forcing private entites who either have government contracts or provide insurance to provide full married benefits to same-sex couples.

- In 2004, San Francisco issued same-sex “marriage certificates” in violation of state law. While California’s Supreme Court voided it, it invited a challenge to Family Code 308.5 on “constitutional” grounds, which was promptly issued.

- In 2005, the California courts held those extensions “constitutional” by declaring that Prop 22/Family Code 308.5 only protected the name “marriage” and not any rights associated it, and then extended the force-feeding of same-sex benefits to all entities that provide public accomodations.

- In 2006, an appellate court ruled that Family Code 308.5 did prohibit same-sex “marriage”. That case is part of a consolidated set of marriage cases currently before the California Supreme Court.

Even before we get to the bombshell, we have “(a) legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” created in California. Now, on to the bombshell.

On June 20, the California Supreme Court asked the interested parties in the consolidated marriage cases referenced above to answer four questions:

1. What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware.
2. What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional “right
   to marry” that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution?
3. Do the terms “marriage” or “marry” themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of “marriage” to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage?
4. Should Family Code section 308.5 - which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” - be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same-sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted?

Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (RINO-Hollywood and Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Moon) filed briefs that answered the first 3 questions essentially identically.

Answer #1 summary (identical in both briefs) - There Are No Differences Between the Legal Rights and Benefits or the Legal Obligations and Duties Provided to Married Couples and Those Provided to Registered Domestic Partners Under California Law. Mostly noted above, though Brown’s brief took the added step of noting that even if “marriage” were granted to same-sex couples, it would not be recognized under federal law or by other states.

To that, I say, “Only until the Ninth Circus gets a hold of it.”

Answer #2 summary (Brown’s brief) - Although a Compelling Justification Would Be Needed Before the State Could Forbid a Man and a Woman from Entering into the Essential Relationship We Know as Marriage, Married Couples Do Not Possess Any Substantive Right Or Obligation Under Californa Law That Could Not Be Eliminated by Legislative Action Supported by a Rational Basis. (Schwarzenegger’s brief summary begins after the comma) Of particular note is the last sentence of both briefs (Brown’s brief quoted; Schwarzenegger’s brief essentially identical) - “But the State submits that, except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual committment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be aborgated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.”

In short, the only guaranteed right of marriage in California is to choose one’s “life partner” (the phrase is used in both briefs). Before I get to the item that makes even this moot in the eyes of the executive branch of California’s government, I will note that Schwarzenegger urges in his answer to the fourth question that Family Code section 308.5 be interpreted to mean that same-sex “marriages” not be recognized regardless of where they were entered into.

Answer #3 summary (identical in both briefs) - No Constitutional Provision Would Prohibit Changing the Name of the Marriage Relationship to Some Other Name. And thus “marriage” and Proposition 22/Family Code section 308.5 die. I will note that Schwarzenegger’s brief notes that the reference to “marriage” in Prop 22 might mean that any change in the name could require a vote of the people.

In short, without The Second Sentence, and without the protection of being part of Wisconsin’s constitution, The First Sentence would have been utterly meaningless, as it would neither have defended the institution of marriage nor the name of marriage itself.

I’m so glad they waited until I got back to issue this drivel so I could consider this without being rushed. I’m sure Rick Esenberg will apply a legal mind to this one, and I’ll wager that Jeff Wagner will jump in as well. The short version of the opinion - We Lawgivers-In-Black know better than you peon politicians and civil servants how to run a bidding contest, and if you corrupt politicians want to hand out favors for bribes, use minions and don’t tell them precisely why (though you can go as far as saying that it’s “political”).

That rousing cheer you hear is from corrupt politicians and criminals from Madison to Chicago and all points in between who have been given a “Stay out of jail free while buying campaign contributions and influence” card by LIBs Easterbrook, Bauer and Wood.

That is how long it’s been since the 3-person panel of Lawgivers-In-Black on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released Georgia Thompson from Club Fed, and there is still no opinion from them to back up their order. Inquiring minds from Madison to Chicago, both in politics and organized crime (or are they really one and the same?), want to know whether there is something specific about this case that caused a crash-stop reversal of Thompson’s conviction that they can exploit or whether the new standard is that, as long as the fixer remains clammed up, no conviction in the Great Lakes will remain upright.

Today’s Wall Street Journal (online version free today, October 27, 2006, only; I’m taking this from the print version) has an excellent editorial on New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruling that every benefit of marriage be extended to homosexual couples. Let’s take a look at the first paragraph:

This week’s New Jersey Supreme Court’s judicial diktat on same-sex-somethings (name to be determined later) is a remarkable arrogation of power by the judiciary. The court’s belief that it is empowered to embark on social experimentation in the field of marriage is embodied in the words — “We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples . . .” (our emphasis).

Note the phrase emphasized by the WSJ, “We have decided”. What, exactly, did the Lawgivers-In-Black decide? It decided that New Jersey’s legislature didn’t go nearly far enough in 2004 when it passed a law recognizing “domestic partnerships”. Indeed, it used the existance of that law to justify ordering the legislature to act as a further “great engine of social change”.

What else did the Lawgivers-In-Black decide? It decided that “or status as same-sex partners” be added to the interpretation of Article I, Paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution, which reads, “No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin.” Do note that they did NOT find a “fundamental right” to homosex “marriage” (though 3 of them did try to find just such a “right” in the “unenumerated rights” paragraph). Funny thing is, the phrases “same-sex” and “sexual orientation” (or similar language) do not appear anywhere in the New Jersey Constitution (or the United States Constitution for that matter). The other funny thing is that nowhere in that Constitution is the judiciary given a role in rewritting the Constitution.

If the Defense of Marriage Amendment fails on November 7, this ruling, or one demanding an outright mandate of “homosex marriage”, on an already-pending lawsuit to grant homosex couples “marriage” rights is in Wisconsin’s immediate future. Vote “YES” on the Defense of Marriage Amendment on November 7 (or earlier if you are voting absentee).