Do We Need Lawyers?

Dr. Daniel Mitchell's fascinating blog International Liberty had an article today on the problem of the self-serving legal profession. Among other things, Professor Mitchell writes,

There are also two comments, by 'Mack' and 'Paul' that I believe hit the nail on the head. Lawyers make laws for their own self-interest and the Courts, which are of course composed entirely of lawyers, interpret laws so as to benefit their own profession. I was having lunch today and a friend made the comment that lawyers don't know right from wrong and don't really care either - they only care what the loopholes in the law as regards any given case allow them to do.

I agree that lawyers should not be allowed to serve at any level of government. But I would go one step further. The Supreme Court needs to lose its designated status as the sole arbiter of what the Constitution does or does not mean. In short, if the Court says one thing and the President and Congress disagree, then the Court's opinion is rendered moot. In short, any two branches of government should be able to over-ride the third. The three branches are equal - the Court is not superior to Congress according to the Constitution. And it is also time to stop looking at Supreme Court case law. The only law that matters is what the plain text of the Constitution and those treaties signed (and ratified) by the United States. Case law is made to be overturned - especially when it conflicts with the clear language of the Constitution (yes, I'm talking about Kelo, among many, many other instances of judicial over-reach).

In the end, lawyers are simply another special interest group. Are they a necessary evil? I'm actually not convinced of that. I think that if laws were written by people with common sense, then a lot of the difficulty in the law would vanish and the need for lawyers would lessen as well. Lawyers exist to make the law difficult to understand. if it were in plain English, as the Constitution is, then why would we need lawyers at all? The answer is, we probably wouldn't. And this is a state of affairs much to be desired.

Home-schooling IS Acceptable After All

Some readers may recall the February 28 decision by the Los Angeles Second District Court that essentially would have forced home-schooling parents to hodl a teaching credential in order to teach their own children. I wrote at the time that based on my reading of the law in question, the Court simply upheld the existing law. However, I also said that I believ that parents absolutely should have the right to teach their own children at home, provided they are competent adults.

Today, the same court that handed down the original decision reversed themselves, stating that California law did allow parents to home-school without the necessity of obtaining a teaching credential. And the story in the San Francisco Chronicle provides a startling insight into the mind of the teachers' union, stating,

"Parents do not have an unfettered right to dictate the terms of their children's education," a lawyer for the union said in written arguments. Unregulated, unsupervised homeschooling, the lawyer said, is an invitation to "educational anarchy."

Parents do not have an unfettered right to dictate the terms of their childrens's education? Really? And why should some 'teacher' have that right? Especially when I am well aware that in most areas of study, I hold higher certifications than virtually any public school teacher? This mindset by the union is shocking and one of the many reasons why my child(ren) will never be taught in a public school setting if I can avoid it.

This is good news, although I continue to think that the Court acted in a strict constructionist manner throughout- both upholding the original law, and subsequently interpreting it based on the Legislature's apparent wishes. In other words, they did their jobs, which is to interpret the law- not make the law. In his re-interpretation, Judge Walter Croskey wrote,

"Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools," Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote Friday.

Croskey said one of those laws, a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees, indicated "a legislative approval of homeschooling." A 1991 law requires the state school superintendent to compile information on all private schools except those with five or fewer students, an exemption that was probably created for homeschools, Croskey said.

In a rare statement from the judiciary - which usually considers itself the ultimate authority on the meaning of the law - Croskey said the 1953 decision that applied compulsory education without exceptions has been effectively overruled in the real world.

I applaud Judge Croskey for recognizing that while the original law does indeed make education compulsory, the Legislature has itself recognized that home-schooling exists and has made accommodations for those who wish to home-school their children. Too many judges have forgotten that subtle difference between the job description of a judge and that of a legislator. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Is Fetching Coffee Sexist?

Apparently it is if your name is Tamara Klopfenstein. The afore-mentioned Ms. Klopfenstein actually brought a lawsuit complaining that being asked to bring coffee for her superiors was a sexist act.

According to the report on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website,

Nine minutes after receptionist Tamara Klopfenstein complained - for the second time - about getting her bosses coffee, she was fired.

"I don't expect to serve and wait on you by making and serving you coffee every day," Klopfenstein e-mailed to her boss at National Sales & Supply L.L.C., of Bensalem.

Manager Jason Shrager told her the issue wasn't "open for debate."

Naturally, Klopfenstein sued the company, where according the notes in reporter Jane Von Bergen's story, "she had been employed as a part-time receptionist and data entry clerk for six weeks." So let's recap:

Part-time receptionist and data entry clerk is requested to get coffee for her managers. She complains in an email not once but twice. After the second complaint, an email where she essentially told her managers that she considered bringing them coffee beneath her dignity (part-time receptionist, remember), she was fired- essentially on the spot.

Fortunately, there are sane judges even in Philadelphia. The presiding justice, one Berle Schiller, threw out her complaint.

"The act of getting coffee is not, by itself, a gender-specific act," Schiller wrote. The fact that a vice president wrote "looks nice, dresses well," on notes when she was hired also doesn't add up to discrimination, the judge wrote.

This cannot be more true. It is just one more sad result of a world whee people are convinced that they are too good for this or that task. Ms. Klopfenstein was a part-time receptionist and data entry clerk. This is not exactly a highly skilled position, and her tenure with the firm was a mere six weeks. Where exactly did she decide that it was acceptable to dictate to her superiors what tasks she would and would not perform for the company? I am entirely in agreement with the judge in this case- the only negative is that her lawyers have said they will appeal, and their chances of finding an agreeable judge who will decide that somehow this incredibly silly woman's 'rights' were violated are regrettably high considering this country's legal profession.

However, this is not the only issue. According to the blog Classical Values, Klopfenstein's attorneys are planning to make the argument that "some tasks are inhernetly more offensive to women". Classical Values very properly skewers THAT idea, writing,

To see this out, let's assume getting coffee is less offensive to men than women. Does that mean it should become "men's work," and that only men should be asked to fetch coffee, lest women be offended by being asked? Can anyone tell me how that wouldn't be sexist? If a man worked somewhere and could show that only men were tasked with getting coffee, couldn't he sue?

And why couldn't women also sue? If we adopt the plaintiff's position, and the company were to show more sensitivity by defering to women, what would stop a woman from turning around and claiming that the company was preventing her from doing what had become "men's work"?

Essentially we have here a very silly individual who somehow believes that she- a very unimportant and low-ranking cog in the firm- has the right to dictate to her superiors what she will and will not do. And when her superiors very correctly determine that this type of person is not an asset and terminate her employment, she runs off to court to try to somehow punish them for making that decision. I applaud Judge Schiller, but unfortunately, our court system tends to allow people like Klopfenstein multiple chances to win, no matter how bereft of logic and value their cases may be.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Court Finally Gets One Right

I have been fairly critical of the United States Supreme Court in recent days, especially since they have shown no respect for legislative process. However, events this morning have caused a need for some kudos, after they finally got a judgement correct. According to Reuters news service, the Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C gun ban, in Heller v. the District of Columbia, declaring that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does indeed guarantee an individual right to own guns.

According to Reuters,

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.

Honestly, this should have been an easy call. The Second Amendment is one of the shortest and clearest parts of the entire document. As quoted from the National Archives it says,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While liberals try to obfuscate the issues with the explanation of the Amendments that mentions the need for a militia, the basic text states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is pretty blunt, and unlike some Supreme Court decisions (Boumediene and Kelo come to mind, not even mentioning Roe) is completely supported by the Constitution's text itself. No foreign law, no waffling from leftists trying to disarm Americans so as to more easily impose their own brand of Communism. It is almost impossible to misconstrue the meaning of the Second Amendment and I am delighted to see that five justices actually had no problem understanding the clear meaning of the actual text itself.

Of course, we should worry that four justices (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer) somehow cannot understand the plain language of the Amendment. They are capable of inventing new rights out of thin air for unlawful combatants, and rewriting parts of the Constitution with which they disagree (Kelo), yet when it comes to one of the clearest parts of the actual Constitution, they are unable to understand its clear import.

This ultimately, is why elections matter. Since Congress has abrogated its Constitutional role of judicial oversight, the only way to guarantee that the Constitution is upheld is to appoint strict constructionists, and the only party that shows any signs of doing that is the Republican Party- the Democrats prefer to appoint people who want to change the Constitution- not uphold it. So to all my conservative and libertarian friends whoa re considering sitting out the 2008 Presidential election, i say that although John McCain is not perhaps the candidate we would prefer, he is infinitely preferable to Barack Obama.

Supreme Court Snatches Defeat From Victory

Well, it has occurred. I cannot say I am surprised, but I am disappointed. I was hoping that at least one justice would actually read the Constitution before opening the floodgates of litigation by giving rights that are intended for U.S. citizens to people who meet none of the criteria for such rights. Yes, you heard me correctly. Today the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, announced that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, people who by definition in the Geneva Conventions signed by the United States of America are not eligible for any such rights, are eligible for the right of habeus corpus and are allowed to sue the US government in US federal courts. By so doing, with one stroke they have managed to hand the Islamic imperialist forces the victory that they could not win on the battlefield.

I quote the Geneva Convention as follows- see for yourself if our enemies in al Quaeda and Iraq fall into one of the following categories:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

This is so disappointing on so many levels it is difficult for me to begin. I think that if I were the President, I would order the troops to shoot ever single inmate at Guantanamo- immediately. After all, since these people have now outlived their usefulness, and will soon be released into American society with (probably) American citizenship (can't deny these poor mistreated people the privileges of US citizenship since the Court has decided to give them every other right). I am sure the Court will do everything in its power now to ensure that these people receive millions of dollars for their 'mistreatment'- never mind that these are the same people who planned and executed 9/11- and will soon have a plan in place to allow them to settle down in the very country thy so badly wish to destroy. When America finally falls, as so many other great cultures have fallen to Islam, it will be the Democrats, the leftist legal profession and the media who will bear all the blame, since they seem determined to take Americans' privileges away and give them to people who do not deserve them.

As far as this disgraceful ruling goes, I think that Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head. She wrote on her site,

What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

I could not agree more. I think that with this decision, the Court has finally succeeded in doing what Osama Bin Laden could not- deliver victory in this war to Islam. It won't be immediate, but this country is doomed. The Left has got their hands on the true power, since Congress and the President will not exercise their right as equal branches to the Court to refuse to recognize illegal decisions such as this one which have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution itself. The Founders clearly did not intend for non-lawful combatants and illegal aliens to qualify for the same rights as American citizens. Now that the Court has handed those rights over to the worst possible group of detainees, how long will it be before legitimate prisoners of War- those who DO meet the criteria contained in the Geneva Conventions- start suing in federal courts? Malkin says it will not be long and I sadly agree.

To those who have a way out of this country, I strongly advise that you begin looking at your options. To those who don't, I suggest you start practicing your shooting- you will need your defences once sharia takes control, aided and abetted by the same lawyers and so-called 'elites' who were so eager to hand over our rights to our enemies. America has fallen at last, and it is now only a matter of time before Islam replaces the Constitution with Sharia law, since our own elected officials and these unelected judges would rather ignore the Constitution to hand out our rights to our enemies than actually do something to protect their own country. As Byzantium before us, we are doomed, due to our own self-loathing elites. If you happen to have a moment, read Sir Steven Runciman's The Fall of Constntinople. It details the fall of Constantinople, once one of Christendom's proudest empires, but which was eventually delivered to Islam by its own leaders and allies- just as we are being delivered to Islam.

And as an aside, when you are looking for places to retreat, don't choose Europe. Without our protection, Europe hasn't a chance of surviving. They are a lot further down the path of self-destruction than we. Pick a nation that has some nationalistic pride, like China or Japan. But make sure that you pick one that will fight, because I don't think any of us would want to live under Islam's sharia law- it is even harsher to non-Muslims than it is to Muslims. I wonder how the so-progressive Left will enjoy living under what they have brought us? I almost wish that I would live to see that event, but I am saddened by knowing that my son will be forced to live in a world where the United States no longer exists as such.

So farewell to the Great Experiment! Farewell America! She has endured for over two centuries, but now her own elites, encouraged by the people's ignorance and inattention, have delivered her to her enemies and now it is only a matter of time before they manage to hand over the remainder of what once were considered the rights of Americans. To be shortly followed, no doubt, by the reins of power to the medieval clerics who want to take us all back to the Middle Ages. it was a great ride, but like so many other cultures before us, we have been destroyed from inside by our own ignorance, stupidity and pride.

More Judicial Arrogance

Well, I see that the California Supreme Court has decideed that its own preferences outweigh the wishes of the state's population, and seemingly of the state Constitution as well. As reported by Breitbart news today, the Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage.

While I have no problem with gay couples having access to benefits, etc. Hwoever, I do not approve of judges legislating, which is what this case certainly appears to be. California has a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, and the court's rationnale to overturn it smacks of the same judicial arrogance that gave rise to Roe v. Wade- another case of judicial over-reaching.

Fortuantely, there are groups attempting to put the matter out of the reach of courts- they intend to put the measure on the ballot to amend the state's Constituion. If the legislature would do their job or reigning in courts that writye law- reserved to the legislature in most state Constuitutions- then this would be unnecessary. But with a one-party state such as California, I fear that only a citizen revision of the Constituion will rein in these judges.

If i have mis-characterized the case, and if there is solid legal grounds why the justices overturned it, I trust that knowledgeable legal commentators will weigh in on this to correct me, but on first glimpse, it certainly appears to be judicial over-reaching.

Victimology 101

Lawyers have done much to ruin our society, from driving doctors out of business to forcing ridiculous warning signs. However, their most pernicious contribution might be in promoting the vicitm society- the idea that anyone can become a victom. The laste manifestation of this can be seen in former National Basketball Asoociation (NBA) player Roy Tarpley, who is suing the NBA under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that his cocaine and alcohol habit constitutes a disability.

First, a little background. Tarpley was a multi-talented 7-foot forward, who came into the NBA in 1986. He played five years with the Dallas Mavericks franchise, and was instrumental in the Mavericks' run to the 1988 Western Conference Finals, where they fell to the Los Angeles Lakers in seven games. Hwoiever, he was thrown out of the league in 1991 for using cocaine, which violated the laegues drug policy. Tarpley was reinstated in 1994, but was banned for life in 1995 for drinking alcohol and also for violating the terms of a court-ordered aftgercare program. The events would seem fairly straightforward- a player violates league policy, league eventually pernmanently bans player for multiple violations. Tarpley, however, seems to think that he is a victim here. His suit claims,

Tarpley, who was permanently banned from the NBA in 1995, claimed in his lawsuit that the league and the Mavericks discriminated against him on the basis of his disability as a recovering drug and alcohol abuser.
"Tarpley is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA, in that he has a disability in the form of past drug and alcohol abuse, which substantially limits at least one of his major life activities," as documented in the the 46-page lawsuit, which was filed in Houston federal court.

Since when is coacine and alcohol use a disability? using these products is a choice that Tarpley made, and thus he ought to be willing to bear the consequences as well. No one forced him to partake of alcohol or cocaine, and his initial suspension ought to have warned him that a second violation would bring harsher discipline. Unfortunately, the victim soceity that the trial lawyers are pushing seems to agree with Tarpley. According to the story on Fox Sports, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has agreed with Tarpley that using alcohol and cocaine is a disability.

To me this is a disgrace. Tarpley made his own choices and now does not have the moral strength to accept that his banning from the league was directly due to his own actions. And the EEOC has encouraged this nonsense. Physical limitations should be covered, but choosing to indulge in alcohol or drugs is not a disability in my estimation and I am appalled that the legal profession seems determined to make it so. This is merely one more reason why we need to rein in the lawyers and their enablers in the judiciary. Would that our elected representative had the intestinal fortitude to do that, instead of wasting their time in attempts to curry favor with the green lobby and empty-headed Hollywood celebrities.

Media Bias On Display In San Francisco

In San Francisco's liberal Ninth Circuit Court today, a three- judge panel heard arguments in the strange case of Al-Haramain v. Bush. And the members of the media gathered in San Francisco showed their ideological colors afterwards. 

To those who may not be familiar with the case, this is essentially a test case as to whether the United States government has the legal authority to perform secret surveillance on anyone. The plaintiff is a Muslim organization called Al-Haramain that has been linked to a variety of Muslim terrorist organizations and has been shuttered in many countires for its unabashed laundering of money to said terrorists. Even the United Nations has placed Al-Haramain on its list of banned organizations. The organization was also concluded to be a terrorist organization here in the U.S. but somehow managed to gain posession of a document showing that they were the subject of surveillance, and thus sued the US government, claiming that the U.S. government does not have the authority to do such surveillance. The superb photo-journalist Zombie covered the day's action in exquisite detail, so I shall not recap here. Suffice to say that after the testimony was finished, many of the media gathered outside the courtroom in San Francisco gave one of the most damning demonstrations of bias that I have ever had the displeasure to see. 

The Muslim organization is being defended by an attorney whose name one might recognize- Jon Eisenberg, who represented Michael Schiavo in Schiavo's quest to have his wife Teri killed. As one might guess, he is an outspoken opponent of conservatism in general and the Republican Party and the Bush Administration in particular. His opponent representing the United States government was an attorney named Thomas Bondy. They received very different treatment from the gathered media once they had emerged from the courtroom. To quote Zombie,

Then Jon Eisenberg, the main attorney for Al-Haramain who had just argued the case, emerged from the building and let out a greeting of camaraderie and relief when he spotted his buddies in the media. Needless to say, they surrounded him and eagerly let him tell his side of the story. Jon Eisenberg pontificated for quite a long time.

...

Finally, Thomas Bondy -- the attorney for President Bush who was arguing the government's case against Eisenberg -- came out the courtroom door. He and his team of lawyers walked right past the reporters who had just interviewed John Eisenberg (including one who was still interviewing him, on the left of this picture). But not a single reporter showed the slightest interest in questioning him or interviewing him. When Bondy got to the bottom of the stairs, he heard something behind him and turned around, perhaps thinking it was a reporter asking him a question -- but no, it was just one of his colleagues. They stood there all by themselves, with at least 15 media members nearby, and no one approached them. So, they decided they might as well just leave. I don't know if they even wanted to give interviews -- perhaps they were glad they didn't have to repeat "no comment" over and over. But either way, no one in the media even tried. Why was Eisenberg treated like a superstar, while Bondy was totally ignored by the media?

Interspersed with Zombie's commentary were several pictures of the entire affair. I regret that Zombie was unable to identify any of the media organizations present, but all of them ought to be ashamed of their unprofessional behavior. I don't know what qualities are required of a 'professional reporter', but I would guess that objectivity, honesty and a passsion for accuracy and fairness should be featured prominently amongst them. Based on Zombie's pictures and commentary, there was no one who matched that description at this hearing today. Thus, I can offer some advice- if the media truly wants to shake its richly-deserved reputation for biased and unreliable reporting, they might want to minimize such scenes as this where they gather around their preferred side like groupies, while entirely ignoring the other side. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

Guilty As Charged

Breitbart News reported that Jose Padilla was found guilty on all charges today by a jury in Miami. According to the article,

Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

This is very good news, as it justifies the Bush Administration. Despite the idiocy of allowing terrorists and accused terrorists access to our legal system, the trial results deliver harsh reality to the folks who have claimed that Padilla is merely a misunderstood American- folks who include much of the mainstream media!

Let us hope that this conviction is the beginning of a long line of terrorists meeting their richly deserved fates. Padilla is a traitor and deserves everything he gets.

The Judges Strike Back

It would seem to most people that they have the right to decide who can live in their town, and if there are illegal aliens hiding, then the townsfolk should be able to tell their police to round them up and hand them over to the federal government for removal. Unfortunately, it seems that judges either have no common sense or are too blinded by their desire to destroy the United States and turn it into Mexico, Junior.

Today, federal judge James Munley struck down Hazelton, Pennsyvania's anti-illegal alien law on the ground that it infringed on teh federal government's prerogatives.

This is truly sickening. Judges have no problem letting the federal government walk all over the rights of the States and the People, but when municipalities try to help out (especially when the Fes are lying down on the job as they are in this issue) then judges have no problem telling the municipalities that they cannot step in. And what was this judge thinking? Municipalities have a perfect right to police themselves, so this is not in the slightest infringement- it is helping out. Maybe Judge Munley simply doesn't want to give up his Mexican housekeeper or his garden boys?

It is time that municipaliites rise up and demand action. Sovereign nations have a perfect right to protect their broders, and towns and locals have a right to determine who can enter. These illegals are, well, illegal. What doesn't Munley understand about this?

This decision is an embarrassment. However, this will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court, in the end, though I think it is time that Congress removes the issue of rights for illegals from the purvey of the federal judiciary. They have proved they cannot be trusted, either on POW or on illegal alien issues.

Scooting Free

In a manner of speaking. President Bush today commuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence, meaning the former Chief of Staff for Vice-President Richard Cheney will not serve asny jail time, though he will still be a convicted felon, and he will have to pay a $250000 fine.

I have thought all along that the investigation that led to this conviction was a travesty, although the jury apparently acted reluctantly and sincerely believed Libby lied to them. However, in making the decision to comute, I also believe that the President made the right decision. Libby's crime was real- you do not lie under oath, no matter what the questions may be. That is what Clinton did and it iss inexcusable whether it is a Republican staffer or a Democratic President.

However let's consider that Libby is the only member of Bush's Administration to be convicted of anything, let alone the only member even to be indicted- compare this with the Clinton Administration, whose national Security Advisor Sandy Berger has been convicted with illegally stealing and destroying classified papers, whose associate attorney general (the number three post in the Justice Department) Web Hubbell has been convicted of tax evasion, whose former Director of Central Intelligence Agency John Deutch was found guilty of mishandling classified information (leaking), and whose Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Ciscneros was found guilty of lying to the FBI over a bribery case. Deutch and Hubbell were later pardoned by Clinton on his last day in office. In addition, many of Clinton's business partners and close associates were convicted and imprisoned in the Whitewater investigation, including Susan McDougal, who was pardoned as the President left office. And that is without discussing the many peopled who fled the country to avoid being quetioned in the China campaign money scandal (John Huang, Charlie Trie and others). As a reminder to Democrats, Matt Drudge has posted a link to a complete and useful listing of the pardons Bill Clinton issued. Bush commuted Libby's sentence- he did not pardon him.

However, while no Democrat complained about Bill Clinton pardoning criminals convicted of far more serious crimes, and though all of the current House or Seante leadership defended Bill Clinton for the exact same crime ("It's all about the sex", remember?) that Libby was convicted of, many Democrats were not so forgiving this time.

"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president's chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

I would take Seantor Reid more seriously if he or his party had mustered the same condemnation for their President, who was actually impeached for perjury.

In the main, I think President Bush made the correct decision. L:ibby committed a crime, and he ssholuldd make restitution. However, this is a man with no previous offenses, and his record says that he is unlikely to do it ever again. Paying his fine an serving his time under probation is sufficient as far as I am concerned. And although many conservatives may howl, I think that in the long run, Bush may even be appreciated for his courage in commutation without pardoning. Ultimately, I agree with Ed Morrissey, who writes,

If Bush wanted to take any action -- and I would have advised against it -- this is as far as he should go. It allows Libby to remain free while he pursues his appeal, but it makes it clear that the White House won't undo convictions for official misconduct. It strikes a balance that few will appreciate now, but later will accept as wise, as far as it goes. If Libby has a good case for reversal, let the courts make that decision.

Illegals Sue Government

For lack of overtime???

It appears that a ccompany located near Boston employed many illegal aliens. As is typical, this was conducted under the table, and it came to and end when federal immigration agents raided the place and arrested many of them in March.

However, the illegals are now suing in US court claiming that they were cheated out of overtime wages.

It said the company channeled payroll through Front Line to avoid a federal law requiring workers be paid time and a half for overtime.

"In a lot of ways, what they did unfortunately is not out of the ordinary. The practices are very common in a wide range of workplaces, especially those that use predominantly immigrant workers," said Audrey Richardson, an attorney with Greater Boston Legal Services, which represents the workers.

My first problem is that these illegals should not be allowed to sue the federal government at all. They are here illegally, so if they are suing, the suit should be thrown out and the members of the class action suit deported post-haste. In addition, this statement is simply staggering in its assumption that illegals somehow should have rights that American citizens are denied. I am a citizen but I am expected to follow every US law. Why are illegals exempt? As for Richardson's comment regarding these "standard practices", perhaps companies should not use illegal workers. If the workers are here illegally, then they have to take the risks associated. They are here illegally. If I wanted to work illegally in Mexico, what would the conditions be like? Certainly not as cozy as they are for Mexican illegals here.

The sooner we crack down and close our borders the better. Any companies found using illegal workers should be fined crippling amounts and put out of business. Then the illegals won't have to worry about overtime, since they won't be getting paid at all, and they might actually have to go back where they came from.

More Judicial Arrogance...

...from our beloved federal justices. In this case, a federal judge apparently thinks that dolphins are more important than defending ourselves from our enemies. Or maybe she just wants us to lose this war we are fighting against Islam. So she decided that the Navy cannot use one of their most important tools- sonar!

This is simply more proof that the sooner Congress reins in judges who are making decisions about things of which they posses no knowledge or expertise, the better off we will be. I think it is time for Congress to tell the federal judiciary they have no authority over the Armed Forces and that they also have no authority over the open seas. Where do these activist judges think their authority comes from? Certainly not the Constitution! They threw that venerable document out the window long ago in their haste to remake it into a 'living' document. Perhaps we can have Congress write a law removing the Judiciary's power of judicial review and also specifying that any judge who makes decisions like this is subject to immediate removal from the Bench. Without appeal. That ought to rein in our activist judges a bit.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.