Legal Ethics

I rarely talk about judges or courts on this blog

Here is why.

Football Doldrums

What a depressing weekend.

Penn State loses to Iowa. Again.

The Steelers lose. Again. To Cincinnati (the Mrs. did a little victory dance around the living room over that one).

The Redskins lose. To Detroit, breaking a 19-game losing streak.

The only bright spot? Hampden-Sydney handled Guilford.

Well, at least one of the teams I care about won.

Neo-Con Pioneer Passes

Irving Kristol, former Trotskyite, American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neoconservativism," founder, editor, and contributor to various magazines, has passed away today in Arlington at age 89. He is widely credited with the observation that a neoconservative is "a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

He was one of the leading public intellectuals of the last half-century. His widow, historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, and son Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, are notable public intellectuals in their own right.

Condolences to his family, and legions of admirers everywhere.

RIP

There Goes The Neighborhood

As I was driving in this morning, WMAL reported that the United Mine Workers Union had just signed a twelve-year lease to move its International headquarters to Triangle, in Prince William County, about five miles from my house, and that of another Right to Work lawyer.

One wonders whether it will be located on Old Mine Road.

Anyway, there goes the neighborhood.

Perhaps we'll be seeing these on our local roads.

Moonbats For Deeds Enlist Dishonest Attacks Upon AG McDonnell's Legal Ethics

Mike@Blueweeds has favored us with a "scholarly" discussion of Attorney General Robert McDonnell's actions in In re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church Property Litigation, Civil Case Nos. CL-2007-0248724 et al., the dispute heard in Fairfax Circuit Court over church property in the wake of the Episcopal Church's decision to endorse sin by, inter alia, allowing practicing homosexuals to become high-ranking clergy.

Now, I don't know if Mike is an attorney. I don't even know if he plays one on TV. But if this is the quality of his legal analysis, he might want to consider a suit to get a refund of his law-school tuition. I'd recommend that he not represent himself.

Mike complains long and loud that:

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell tried unsuccessfully to intervene in a private church property dispute on behalf of a conservative breakaway congregation involved in litigation over ownership of the historic Falls Church Episcopal.

He also asserts that:

Attorney General McDonnell obliged by filing an extraordinary Motion to Intervene the Commonwealth of Virginia on behalf of the Falls Church CANA congregation. One of the issues disputed in the trial was the constitutionality of the so-called Virginia Division Statute (Virginia Code section 57-9).

The Motion was vigorously opposed by the sin-endorsing Episcopalians.

But it's here that Mike starts to go a little ... well, wacky. His title claims that "AG McDonnell Used Office To Improperly Intervene In Falls Church Property Dispute" (emphasis added). He claims that:

The trial court did not ... allow McDonnell to intervene the Commonwealth on behalf of the conservative congregation. The court admonished McDonnell for his attempt to take sides with the conservative church congregation rather than to represent the interests of the people of Virginia, and issued an Order denying the McDonnell's Motion to Intervene....

The problem? Well, aside from the fanciful notion that defending the majority of a congregation seeking to retain its property is not "represent[ing] the interests of the people of Virginia" against a self-describedly "Christian" church which endorses activities condemned by both Old and New Testaments (a matter of opinion), the claims are false in virtually all of its factual particulars.

The Fairfax County Circuit Court initially "DEFERRED" (original emphasis) ruling on the Motion to Intervene in the very order to which Mike links, which is dated 26 February 2008. Nowhere does it "admonish" McDonnell or his office.

Now, I have not followed this controversy closely. But when I pointed out to Mike that "there is certainly an argument to be made that the AG has standing to intervene in any action challenging a statute of the Commonwealth of Virginia," he responded with this peurile little response, lacking the courage actually to post it publicly in the thread accompanying his rant:

"I discern no admonition to the Attorney General"
What a precious little pastry arguement you make. I linked to the trial docs ... go do your homework. When you're done, come back, so I can start schooling you on legal procedure.

And in fact, the Court later granted Attorney General McDonnell's Motion to Intervene, noting in a letter opinion of 16 July 2008, that "The Attorney General of Virginia has a unique interest in defending the constitutionality of the statutes of the Commonwealth," and citing the fact that the situation was rather unusual, as challenges to the constitutionality of state statutes are usually considered in Federal courts, where "a state attorney general's specific interest in defending the constitutionality of state statutes is explicitly recognized both in 28 U.S.C. s2403(b) and in U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 24(4)(c)." A link to this document is provided by another commenter; Mike neglects to mention it at all, relying instead upon the arguments made by parties opposing the intervention.

In short, Mike attempts to argue that Attorney General McDonnell engaged in legal misconduct even though the court endorsed McDonnell's effort by granting it!

I don't often discuss legal arguments in this space. But when someone like Mike alleges misconduct, his fatuous and factually false assertions must be identified.

UPDATE: J.C. Wilmore ("The Richmonder") is attempt to raise the drumbeat here, and repeats many of the same misrepresentations as Mike.

Iconography And The Cult Of Personality

An excellent discussion on the power of iconography, one which recognizes President Barry's effort to create a cult of personality:

WaPo Spike Watch: Day Two

Well, it only took two days for the Washington Post to mention Deeds position.

But let's make sure we understand this: the Post "uncovers" a twenty-year-old master's thesis by McDonnell, and it's front-page, above-the-fold, three-day story. A ten-year-old Deeds campaign position which would be characterized as "anti-gay" by virtually every partisan for the radical homosexual agenda is revealed, and the Post limits its coverage (so far, and as far as I can tell) to an internet post.

Is there really anyone who will suggest that the WaPo is anything but an adjunct of the Democrat Party?

WaPo Spike Watch: Day One

Last night, VA Blogger at TC broke the blogosphere story of Creigh Deeds' "homophobic" remarks in a campaign flyer of only ten years' vintage. I wrote about it shortly later. The Weekly Standard had a post about it late yesterday afternoon.

And yet, the Washington Post has nothing about it. It's editors are spiking* the story. Now, I realize that it was a busy news night. After all, it's much more important to reinforce the lies of President Barry. And to trash a GOP congressman for (rudely) telling the truth about it.

So now, a new feature on Skeptical Observor! The WaPo Spike Watch. The WaPo has spent a week trashing Republican former Attorney General Robert McDonnell over a two-decade old master's thesis --- a compilation of academic musings --- which purportedly trashes a few far-Left sacred cows, and the voters have yawned. Now, someone has produced a Deeds' campaign piece which rejects the radical homosexual agenda.

Until the WaPo applies similar standards to Creigh Deeds, its clearly-preferred candidate for Virginia Governor, I'm going to note it here.

Day. By. Day.

___________

*A newspaper term that means a story is killed because an editor doesn't like its politics. Famously written about by former Washington Times editor Arnaud de Borchgrave and Robert Moss in a political thriller about 25-30 years ago.

Creigh Deeds Is A "Homophobe"!

Yeah, yeah. I know. Nobody who uses the word "homophobe" should be taken too seriously. It is, after all, usually just a term to belittle those who oppose the radical homosexual agenda.

But that's what the far Left would call someone who made a statement such as this.

VA Blogger at TC has the story here.

And he asks the reasonable question: "When should we expect a front-page A1 story from the Washington Post about this?"

If enough Conservatives hold their breath waiting for that, Deeds may just pull it out.

Is This The "Hopey-Changey" For Which You Voted?

So President Barry says that the "time for bickering is over" on health care.

Another sanctimonious boob dismisses serious policy differences by belittling them.

This is "bipartisanship"? This is "reasonable discussion"?

No. This is typical far-Left arrogance.

The problem for President Barry is not that this is "bickering." It is not misrepresenting the contents of his proposals.

President Barry's problem is that the GOP and Conservatives are telling the truth about his proposals.

Moonbatosphere Moron ... But I Repeat Myself

With today's WaPo attack piece on Bob McDonnell --- surprise! The WaPo is taking the pro-homo side in the culture war --- Virginia's moonbats are engaged in an "Amen!" chorus. Or is it the other way around?

I found one particularly interesting. Now, I suppose there are plenty of reasons to criticize McDonnell on this, but Fred attacks McDonnell's dismissal of the complaints about the blocked re-appointment of a Virginia Beach judge as "irrelevant" to this race, "seeing as how Governors appoint judges!"

Uh, except when the legislature is not in session, and then only temporarily, not in Virginia they don't.

Fred, you're a moron.

Dan Snyder Is Pond-Scum

Give the guy credit, though: in a league in which Al Davis and Jerry Jones are both owners, Dan Snyder still manages to be the most hated owner in the league, and by his team's own fans. It's not that the Redskins have stunk up the place under his ownership, though they have. It's not the revolving door in the Head Coach's office, though there's been that, too. It's not even charging $8 for one beer even though a case of it should cost less than that.

It's things like this, which convince me he works at it.

And that, while I'll attend an occasional game, I will never be a season ticketholder.

Does It Have Twice The Nuts?

Pathologically far-Left Ben & Jerry's has a new flavor to celebrate the legalization of homosexual "marriage" in its native Vermont: "Hubby Hubby."

I suppose it rolls off the tongue more easily than "Fraudulent Poseurs."

Interesting Description

According to the New York Daily News, the State Department is investigating private guards at the Kabul, Afghanistan, embassy for frat-house activities and other "deviant behavior."

I put the last in quotation marks because, well, that's apparently the phrase the State Department is using.

Interesting phrase. In an Administration which seeks to mainstream homosexuality, endorses single-sex "marriage," and wants to provide Federal civil rights protections for ... well, "deviants," it is indeed breathtaking to contemplate what qualifies as "deviant behavior."

Brilliant!

Every freedom-loving blogger should embed this one:



H/T to Greg L

Catharsis!

Moonbat Cindy Sheehan admits what should have been obvious to everyone, but probably won't be admitted by others on the far Left: that "the 'antiwar movement' wasn't so much antiwar as anti-Bush."

Another Death Penalty Offense?

There are some cases other than premeditated murder for which the death penalty may well be an appropriate penalty.

Those who perpetrated this crime --- the kidnapping, holding, and serial child rape of Jaycee Lee Dugard --- should be eligible for the ultimate penalty. Particularly heinous is the fact that the wife of the alleged rapist was completely complicit in his crimes.

Enlisting The Government Schools To Violate The Constitution

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

U.S. Const., amend. XIV

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

U.S. Const., art. I, sec.3

One of the notions of which the Framers of our Constitution were keenly aware was the principle that, in a republic, a nation of laws, not men, it was absolutely necessary that our fundamental documents be easily understandable to the average citizen. Thus, our Constitution is a fairly simple document to understand.

One good example of this principle put into practice is the census. Having created — per James Madison’s “Virginia Plan” — one legislative branch based upon proportional representation of the population of each state, and foreseeing the growth to be enjoyed by the nascent nation, the members of the Constitutional Convention immediately understood that a method of apportioning those representatives among the several States would be necessary at certain
intervals. Hence, they required a decennial census to apportion representatives.

But apportionment of Members of Congress is the sole constitutional purpose for the census. Other than that sole design, the census has no other purpose authorized by the Constitution.
When, in 2000, the Youngs received their census form, Form D-2, to be precise, it was the long form. It included a cover letter over the signature of Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the Bureau of the Census.

While it was nice to see that we would be “actually enumerated” after years of talk of statistical “sampling” promoted by an administration desiring to rig the process, the actual form was something of an anticlimax, preceded by weeks of television and radio advertising. We even received, in this year’s property tax assessment, a palmcard from our friends in the McCoart Center, promoting participation.


Interestingly, not a single word of that advertising mentioned the constitutional purpose for the census, i.e., apportionment of representatives. All of it focused on what we would get for doing so. The palmcard provided a blurb about “What Happens when you fill out Census 2000... You can improve education, help our nation’s farmers, provide help to people in need of social services, build better housing where needed, move transportation forward and create jobs.” It was of a piece with the broadcast advertising.

Well thanks, but no thanks. The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of education in the first place, or in providing housing, or in socialist “services,” i.e., those enjoyed by identifiable groups of people whose votes politicians decide to buy. And it certainly shouldn’t pervert the important constitutional purpose of the Census to achieve the extra-constitutional ends which are the sole topic of the advertising campaign.

Like the advertising preceding it, the Youngs' last Census form was a fascinating exemplar of bloated, statist nannyism of the big-government bureaucrats who doubtless put it together. Some credit is due, however; Prewitt’s cover letter states that the “First” reason answering the form is important is apportionment. However, he then went on to talk about how “[t]he amount of government money your neighborhood receives depends on your answers.” What’s funny, though, is that looking around my neighborhood, I have a sneaking suspicion that my neighbors and I are paying for a lot more than we’re receiving. And I have a conceptual problem with voluntarily participating in a process by which my wages are plundered for government handouts in areas in which the federal government has no business whatsoever.

And I’m particularly offended by the notion that the federal government cares about my telephone number, my sex (properly identified as “sex,” not the ubiquitously misused “gender”), my age (asking for both age and date of birth; is this a math test, too?), my race, and my marital status (Questions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, and 7, respectively). Whether I’ve attended “regular school or college” in the last year, or the education I’ve completed also is none of the federal government’s business (Questions 8 and 9). Neither is my “ancestry or ethnic origin,” the language spoken at home, the state in which I was born, or my citizenship (Questions 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).

Particularly offensive, though, were other questions, like where and in what type of housing I lived five years ago, or my disability status (Questions 15, 16, and 17). I’m not going to the government for a handout, and I’m offended by those who do. Why should I aid the imperial federal government in its plundering of my wages for those who do?

Then there’s the lifestyle questions. These ask about grandparents raising their grandchildren, and service in the military (like the government can’t figure that out for itself?!?). Most important to the federal government, however, are those questions which aid in its plunder of the productive, like whether and where an individual worked, how they got there, and what they earned (Questions 21 through 32). And then there are those about an individual’s household, their cars or trucks, and the costs (Questions 33 through 53). Maybe if I thought the last would result in an increase of the standard deduction on my income tax (which has gradually been reduced in value since the 1950s), I’d be inclined to answer them. Fat chance of that, though.

In 2000, many advocated refusing to answer any questions beyond the number of persons in a household, risking a fine of $100 under 13 U.S.C. Section 221. The Youngs did so, without consequence.

This year, however, according to News McNuggets ... er, USA Today, however, our government schools will be enlisted to violate the Constitution.

According to the article, our children will be enlisted in a process which is not only designed to satisfy its constitutional limits, but to "determine ... the distribution of more than $400 billion in federal funds to state and local governments every year." And rather than teaching our children of the sole constitutional purpose of the census --- something which should take about 15 minutes, in total, the article tells us that:

Between January and March, the Census Bureau will help plan a week of Census education in schools. During Census Week, teachers will devote 15 minutes every day for five days to the topic by discussing such things as civic participation, confidentiality or geography. Beginning in mid-March, more than 120 million Census questionnaires will be delivered to residential addresses.

Somehow, that sound suspiciously like using the government schools for statist indoctrination, rather than constitutional education.

Most disturbing in this entire process is that the “First” purpose of the census — apportionment — is virtually an afterthought to the government promoting full participation in it. Once again, the federal government is promoting ignorance among the citizenry. Perhaps it’s because the Left understands that constitutional ignorance is necessary if their statist agenda is to prevail.

She's At It Again

Moonbat Cindy Sheehan, that is. Now, she's dogging President Barry on his vacation.

Of course, you probably read it here first, since the media won't be giving her favorable coverage with President Barry in office.

H/T to Drudge.

The Return of Political Ambulance Chasers

So Ted Kennedy has died. I associate myself with the comment of a Facebook friend, who observed that "it's fair to say his suffering, and ours, is lessened today, and for that, all can be thankful." Except that the suffering of many whose lives were ruined by the Liberal welfare state and its continuation will continue unabated. Since that's about the nicest thing I can say about this statist, let's leave it at that.

What is truly despicable are those who suggest that we should enact yet another bad policy --- socialized medicine --- in his memory. While of a piece with most of his legislative "accomplishments," it is little more than dancing on his grave to suggest that President Barry's health care "reform" should be enacted simply because this Senator-for-Life has given up the ghost.

But hey! There's nothing like the far-Left's arrogant and empty invitation to a public "debate" on the subject!

UPDATE: One more "nice thing" about the late departed comes to mind. Give him credit for this: he demonstrated more backbone that virtually any of his fellows. That it was in the service of an agenda of proven failure and anti-constitutional government authority diminishes that considerably.