Jerod Lee Loughner Found Unfit for Trial

Someone finally figured out Jerod Lee Loughner is mentally ill. Too late to do anyone any good, but there you go.

Formspring Question #112--One Step Ahead of the Thought Police Edition

Why do you oppose hate crime legislation, but consider homicide worse than manslaughter?

I had to think about this question a while just to figure out what you were asking me. I think you are wondering why I oppose labeling an offense a hate crime even though it inherently possesses malice of thought when I think premeditated murder is worse than an unintentional killing. Is that it?

It is an interesting question. Answering it has been on edge to avoid hypocrisy, but I think I have a solid rationale for opposing hate crime legislation while still considering malice of thought in murder a true crime. My rationale boils down to not believing hatred is a crime, but plotting to murder someone is.

Think about it this way. A white supremacist can hate a black civil rights leader all he wants. It may make you uncomfortable to know there are people roaming about with those kinds of thoughts in their heads, but the world is full of rough edges. His opinion on the color of other people’s skin is his own. That is true even if he snaps one day, concocts a plan to kill the civil rights leader, and carries it out. Plotting the murder and carrying it out are crimes; the racist motivation behind it is not. It still ought not be a crime to hate the murdered civil rights leader even after the deed has been done. That is the thought police at work. They need no further encouragement.

I think hate crimes legislation is usually motivated by a desire to feel enlightened by punishing incorrect thought. The problem with labeling offenses as hate crimes is two fold. One, it is extremely nebulous to determine someone’s thoughts about committing a crime. Would it be a hate crime for a Barack Obama voter to vandalize Glenn Beck’s house? Howe about stealing a social Security check from an elderly woman? Is that ageism? Do we have to determine the mindset of the perpetrator in any crime involving people of different races/ yes, you would, and good luck with that. What are you going to do, by the way? Punish the perpetrator twice for not for not following the rules of political correctness in committing his crimes?

The second problem is realism. The law is not concerned with your warm fuzzies. It is results oriented. As much as one thinks courts like to take as much power for themselves as possible--and I am not discounting a radical change as “enlightened” legal scholars take more places on the bench--but determining someone feelings about committing a precedent they are eager to set. It is podium pounding politicians who go for hate crimes legislation.

So I oppose hate crime legislation, but support homicide being considered a horrible crime because I separate opinion and plotting as actual crimes. People ought to be able to think whatever they want, no matter how vile. Just try not to be living next door when they finally go off.

Formspring Question #112--One Step Ahead of the Thought Police Edition

Why do you oppose hate crime legislation, but consider homicide worse than manslaughter?

I had to think about this question a while just to figure out what you were asking me. I think you are wondering why I oppose labeling an offense a hate crime even though it inherently possesses malice of thought when I think premeditated murder is worse than an unintentional killing. Is that it?

It is an interesting question. Answering it has been on edge to avoid hypocrisy, but I think I have a solid rationale for opposing hate crime legislation while still considering malice of thought in murder a true crime. My rationale boils down to not believing hatred is a crime, but plotting to murder someone is.

Think about it this way. A white supremacist can hate a black civil rights leader all he wants. It may make you uncomfortable to know there are people roaming about with those kinds of thoughts in their heads, but the world is full of rough edges. His opinion on the color of other people’s skin is his own. That is true even if he snaps one day, concocts a plan to kill the civil rights leader, and carries it out. Plotting the murder and carrying it out are crimes; the racist motivation behind it is not. It still ought not be a crime to hate the murdered civil rights leader even after the deed has been done. That is the thought police at work. They need no further encouragement.

I think hate crimes legislation is usually motivated by a desire to feel enlightened by punishing incorrect thought. The problem with labeling offenses as hate crimes is two fold. One, it is extremely nebulous to determine someone’s thoughts about committing a crime. Would it be a hate crime for a Barack Obama voter to vandalize Glenn Beck’s house? Howe about stealing a social Security check from an elderly woman? Is that ageism? Do we have to determine the mindset of the perpetrator in any crime involving people of different races/ yes, you would, and good luck with that. What are you going to do, by the way? Punish the perpetrator twice for not for not following the rules of political correctness in committing his crimes?

The second problem is realism. The law is not concerned with your warm fuzzies. It is results oriented. As much as one thinks courts like to take as much power for themselves as possible--and I am not discounting a radical change as “enlightened” legal scholars take more places on the bench--but determining someone feelings about committing a precedent they are eager to set. It is podium pounding politicians who go for hate crimes legislation.

So I oppose hate crime legislation, but support homicide being considered a horrible crime because I separate opinion and plotting as actual crimes. People ought to be able to think whatever they want, no matter how vile. Just try not to be living next door when they finally go off.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Westboro Baptist Church

I am extremely not all that surpised the Supreme Court of the united States ruled in favor of the Westboro baptist Church in Snyder v. Phelps, but am extremely surpised it was an 8-1 ruling. You have lost badly when eight justices overlook their usuallly conflicting judicial philosophies to rule against you.

The ruling in Snyder recognizes a First Amendment right to peacefully protest at funerals on matters of public importance. Evidently, the morally dubious notion of protesting a brave marine killed in Iraq because Fred phelps and his clan think he was defending what they call the united States of Sodom is a matter of national importance.

Two things are confirmed for me in Snyder. One, the Calvinist principle of total depravity is absolute truth. The moral bankruptcy one must have to force one’s ignorant views on a grieving family burying their son is unfathomable. The arrogance and selfishness necessary to feel the need to express one’s view at that certain time and place is disgusting. Two, Snyder confirms the uncomfortable reality that if you want to have the freedom of John Stewart marketplace of ideas, you have to let Nazis march down main street.

On the plus side--there is one, I promise--Snyder has rendered it virtually impossible for anyone to sue for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional stress over political speech. Had Snyder gone the other way, precedent would have been set for, say, university students to sue over the stress of speech they do not like having a place on campus. Think Ann coulter never speaking on campus again at of lawsuit fears. No Republicans ever giving commencement speeches. Or conspicuous gatherings of religious groups on campus.

I am an adamant supporter of free speech. After having spent time among the ranks of bob Jones acolytes and a sizeable similar group at Regent University School of Law, I am highly familiar with the results of shutting down opposing viewpoints. Young people in particular wind up so brainwashed, most never fully recover. Sadder still, most do not even know damaged they are. In that regard, I appreciate the ruling. Truth be told, you can never truly understand why a belief is wrong until you are exposed to it.

But I am also saddened there are people out there like the WBC who lack all decency in exercising the rights granted to them by a country they despise while protesting the death of a soldier killed defending that right. I have very little faith in humanity as a whole. Sometimes my faith manages to sink even lower.

To end on as positive a note as I can, Bill O’Reilly has offered to pay Phelps’ legal fees, for which Snyder is obligated to pay. Progressives who unfairly attack o’Reilly’s character ought to be ashamed to further do so.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Westboro Baptist Church

I am extremely not all that surpised the Supreme Court of the united States ruled in favor of the Westboro baptist Church in Snyder v. Phelps, but am extremely surpised it was an 8-1 ruling. You have lost badly when eight justices overlook their usuallly conflicting judicial philosophies to rule against you.

The ruling in Snyder recognizes a First Amendment right to peacefully protest at funerals on matters of public importance. Evidently, the morally dubious notion of protesting a brave marine killed in Iraq because Fred phelps and his clan think he was defending what they call the united States of Sodom is a matter of national importance.

Two things are confirmed for me in Snyder. One, the Calvinist principle of total depravity is absolute truth. The moral bankruptcy one must have to force one’s ignorant views on a grieving family burying their son is unfathomable. The arrogance and selfishness necessary to feel the need to express one’s view at that certain time and place is disgusting. Two, Snyder confirms the uncomfortable reality that if you want to have the freedom of John Stewart marketplace of ideas, you have to let Nazis march down main street.

On the plus side--there is one, I promise--Snyder has rendered it virtually impossible for anyone to sue for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional stress over political speech. Had Snyder gone the other way, precedent would have been set for, say, university students to sue over the stress of speech they do not like having a place on campus. Think Ann coulter never speaking on campus again at of lawsuit fears. No Republicans ever giving commencement speeches. Or conspicuous gatherings of religious groups on campus.

I am an adamant supporter of free speech. After having spent time among the ranks of bob Jones acolytes and a sizeable similar group at Regent University School of Law, I am highly familiar with the results of shutting down opposing viewpoints. Young people in particular wind up so brainwashed, most never fully recover. Sadder still, most do not even know damaged they are. In that regard, I appreciate the ruling. Truth be told, you can never truly understand why a belief is wrong until you are exposed to it.

But I am also saddened there are people out there like the WBC who lack all decency in exercising the rights granted to them by a country they despise while protesting the death of a soldier killed defending that right. I have very little faith in humanity as a whole. Sometimes my faith manages to sink even lower.

To end on as positive a note as I can, Bill O’Reilly has offered to pay Phelps’ legal fees, for which Snyder is obligated to pay. Progressives who unfairly attack o’Reilly’s character ought to be ashamed to further do so.

Federal Judge Strikes Down ObamaCare; Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern district of florida has ruled the individual mandate of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Unlike the decision in Virginia last year which also ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, Judge Vinson denied the mandate was severable from ObamaCare, thereby ruling the entire kit and kaboodle unconstitutional. There is no need for an injunction against obamaCare because no part of it may now be implemented.

Do not get too excited about this ruling. While it is the 26 state lawsuit against ObamaCare, nothing much matter about rulings at the federal court level. Judge Vinson’s sweeping end to ObamaCare in its entirety makes me suspicious of the legal grounds of his decision. There is a flaw in the drafting of ObamaCare, however--it does not have an expressed severability clause which virtually every other piece of legislation possess just in case paert of the new law is ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps if anyone had, you know, read the darn thing before passing it, that would not have happened.

I guarantee none of the mechanisms putting ObamaCare in place, even in states party to the suit, have slowed down, much less stopped because of this ruling, nor will they. Nevertheless, this is an indication the legal battle over ObamaCare will continue. I dare say it will end up in the United States Supreme Court eventually. With at least half the states questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the issue is already ripe. The case just needs to make its way up the judicial hierarchy before the SCOTUS can hear it.

You may read a PDF of the decision. Meanwhile on the political front, the Senate GOP is united in support of ObamaCare repeal. I imagine any real scaling back of ObamaCare will take place on the political front, but we shall see in time.

Federal Judge Strikes Down ObamaCare; Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern district of florida has ruled the individual mandate of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Unlike the decision in Virginia last year which also ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, Judge Vinson denied the mandate was severable from ObamaCare, thereby ruling the entire kit and kaboodle unconstitutional. There is no need for an injunction against obamaCare because no part of it may now be implemented.

Do not get too excited about this ruling. While it is the 26 state lawsuit against ObamaCare, nothing much matter about rulings at the federal court level. Judge Vinson’s sweeping end to ObamaCare in its entirety makes me suspicious of the legal grounds of his decision. There is a flaw in the drafting of ObamaCare, however--it does not have an expressed severability clause which virtually every other piece of legislation possess just in case paert of the new law is ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps if anyone had, you know, read the darn thing before passing it, that would not have happened.

I guarantee none of the mechanisms putting ObamaCare in place, even in states party to the suit, have slowed down, much less stopped because of this ruling, nor will they. Nevertheless, this is an indication the legal battle over ObamaCare will continue. I dare say it will end up in the United States Supreme Court eventually. With at least half the states questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the issue is already ripe. The case just needs to make its way up the judicial hierarchy before the SCOTUS can hear it.

You may read a PDF of the decision. Meanwhile on the political front, the Senate GOP is united in support of ObamaCare repeal. I imagine any real scaling back of ObamaCare will take place on the political front, but we shall see in time.

Julian Assange on 60 Minutes

I just watched the Julian Assange interview on 60 Minutes. beforehand, I knew very little about him other than the general word he was a weird information anarchist. From this interview, I think amoral egotist ought to be added to his description. Assange is flippant about the damage Wkileaks has caused because he values his own sense of chaotic freedom over any other principle.

The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.

He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.

Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.

He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.

I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.

Julian Assange on 60 Minutes

I just watched the Julian Assange interview on 60 Minutes. beforehand, I knew very little about him other than the general word he was a weird information anarchist. From this interview, I think amoral egotist ought to be added to his description. Assange is flippant about the damage Wkileaks has caused because he values his own sense of chaotic freedom over any other principle.

The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.

He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.

Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.

He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.

I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.

Illinois Supreme Court Puts Rahm Emanuel Back on the Ballot

When I am wrong, I am really wrong. The Illinois Supreme Court literally scolded the Court of Appeals for getting their decision wrong:

"So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling today. "This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous."

Upper courts are reluctant to overturn lower court decisions. The judges and justices used to serve on theose lower courts and are empathetic to the professional embarrassment of having a decision overturned. So when a decision has to be done, it happens with finesse. I only only assume the Court of Appeals committed near professional negligence in coming to its decision in order to merit the Supreme Court's aggressive tone.

UPDATE: This was a 7-0 decision, meaning no room for debate whether the Supreme Court might be wrong. It is not. Then again, it has ruled that one is the resident by owning property someone else lives in entirely. Does that really sound logical? If the decision is a correct interpretation of statutory law, the responsible legislative body needs to clean that up.

UPDATE II: Here is the opinion. Yes, it is brutal:

Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the principles governing the question before us were settled. Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency. See No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at 6-8 (dismissing the foregoing authority in its entirety). Thus, our review of the appellate court’s decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not…

(Emphasis added.)

D'oh! Ripped like an arrogant first year law student.

Illinois Supreme Court Puts Rahm Emanuel Back on the Ballot

When I am wrong, I am really wrong. The Illinois Supreme Court literally scolded the Court of Appeals for getting their decision wrong:

"So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling today. "This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous."

Upper courts are reluctant to overturn lower court decisions. The judges and justices used to serve on theose lower courts and are empathetic to the professional embarrassment of having a decision overturned. So when a decision has to be done, it happens with finesse. I only only assume the Court of Appeals committed near professional negligence in coming to its decision in order to merit the Supreme Court's aggressive tone.

UPDATE: This was a 7-0 decision, meaning no room for debate whether the Supreme Court might be wrong. It is not. Then again, it has ruled that one is the resident by owning property someone else lives in entirely. Does that really sound logical? If the decision is a correct interpretation of statutory law, the responsible legislative body needs to clean that up.

UPDATE II: Here is the opinion. Yes, it is brutal:

Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the principles governing the question before us were settled. Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency. See No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at 6-8 (dismissing the foregoing authority in its entirety). Thus, our review of the appellate court’s decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not…

(Emphasis added.)

D'oh! Ripped like an arrogant first year law student.

Appeals Court Knocks Rahm Emanuel Off Mayoral Ballot

Rahm Emanuel is bound to appeal the decision, but it looks like that will be a way of taking it to the distance rather than giving up. I do not believe he has much of a chance at overturning the decision. The following analysis is an example of my less than stellar legal education and experience, so consult experts for better quality horse manure if you need more credibilie legal opinion.

There are two statues which discuss eligibility which are relevant to Emmanuel’s case. One deals with the eligibility to vote. The other deals with the eligibility to run for office. The first is far less strict. A resident of Chicago is eligible to vote if he has “constructive” residence. Even the appeals court agreed Emanuel passes the first test by owning a residence within Chicago even though he does not physically live there. The second statute dealing with eligibility to run for office is far stricter. One has to have been a literal resident of Chicago for one year before filing to run for municipal office. Emanuel fails this test because his Chicago residence has been nothing but storage for boxes of his stuff while he has been in Washington.

Emanuel’s lawyers argued that the statues mean the same thing. If he has been a constructive resident of Chicago for over a year under the first statute, then he ought to be considered a resident eligible to run for office in Chicago. They are arguing it is not reasonable to allow a resident to vote, but not be a candidate himself, when he qualifies for residency.

Emanuel, who is a speech therapist rather than a lawyer, is under the mistaken impression the law is always fair and statutes are not open to interpretation. The two statutes do not say the same thing. The first establishes residence for voting eligibility but the second statute requires voting eligibility plus residency for a year prior to filing for office. So it goes back to there being a lesser standard for residency for voting, in which he qualifies, than for running for office, which he does not qualify.

This makes since. Why have two statutes that say the exact same thing? The drafters of the statutes had to have intended for different standards for voters than candidates in residency requirements. So emanuel can vote in the mayoral election because he owns a residence and has some connection there, but cannot run in the election because he has not actually lived there within a year before making the ballot.

Appeals Court Knocks Rahm Emanuel Off Mayoral Ballot

Rahm Emanuel is bound to appeal the decision, but it looks like that will be a way of taking it to the distance rather than giving up. I do not believe he has much of a chance at overturning the decision. The following analysis is an example of my less than stellar legal education and experience, so consult experts for better quality horse manure if you need more credibilie legal opinion.

There are two statues which discuss eligibility which are relevant to Emmanuel’s case. One deals with the eligibility to vote. The other deals with the eligibility to run for office. The first is far less strict. A resident of Chicago is eligible to vote if he has “constructive” residence. Even the appeals court agreed Emanuel passes the first test by owning a residence within Chicago even though he does not physically live there. The second statute dealing with eligibility to run for office is far stricter. One has to have been a literal resident of Chicago for one year before filing to run for municipal office. Emanuel fails this test because his Chicago residence has been nothing but storage for boxes of his stuff while he has been in Washington.

Emanuel’s lawyers argued that the statues mean the same thing. If he has been a constructive resident of Chicago for over a year under the first statute, then he ought to be considered a resident eligible to run for office in Chicago. They are arguing it is not reasonable to allow a resident to vote, but not be a candidate himself, when he qualifies for residency.

Emanuel, who is a speech therapist rather than a lawyer, is under the mistaken impression the law is always fair and statutes are not open to interpretation. The two statutes do not say the same thing. The first establishes residence for voting eligibility but the second statute requires voting eligibility plus residency for a year prior to filing for office. So it goes back to there being a lesser standard for residency for voting, in which he qualifies, than for running for office, which he does not qualify.

This makes since. Why have two statutes that say the exact same thing? The drafters of the statutes had to have intended for different standards for voters than candidates in residency requirements. So emanuel can vote in the mayoral election because he owns a residence and has some connection there, but cannot run in the election because he has not actually lived there within a year before making the ballot.