BoldlyRide

law.com - Article: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Thursday dismissed growing criticism about the Supreme Court's use of international law in its opinions, saying it makes sense for justices to look at foreign sources when a point of law is unclear.
O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, participated in a lively one-hour discussion at the National Archives with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer. She said if there is no controlling U.S. precedent or the viewpoint of states is unsettled, 'of course we look at foreign law.' "

Sounds like Al Gore's defense.

Hey, perhaps a look to the Constitution and our own history would be useful, Justice O'Connor. Wouldn't that be more important than looking to France (where there is no commonlaw tradition and past court decisions have no value as controlling authority) or the Netherlands (where euthanizing the aged is state sanctioned). These foreign nations are not federal systems; they have no states and they do not have the protections found in our Constitution. Read the next post from earlier today.

My Friend, Mike (I think he wants to be called William Faulkner now.), recently lent me Mark R. Levin's, MEN IN BLACK. One issue for which Levin tasks the court is reliance upon international law and practices. On page 22 of the book he says:

"The power [the activist justices] crave does not exist in the Constitution, which is why they must constantly skirt its provisions."

"Reliance on international law is a complete rejection of not only the roles of the other branches... but the Constitution itself."

Of course, Levin is spot-on. Is it so radical to believe that the Constitution is a meaningful document, that the words of the document had meaning when they were written and that the meaning of those words does not change with the mere passage of time?

My Friend Mike (I wanted to give him a cool nickname like the "G-man" (for reasons of my own) but he thought "Mike" would do nicely)(Note that Mike has no relationship to the Michael whose website link is found on my page) sent this to me an in e-mail and gave me his permission to post it here. I post it without any editorial of my own:

WHY NOT ENGLISH AS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

Why is there such a clamor with the United States adopting an official language? Would it displease the world population? Would we sink into an abyss? Would we become a non state? Would 280 million Americans become un-people? Would our products pile up on the docks?

The last time I checked there were about 182 countries listed in The Factfinder and World Almanac 2002, 2003. Of these, 169 have official languages, many documented in their Constitutions. Indeed Canada has English and French listed as their official languages, while Mexico has Spanish adopted as their country’s official language.

What's more 17 countries south of Texas have Spanish as their official language. I have examined their constitutions and an official language is mentioned therein. Thirteen countries have seen fit not to adopt an official language but most are of small populations, others have very diverse populations, and a less significant number are Arab.

During the 1900s, we didn’t teach German, French, Polish, Hungarian, or Gaelic to the millions of immigrants entering our land. Nope, they learned English. After 1945, we occupied Germany, but German is still the official language of Germany. Japan was also occupied until the 1950s but their official language remained Japanese. Millions of Americans invaded Vietnam during the 60s and 70s but the official language is still Vietnamese.

This is just another empty headed attack by the PC gang. And why does bilingualism in America somehow equal Spanish, why not French or German? Could it be that we are being invaded by foreign populations typically south of Texas, and do not want to injure the feelings of the official speaking Spanish peoples? What’s the problem with our adopting English as our official language? 169 nations weren’t concerned about our feelings. This snake oil phony indignation is another pile of PU from PC police.

HughHewitt.com: "Ohio
At Least We're Not Michigan
Oklahoma
Like The Play, But No Singing
Oregon
Spotted Owl...It's What's For Dinner
Pennsylvania
Cook With Coal
Rhode Island
We're Not REALLY An Island
South Carolina
Remember The Civil War?
Well, We Didn't Actually Surrender Yet "

This is just a sample. See Hugh Hewit for the complete parade of mottos.

Results...: "
Which Incredibles Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla"

Yes, I am disappointed.

Trial is set for Wednesday morning (today). Monday in the late afternoon, client says doctor says she should not go to trial on Wednesday because the stress is exacerbating some health conditions which require surgery which should occur during the next week. The doctor's office confirms this information. However, the doctor is out until Tuesday afternoon. What to do? Call court and opposing counsel and leave messages. Tuesday, draft paperwork to request vacating the trial and add affidavit with doctor's note. Fax to opposing counsel and file with the court, getting things filed late in the afternoon because of the wait for the doctor's supporting note.
We go to the hearing this morning as we must because in all likelihood the judge will deny the motion to vacate. The judge asks if we have settled or are we ready to put on evidence? We were close to a settlement last time we spoke, but at a slight hitch, opposing counsel grew impatient and said, "Let's just go to trial." So I ask for half an hour to try and settle. The judge says okay, but no more because he has a full afternoon calendar. At the end of half an hour the clerk asks if we are ready. We are really on the verge of settling everything so the judge gives us a few more minutes. Everything gets settled but one particular cost. The parties disagree on how to split that cost. Opposing counsel thinks the court has discretion; I think the rule is clear. We submit it to the court and, yes, the rule is clear. Stipulation on the record and back to the office.

The first phone message is from the judge's clerk from the afternoon before, informing me that the judge got my paperwork and denied my motion to vacate -- no surprise. Maybe the denial helped my client come to a settlement (at least I think that is what the judge was hoping).

Davidson's Law, A Blog about Law, Politics and Society: "'When we drive around here, it is nauseating .... we have to look away.' Is he talking about roadside clubbing of seals? A misplaced sewage treatment plant? Roseanne Barr hitch hiking? No, no, and no. He is talking about the homes pictured below." Go to Michael's site to see the pictures.
But here's food for thought, would the roadside clubbing of Rosanne Barr be more attractive?

Away yesterday at a real estate litigation CLE. This morning I had 14 messages -- about 8 were from a girl in a custody dispute. She also came by the office. So when I call back today she has to tell me that she has just remarried, is pregnant, and she is moving out of state -- so now the court can't make her stay, right? I don't care how many times I explain "best interest of the child" to people, it's really about convenience for them. I really hate domestic work.

At Crimlaw (just find it on the links on the right) today, the Hammer discusses a man who tries to stymie the court's jurisdiction over him for an illegal u-turn through the use of a software licensing agreement, under which he is the software. Strange but true, apparently. I had a client who insisted on copyrighting or trademarking his name as a way to keep the court from having jurisdiction over him -- that was when I dropped him like a fresh sewage loaf. I once stood in as a courtesy for a colleague on an arraignment. The defendant appeared to be a normal, even intelligent person -- until he insisted that I inform the judge that he was making his plea as a common plea under the constitution or some nonsense like that. Later I saw him in the paper with a whole shipload of felony charges -- my colleague got away from that one too.

Test Results: ""

I wonder how many there were to chose from. I got this through Michael's site at Davidson-Law. He had the same result -- so naturally I'm suspicious either of the test or of Michael's mental health.

I changed my template so I could have some links. I've figured out how to edit and add links. Drop me a line if you would like a link.