Happy Sodomy Day

Once again it is the anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which was the landmark case that overturned Bowers.

While I have read the decision multiple times, I am currently reading Flagrant Conduct by Dale Carpenter. I have to say that, even though I am only half way through it, it is shifted my perspective on what Lawrence means and the events that lead to Lawrence and Garner's arrest.

Once again, Monday seems to be the most likely time for Obergefell to be issued, but as of this writing it could be today. Possible, but unlikely I will have two post, one on Obergefell and one on King v. Burwell for the weekend.

In honor of the day, may your sex-life be full and your dildos be silicone.


Liam '15

Tomorrow or Monday...

It looks like the decision on Obergefell will come out on either tomorrow or Monday. Tomorrow of course is the aniversary of  Lawrence v. Texas and more recently Perry/Windsor. However past precident tells us that a case this large will be released on the last day of the term (Monday.)

I wanted to rwrite a post on Walker v . Sons of Confederate Veterans, but that probably won't happen now.

Oh well.

Liam '15

How to (actually) Apologize

I've been thinking about writing this post for a while. I had a whole article in my head on this after the Josh Duggar incident. He issued a non-apology, in which he was sorry that people found out that he molested his sisters. Sick shit.

"I deeply regret that recent media reports about my long ago past has brought negative attention to FRC Action and its work to preserve and advance the interests of family, faith, and freedom in the political arena."

I am hesitant to cover it as there is a real victim.  I feel like scoring cheap points from an abuse scandal is classless. Real people were hurt, and everyone now knows just what a hypocrite and an asshole he is. I have empathy for the victims. And I do not need to pile on.

So shifting gears quickly, I want to cover the difference between an apology and an excuse.

This step by step manual is to serve as a how to  guide for sincere apologies.  Unfortunately, it seems to me few people know how to properly apologize for their actions.


Step 1:

Say "I am sorry." This is the most basic form of an apology and needs to be said in some iteration. With minor infractions, "I'm sorry" is all that you need to say.  The more egregious or complex the transgression, the more thorough of an apology will be needed.

As with any communication you need a thesis statement, and perhaps no phrase serves a better in this circumstance than "I am sorry."

Depending on the circumstances an apology can range from a simple 3 word sentence to a full letter. But if you are truly sorry a proper apology can go along way. The main thing is to actually apologize for your actions.


Step 2:

Acknowledge your actions. What actions are you responsible that has lead you to apologize for?


Step 3:

Explain why your actions require an apology. Demonstrate to your audience that you know the reasons why you are apologizing.

This will allow the audience a chance to correct the record if you are mistaken.


Step 4:

Are there any relevant factors that mitigate your actions; this should not be used as an excuse for your behavior.

While excuses make for great apologetics, they make for piss-poor apologies.

Therefore this should only be done sparingly, when the audience absolutely needs to know this novel information.


Step 5:

Can you remedy the situation? Will you remedy the situation?

If you can and you won't the apology will seem hollow and will lean towards more of an excuse rather than a sincere apology.

Likewise if you can't remedy the situation, but you promise to do so... well then you're fucked and you look kinda stupid and untrustworthy.


Step 6:

Accept responsibility for you actions.

Grammar:

Sentence structure is massive in an apology. Semantics and usage can be the difference in many cases between a sincere apology and excusing one's behavior.

I am sorry that you are offended by me.
Passive Voice

This first example is a non-apology. The passive voice in this instance shifts the focus onto the audience in the compliment clause "you are offended."

I am sorry that I offended you.
Active Voice

In this second example, the sentence structure is reworked to its deep structure, becoming the active voice. In the compliment clause the writer owns their guilt as the offending party.

I am sorry. My behavior was offensive.
Two Active Sentences 

In this third example, the compliment clause is removed entirely and replaced be the second sentence "my behavior was offensive." By removing "you" from the sentence, there is no possibility of placing blame on the audience (for being offended.) The writer accepts full responsibility for their guilt.

Full example:

I am sorry that I fucked your husband in the ass on your white sheets while you were visiting the International Leather Museum in San Fransisco. My actions completely violated the trust you placed in me and showed an utter lack of respect towards you. While I was drunk at the time and this behavior is not typical of my personality, it does not excuse my action. I am truly sorry for the damage I have caused. I will replace the Santorum stained sheets with new ones.

Poor example, because you probably shouldn't apologize in this fashion for cheating. It is also a situation where little action can be taken to make amends. 

Not going to fix it. C'est la vie.

Oh and don't forget, apologies are really supposed to be about them not you.

Liam '15

Shut Your Fucking Pie Hole You Dumb Son of a Bitch

Apologies in advanced as this has turned in to a rant. But fuck it. We'll do it live.

*************

There are few things in this world that I have a greater disdain for than Holocaust Denialism.

That's largely a noncontroversial statement. Hopefully that's noncontroversial. It should be noncontroversial.

Holocaust Denial takes on several forms. The two main branches from which the rest flow are:

1. Flat denial. In this model, proponents claim that the Holocaust never happened. This usually manifests itself in the claim that the Allies made up the story to discredit the Nazis after the War.

Other variations on this include:

• Jewish people were merely expelled from Germany.
• The Nuremberg testimonies from Germans were extracted by torture and thus fake.
• Jewish-Zionist faked it for sympathy.

2. Mitigation. In this model proponents claimed (without evidence) that while the Holocaust happened it wasn't 6 million Jewish people who were murdered, it was more likely an elderly couple and a goat.

Other variations on this include:

• Starvation and disease killed millions rather than a systematic plot.
• Gas Chambers were delousing station.
• Other human atrocities were worse. 

While it is not a form of denialism, there is a troubling current of Holocaust Trivialization that has emerged.

For the purposes of this article, I will define Holocaust Trivialization as the following:

• Wantonly forming poor or false comparison of current events to the Holocaust.
• Violations of Godwin's law or the argument Reductio ad Hitlerum.
• Neologism such as "feminazi" or "gaystapo."   

Here is how the ADL has reacted the word "feminazi":

The pejorative “feminazi” mocks activist women and at the same time trivializes the Holocaust. Comparisons to the Nazis may be politically expedient, but in the end they trivialize the Holocaust and are an insult to the memory of six million Jews and the millions of others who perished at the hands of Nazis. This sexist, offensive term has no place in civil discourse or society. 

I would also add the caveat that Feminist were a group persecuted by the Nazis.  See Magnus Hirschfeld.

My large point to all of this rant is that all this shit needs to stop. I know that's not going to happen, but it needs to end. It's fucking disgusting that people in this country and this era have built media empires and accumulated vast hordes of wealth by targeting groups who were victims of Nazi persecution (Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bryan Fischer, et al.)

When it come to the groups that were assigned a special badge to be worn in concentration camps, more deference needs to be paid when bullshit accusations are being made.

So by now you're probably wondering what the fuck crawled up my ass this morning. The answer lie in the following video from RighWingWatch.Org:

So in case you don't know, that is Rafael Cruz, the father of Ted Cruz. There are two quotes that really stick out to me. 

“If this decision comes against the biblical definition of marriage, the next thing that is going to happen is the government is going to come demanding that churches hire homosexual pastors and churches perform homosexual marriages. It is a very critical time in America.” 

Way to violate the 9th Commandment you sack of shit herpes. You lying pustulant boil on the blotted belly of a rotting carp, have you not read Proverbs 6:16 "There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers."

As pointed out in the Oral Arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges by Justice Kagan, "there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between Jews and non-Jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination. And those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the State, even if they have that rule, most many, many, many rabbis won't do that."

Everyone fucking knows that. The government doesn't force Pastors to marry people outside of their religion yet interfaith marriage is more than fucking legal.

"Silence is not an option Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi German said 'silence in the face of evil is evil itself.' He also said 'not to speak, is to speak.' See, the silence sends the message loud and clear. We can’t afford to be silent anymore.'

LISTEN UP ASSHOLE, in Nazi German men like me were executed by bigoted assholes. In my lifetime I was liberated by the Supreme Court ruling that my existence is not a crime. I voted in vain to protect my rights as equal citizen when the State I grew up in passed a Constitutional Amendment  stripping my inalienable rights away.

Before you start calling me and mine Nazis you best do your homework. Otherwise it sounds like a call to discrimination. And you know who else discriminated against people...

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Liam '15

Stop Voting for Dumb Fucks

This is a call for people to stop electing Government Officials who say stupid shit.  Case in point, Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore:


The flurry of stupidity is breath taking, but I will do my best.

"There is no word marriage in the Constitution" 

Well except for Article IV Section 1... whoops. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

I mean, sure, it does not directly say marriage, but it definitely means marriage. And this Article is definitely germane to the second question of Obergefell v. Hodges.

"The states can also resist... They can define what authority they have."

Nope.

Article VI says something different, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"Blah blah blah... 10th amendment argument... blah blah blah"

Honey, we also have a 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection, due process, life liberty and property, these are all afforded to every citizen of the United States, and no state can take those away without a damn good reason. It is not left up to the individual State to decide; it was federalized by the 14th Amendment.

If a law violates any of these principles, and then is ruled unconstitutional, it is no longer law.

If the 10th Amendment superseded the 14th Amendment, then the 14th Amendment would be pointless.

"The Bowers Court says..."

Bowers is no longer precedent. It was over turned on June 26, 2003, with Lawrence v. Texas. It was kind of a big deal. I'm not sure, but  it might have been covered by the newspapers in Alabama.

Why not quote Dred Scott while you're at it?


*****


I'm fucking bored by this. I could go on but too bored. Ennui could be deadly.

How the fuck did this idiot ever get elected the first time around. For fuck sakes I learned this shit in 8th grade. Roy Moore knows less about the law than an 8th Grader. It's fucking embarrassing.

There are a lot of reasons I'm glad I'm not from Alabama and some how Roy Moore nears the top of that list.


Liam '15

Just an Aside

I have been thinking about this, since I heard the Oral Arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Solicitor Bursch for the Plaintiffs argued about 9 times that the purpose of marriage is to link biological children with their biological parents. I find this to be a particularly specious claim, especially when you examine the historical purpose of marriage (or at the very least a purpose.)

A large portion of marriage that is quickly evaporating is legal concept of the "presumption of legitimacy." To a degree anyway, I mean, it isn't totally disappearing.

Let me back up. Black's Law defines presumption of legitimacy as "the presumption that the husband of a woman who gives birth is the father of the child." In, what I am going to pull out of my ass and say, most cases there is no infidelity in a marriage, so the child's paternity is not in question.

Prior to the advent of modern DNA testing (1983), there was no real way of determining who's the father. Thus marriage. If your wife gave birth, it's yours... Unless you were like my uncle and snipped and then two years later miraculously had another child, but that's another story.

In part marriage links children to their parents, and in may cases that is exactly what gay people want to join in on.

It also highlights that marriage is human and thus constantly evolving to adapt to our ever emerging necessities.


Liam '15

King v. Burwell

This post has been quite delayed. Around December of last year, I read the question put forward to the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, and I was slightly perplexed as to why (besides for the obvious politics of the ACA) this case was granted certiorari.

On March 4, 2015 the Oral Arguments were made. Without going too deep into it, March was a busy month for me personally, and honestly I missed the whole proceedings.

The main reason I am writing this article now is that my interest was peeked, when I heard speculation that Chief Justice Roberts may either concur or agree with a majority in Obergefell v. Hodges to buy cover for ruling against the Government in King v. Burwell.

I do not like to tea read, particularly when it comes to the Supreme Court. After listening to quite a few oral arguments, I find speculation to be mostly pointless. That is not to say that oral arguments are pointless to listen to.

The Justices are not advocates; thus it is often difficult to ascertain how they will rule based off of the questions they ask. For example some of the most difficult question during the oral arguments for the Plaintiffs in Obergefell came from Justice Breyer, who in all likelihood will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Point One

The crux of  case lies with the reading of sections 1311 and 1321 of the ACA. While I understand that I am typically biased towards Justice Breyer, I cannot find an agreement from the Plaintiffs that satisfies his central point:

"If you're going to elaborate on that, I would appreciate your ­­ in your elaboration, I've read that, and this statute is like the tax code more than it's like the Constitution. There are defined terms, and the words you just used concern a defined term.  As I read the definition, there's a section, Definitions, and it says, quote, The term "Exchange" means, quote, an exchange established under 1311.  And 1311 says, An Exchange shall be a government agency, et cetera, that is established by a State.  Those are the definitions.  So then you look to 1321. And 1321 says, if a State does not set up that Exchange, then the Federal, quote, secretary shall establish and operate such Exchange.  So it says, "The Secretary is to establish and operate such Exchange," the only kind of Exchange to which the Act refers, which is an ­­ quote, "an Exchange established by a State under 1311." That's the definition.  So the statute tells the Secretary, set up such Exchange, namely, a 1311 State Exchange.... and there's nothing else in this statute....so that's throughout what they're talking about.  So what's the problem?"

After quite a long hypothetical from Justice Kagan, which very bluntly explains what a substitution is, Justice Breyer and the attorney for the Plaintiff get into a bit of a discussion on epistemology:

Mr. Carvin:  We implore you to examine these words in the context of the Act as a whole because our argument becomes stronger for five reasons.  To respond to Justice Breyer's point, he says such Exchange connotes that it's the same person doing it. But look at the provision on territorial Exchanges.  It says, territories can establish such Exchanges and then it says, "and shall be treated as a State."  So-- so-- 

Justice Breyer:  Yes, it does.  But you say connote.  No, it's not a question of connotation; it is a question of denotation.  Now what does that mean?  It means that the Federal government, the Secretary, is establishing a thing for the State.  And what is the thing? The thing that it is establishing for the State is defined as an Exchange established by the State. 

Mr. Carvin:  To ­-- 

Justice Breyer:   Now, that person from Mars, who's literal, which I usually am not, but a literalist, I think would have to read it that way.  But if you-- if you're not a literalist, well, at least you could read it that way.  Now you want to go into the context ­­ if you want to go into the context, at that point it seems to me your argument really is weaker.

Based off of Justice Breyer's statement it would appear that the Government's position is support by a literalist's interpretation, which is bad for the Plaintiff. Once again this was my impression before hearing the Oral Arguments.

Point B

When it comes to what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy said during the proceedings, it was fairly brief.  Neither asked that many questions.  Justice Kennedy asked more questions, but due to how he ruled in the previous decision, it will be interesting to see how he will rule in this case.

When discussing the Plaintiffs position Justice Kennedy raises a very interesting conclusion for the Plaintiffs reading of  the Statute:

"Let me say that from the standpoint of the dynamics of Federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral.  We'll have people pay mandated taxes which will not get any credit on ­­ on the subsidies.  The cost of insurance will be sky­high, but this is not coercion.  It seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument."

Once again I do not do tea leaf readings, but based on this quote, if Justice Kennedy were to accept the Plaintiffs argument, then he would have to rule that the Federal Exchanges are unconstitutional as promulgated.

And as with Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. (2014) in ambiguity, the Court must read a statute in a way where it does not impinge on the basic Federal-­State relationship.

When it comes to Chief Justice Roberts, once again, besides for procedural issues he was mostly silent.  Perhaps the most interesting question he raised was "If you're right ­­if you're right about Chevron, that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation?"

In other words, if the Court does not agree with Justice Breyer, in that the governments reading is not based on ambiguity, and agrees with with government because of the statute being ambiguous, the next administration could take away healthcare for millions of Americans.

Point III

This section actually agrees in part with something Justice Scalia said. Quelle horreur, I know! Justice Scalia raise a very good point about the whole situation:

"What about ­­ what about Congress?  You really think Congress is just going to sit there while ­­ while all of these disastrous consequences ensue.  I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the ­­ you know, the bankruptcy court decision?  Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that ­­ that takes care of the problem.  It happens all the time.  Why is that not going to happen here?"

In this context, Justice Scalia is referring to a circumstance where the Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff. but it also begs the why hasn't Congress clarified the situation. Well, other than the fact that the lower courts have ruled in favor of the Government. Congress could easily have fix this problem and made this case moot and also secured health care for 8-9 million Americans.

It's the legislature's job to fix legislation when it is broken or too unclear (when it's beyond Chevron Deference.)  This is a similar argument to when a statute is declared unconstitutional. It is up to the legislature to strike it from the books. It's why Texas still has anti-sodomy laws on their books. It's also the reason why the Voting Rights Act remains disassembled after Shelby County.

It drives me crazy when these situations arise, because they are often times so easy to fix. And yet they seem to never get done.


Liam '15