Tag Archives: law

Transgenders are Better than other Americans?

Posted on by
Reply

Kansas passed a law with effect last Thursday that requires driver licenses to reflect the biological gender of the license holder and not the holder’s currently self-claimed gender. The law invalidates, with immediate force, existing driver licenses that reflect a gender different from the holder’s birth gender. That lack of notice strikes me as unfair, but that’s a separate issue. The law also

invalidates birth certificates of residents [sic] who changed their gender and says citizens can sue transgender Kansans who use public bathrooms that don’t correspond with their assigned birth sex.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim that

the law violate[s] transgender Kansans rights to privacy, equality, and free expression guaranteed by the state constitution.

Leave aside the plain fact that the plaintiffs’ suit utterly denies biological fact. What’s interesting here is the self-important arrogance of the plaintiffs, along with the cynically offered irrelevance of one of their beefs.

Last thing first: the law does not deny the plaintiffs’ their right to free expression. No one is telling them they cannot self-claim a different gender than that of their biology. No one is telling them they cannot live their lives as though they were that…alternate…gender, with the few exceptions that all citizens have when exercise of their rights interferes with the ability of their fellow citizens to exercise their own rights.

Which brings me to the first things. Plaintiffs, with their suit, insist that others’ rights to privacy and equality must take a back seat to plaintiffs’. To hell with women’s rights to their own privacy, the equality of their own rights. They must accept that their rights are less important than, are inferior to, the claimed rights of men who claim to be women.

This is a suit that should be tossed on its face, with prejudice, and in short order.

In Which the Judge is Wrong on Principle

Posted on by
Reply

Even if he might be correct in a strictly legal sense (which does constrain him via his oath of office). Magistrate Judge William Porter has ruled that DoJ may not search the electronic devices seized from Washington Post news writer Hannah Natanson. Porter claimed, as paraphrased by Just the News

seizing Natanson’s devices the department took her work product, documentary material, and access to the confidential sources—”all the tools she needs as a working journalist.”

The underlying case centers on Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, an IT employee of a government contractor, supposedly removing classified information and passing that information to Natanson.

This is Porter claiming that received stolen property is legitimately a news writer’s “work product.”

For anyone outside the journalism guild, receiving stolen property is a serious felony. It’s long past time to end this criminal carveout for news writers and the news outlets that employ them. Stolen property is precisely that, not more and not less, no matter who gets it.

Of Course He Is

Posted on by
Reply

Because he must. SecDef Pete Hegseth is appealing a district court’s ruling blocking him from proceeding with investigation of, and potential retirement-related sanctioning, Arizona Progressive-Democrat Senator Mark Kelly over Kelly’s participation in a video encouraging disorder in the military ranks by emphasizing what every service member already knows—they have an obligation to disobey illegal orders—and by which emphasis he encouraged especially the lower and bottom ranks to question every order they’re given.

It may be that Hegseth is wrong with his move vis-à-vis Kelly, but the magistrate’s ruling is, it seems to me, badly premature. The Federal courts should not be interfering with what is at bottom a strictly military matter. Furthermore, until a final ruling regarding Kelly’s retirement status and retired rank is issued, no material harm has come to Kelly. That makes the magistrate’s ruling rationale speculative at best.

What should happen is for the civilian courts to let DoD’s investigation take its course and any potential sanction be realized. Only then would a civilian Federal court have any jurisdiction over the matter.

It Hinges on the Meaning of….

Posted on by
Reply

Missouri’s Attorney General, Katherine Hanaway, has gone to court to

bar the federal government from counting immigrants living in the country illegally when determining congressional representation and federal funding….

She added,

We are confident that the Census Bureau is going to start to plan for a census in 2030 where we don’t count illegal immigrants….

None of us American citizens believe illegal aliens should be allowed to vote. Counting their presence in apportioning 435 seats in House of Representatives among the several States is a different matter, though, and it’s not entirely up to the Census Bureau. Here’s what our Constitution has to say on House representation:

Article I, Section 2: The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative….

And

14th Amendment: 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion….

Every thirty thousand what, though? Citizens? Residents, which would include legal aliens? Anyone present at the time of enumeration, which would include illegal aliens?

The question hinges, also, on the definition of other crime, and here’s where things get truly serious. Illegal aliens, wherever present have committed the wrong of entering our nation illegally, and they compound their wrong-doing by remaining here in their illegal status. Are either of these crimes?

Title 8 US Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien has this:

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Our courts usually count illegal entry to be a misdemeanor, while illegal reentry is counted a felony. In this context, though, it’s a meaningless distinction: both misdemeanors and felonies are crimes in the legal sense. So it is, too, in our American English dictionaries. Merriam-Webster Online defines “misdemeanor” as a crime less serious than a felony.

With the 14th Amendment clarifying Art, Sect 2, and the Title 8 paragraph clarifying the nature of entering the US illegally, the case for not counting illegal aliens when apportioning Congressional representation should be straightforward.

A Cynically Irrelevant Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the lede:

A coalition of climate and health organizations sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday in an effort to combat its repeal of a landmark climate finding.

Because of course they do. The landmark climate “finding” that has been repealed is the finding that plant food in the form of atmospheric CO2 actually is a pollutant. That fiction has expanded costs of living for us American citizens for decades, and its removal is good riddance. Nevertheless, the climate funding industry is waxing hysterical over the nation’s turn toward rationality.

Their suit proceeds, cynically, from an irrelevancy. Peter Zalzal, of the Environmental Defense Fund:

Repealing the endangerment finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths.

Even were that true—it isn’t—it’s irrelevant. The question is an economic, and so a political, one. Our courts have no jurisdiction for hearing this argument. Our judges and Justices are bound by our Constitution and their oaths of office to uphold and defend it, and by their oaths they’re further constrained to rule based on the text of any statute that comes before them. They cannot, legitimately, rule based on what they wished our Constitution and statutes said, nor can they, legitimately, rule based on their personal views of what’s good or bad for our society.

This sort of suit should be tossed at the outset, with prejudice, and with sanctions on the lawyers and their employing firms for bringing frivolous suits.