IsThatLegal?

"Though he be a gentleman, remember, Eric Muller is also a lawyer."
-- Sparkey of "Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing"
"Relentlessly sensible and often important."
-- Michael Froomkin of "discourse.net"

1/30/2004

Friends, Keep Your Daughters Out of Kansas!

A Kansas appellate court has held that the state can punish homosexual sex with a minor more severely than heterosexual sex with a minor. (On the facts of the case, the male defendant got a 17-year sentence for having sex (at age 18) with a male 14-year-old. Had he had sex with a female 14-year-old, his maximum sentence would have been a year and three months.)

According to the newspaper account of the ruling, the court held that the distinction between same-gender and opposite-gender sex with a minor is justified in part by the state's interest in "encourag[ing] and preserv[ing] the traditional sexual mores of society."

Huh? Remember, the distinction that the court has to justify is different punishment for sex with a minor. Is there any legitimate sense in which the "traditional sexual mores of society" include sex with underage people of the opposite sex?

1/29/2004

When Will They Install A Weight Room?

The "statement of facts" in the government's pending brief in the Guantanamo case before the Supreme Court just got a little bit prettier.

Phyrric Victory for Civil Liberties in Chapel Hill?

By a 5-4 vote, the Chapel Hill Town Council last night voted to pull the plug on its program of placing cameras at intersections to catch red-light runners in the act.

I had initially planned to speak in support of the program at the meeting, but on reflection decided that I didn't especially like the precedent the program set of shunting a moving violation (red-light running) from the judicial process usually used for adjudicating minor criminal offenses to an amorphous administrative process.

It has been obvious to me from the start, though, that a lot of the energy behind the effort to get rid of the cameras was coming from a vague sense that the program was too Big Brotherish for our Chapel Hill sensibilities--and that last night's decision was a quiet victory in the battle against the Surveillance State.

If that's so, it's regrettable. Fining people because they are automatically photographed running a red light strikes me as a whole lot better than fining people on the simple say-so of a cop. Cops have motivations and biases. Cops might pay more attention to "suspicious" cars with minority drivers than to minivans driven by whites. Cameras don't do those things. They just take pictures. Just the facts, m'am.

At the end of the day, this decision feels to me to be of a piece with the Council's decision to oppose the Patriot Act, and with the more general rumblings of visceral discomfort people (myself included) have for some of the Administration's aggressive post-9/11 antiterrorism strategies.

I'm all for sane, privacy-respecting law enforcement policies. A mechanical camera at an intersection just doesn't get me too worried, especially if, over time, that camera will reduce the numbers of people doing a really dangerous thing.

1/28/2004

VP Edwards?

What part of "no" don't I understand?

The "final" part. Surely he can't be serious.

1/26/2004

Oh, No.

Here we go again. Several inches of snow and sleet on the ground, and a big ice storm coming.



In December 2002 we had a storm like this and lost power for 4 days. Some in the area were without power for nearly 2 weeks.

IsThatLegal regrets any interruption in service due to weather conditions beyond our control.

1/24/2004

The record is jumping on a scratch at Volokh. Somebody please fix it!!

I'm getting a little tired of all the gloating over at Volokh about how wrong some on the left were (and maybe still are) about the Soviet Union.


Remember that this tempest all started with Eugene's initial (and correct) assertion that "a little embarrassment" was in order among those on the left who wish to contextualize and justify earlier generations' enthusiasm for Soviet communism.

I cannot fathom why this issue has been worthy of such extensive comment. It is, in my mind, an instance of the rather unremarkable phenomenon that people see the world through their own political lenses and sometimes get things very wrong as a result. Regrettable, but human. It's a mistake to which we're all vulnerable.

Enough already, guys.

1/23/2004

Peremptory Challenges Against Judges!

I was surprised to read this morning that California law allows both the defendant and the state in a criminal case to exercise a peremptory challenge against not just prospective jurors, but against a judge.

I'm not sure why it so surprised me. It stands to reason, I suppose, that the fairness-and-appearance-of-fairness principle that supports the institution of peremptory challenges against jurors would also apply to the other arbiter in the courtroom, the judge. On the other hand, though, it does not seem unreasonable to approach judges with a stronger presumption of impartiality than we do jurors. And I think we worry about the partiality of jurors mostly because they are finding facts rather than making legal judgments. Fact-finding, it seems to me, allows somewhat more play for subtle life-experience biases than does making rulings of law. For those reasons, I guess, it seems to me that there'd be a pretty strong argument that peremptories against judges are unnecessary, and perhaps unwise (in the sense that they might contribute to a general public perception of judges as unreliable).

Note one interesting twist on this: current law condemns the practice of exercising peremptory challenges against prospective jurors on account of their race, ethnicity, or gender. I wonder: does that principle apply to peremptories against judges too? It's probably a moot point in reality; each party only gets one peremptory against a judge in California, so it'd be pretty much impossible for the side resisting the peremptory to sustain a claim that the other side has engaged in a pattern of discriminatory behavior that would suggest discriminatory intent. I guess this all means that in California, if you get a black woman judge and you don't want a black woman judge, you can strike that judge--on account of her race and gender--and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

Hmmmm.....

The NY Times Opines: Howard Dean and his Wife Are Really, Really Weird

I opened up the New York Times this morning and, for a brief moment, thought I was reading "Ladies Home Journal."

The Times is running a piece today on the Doctors Dean (Howard and Judith Steinberg) and their appearance on Dianne Sawyer's show last night.

It included the following passages:

On "Primetime," Mrs. Dean sat, smiling wide, in a brick-red sweater set, as her husband fielded most of Ms. Sawyer's questions, on topics including Saddam Hussein and the couple's first date. The pair explained their respect for each other's careers — she is a physician in private practice who has rarely joined her husband in political events — emphasized their commitment to their two children, discussed the current low point of the campaign, and generally tried to look as normal as possible.

Wearing lipstick and blusher — unusual for her — Mrs. Dean said she expects her hair and clothes would be criticized if her husband were elected, noting, "I don't really care too much what I wear." Asked about the unromantic gift of a rhododendron bush for Mrs. Dean's 50th birthday, Dr. Dean joked it was only her 39th, and Mrs. Dean told of their family tradition of a birthday bike ride with squished cupcakes in a knapsack.

"I'm not a very thing person," she said.


Could the Times do any more to make the Deans look like freaks and their relationship abnormal?

The cultural normativeness that is behind this piece of smear journalism is bad judgment in any paper, and simply astonishing in the New York Times.

Ice on Mars!

The European Mars orbiter has confirmed the existence of water ice on the surface of Mars!

The orbiter is now looking for a nice tumbler and some Chivas.

1/22/2004

More Loose Use of the "T" Word

First we had to endure Ann Coulter's bastardization of the crime of treason for the title of her book. In the book she more or less equates treason with membership in the Democratic Party.

Now Vernon Robinson, a candidate for a House seat here in North Carolina, offers us the following, in the context of a rant against "Hollywood Elitists":

I for one am sick of these Hollywood elitists. I think the Motion Picture Association of America should add a new movie rating to go along with the G, PG, PG-13, and R. A new rating of T for "Treason" would mean that all of the actors in this movie have given aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime and have interfered with the military operations of the United States.


Can I suggest a rating system for political candidates?

1/21/2004

The Tamil "Mighty Ducks" Just Didn't Cut It.

In a stunning bid to create a more powerful image for their organization, the rebel militant Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka have decided to rename themselves the Tamil Marlins.









I have no idea.

Now this is what I call a dilemma.

1/20/2004

This Just In...

If you live in New York, you can kiss Halloween goodbye.

A New York law says a person is guilty of loitering for joining others in "being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration.''

The Second Circuit upheld its constitutionality today.

Roger Ebert He Ain't

This was all a horrible misunderstanding. The Pope actually endorsed Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!

State of the Union: How Has It Weathered?

On the occasion of tonight's State of the Union Address, I offer you this lengthy excerpt from last year's.

I could make snarky comments about how bad our intelligence was, or about how hell-bent Bush was on regime change in Iraq without regard for intelligence data. But I think that from the perspective of a year later, the speech, uh, speaks pretty much for itself.

A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)


My nomination for most ironic line: "Since when have . . . tyrants announced their intentions?"

IsThatLegal--The Big Birthday

IsThatLegal turns one year old today.

When I started this thing I had no idea what I would do with it. I picked the name "IsThatLegal?" not because I was planning to do lots of testing whether things are legal, but because I anticipated that much of what I might have to say would have little to do with law and imagined a reader scratching his head at one of my posts and thinking "what does that have to do with law?" It turns out I was mostly right about this. Indeed, much of what I say here has turned out to have little to do with anything. Which makes it astonishing (to me) that several hundred people wander by here each weekday to read these ramblings. Thanks for reading, everybody.

Certainly the most notable event of the past year for this blog was North Carolina Congressman Howard Coble's foolish and ignorant defense of the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. In my most deluded moments I like to think that IsThatLegal had a hand in drawing and sustaining attention to the story.

The IsThatLegal post that drew the most attention (by far) was my complaint about Instapundit's decision to feature a photo of a WTC suicide jumper on 9/11/2003. I pretty much got hammered on that one. On reflection, I recognize that I'm in a tiny minority on this. In fact, it's ironic that every day -- every single day, without exception -- this blog gets at least three hits from search engines in which people have searched for "WTC jumper." I guess that shows me, huh?

This is my busy semester -- a five-hour Constitutional Law class and a seminar on law and loyalty -- so my posting will probably be a bit lighter over the next 10 weeks or so than it was in the summer and fall. But I'm committed to this silly little blog, so please do come on back from time to time. Y'hear?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh, blogmeister over at The Volokh Conspiracy, wrote to say "Happy Birthday to one of the most thoughtful and most informative blogs out there-- and best wishes for many happy returns." Thanks, Eugene!

1/19/2004

"Stand Up for Justice"

Take a moment today and check out this website about Dr. King.

1/18/2004

In his first letter to the editor, Daniel hits a home run!

My nearly 9-year-old nephew Daniel Muller is giving Roger Clemens hell in the pages of the Sunday New York Times! (Scroll down to the fourth letter.)

You go, Daniel!

1/17/2004

Get Outta Here!

There's an interesting article in the NY Times on American Indian tribes reviving the ancient penalty of banishment. It'll be interesting to see what the good folks over at Punishment Theory have to say about it.

1/14/2004

Red Lights and Civil Enforcement

A member of the Chapel Hill town council has petitioned for the termination of the town's red light camera program. (Under the program, cameras snap pictures of cars running red lights, the images are reviewed by a town official, and in cases of sufficient image clarity, a citation is issued to the owner of the car. The matter is civil, not criminal; the fine is $50.)

Some have decried what they call the "Big Brother" nature of the "surveillance"--as if John Ashcroft had a little monitor on his desk in Washington to keep his eye on traffic at the intersection of Airport Road and Estes Drive in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

The petitioning member of the council, however, is not basing his request on privacy concerns. He voices a different civil liberties problem. By allowing red-light-running to be handled civilly rather than (or, more precisely, in addition to) criminally, he says, the town is subverting the due process rights of those suspected of running red lights. After all, if their driving were witnessed by a cop, the cop would write a ticket and it would be a criminal matter that would carry with it a number of procedural protections for the accused. Now, if you're caught on film rather than by a cop, you don't get those rights, because it's a civil case.

I'm at a loss to follow the reasoning. It is commonplace for offenses--even offenses more serious than red-light-running, if you can believe that!--to be handled under both the criminal and the civil systems. Much of tort law, for example, is just a civil-law version of criminal law. Let's say you shoot and kill someone. You can be prosecuted by the state for murder, and you can also be sued by the victims for wrongful death. The shooter gets a lot less procedural protection at the civil trial than he does in the criminal case. But does anyone really think that wrongful death actions are objectionable because they "water down" the due process rights that a murder defendant gets in a criminal court?

It may be that other methods of discouraging red-light-running (longer yellow-light times, larger diameter red lights) would work as well as cameras at decreasing this dangerous behavior. It's worth noting that the Chapel Hill red light cameras are part of an ongoing study of their effectiveness that will not be complete until late this year; it's hard for me to see the sense in pulling the plug on them before that study is complete. But in any case, it's just about impossible for me to credit the specific claim that is before the council right now.

1/12/2004

Where's Waldo (the Volokh edition)?

Just for fun, head over to Volokh and see if you can find the image of the cover of Randy Barnett's new book. Look carefully!

How's the Weather in Your Neck of the Woods?

A newscast during NPR's "Morning Edition" this morning included a story about a new cold front that is going to be moving into the Northeast. Carl Kassel quoted "a meteorologist in Caribou, Maine," to the effect that the wind is going to pick up and it's going to get very cold.

Isn't it amusing how we still think of weather forecasting as a local story? A meteorologist in Key West, Florida, could just as easily describe this cold front as a meteorologist in Caribou, Maine. Indeed, any of us could, just by looking here. Strange. Old habits die hard, I guess.

1/7/2004

Webbies

The nomination period for this year's Weblog Awards is open until January 12. I'd sure appreciate your support, if you're so inclined. Note: you have to nominate at least 3 blogs in order for your vote to count. And if you're nominating your own blog for an award, your self-nominations can total no more than 1/3 of the total number you nominate.

Click here to get to the nomination form.

1/6/2004

Who Would Have Thought?

A Fascinating Story...

... in today's Science Times: "On Crime As Science (A Neighbor at a Time)." It reviews the work of Dr. Felton Earls, whose empirical studies reveal that the most important influence on a neighborhood's crime rate is not the unpatrolled incidence of petty crime (the "broken windows" theory that has been all the rage for some time), but neighbors' willingness to act for one another's benefit.

Check it out.

1/5/2004

An Unrepentant Howard Coble

Nearly a year ago, Congressman Howard Coble (R-NC) triggered a controversy when he volunteered on a radio call-in program that FDR's incarceration of Japanese Americans in 1942 was the right thing to do at the time. Coble resurrected the old canard that Japanese Americans were jailed for their own protection: "Some of them probably weren't safe on the streets," he said.

The reaction was intense. Some called for an apology; some called for his resignation as Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

I debunked the myth of protective custody (scroll down to the entries for 2/8 and 2/9), and asked Congressman Coble to admit that he had not accurately characterized the history of the eviction and incarceration of Japanese Americans.

Congressman Coble's strategy was neither to apologize, nor to correct what he said, but to wait for the firestorm to subside. His strategy worked.

And now we see the lesson Coble learned. In an interview for a story that appeared recently in the Greensboro newspaper, Coble had this to say in response to a question about the flap:

"In retrospect, I probably should have kept my trap shut in this era of political correctness."

That's what the reaction was: just "political correctness."

No, Congressman Coble. It was not about political correctness. It was about historical correctness. It's a tragedy that you missed the chance to learn a little something about FDR's shameful decision, and that you failed to see that you'd opened very raw wounds.

Congressman Coble is running for reelection. There are undoubtedly not enough people in the State of North Carolina who care about this to make it much of a campaign issue. But I do hope that Coble's opponent, sacrificial lamb that s/he may be, will pursue Coble about this.

1/3/2004

Spirit.

I have just watched a live feed of the successful landing of the Mars rover called "Spirit."

I am in awe of what these men and women have accomplished.

Powered by Blogger