I just updated my oral argument post with illustrations, provided courtesy of Arfcommer mcouey.

I kinda want to make the motorboating frame my avatar on everything for the rest of the internet.

I wrote this earlier and was encouraged to post it here. Oh well, I’m not running for POTUS anyway.

Warning: Language and irreverence ahead. (Seriously, Grandma, I live with a Marine!)

—————–

GURA: Scalia! An argument for incorporating under privileges and immunities, YOU CAN HAS! 
SCALIA: WTF are you talking about? We can incorporate it under due process. I hate due process and I even think that. 
GURA: Uhhh
SCALIA: Are you trying to get a job at a law school? 
GURA: Oh shit
SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE USE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THESE FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU 
GURA: But you hate due process
SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW
GURA: Uhhh
GINSBURG: I’m a bitch!
SCALIA: LULZ 
STEVENS: I’m a bitch! 
CLEMENT: This should obviously be incorporated under due process.
ALITO: Werd 
BREYER: *motorboats Sotomayor*
FELDMAN: Here’s my first argument.
SCALIA: That argument sucks.
FELDMAN: Ordered liberty?
SCALIA: We haven’t used that since 1937.
FELDMAN: Have too.
SCALIA: When? 
FELDMAN: Uh, here’s my second argument.
SCALIA: You just argued against your first argument.
FELDMAN: Did not.
SCALIA: Did so. 
FELDMAN: DID NOT!
SCALIA: …
FELDMAN: *cries*
SCALIA: …
ROBERTS: You just argued the losing Heller argument.
FELDMAN: *pees pants*
BREYER: Let’s make a chart. 
ROBERTS: Madison made a chart!
BREYER: STFU
THOMAS: *reads the Bible* 
SCALIA: The 2A puts the fun in fundamental. 
FELDMAN: Let me tell you what Heller says.
SCALIA: I wrote Heller, fucknuts. 
KENNEDY: So if we’re going to just incorporate the militia purpose of Heller, what case do we use for precedent? 
FELDMAN: No fucking idea. 
SCALIA: Why are you talking about the right to self-defense? That’s not in the Constitution. 
FELDMAN: See above. Besides, nobody would really restrict the right to keep and bear arms so that it affected self-defense. 
SCALIA: Have you even read Heller? 
FELDMAN: I don’t think so. 
KENNEDY: Gura, let’s use your last three minutes to talk about everything but the 2A.
ROBERTS: I’m going to give you the chance to take back that privileges and immunities thing. 
GURA: No, we think it’s a good idea!
ROBERTS: *sigh*

—————–

P.S. I want to give a shout-out to Gura, who I didn’t really give proper credit in the summary. I do think he did a good job, I just think he was a little taken aback by Scalia coming out swinging on privileges/immunities – as was I.

To be perfectly honest, I lost a little bit of Scalia love today. I can’t get behind the idea that, if something’s bad, just because it’s been bad for 140 years we should perpetuate it.

EDIT: Um, er, yeah… one of the hits I got on this is from a forum poster who apparently knows Justice Scalia and promised to forward it. 0_0 The good news is they think he’ll get a kick out of it. I feel obligated to point out, just in case, that I’m married to a 1L who happens to be a HUGE Scalia fan and would gladly take a shoe-shining or trash-emptying internship.

Just in case.

EDIT: mcouey over on Arfcom took this and ran with it… Here’s the result, which had me rolling:

I already wasn’t going to be doing any foreign travel, because my child doesn’t have a social security number and is thus ineligible for a passport.

Now, it looks like I won’t be traveling anywhere by air, ever.

I have put up with a lot of the post-9/11 security theater. I’ve thrown away my lipgloss, been wanded, taken off my shoes, put all my liquids and gels into an appropriate little baggie. I have allowed them to pick away at my privacy and dignity, bit by bit, with full knowledge it’s all a meaningless circus meant to give the sheep the illusion of security.

No more.

I’m a citizen of the United States and the state of Idaho, and I will not be subjected to this bullshit. Period.

Palin: Tea Partiers “Have to Pick a Party” – CBS News

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

I wanted so badly to like her, for her to be what I wanted her to be, and I think that makes her even more intolerable to me at this point.

I wasn’t going to watch, but I walked into the room where Mike had it on, and he declared: “This guy is such an ASSHOLE!”

That about sums it up.

The highlight of the five minutes I saw was Obama scolding the SCOTUS – to their faces – for the campaign finance ruling. He said, “With all due respect to separation of powers… I urge Congress to pass legislation to correct this.”

*blink*

At that point, when I realized Scalia was not going to fulfill my fantasy and hop up there and punch P.BO in the face, I quit watching.

Then, The Inconvenience came in and said I better get on Gunbroker and buy the 1911 I’ve been eyeballing (Springfield 1911 Lightweight Champion Operator), because Obama said he wants to sign a small arms treaty. I said, “Seriously?” and he said “Yes, seriously!” and within about 2 seconds I was logging in… only to have him say “Psych!”

Not funny.

Now I think I’m going to go ahead and buy it as his punishment. Speaking of which, he just added a 1945 Remington-Rand 1911 (former property of the US Army) to the stable. Can you tell we’ve recently downed a copious amount of the JMB Kool-Aid?

Oh, the other thing I caught in the few minutes of SOTU I watched was Obama blaming our spending problems on George W. Bush. I don’t have the exact quote, but the gist of it was “Yeah, well, HE WAS WORSE!”

I saw on FoxNews that he’d said it was time to give Americans the government they deserve. Funny, I feel like we have it.

I just read President Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech, and it was very good.

I mean – it started off good, and as I kept reading, it got “Holy shit, this is really good, who wrote this!?” kinda good.

He talked about just war, about resilience, about being the good guys, about cultural relativity… There’s also a shoutout to global warming climate change, but I’ll let it slide. Just this once.

Did I mention it’s really frickin’ good?

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

…

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.
…

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

…

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung San Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

I can’t speak to the delivery, as I only read the transcript, but I liked it so much I think I’ll watch it tomorrow. Go read/watch for yourself.

Well done, Sir.

H/T Ernunnos

A while back, I posted a little rant I’d fired off to the Constitution Party of Spokane in response to their stance on Referendum 71 in Washington.

In the interest of fairness I wanted to post that their chairman, Bob Peck, wrote me back. We exchanged a couple of emails and he was very polite, articulate, and said I was welcome to post his words here. I’m not going to post the entire exchange, as it got rather lengthy, but I appreciate Bob taking the time to have a conversation about his views, even if we had to agree to disagree.

The unofficial election results are in. Out of 13,271 registered voters, 4,203 turned out, for a rate of 31.67%.

It appears our councilmen will be Timothy Brown, Susan Scott and my good buddy Walter Steed. (Brown at least said he would have opposed the smoking ban.)

Here’s where it gets amusing: The unofficial results have John Weber (2,055) losing to Nancy Chaney (2,095). Assuming those numbers hold…

That’s a difference of 40 votes.

~12.5% of the votes Weber needed to bridge the gap can be accounted for just in people who were in my house today. People who would have voted for him if he hadn’t behaved like a little tyrant on the city council. People who didn’t vote for Nancy Chaney.

What’s more, we’re political activists and would have gladly campaigned for a pro-liberty candidate (especially against Nancy Chaney), and could have easily drummed up those other 36 votes, and then some. I absolutely guarantee it – The Inconvenience and I just came up with about ten names in twenty seconds, and those are just friends, several of whom would have also campaigned. If each of us recruited just two or three strangers, John Weber would be mayor of Moscow.

Oh, how satisfying this is. The election I didn’t even vote in is the election I’ve inadvertently impacted most.

EDIT: A friend on Facebook made the point that it’s possible Weber would have lost votes had he not voted in favor of the smoking ban, which is true.

Here’s a breakdown, though: Anti-ban Timothy Brown won his seat with 51 fewer votes than Weber received for the mayoral position, and pro-ban Walter Steed won his with eight fewer votes than Weber.

So, pro-ban and anti-ban candidates with otherwise fairly similar platforms wound up in a ~50 vote range of one another. Even if you assume every vote separating Timothy Brown from Steed or Weber was due to his difference of opinion on the smoking ban, and thus assume they are all votes Weber would have lost had he voted differently, you’re still talking about a less than 100 vote loss to Chaney.

And, I again maintain that 5-10 dedicated campaign volunteers (especially ones capable of getting out the vote on campus, which is a majorly untapped voter pool in municipal elections) could have easily secured that many votes for Weber.

Today, I intentionally abstained from voting for the first time (as far as I recall). As we live directly across the street from the polling place, a friend came by on his way to vote, about as distraught over this election as I was. (His direct quote was “I hate everyone running.”)

I shrugged and said, “Don’t vote.”

He said, “But… it doesn’t feel right! I have to vote! It’s just… It’s what I do! YOU VOTE!”

“Not today, I don’t,” I replied. Then, I read a quote from a buddy (slawson01 over on LiveJournal):

Congratulations on not voting. You have succeeded in refraining from selecting someone to use force on your behalf, and robbed the thug who does win from having your sanction. They always claim a mandate to do whatever it is they do. When voter turn out is 15 total, they will know they do not have it.

I’m not saying I’ve retired from voting. But, when there was literally not a single person on the ballot I could vote for, and I knew my write-ins (i.e. The Inconvenience) wouldn’t even be counted, I was not about to legitimize this election by upping the voter turnout numbers.

I think, perhaps, that will be my new voting policy. As long as there is at least one candidate or issue on the ballot I can actually pull the lever for, I’ll vote, and ignore or write-in for the others. If there is a write-in candidate with a chance of garnering enough votes to win, or at least making a statement, I’ll vote.

If the election is a complete farce, like today’s, then I’ll take slawson01’s advice and deny my +1 closer to a mandate.

Oh, and that friend who dropped by went home without voting, either.

Walter Steed, Moscow city councilman (don’t know if he’s been reelected or not), replied to my friendly email:

In a message dated 11/3/09 4:10:46 PM, [my email] writes:

Though Heinlein’s razor states I ought not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, when it comes to politicians, I can’t really come to any other conclusion than: You’re a liar.

Laurel, Thank you for your position that it’s important to let candidates know both when they have my support and when they do not.

Wow, and I’ve never heard of Heinlein’s razor before. I appreciate your previous vote and hope the candidates you voted for this time make every vote exactly as you wish. Re the smoking ban, it was a health based unanimous vote by the council members. The fact that only one of 16 bar owners spoke out against the ban spoke volumes to us regarding the private property rights stand of the other 15.

Again, thanks for your previous support.

Walter

Walter Steed
1345 Ridgeview Drive
Moscow ID 83843

Phone (208) 883-0123
Fax (208) 882-7184

Of course, I wrote back…

Walter,

I must have missed when it became the prerogative of the government at any level to concern itself with enforcing my health.

That said, I’m not surprised only one bar owner spoke out against the ban, nor that you’re justifying your vote via tyranny of the majority. If I have learned one thing over the last few years, it’s that my countrymen are cowards.

Just a few months ago, I built a fence in my backyard. I had to purchase a $43 permit for permission to build said fence. I asked the lady at the planning and zoning department what exactly I was getting in exchange for my $43. She explained that Moscow hasn’t always had a fence permit, but so many people were calling the city with complaints about their neighbors’ fences that the utilization of city resources necessitated a permit and associated fee.

At what point did we decide the solution to a problem with our neighbor was to call the police or code enforcement officers, instead of knocking on their door and working it out?

The fact that fifteen bar owners failed to speak out on behalf of private property rights tells me those bar owners wanted to ban smoking, anyway, but knowing it might be unpopular with some of their customers, took the cowardly route and let the force of government dictate their business practices instead. The unfortunate side effect was the aforementioned tyranny of the majority being imposed on the sixteenth business owner, who was no longer free to choose the best practice for his establishment.

Let me state it plainly: You took away that business owner’s liberty and are justifying it by saying he was in the minority. Apparently you only believe in rights when they are the popular view of a majority – otherwise you would have voted against the smoking ban and left it up to private businesses regardless of whether or not they expressed an opinion.

Surely you’re not suggesting I deserve to lose my rights if I don’t speak up on every vote that takes place, from the city council on up to the United States Congress? Or, if I do speak up but am in the minority, my rights are inconsequential?

As far as I am concerned, it is always the duty of elected officials to err on the side of liberty. You, along with the rest of the city council, absolutely fail that test time and again.

I’ll stop taking up your time, but would appreciate it if you can do me one favor: Please let me know who the one bar owner opposed to the smoking ban was, because I (and a merry band of liberty-loving friends) will not longer patronize the other Moscow bar businesses, and plan to tell them why.

Laurel mylastname

EDIT: In case anyone is keeping score, Steed and company’s “health based” ordinance has caused a drop in revenue for Moscow bars. But he’s pro-free-enterprise! Pro-economic-development! Really! I promise!