Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

My statement about Michael Cohen

with 37 comments

Russia is not our enemy. Obama himself said that the Cold War ended in the 1990s, and he mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was any sort of threat to the globe.

It’s not illegal to visit Russia, do business in Russia, talk to people in Russia.

Trump owns a huge business empire that has dealings in many foreign countries. There’s nothing in our Constitution that says you can’t run for office if you own a business empire.

When people talk to the FBI, police, Congress, whatever, they have the tendency to tell little white lies and spin things to make themselves seem more innocent, even when they aren’t guilty of anything. Mueller can turn these minor things into an indictment for perjury or “obstruction of justice.”

The lesson is to never talk to anyone (except for your own lawyer) if law enforcement is out to get you. Maybe Michael Cohen thought that, because he was a lawyer himself, he knew what he was doing. There’s a second lesson for you: hubris is your enemy.

* * *

Our biggest global enemy is not Russia, it’s China. And Obama’s brother has much closer ties to China than anyone in Trump’s family has ties to Russia. So why don’t people think that Obama hopelessly corrupted by enemy influence?

And what about Uranium One, and Bill Clinton getting paid half a million dollars to give a “speech” in Russia? Are Bill Clinton’s speeches so amazing that they are worth $500,000 each, or was it some kind or bribe?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 30, 2018 at EST am

Posted in Law, Politics

Michael Avenatti arrested for felony domestic violence

with 29 comments

http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/14/michael-avenatti-arrested-domestic-violence-stormy-daniels-attorney/

Ha ha! Karma’s a bitch.

Avenatti alleges that she hit him first, which is probably true. This means that (1) he was hooking up with a prole woman (perhaps another porn actress); and (2) he lacked the self-control to not beat her up after he was hit.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 14, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Law

Why does the United States have more free speech than any other country?

with 38 comments

Some commenter insisted that it’s because we have lots of guns in the United States, but that’s an incredibly wrong answer.

We have a First Amendment, but even that doesn’t explain it. Our lawmakers have ignored many other parts of the Constitution that they don’t like. Try to talk about the 9th or 10th Amendments at a Constitutional Law class and you will be laughed out of the class. And if you talk about the 2nd Amendment, you will probably be kicked out of school for being an alt-right gun nut.

Even if you read the actual text of the First Amendment, it leaves a lot unanswered. It starts out, “Congress shall make no law…” It doesn’t say anything about what the states can do.

So the absolute right to free speech that we enjoy in the United States is much like the right to abortion. It’s something that the Supreme Court made up. So thank the Supreme Court for our free speech!

In addition, thank Senator Joseph McCarthy. He came along at just the right time, punishing the left for their subversive speech just before the left came to power and took over everything. So subsequently, remembering how McCarthy punished the left for their speech, left-wing Supreme Court justices became free speech absolutists, and absolute free speech had the full support of the left-wing-controlled mainstream media.

But today, the left has forgotten McCarthy and they now worry more about people’s hurt feelings rather than the free speech rights of those hurting their feelings, especially if those with the hurt feelings are high up on the victim hierarchy. So only conservative Supreme Court justices can continue to protect free speech, because they will respect stare decisis.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 13, 2018 at EST am

Posted in Law

Looks like RBG is doing fine

Ruth Bader Ginsurg working in her hospital room.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 9, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Law

What happens if a Supreme Court justice is incapacitated but not dead?

The answer is that without a formal retirement by the justice, he or she retains his or her position until death.

Law clerks can pick up the slack, but if the justice is unable to vote, then the Court would defer any cases where said justice’s vote would be required to break a tie.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 8, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Law

Ruth Bader Ginsburg in hospital

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Supreme-Court-Justice-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Broken-Ribs-Fall-500036692.html

I bear her no ill will, she seems like a nice person despite being a liberal.

But from personal family experience, when women her age fall and break something, they often aren’t able to recover from it. My maternal grandmother died from complications from falling, and my paternal grandmother had a stroke after she fell and was never the same again.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 8, 2018 at EST am

Posted in Law

Wong Kim Ark and illegal aliens

The lying fakestream media says that U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) says that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional.

They have not bothered to understand the law.

Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled in California at the time of his birth.

Illegal immigrants are not permanently domiciled in the United States, because they are here illegally. Also, they are not living in “obedience” to the United States because if they had been obeying U.S. law they wouldn’t have been here in the first place.

The Court specifically said that children born of foreign occupiers are not entitled to citizenship.

The concept of illegal aliens didn’t exist at the common law of England so was never discussed in old cases. But today’s illegal aliens are like foreign occupiers who are not entitled to citizenship.

* * *

Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, agrees with me. Maybe he has been reading my blog?

He writes for Fox News:

Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.

The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens.

By the way, just kidding about him reading my blog. It’s just the plain common sense understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions. Anyone with half a brain would conclude the same thing as me or Mr. von Spakovsky.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 31, 2018 at EST am

Posted in Immigration, Law

Can the President end birthright citizenship with an executive order?

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads:

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.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/

So I say, yes he can!

But I am sure that liberal judges will interpret the Constitution differently than those Justices who were actually alive when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 30, 2018 at EST am

Posted in Law

Still thinking about how unfair the hearings were to Brett Kavanaugh

In any normal trial, a defendant is allowed to use discovery to obtain evidence to prove his innocence, a process that was denied Kavanugh. As much as Democrats try to say it was a job interview and not a trial, damn it, it was a trial, and the people of America were the jury.

1. The therapist’s records. Normally, therapy is considered privileged, but because Ford presented the therapy as proof that Kavanaugh assaulted her, then in any normal and fair legal proceeding, Kavanaugh would be entitled to obtain those records and even question the therapist at a deposition.

2. The polygraph test. In any normal courtroom, polygraph tests are not allowed because they prejudice the jury while being unreliable. But because the polygraph test was introduced into evidence, it’s only fair that (1) Kavanaugh is entitled to all documentation about it; (2) to cross-examine the guy who gave the polygraph (who would be like an expert witness), and (3) have his own guy give her a polygraph test.

3. Deposition. Kavanaugh is entitled to have his attorney depose Ford and ask her tough questions she was never asked. As well as other people who might know things such as her FBI friend.

4. Cross-examination. Kavanaugh is entitled to have his attorney cross-examine Ford.

5. Present witnesses. Kavanaugh is entitled to have a parade of people called to the stand to testify that they don’t remember any such party (although they would be subject to cross-examination by the other side).

6. Freedom from prejudice. Kavanaugh is entitled for this to take place in a setting where Democratic Senators are not allowed to interrupt every five minutes and give a speech about how much they believe Ford. Where whoever is questioning Ford for the prosecution is not allowed to ask leading questions or give their opinion.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 9, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Law, Politics

An outrageously unconstitutional California law

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826

Jerry Brown signed this on Sunday.

The law requires that publicly traded corporations that have their headquarters in California must have a certain minimum number of women on their board of directors.

1. It clearly violates previous Equal Protection Clause rulings by the Supreme Court, specifically Craig v. Boren (1976), which applies “intermediate scrutiny” to sex-based discrimination.

I have to wonder about the cluelessness of the California legislature. They could have made this sexually neutral by also requiring the same number of men if the board of directors was predominately female. Then it would have created a more novel case about whether sexual quotas are prohibited by the Constitution as the Court as already decided is true for racial quotas.

On the other hand, even if the law had been sexually neutral on its face, the Court might see through that and say that the real purpose was to unconstitutionally discriminate against men. It’s more legit, however, to see boards of directors as a spoils system where insiders sit on each others boards, collecting a nice salary for doing practically nothing and just rubber-stamping whatever the CEO asks of them.

I have to state my opinion here that it’s outrageous to think that merely because a person has a vagina, putting her on a corporate board magically makes the corporation a better corporation. Magic vagina power?

2. It violates previous Supreme Court decisions that the state of incorporation controls corporate governance. (Although I have to state my opinion that our state-based system makes absolutely no sense. There are large numbers of corporations that are incorporated in Delaware even though they have no other special connection to Delaware.)

* * *

I hope some corporations move their headquarters to more conservative states as a result of this, but probably not. The big corporations are either run by outright liberals who have themselves drunk the Kool-Aid, or they are just too cucked to risk being publicly seen as anti-women.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 1, 2018 at EST am

Posted in Law, Males and Females

%d bloggers like this: