As weird as things have gotten in the U.S., much weirder stuff goes on abroad, and I ignore most of it. This story, however, requires that attention be paid.
Mujahid, a 20-year-old from Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh–that’s India—claims a hospital staff performed a sex change operation on him without his consent. A man named Omprakash, the alleged victim claims, had been harassing him for years and deceived him into believing that he was suffering from a serious medical condition. He then offered to take him to Mansoorpur hospital, where he was sedated and then operated on. “He brought me here, and the next morning I had an operation. When I regained consciousness, I was told that I had been changed from a boy to a girl!” a sobbing Mujahid told NDTV reporters. “When I woke up, Omprakash told me that I am a woman now and that he would take me to Lucknow to marry me. He threatened to kill my father if I resisted.”
The betting is that te retired Madison, Wis. law professor and longtime bloggress will still vote for Biden and the Democrats—like Bill Maher, Ann talks a good neutrality game, but always seems to come home again—but still, her observations are frequently spot-on.
“Passing AI images off as real ones for the sake of commercial or political gain should be prosecuted as fraud.The severity of the penalties should match the level of risk that disseminating these images poses to our society; i.e., they should be extreme.”
Ann adds, “How terribly punitive and repressive, and yet, isn’t it what you’ve come to expect from the segment of America that reads the New York Times?Notice the aggression mixed with passivity. The comment-writer doesn’t want to face the challenge of becoming more perceptive and skeptical dealing with the onslaught of A.I. images. They want the government to do the dirty work and do it good and hard.”
No weenie he! If only every thinking person confronted with this standard “it isn’t what it is” dodge by open borders advocates responded with similar force. Unfortunately the best part, “That’s sweet!” was muffled by the cross-talk.
Symone Sanders-Townsend is trying hard to catch up to Joy Reid as MSNBC’s most repulsive ideologue. Imagine: Bernie Sanders actually employed this woman as his spokesperson! While discussing an illegal immigrant’s rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, what Sanders-Townsend is most concerned about is describing him in a manner that hides the criminal’s actual status. How can anyone of sound mind and ethical orientation respect people like this, much less vote for the party they are working for?
[Two Curmie’s Conjectures columns in a week! We are blessed. I was also thrilled to have this particular issue examined by a non-lawyer, because in many areas, legal training fogs clear thinking when it is supposed to do the opposite. Also, of the two options Curmie closes with, the majority of lawyers I’ve discussed this case with vote for the second.
Oh—Curmie had a standard pedestrian sign as his illustration for this post, but I saw another opportunity to use one of my all-time favorite Charles Addams cartoons, and went for it. I hope he doesn’t mind—JM]
I was tempted to call the recent decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case of Sojenhomer v. Egg Harbor a head-scratcher, but I fear that such an assessment might be a little too kind.
Sojenhomer LLC owns a brew pub/restaurant located along County Highway G in the village of Egg Harbor. They used a small portion of that land, .009 acres, for patron parking. The village, citing safety concerns, sought to put in a sidewalk where those parking spaces currently are. To do so, they sought to condemn that small area under eminent domain regulations.
The problem with their plan is that Wisconsin state law bars the use of condemnation to acquire property to establish or extend “a pedestrian way….” So the case boils down to whether or not a sidewalk is indeed “a pedestrian way.” The majority opinion, written by Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet, says no, to which I reply, “then what the hell is it?”
Louisiana became the first state to mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, showing poor judgments and no spine, signed this foolishness into law. Louisiana is the first sate to do this because no others state is this stupid, apparently. The law is obviously, flagrantly unconstitutional, a bright-line First Amendment violation. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations are going to sue, they will win, and a lot of time and money will be wasted so Louisiana Republicans can grandstand.
Brilliant! The Democrats are basing their 2024 election hopes on painting Republicans as anti-democratic fanatics who would just love to live in a theocracy, so the GOP does this.
An exchange between Republican Louisiana state Rep. Lauren Ventrella and CNN host Boris Sanchez illustrated just how dim-witted the Louisiana GOP’s reasoning is—and Sanchez isn’t exactly Clarence Darrow; a sharper interviewer could have made metaphorical mincemeat out of Ventrella’s lame arguments.
Ventrella began by stating that faith, as represented by the Ten Commandments, are a significant historical component to the founding of the U.S. OK, but that’s not the issue. If schools are going to teach that, the lesson has to be faith-neutral, and using the central religious code of Christianity and Judaism as a centerpiece isn’t neutral.
“Sure, but do you also recognize that the Constitution of this country, its founding document, doesn’t include the word God or Jesus or Christianity and that’s for a reason and that’s because the founding fathers founded this country as a secular one,” Sanchez said. “You don’t see that?”
Ugh. Stay on point, Boris! All that matters is that the Supreme Court has held emphatically that the Constitution forbids the state from dictating religious beliefs. Where the line should be drawn is still a live question, but that the Ten Commandments are over that line is not.
“Boris, I bet you CNN pays you a lot of money. I bet you got a lot of dollar bills in that wallet,” Ventrella replied. Ugh again. She’s after the old “In God We Trust” motto. This is like the open border activists who cite the poem on the Statue of Liberty as evidence of a national policy. Both the motto and the poem are irrelevant.
“What does this have to do with the network that I work for or what I’m getting paid?” Sanchez asked. “Don’t make this about that, answer that question. Why did the founding fathers not include God in the Constitution if they wanted this country to be the way that you see it?”
Boris apparently didn’t see the silly motto argument coming. Well, you know: CNN.
“In God We Trust. We’ll make it about me. I’ve got a dollar bill in my wallet. In God We Trust is written on that dollar. It is not forcing anybody to believe one viewpoint, it’s merely posting a historical reference on the wall for students to read and interpret it if they choose,” Ventrella explained, making no sense. What is stamped on money isn’t the equivalent of highlighting a particular religion in schools. Sanchez then stated the obvious, that the Ten Commandments are more than merely “historical” and obviously advance specific religious beliefs. Of course, and Ventrella and her ilk know this, which is why the party wants the Ten Commandment in the classes rather than the Magna Carta. Her argument is completely disingenuous. And stupid.
“This is a very valuable document. Look, this nation has gotten out of hand with crime, with the bad, negative things that are going on. Why is it so preposterous that we would want our students to have the option to have some good principles instilled in them? If they don’t hear it at home, let them read it in the classroom,” she said. “Which is different than the Mayflower Compact which is mentioned in the document as well. I don’t understand why this is so preposterous in that litigation is being threatened. It doesn’t scare us in the state of Louisiana, we say bring it on.”
Wow. What a moronic rant. Has she read the Ten Commandments? The first one tells readers not to have any other god, and the next three are purely religious edicts. That’s 40%! A poster stating the messages of the next six commandments would be harmless and constitutional, but this law’s intent is promoting juddeo-Christian religious beliefs, despite Ventralla’s posturing
“Because if someone has a home in which they choose to believe something different, which is welcome in this country. It’s literally why people fled to come here to found this country to begin with. Then they should be allowed to. And it’s not really an option if you’re requiring it to be put up in the wall of the classroom,” Sanchez said. To this, Ventrella shrugged that students, parents and teachers who don’t share the “religious views” of the Ten Commandments should just avoid looking at it.
Ooooh, good one, Lauren.
The CNN host compared the Ten Commandments poster to hanging up the Five Pillars of Islam in public school classrooms. That is an excellent analogy, and, of course, all the state rep could do was babble. “This is not about the Five Pillars of Islam. This bill specifically states the Ten Commandments. It is a historical document …” Boris cut her off, since she was ducking the issue or, just as likely, too dumb to comprehend it.
“Sure, but I’m presenting you with a hypothetical that would help you put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not understand and their point of view,” he said. “How would you feel if you walked into a classroom and something you didn’t believe in was required to be on the wall? You can answer that question.” Ventella had no answer, because, again, she knows the objective of the law is religious indoctrination.
“I appreciate you, Boris. I cannot sit here and gather and fathom … you could give me a thousand hypotheticals. But again, this specific bill applies to this specific text. The Quran, or Islam, that is a very broad statement. We’re specifically talking about a limited text, on mind you, a piece of paper that’s not much bigger than a legal sheet of paper. Some kids might even need a magnifying glass to read all of this. This is not so preposterous that we’re somehow sanctioning and forcing religion down people’s throats. I’ve heard the comments and it’s just ridiculous,” Ventrella answered. Translation: “Huminahuminahumina…” She’s got nothing.
She also kept calling the Ten Commandments “historical.” Inigo Montoya has an observation:
There is no justification for calling the Ten Commandments a “historical” document. There is no historical evidence that Moses and the Ten Commandments as stone tablets ever existed, or that the Exodus occurred. These are religious stories, and Moses has the same “historical” status as Adam and Eve, Noah, and other Old Testament figures. A school even calling them “historical” is a religious assertion.
Neither the Constitution, nor precedent, not common sense backs her “it isn’t what it is” blather. Sadly, the conservative media immediately fell into line defending the law, wounding their own credibility in the process. Newsbusters:
This story is ultimately less about the actual Ten Commandments than about what they represent in this particular instance: a challenge to the left’s monopoly on what can be taught in schools. Said differently, Louisiana challenges the (secular) religious orthodoxies of the public education system as run by left-wing administrators in unison with the teachers’ unions…. The media have no problem with kindergarteners being taught on gender, or on third and fourth-graders having access to graphic sexual materials in school libraries. But the Ten Commandments are a bridge too far.
One final Ugh. The story is about the Ten Commandments, and Louisiana’s transparent effort to force a religious code on students in violation of the Establishment Clause. There’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting public school indoctrination regarding sex. There is very clear prohibition against public schools promoting specific religions.
The conservative media is foaming at its metaphorical mouth after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a District Court decision from last summer that the Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts didn’t violate then-seventh grader Liam Morrison’s First Amendment rights when he was required to remove his “There are only two genders” T-shirt last year.
Liam, no weenie he, was sent home from school in March 2023 after he refused to change into a more neutral shirt. The case was filed on behalf of Morrison and his family last year by two conservative Christian groups, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Massachusetts Family Institute. Sam Whiting, a staff attorney with MFI, reacted to the ruling by saying in a statement, “This case is about much more than a t-shirt. The court’s decision is not only a threat to the free speech rights of public school students across the country, but a threat to basic biological truths.”
This is an ethics quiz because I recognize that I am irretrievably biased on the question of marijuana (no, I really don’t care that I’m supposed to call it “cannabis” now: bite me), which I believe should continue to be illegal, though I am under no illusions that this metaphorical horse has left the barn for good.
Maryland’s governor Wes Moore signed an executive order yesterday that pardons more than 175,000 convicted drug-abusers whose crimes were related to marijuana use. Moore said he did this “with deep pride and soberness.”
Yes, he’s proud to announce that Maryland doesn’t think violating laws is anything anyone should be ashamed of.
“Today is about equity; it is about racial justice,” Anthony Brown, Maryland’s attorney general, said. “While the order applies to all who meet its criteria, the impact is a triumphant victory for African Americans and other Marylanders of color who were disproportionately arrested, convicted and sentenced for actions yesterday that are lawful today.” This is because a disproportionate number of blacks broke the pot laws. This in turn acculturated many of them into breaking other laws with impunity as well. The progressive rule is that if laws are violated by larger numbers of a minority group than their demographic presence in the population would predict, it is discriminatory to enforce those laws.
I wonder who thought up that dodge? Whoever he or she is, it’s brilliant.
This is concerning, but, frighteningly enough, not surprising. As Ethics Alarms has noted many times, the legal profession has been among the critical institutions most thoroughly corrupted, indeed lobotomized, by partisan bias and Trump Derangement. As if that wasn’t bad enough, I am also getting reports from various quarters about the deep corruption in many state bar associations. This is especially problematic for me, as bar associations are a significant market for my ethics training services (if they ares sufficiently corrupt, such organizations tend to say “We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics training!”). Well, the Connecticut Bar is in the minority of bar associations that have never sought my wisdom, so I am unencumbered by conflicts of interest.
I had the TV on Fox News to keep my dog company, and was downstairs from my office briefly to get a drink when I heard a clip of Joe Biden saying, “The Supreme Court has never been more out of step.”
“Out of step?” What’s that supposed to mean? A President being stupid is bad, but a President who makes the public stupider is far worse. It isn’t the Supreme Court’s function to be “in step” with the times, polls, public opinion, fads or zeitgeist. It’s job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. Because the public’s understanding of the law is about at the same level as my dog’s understanding of “Two Gentlemen of Verona,” their opinion regarding what the Supreme Court should do is literally useless and of no value whatsoever.
The issue at hand was the SCOTUS decision on the bump stock ban discussed here. That opinion was only nominally about bump stocks: what it involved really was statutory construction and the limits of agencies trying to do end-arounds when laws don’t allow them to do what they would like to do.
“An event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.”
—-Justice Joseph Alito, concurring in the case of Garland v. Cargill and re-affirming the ethical, legal, democratic and conservative principle that laws shouldn’t be ignored or changed by courts just because they no longer work the way they were designed to.
I guess this will be just one more reason for the Angry Left to try to “get” Alito. Maybe he likes to eat candy bars that a lot of the Capitol rioters ate, or something. May be they’ll hire a lip-reader to try to catch him saying something like “it was a riot!” while smiling. Conflict of interest! Recuse!
Re-affirming why the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS majority is good for democracy, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it tried to ban bump stocks by classifying them as machineguns. Machineguns are defined in an old statute, the National Firearms Act of 1934. It banned “machine guns,” encompassing today’s automatic weapons. The law “defines a machinegun as any weapon capable of firing “automatically more than one shot…by a single function of the trigger,” as Justice Clarence Thomas explained in the majority opinion. Although the definition also covers parts of a gun that are “designed and intended…for use in converting a weapon” into a machinegun, it does not cover “bump stocks.”
Bump stocks assist “bump firing,” which involves pushing a rifle forward to activate the trigger by bumping it against a steady finger, then allowing recoil energy to push the gun backwards, resetting the trigger. If the shooter maintains forward pressure and keeps the trigger finger in place, a semi-automatic rifle will fire like an automatic weapon (anti-gun fanatics don’t know the difference, and don’t care). The ATF’s “interpretive rule” published in December of 2018 banned stock replacements that facilitated this operation.
Ethics Alarms 