A friend of mine, who clearly has an outsized influence on me, suggested that I should start writing on the Gillette-Torvik blog again. I should do lots of things, of course. I do not do a lot of things I should do. Anyway, I guess my tweets were not particularly satisfying reading. I can understand that sentiment given that most of my tweets are simply using this gif in response to political statements with which I disagree.
via GIPHY
I know my using that gif is not witty. Nevertheless, I find using that gif deeply satisfying. Twitter brings out my worst self.
Showing posts with label bad blog ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad blog ideas. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2019
Friday, March 30, 2012
Inflammmatory stupidity loses again.
Now that the Obamacare oral arguments are over, America can get back to asking questions rather than listening to nine middle-aged/old people ask questions. One question on the minds of many, whatever happened to Andrew Shirvell? We did a fair number of posts about him in the fall of 2010 but since then we have not done any.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Note to readers: Do not threaten Judges in the comments. We don't want to get sanctioned.
As KAAL-TV reports, Carver County Judge Richard Perkins has ordered portions of the Carver County Corruption blog shut down. The blog seems to focus on the child custody proceedings of Lea Banken, the blog's host. Judge Perkins is overseeing those proceedings.
Apparently, Judge Perkins was unhappy with some of the comments posted on the blog. Among other things, one comment stated that the judge "should be castrated, tortured and bleed to death." Other comments stated that the judge should be hung. However there was some dispute over whether the hanging should be in downtown Chaska, Minnesota or from the nearest tree. According to the article Judge Perkins has also fined Ms. Banken $10,000 for contempt of the order.
We have previously pointed out that suggesting that judges should be killed is a bad idea. However, in that case the person threatening the judge was punished, not the person providing the forum for threatening the judge.
Of course, Ms. Banken posted about the Judge's order directing that the comments be removed. People commenting on the post responded with exactly the sort of reasoned discourse one might expect. A comment from Linn informs us that the judge is the "biggest DOUCH BAG EVER." (capitalization in original.) Linn asks "how the hell does this man function with no soul!!!??" (exclamation point and question mark usage in original.) Linn also informs us that "HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR people" like the judge. (capitalization in original.) Linn also makes it clear that she wants "SEE A MENTAL EVALUATION DONE ON THIS SICK JUDGE!!" (capitalization and exclamation point usage in original.)
While it is possible that Linn is a writer for "IRISH ARGUMENTS WEEKLY," if I were to make a list of ways to ensure that a "mental evaluation" is not done on someone, making that request in all caps would be high on the list—perhaps even in the top 5.
In any event, the Carver County Corruption blog and the Court's orders are a sad reminder that family law cases are often very bitter disputes. Reviewing the CCCB's comments also made me thankful that the people (person?) who comment on this blog keep the discourse at a higher level. We are nearing our two-year anniversary and we have yet to be fined of held in contempt because of a comment made on this blog.
Apparently, Judge Perkins was unhappy with some of the comments posted on the blog. Among other things, one comment stated that the judge "should be castrated, tortured and bleed to death." Other comments stated that the judge should be hung. However there was some dispute over whether the hanging should be in downtown Chaska, Minnesota or from the nearest tree. According to the article Judge Perkins has also fined Ms. Banken $10,000 for contempt of the order.
We have previously pointed out that suggesting that judges should be killed is a bad idea. However, in that case the person threatening the judge was punished, not the person providing the forum for threatening the judge.
Of course, Ms. Banken posted about the Judge's order directing that the comments be removed. People commenting on the post responded with exactly the sort of reasoned discourse one might expect. A comment from Linn informs us that the judge is the "biggest DOUCH BAG EVER." (capitalization in original.) Linn asks "how the hell does this man function with no soul!!!??" (exclamation point and question mark usage in original.) Linn also informs us that "HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR people" like the judge. (capitalization in original.) Linn also makes it clear that she wants "SEE A MENTAL EVALUATION DONE ON THIS SICK JUDGE!!" (capitalization and exclamation point usage in original.)
While it is possible that Linn is a writer for "IRISH ARGUMENTS WEEKLY," if I were to make a list of ways to ensure that a "mental evaluation" is not done on someone, making that request in all caps would be high on the list—perhaps even in the top 5.
In any event, the Carver County Corruption blog and the Court's orders are a sad reminder that family law cases are often very bitter disputes. Reviewing the CCCB's comments also made me thankful that the people (person?) who comment on this blog keep the discourse at a higher level. We are nearing our two-year anniversary and we have yet to be fined of held in contempt because of a comment made on this blog.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
President Obama's next Supreme Court Justice pick.
SCOTUSblog has a post speculating on who will be President Obama's next nominee for the Supreme Court. The post also, helpfully, speculates as to who the nominee will be replacing given that there are no vacancies on the court.
The post informs us that "the odds are good that Justice Ginsberg will retire in the third year of the second Obama term." The post specifically declaims that Justice Ginsberg's bouts with cancer are the reason for this as-yet-unannounced plan to resign. Instead, Justice Ginsberg (who is Jewish) will retire in 2015 because Justice Brandeis (the first Jewish supreme court justice) retired at 82. Also, both Justice Ginsberg and Justice Brandeis were appointed to the court at the age of 60. So, I guess they have to retire at the same time. I am not sure if the retirement would be an homage to Justice Brandeis or if the retirement is dictated by either statute or talmudic law.
In further support of the retirement prediction, the author writes, "Justices tend to retire strategically to permit ideologically sympathetic presidents to name their successors." The article doesn't point to any examples of this. Probably because it isn't true. If one looks at the list of Supreme Court Justices , there have been a total of 112 justices on the Supreme Court. Obviously, 9 of those justices are still serving. So, we have a total of 103 justices who left the court.
49 of those justices didn't leave voluntarily, they died while serving. I am going to assume that justices that died during the presidency of an "ideologically sympathetic president" did not die in order for that president to appoint a successor. After all, if those justices wanted to let that president get a nomination they only had to resign, not kill themselves. I leave to Mr. Torvik to uncover evidence of presidents having ideologically sympathetic justices killed.
Of the 54 justices who didn't die in office, how many resigned during the tenure of an ideologically sympathetic president? The shorthand way of looking at this is to look at the political party of the president who appointed the justice and the president who appointed the replacement. The problem is that this approach doesn't account for people like David Souter, a Republican-appointed justice whose views might be regarded as being more ideologically sympathetic with the person who appointed his replacement, President Obama. Nor does that approach take into account people like William Brennan, a Republican-appointed and Republican-replaced justice who is considered to be a liberal and so his resignation arguably didn't coincide with the term of an ideologically sympathetic president. It also doesn't cover John Rutledge, whose recess appointment to chief justice was rejected by the Senate.
However, in the interest of brevity, I will adopt the general approach that party membership suggests ideological sympathy (excluding Rutledge as, like death, his rejection was beyond his control). Of the remaining 53 resignations or retirements, 26 were made during the tenure of a president that belonged to the same party as the president who appointed the justice. That means 27 resignations occurred when the presidency was in the hands of a different party than the one that appointed the justice. From this, I don't see how we can say that it is a "trend" for justices to retire shortly before the end of an ideologically sympathetic president's term.
If anything, the examples of Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Stephen Field, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and others indicate that justices don't step down until their poor health makes them.
As for the speculation as to who is going to be President Obama's next nominee, the author thinks it will a woman belonging to an ethnic minority. You and I, Mr. Torvik, are out of luck.
The post informs us that "the odds are good that Justice Ginsberg will retire in the third year of the second Obama term." The post specifically declaims that Justice Ginsberg's bouts with cancer are the reason for this as-yet-unannounced plan to resign. Instead, Justice Ginsberg (who is Jewish) will retire in 2015 because Justice Brandeis (the first Jewish supreme court justice) retired at 82. Also, both Justice Ginsberg and Justice Brandeis were appointed to the court at the age of 60. So, I guess they have to retire at the same time. I am not sure if the retirement would be an homage to Justice Brandeis or if the retirement is dictated by either statute or talmudic law.
In further support of the retirement prediction, the author writes, "Justices tend to retire strategically to permit ideologically sympathetic presidents to name their successors." The article doesn't point to any examples of this. Probably because it isn't true. If one looks at the list of Supreme Court Justices , there have been a total of 112 justices on the Supreme Court. Obviously, 9 of those justices are still serving. So, we have a total of 103 justices who left the court.
49 of those justices didn't leave voluntarily, they died while serving. I am going to assume that justices that died during the presidency of an "ideologically sympathetic president" did not die in order for that president to appoint a successor. After all, if those justices wanted to let that president get a nomination they only had to resign, not kill themselves. I leave to Mr. Torvik to uncover evidence of presidents having ideologically sympathetic justices killed.
Of the 54 justices who didn't die in office, how many resigned during the tenure of an ideologically sympathetic president? The shorthand way of looking at this is to look at the political party of the president who appointed the justice and the president who appointed the replacement. The problem is that this approach doesn't account for people like David Souter, a Republican-appointed justice whose views might be regarded as being more ideologically sympathetic with the person who appointed his replacement, President Obama. Nor does that approach take into account people like William Brennan, a Republican-appointed and Republican-replaced justice who is considered to be a liberal and so his resignation arguably didn't coincide with the term of an ideologically sympathetic president. It also doesn't cover John Rutledge, whose recess appointment to chief justice was rejected by the Senate.
However, in the interest of brevity, I will adopt the general approach that party membership suggests ideological sympathy (excluding Rutledge as, like death, his rejection was beyond his control). Of the remaining 53 resignations or retirements, 26 were made during the tenure of a president that belonged to the same party as the president who appointed the justice. That means 27 resignations occurred when the presidency was in the hands of a different party than the one that appointed the justice. From this, I don't see how we can say that it is a "trend" for justices to retire shortly before the end of an ideologically sympathetic president's term.
If anything, the examples of Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Stephen Field, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and others indicate that justices don't step down until their poor health makes them.
As for the speculation as to who is going to be President Obama's next nominee, the author thinks it will a woman belonging to an ethnic minority. You and I, Mr. Torvik, are out of luck.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Suggesting judges should be killed is a bad idea.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” However, suggesting three particular “patriots & tyrants” should be killed, posting their pictures, work addresses, and maps to the addresses on the internet will get you 33 months in prison. That is the lesson we learned from Hal Turner’s sentencing today.
Mr. Turner, the subject of a brief post by Mr. Torvik and occasional informant for the FBI, was annoyed with a unanimous decision made by Seventh Circuit Judges Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and William Bauer last year. The decision upheld a (since-overturned) handgun ban in Chicago and some of its suburbs.
In response to the ruling, Mr. Turner wrote a blog post. In the post, Mr. Turner quoted the same Jefferson quote I mentioned. However, according to an ABA Journal post, Mr. Turner then added: “It is time to replenish the tree! Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.” The New York Times reports that Mr. Turner also wrote, “If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way.”
In case people did not get Mr. Turner’s point, he went on to refer to the murder of husband and mother of United States District Court Judge Joan LefKow. Mr. Turner wrote, “Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court didn't get the hint after those killings,” and, “It appears another lesson is needed.”
Mr. Turner was charged and, after two mistrials, convicted of threatening to assault and murder the three judges with intent to retaliate against them for performing their official duties. At his sentencing, Mr. Turner continued to demonstrate a poor grasp of the concept that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. North Jersey.com reports that while speaking for almost an hour, Mr. Turner claimed that the judge engaged in “legal skulduggery” over the jury instruction as to what constitutes a threat. Mr. Turner, also called the trial a “three-ring circus.” Then, having sufficiently insulted the person imposing the sentence, he asked for probation. While the prosecution asked for a six-year sentence, Judge Donald E. Walter imposed a 33-month sentence. Mr. Turner, unsurprisingly, plans to appeal.
What do you think Mr. Torvik, is 33 months an appropriate sentence for writing threats on a blog? Does it matter that Mr. Turner’s words went unheeded, or at least unacted on, by every American? How intimidated could the three judges have been if none of them requested security as a result of the threats (and did not even testify at the first of the three trials)?
It seems to me that Mr. Turner should have followed the lesson learned by Hunter S. Thompson when he was threatend with prosecution for suggesting that then Vice-President Bush be stomped to death by a crowd of Marquette University students. Instead of threating to kill a public official, just suggest that they be placed naked in a room with an "angry, horny, acid-crazed elk."
Mr. Turner, the subject of a brief post by Mr. Torvik and occasional informant for the FBI, was annoyed with a unanimous decision made by Seventh Circuit Judges Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and William Bauer last year. The decision upheld a (since-overturned) handgun ban in Chicago and some of its suburbs.
In response to the ruling, Mr. Turner wrote a blog post. In the post, Mr. Turner quoted the same Jefferson quote I mentioned. However, according to an ABA Journal post, Mr. Turner then added: “It is time to replenish the tree! Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.” The New York Times reports that Mr. Turner also wrote, “If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way.”
In case people did not get Mr. Turner’s point, he went on to refer to the murder of husband and mother of United States District Court Judge Joan LefKow. Mr. Turner wrote, “Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court didn't get the hint after those killings,” and, “It appears another lesson is needed.”
Mr. Turner was charged and, after two mistrials, convicted of threatening to assault and murder the three judges with intent to retaliate against them for performing their official duties. At his sentencing, Mr. Turner continued to demonstrate a poor grasp of the concept that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. North Jersey.com reports that while speaking for almost an hour, Mr. Turner claimed that the judge engaged in “legal skulduggery” over the jury instruction as to what constitutes a threat. Mr. Turner, also called the trial a “three-ring circus.” Then, having sufficiently insulted the person imposing the sentence, he asked for probation. While the prosecution asked for a six-year sentence, Judge Donald E. Walter imposed a 33-month sentence. Mr. Turner, unsurprisingly, plans to appeal.
What do you think Mr. Torvik, is 33 months an appropriate sentence for writing threats on a blog? Does it matter that Mr. Turner’s words went unheeded, or at least unacted on, by every American? How intimidated could the three judges have been if none of them requested security as a result of the threats (and did not even testify at the first of the three trials)?
It seems to me that Mr. Turner should have followed the lesson learned by Hunter S. Thompson when he was threatend with prosecution for suggesting that then Vice-President Bush be stomped to death by a crowd of Marquette University students. Instead of threating to kill a public official, just suggest that they be placed naked in a room with an "angry, horny, acid-crazed elk."
Saturday, September 18, 2010
What is it with prosecuting attorneys this week?
While this isn't as bad as Kenneth Kratz, an attorney in the Michigan Attorney General's office is engaged in some deeply weird blogging. Clearly some public officials have too much free time.
Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general in Michigan, has a blog devoted to expressing his contempt of one gay person. I wrote that correctly, it is a blog dedicated to picking on one gay person. That person is University of Michigan Student Assembly president Chris Armstrong. Now, Mr. Shirvell doesn't like gay people, period. Still, the blog is really about one particular gay person. In fact, Mr. Shirvell has written 27 posts about one person. Who has the energy for that? Mr. Kratz or Ieshuh Griifin are going to have to make a lot more news before we come close to topping that figure.
Mr. Shirvell accuses this college student of being a “Nazi-like” recruiter to the “cult of homosexuality.” The analogy sort of breaks down when you consider that Nazi’s did not like homosexuals very much. Maybe less blogging about one gay student and more history study is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt.
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct seem to discourage this sort of thing. Rule 6.5(a) says:
So what to make of Mr. Shirvell’s hobby? Given that no one likes a bully, it seems like Mr. Shirvell should get a new pastime. Especially since his boss does not like it. Of course, now that his boss is on the record as not liking it, Mr. Shirvell will have a First Amendment retaliation claim if he gets fired or disciplined in the near future. In any event, if he directed some of the energy he devotes to Mr. Armstrong towards model trains, I bet Mr. Shirvell could make something like this. At the very least, it would keep him off the computer.
Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general in Michigan, has a blog devoted to expressing his contempt of one gay person. I wrote that correctly, it is a blog dedicated to picking on one gay person. That person is University of Michigan Student Assembly president Chris Armstrong. Now, Mr. Shirvell doesn't like gay people, period. Still, the blog is really about one particular gay person. In fact, Mr. Shirvell has written 27 posts about one person. Who has the energy for that? Mr. Kratz or Ieshuh Griifin are going to have to make a lot more news before we come close to topping that figure.
Mr. Shirvell accuses this college student of being a “Nazi-like” recruiter to the “cult of homosexuality.” The analogy sort of breaks down when you consider that Nazi’s did not like homosexuals very much. Maybe less blogging about one gay student and more history study is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt.
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct seem to discourage this sort of thing. Rule 6.5(a) says:
A lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process. A lawyer shall take particular care to avoid treating such a person discourteously or disrespectfully because of the person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic.I suppose Mr. Shirvell has two explanations for why he is not violating the rule. One is that sexual orientation is not a “protected personal characteristic.” However, Michigan does prohibit some forms of sexual orientation discrimination. The other may be that Mr. Armstrong is not, as of yet, “involved in the legal process”. But, as the comment to Rule 6.5 notes:
A lawyer must take particular care to avoid words or actions that appear to be improperly based upon a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic. Legal institutions, and those who serve them, should take leadership roles in assuring equal treatment for all.It’s probably fair to say that Mr. Shirvell is falling short of that ideal. His blog is certainly based on one protected personal characteristic. I suspect that homosexuals who have been victims of crimes would not want Mr. Shirvell involved in their case.
So what to make of Mr. Shirvell’s hobby? Given that no one likes a bully, it seems like Mr. Shirvell should get a new pastime. Especially since his boss does not like it. Of course, now that his boss is on the record as not liking it, Mr. Shirvell will have a First Amendment retaliation claim if he gets fired or disciplined in the near future. In any event, if he directed some of the energy he devotes to Mr. Armstrong towards model trains, I bet Mr. Shirvell could make something like this. At the very least, it would keep him off the computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)