Things have been happening in Wisconsin lately. Here’s a brief recap, from memory:
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Michael Vick has no regrets because everything happens for a reason
From an article in the Sports Illustrated:
Now a guy in his early 20s edged to the front of the crowd. "If you could do it all over again," said the inmate, his eyes meeting Vick's, "what's the one thing you'd do different?"
The answer was stunning. "Nothing," Vick said. "I mean, make some better choices. But I needed time to change. Everything happens for a reason."
Dumpster-diving, movie-watching, newspaper-reading, relentless ... IRS agents
Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but on each of the last two days I have read a story about prosecutions that began as vigilante, off-hours, side-projects by an enterprising (some would say over-zealous) IRS agent. The methods used in both cases are so similar, however, that coincidence seems impossible.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Not all advice is good advice
I hope to write a longer post on the topic of people using bad judgment over the weekend. In the meantime, today’s news brings us the story of Carlos Lam.
Mr. Lam was, until Thursday, a deputy prosecutor in Johnson County, Indiana. As reported by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Mr. Lam emailed Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, on February 19, 2010, and suggested that Governor Walker generate sympathy for his recent budget proposals by using “a ‘false flag’ operation.” Specifically, Mr. Lam suggested Governor Walker “employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions’ cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions.”
In other words, Governor Walker should have one of his supporters attack him (with a gun!)while pretending to be a supporter of Governor Walker’s opponents.
When first contacted by the Center, Mr. Lam denied being the author of the email. Adopting the “Shaggy defense,” Mr. Lam stated, ““I am flabbergasted [by the email] and would never advocate for something like this, and would like everyone to be sure that that’s just not me.” Mr. Lam told the reporter that he was out shopping for a minivan with his family when the email was sent.
Initially, Mr. Lam’s protestations of innocence worked. His boss, Brad Cooper, the Prosecuting Attorney for Johnson County, defended Mr. Lam and announced there would be no investigation of the emails because Mr. Lam did not send them. However, by Thursday morning, Mr. Lam decided to fess up and resign.
Oddly, Mr. Lam is not the first prosecutor in Indiana to lose his job over current events in Wisconsin. Jeff Cox, an attorney with the Indiana Attorney General’s office, was fired after he tweeted that authorities should use live ammunition and deadly force to deal with the protesters in Wisconsin.
Mr. Lam and Mr. Cox have First Amendment right to say stupid things via email or via the Internet. Nevertheless, both of these individuals displayed appallingly bad judgment in deciding to transmit their respective messages. Mr. Lam’s email raises two basic questions. First, why did he think the Governor of Wisconsin needed his advice on how to handle the protests? Second, why did he think that faking an assassination attempt would be a good way to change the narrative in Wisconsin? It is difficult to fathom how such “false flag operation” would go undiscovered. Among other things there is a publicly available email from Mr. Lam suggesting the attempt.
In any event, it seems like Mr. Lam’s email is a good reminder that not every idea needs to be expressed and that lawyers representing the public should think twice before sending emails, publishing tweets, or writing blog posts.
Mr. Lam was, until Thursday, a deputy prosecutor in Johnson County, Indiana. As reported by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Mr. Lam emailed Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, on February 19, 2010, and suggested that Governor Walker generate sympathy for his recent budget proposals by using “a ‘false flag’ operation.” Specifically, Mr. Lam suggested Governor Walker “employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions’ cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions.”
In other words, Governor Walker should have one of his supporters attack him (with a gun!)while pretending to be a supporter of Governor Walker’s opponents.
When first contacted by the Center, Mr. Lam denied being the author of the email. Adopting the “Shaggy defense,” Mr. Lam stated, ““I am flabbergasted [by the email] and would never advocate for something like this, and would like everyone to be sure that that’s just not me.” Mr. Lam told the reporter that he was out shopping for a minivan with his family when the email was sent.
Initially, Mr. Lam’s protestations of innocence worked. His boss, Brad Cooper, the Prosecuting Attorney for Johnson County, defended Mr. Lam and announced there would be no investigation of the emails because Mr. Lam did not send them. However, by Thursday morning, Mr. Lam decided to fess up and resign.
Oddly, Mr. Lam is not the first prosecutor in Indiana to lose his job over current events in Wisconsin. Jeff Cox, an attorney with the Indiana Attorney General’s office, was fired after he tweeted that authorities should use live ammunition and deadly force to deal with the protesters in Wisconsin.
Mr. Lam and Mr. Cox have First Amendment right to say stupid things via email or via the Internet. Nevertheless, both of these individuals displayed appallingly bad judgment in deciding to transmit their respective messages. Mr. Lam’s email raises two basic questions. First, why did he think the Governor of Wisconsin needed his advice on how to handle the protests? Second, why did he think that faking an assassination attempt would be a good way to change the narrative in Wisconsin? It is difficult to fathom how such “false flag operation” would go undiscovered. Among other things there is a publicly available email from Mr. Lam suggesting the attempt.
In any event, it seems like Mr. Lam’s email is a good reminder that not every idea needs to be expressed and that lawyers representing the public should think twice before sending emails, publishing tweets, or writing blog posts.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Don't forget about Patrick Henry
Thank you for the birthday wishes, Mr. Torvik. You may be right that March 23 will now be known as the day Elizabeth Taylor died. Even before this year, however, March 23 was more well known as the day Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty, or give me Death" than it was for being my birthday.
Happy Birthday to Mr. Gillette
According to Facebook, it is Mr. Gillette's birthday. Unfortunately, his birthday will now forever be known as the day Elizabeth Taylor died.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The human cost of ending the death penalty
One of the arguments that I've heard people make against the death penalty is that it is too costly. Without actually looking into the facts, this argument always struck me as unconvincing. You're telling me that it is more expensive to execute someone than it is to provide him shelter, food, and medical care for decades?
Well, earlier this month, Illinois repealed the death penalty, and the news today is that this will lead directly to the loss of 37 state jobs in the Office of the State Appellate Defender. Most of the affected are lawyers who handle death penalty appeals. This will save Illinois taxpayers $4.7 million in year one, and more in the future after the agency gets a chance to downsize its office space.
Some thoughts.
1) A while back, we discussed the crisis in funding for public defenders. As a partial solution I proposed "fewer crimes," on the theory that if we had fewer crimes we would need fewer public defenders. Apparently "fewer punishments" also works.
2) This is another good reason for a libertarian-minded person to be against the death penalty.
3) On the other hand, perhaps instituting the death penalty is good for the economy, since it puts people to work?
Well, earlier this month, Illinois repealed the death penalty, and the news today is that this will lead directly to the loss of 37 state jobs in the Office of the State Appellate Defender. Most of the affected are lawyers who handle death penalty appeals. This will save Illinois taxpayers $4.7 million in year one, and more in the future after the agency gets a chance to downsize its office space.
Some thoughts.
1) A while back, we discussed the crisis in funding for public defenders. As a partial solution I proposed "fewer crimes," on the theory that if we had fewer crimes we would need fewer public defenders. Apparently "fewer punishments" also works.
2) This is another good reason for a libertarian-minded person to be against the death penalty.
3) On the other hand, perhaps instituting the death penalty is good for the economy, since it puts people to work?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
The Wisconsin Supreme Court...
is in embarrassing disarray.
My opinion is that it should be disbanded so that the citizens of Wisconsin can elect some adults to the Court. Perhaps Mr. Vander Plaats can cross the Iowa border and get a throw-the-bums-out movement cooking in Wisconsin. (There are plenty of good Wisconsin-based pizza joints -- like Rocky Rococo's and Pizza Pit -- from which to stage the revolution.)
My opinion is that it should be disbanded so that the citizens of Wisconsin can elect some adults to the Court. Perhaps Mr. Vander Plaats can cross the Iowa border and get a throw-the-bums-out movement cooking in Wisconsin. (There are plenty of good Wisconsin-based pizza joints -- like Rocky Rococo's and Pizza Pit -- from which to stage the revolution.)
Friday, March 18, 2011
Are pizza lovers more likely to be against gay marriage?
As I discussed in November, the relationship between the Iowa Supreme Court and the citizens of Iowa has become more politicized. Prior to 2010, no Iowa judge had ever lost a retention election. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their retention election in 2010. Bob Vander Plaats, a failed Iowa gubernatorial candidate and gay marriage opponent, helped coordinate the efforts of various special interest groups to bring about the loses.
Now Mr. Vander Plaats is calling upon the four Iowa Supreme Court justices who were not up for retention election to resign. As the Quad Cities' Times reports, Mr. Vander Plaats spooke to 30 people at Wise Guys Pizza as part of his effort to launch a grassroots effort to get rid of the four justices. While Mr. Vander Plaats believes the justices should be impeached, he also thinks that Iowans "should give the remaining four justices the opportunity to do the right thing." If the justices fail to do the right thing, they should be impeached because the Iowa Supreme Court unanimous ruling allowing gay marriage exceeded constitutional limits in a way that amounts to malfeasance warranting impeachment. I find the use of the phrase "do the right thing" strange given that I assume that the justices were trying to do the right thing when they unwittingly provoked the ire of Mr. Vander Plaats.
Mr. Vander Plaats made similar statements on March 14 at a Godfather's Pizza in Cedar Rapids Iowa. There Mr. Vander Plaats said the fact that Iowa allows gay marriage could lead to the legalization of polygamy or incest. Mr. Vander Plaats's argument is similar to the one made by Justice Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas. As I am sure you recall, the Lawrence case is the one where the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia's dissent, like Mr. Vander Plaat's recent speeches, worried that laws against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity" were no longer sustainable.
Mr. Vander Plaats's recent public appearances raise a couple of questions. First is there some link between opponents of gay marriage and pizza (or mafia-themed pizza places)? I worked at a pizza place for several years during and after college and did not notice a connection. Perhaps it is like law school and Mr. Vander Plaats figures that by offering people free pizza he will get them to show up and listen to his arguments against gay marriage.
Second, is there any evidence to support slippery slope argument advanced by Mr. Vander Plaats? At first blush, the answer is no. None of the of the states that have legalized gay marriage (or civil unions) have also legalized incest or polygamy. Moreover, it seems unlikely that any state is going to do so. As University of Minnesota Law School professor Dale Carpenter has noted, polygamous marriage has been tried and rejected by many different cultures over human history. Gay marriage has not. Thus, the comparison between the two is somewhat specious. Moreover, polygamous marriage presents legal problems that do not exist if gay marriage is allowed, e.g., if the husband dies whiteout a will, which wife gets what.
However, it is true that the Lawrence decision has been used to strike down other sex crime laws. For example, in Martin v. Ziherl, the Virgina Supreme Court struck down Virgina's law against fornication was struck down solely on the basis of Lawrence. Also, in Reliable Consultants, Inc., v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (2008), the Fifth Circuit struck down a Texas law banning the sale of any devise, to quote the law in question "designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." So perhaps Mr. Vander Plaats's concern over the expansion of the gay marriage decision is not entirely misplaced.
On the other hand, the Lawrence decision has not prompted Courts to strike down, as Justice Scalia speculated, laws prohibiting incest, prostitution, or obscenity. See e.g., Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005)(upholding Wisconsin law prohibiting incest from a challenge based on Lawrence, State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (upholding Ohio law prohibiting incest, State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1 (2007) (holding laws prohibiting prostitution from a Lawrence challenge, U.S. v. Stagliano, 693 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding Lawrence does not render laws against obtaining or distributing obscene material unconstitutional).
All of this is a long way of saying that while Mr. Vander Plaats' arguments may or may not be misplaced, Iowa's retention elections in 2012 and 2014 are apparently going to be as contentious as the one in 2010. Do we think that is a good thing?
Now Mr. Vander Plaats is calling upon the four Iowa Supreme Court justices who were not up for retention election to resign. As the Quad Cities' Times reports, Mr. Vander Plaats spooke to 30 people at Wise Guys Pizza as part of his effort to launch a grassroots effort to get rid of the four justices. While Mr. Vander Plaats believes the justices should be impeached, he also thinks that Iowans "should give the remaining four justices the opportunity to do the right thing." If the justices fail to do the right thing, they should be impeached because the Iowa Supreme Court unanimous ruling allowing gay marriage exceeded constitutional limits in a way that amounts to malfeasance warranting impeachment. I find the use of the phrase "do the right thing" strange given that I assume that the justices were trying to do the right thing when they unwittingly provoked the ire of Mr. Vander Plaats.
Mr. Vander Plaats made similar statements on March 14 at a Godfather's Pizza in Cedar Rapids Iowa. There Mr. Vander Plaats said the fact that Iowa allows gay marriage could lead to the legalization of polygamy or incest. Mr. Vander Plaats's argument is similar to the one made by Justice Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas. As I am sure you recall, the Lawrence case is the one where the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia's dissent, like Mr. Vander Plaat's recent speeches, worried that laws against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity" were no longer sustainable.
Mr. Vander Plaats's recent public appearances raise a couple of questions. First is there some link between opponents of gay marriage and pizza (or mafia-themed pizza places)? I worked at a pizza place for several years during and after college and did not notice a connection. Perhaps it is like law school and Mr. Vander Plaats figures that by offering people free pizza he will get them to show up and listen to his arguments against gay marriage.
Second, is there any evidence to support slippery slope argument advanced by Mr. Vander Plaats? At first blush, the answer is no. None of the of the states that have legalized gay marriage (or civil unions) have also legalized incest or polygamy. Moreover, it seems unlikely that any state is going to do so. As University of Minnesota Law School professor Dale Carpenter has noted, polygamous marriage has been tried and rejected by many different cultures over human history. Gay marriage has not. Thus, the comparison between the two is somewhat specious. Moreover, polygamous marriage presents legal problems that do not exist if gay marriage is allowed, e.g., if the husband dies whiteout a will, which wife gets what.
However, it is true that the Lawrence decision has been used to strike down other sex crime laws. For example, in Martin v. Ziherl, the Virgina Supreme Court struck down Virgina's law against fornication was struck down solely on the basis of Lawrence. Also, in Reliable Consultants, Inc., v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (2008), the Fifth Circuit struck down a Texas law banning the sale of any devise, to quote the law in question "designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." So perhaps Mr. Vander Plaats's concern over the expansion of the gay marriage decision is not entirely misplaced.
On the other hand, the Lawrence decision has not prompted Courts to strike down, as Justice Scalia speculated, laws prohibiting incest, prostitution, or obscenity. See e.g., Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005)(upholding Wisconsin law prohibiting incest from a challenge based on Lawrence, State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (upholding Ohio law prohibiting incest, State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1 (2007) (holding laws prohibiting prostitution from a Lawrence challenge, U.S. v. Stagliano, 693 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding Lawrence does not render laws against obtaining or distributing obscene material unconstitutional).
All of this is a long way of saying that while Mr. Vander Plaats' arguments may or may not be misplaced, Iowa's retention elections in 2012 and 2014 are apparently going to be as contentious as the one in 2010. Do we think that is a good thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)