Jury Finds Man Guilty of Murder in Kansas Abortion Provider's Death

The only thing I have to say about this is this one paragraph.

Roeder's attorneys were hoping to get a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.

I don't see why this was rejected, it's clear he honestly believes deadly force was justified. This sounds like grounds for an appeal since the Jury didn't decide this, the Judge did.

Scott Roeder
Dr. George Tiller


Jury Finds Man Guilty of Murder in Kansas Abortion Provider's Death - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Florida court strikes down ban on gay adoptions

Well,

I see another constitutional amendment coming. But this will be much harder to pass or even get on the ballot. But then again, I though the gay-marriage amendment would fail. So I'm not a good person to ask about this sort of thing.

Ironically, I care more about banning gay-adoption than I do gay-marriage. So this ruling strikes at one of the main reason I supported the gay-marriage ban. Ideally, Adoption would only be allowed by married couples, then there would be no need for a gay-adoption ban. But this would prevent singles from adopting too, and although I'm OK with that, most people aren't

I fully support giving a lot of the rights associated with marriage to gay couples. However, adoption is one that I am adamantly against! (Exclamation point). There is just no reason to place a child into a family structure that could in no way (under any circumstances natural or using any medical technology short of cloning) have produced a child of their own. And by their own, I mean the couple together, with the child being equally biologically related to both of them.

I think gay-couples should admit that they are not in the family making business and shouldn't be in the family raising business either.

Florida court challenges state's ban on gay adoptions -- OrlandoSentinel.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Use of brain scans in courts

Wow.. this is incredible.... actually it's NOT credible which is the point.
Reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk is convicted based on "infallible" computer evidence. Or a few others where they had a high tech lie detector in trials. But this seems to go further than just detecting a lie. This seems to suggest that a brain scan can read what a person remembers.. chilling....

India's use of brain scans in courts dismays critics - International Herald Tribune [This Post Continues after the jump...]

How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects?

I've always wondered about this.
If I were on a jury, how much stock would I put into DNA evidence. On TV and in the News it is offend presented as "iron clad" proof. To me it's a "blackhole" or reather a "blackbox" something that works and I trust, but I can't see "inside" it, I can't see or even understand "how" it works. I just have to trust it.

So it's not really physical evidence, it's "expert" testimony. Physical evident must be something that I, as jury member, can actually see. A fingerprint is a good example. While matching fingerprints isn't always as easy, I could at least see them both and make my own judgement.

But with DNA evidence, there is nothing for a jury to "see". So I've always wonder if DNA alone could make me change my conclusion.

The use of science in the courtroom is great, but it does raise a concern for me. It move the decision away from the jury. The jury is already operating "in the blind" to a large extent. Evidence is suppressed, we are told to "disregard" something we just heard. We can't ask our own questions of witnesses. Now we are asked to just accept scientific evidence that we ourselves cannot understand. Why not just made the decision for us, why ask us to make our own decision in such an isolated mannor?


How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects? - Los Angeles Times [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Court Rules Officials Did Not Have Right to Seize Children

It's good to see the court view taking a child away from thier parents to be an "extreme" measure only authorized if the children were in immediate danger or when authorized by a court.

Taking all 400 children at once overloaded the system and prevents individual cases from getting the attention they need. It also keeps children waiting way too long.

I'm not defending this cult because I don't know what did or did not happen. But the state abused it's power when it took all the children at once. Only 31 were even thought to be underage teenage girls (only 16 were really underage). So why did the state take all 400 children? Basically because they COULD, and that is wrong.

FOXNews.com - Texas Appellate Court Rules Officials Did Not Have Right to Seize Polygamist Ranch Children - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case

High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case - washingtonpost.com


This is interesting. The ban was overturned, so is the Supreme court hearing it so the Ban can be restored? Or are they hearing it to make the decision universal across the whole country and not just an isolated DC case?

I guess we will find out in 6-7 months.

I honestly don't see how people can read it as a "state right" or "collective right" and not an "individual right". I think anyone that reads it that way is being a little dishonest, and just looking to support their belief that certain guns should be banned. The amendment clearly says the "right of the people..." not "the right of the state"

But, if it is a collective right, then it would seem to require states to have a "well regulated Militia" so that people can exercise their collective right. It would be a pointless amendment if people have the "right" to have a gun if they are in a militia, but have no right or opportunity to be in a militia. It would be like writing the first amendment like this: The right of the people to pray to whatever god they believe in, while in church, shall not be infringed. But then outlawing churches. This would be pointless and not actually bestow any real right.

If owning a gun is contingent on being in a militia, then every state MUST be required to have a militia and regulate it as they see fit and can afford. I would actually like this interpretation, as long as the regulation of the militia was really done to make the militia better and more prepared, and not done to make people unwilling to sign up. I would think the cost would keep the regulation reasonable and similar to what some states now require for a concealed weapon permit. Stuff like safety education and actually firing the gun training. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Originalism and the Supreme Court

Great Article.... but it's out right scary that Clinton might get to nominate 4 Supreme Court Justices.

The Federalist Society » Publications - Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Steven G. Calabresi [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Judge Rules 2 Patriot Act Provisions Unlawful

FOXNews.com - Judge Rules 2 Patriot Act Provisions Unlawful - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I this took a long time to come about..
I've never understood the need for warrantless searches when there was a secret court setup to approve secret searches. The FBI's own records shows this has been abused and court oversight would stop most of that. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Illogical Court Ruling in Iowa on Gay-Marriage

Here we go...

I honestly don't get the judge's logic..

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

However, I can "otherwise qualify" for anything if you remove the one requirement I don't meet.

For example, I can "otherwise quality" to vote in Iowa by being over 18, not being a felon, etc. But I'm stilled denied the right to vote in Iowa "by reason of the fact that " I don't live in Iowa. It seems to me that using this judge's logic, anyone that fails to quality for ANYTHING for only ONE reason can now be considered to qualify.

I could meet a woman tomorrow, fall in love his her and "otherwise quality" to marry her except for ONE little detail... I'm already Married. So using this logic, I would still be able to marry this person despite the fact that I fail one of the "qualification" needed to be allowed to marry. Why is the requirement to be "not already married" valid and the requirement to be "of opposite gender" not valid?

I can understand the judge or anyone disagreeing with the requirement, but nothing about it violates any "equal-protection" clause. Everyone has the SAME rules for who they can and cannot marry. No matter what you think I, no anyone else, has the absolute right to "marry a person of their choosing". The choice is limited by several things. First (in no particular order) the other person must also choose to marry me, 2nd the other person must not currently be married to someone else, 3rd the person must be old enough to get married. I see no reason why adding "the other person must be of the opposite gender" make the law "unequal". You may disagree with it, it may make you angry, but in reality it is simply just ONE MORE requirement that applies EQUALLY to everyone.

Can someone explain to me how a law that applies equally to everyone violates a "equal-protection" clause?

Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry - CNN.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Blogger freed after record contempt stint - CNN.com

Well, it looks like he gave in a little. But the video he put on-line doesn't have the crime in it, and the part he sold did (I think), so this may not be over yet.

Blogger freed after record contempt stint - CNN.com

I just don't understand this, If I would be required to testify about something I saw on private time or even while at work, why shouldn't Joshua Wolf or any reporter? [This Post Continues after the jump...]

The 9th Circus Strikes Again

Tongue Tied 3 - The 9th Circus Strikes Again

"So a district judge makes a reasonable decision in line with the First Amendment, the 9th Circus overturns him and now refuses to revisit the case. It looks like game, set and match for the 9th Circus to get overtuned by SCOTUS yet again. STACLU has some extended comments on the matter."

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Journalistic Freedom

This is an important topic. This guy video taped a public demonstration and sold some of the footage to news organizations. The Government has subpoena the whole tape, which Mr. Wolf will not give them, so he's in jail. They also want him to testify.

I can understand (but not necessarily agree with) not testifying about what people told him as a reporter, but I don't understand not turning over the tape. Its evidence of what actually happened that day, anyone standing in this public place would have seen the same thing, there is nothing "private" about it, nothing "confidential" about it. The people in the video did not ask for confidentiality when what they were doing was a PUBLIC demonstration. So why protect it?


As I understand it, If I see a crime, I have to report it. As a citizen I have no right to refuse to testify about what I see or hear or know (unless it incriminated myself). So why do "reporters" claim this right? What makes them special? The internet is making more and more people into "amateur reporters" so the distinction is becoming harder to make. Soon there will be no one left that can be subpoenaed.

I think everyone has a responsibility to truthfully testify about what they see, hear, or know if there is reasonable reason to think they know something useful. Without the power to force people to testify, our court system, and indeed our society will slowly breakdown.

I don't think its fair when Journalist talk about the dangers of loosing the rights of Journalist not to testify when they fail to acknowledge the dangers on the other side of the issue. The more people who are "exempt" for testifying about what they know, the more Dangerous our society becomes, I also think it's DANGEROUS for the government to recognize two classes of citizens, Journalist and non-journalist, we should all have the same rights, and we should all be required to testify when needed. These Dangers must be balance with the dangers of a police state or 1984-type government.

Democracy Now! | EXCLUSIVE: Imprisoned Journalist Josh Wolf Speaks Out From Jail After Over 170 Days Behind Bars

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Overzealous Porn Prosecution Tramples Accused's Rights

This sounds like a nightmare to me...

This and the Duke "rape" case clear show the danger of a powerful government and police force....

FOXNews.com - Overzealous Porn Prosecution Tramples Accused's Rights - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs [This Post Continues after the jump...]

"For Sale" sign banned?

In 2003, Pagan parked a 1970 Mercury Cougar with a “for sale” sign in front of his Sharon Road home. But Glendale police threatened to cite him under an ordinance forbidding such signs on vehicles in public areas.

The village has argued in court that commercial signs are regulated for safety reasons, on the chance that “careless, irresponsible people might get run over while looking at them..."

Sign case gets rare hearing
(http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061204/NEWS01/312040001)
[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Scalia Rips Judges on Abortion, Suicide

The court have said, you know, 'There is nothing in the Constitution on the abortion issue for either side,'

[This Post Continues after the jump...]