And Now The Part Where We Display How Reactionary Our Society Really Is

If the Casey Anthony trial were not a large enough spectacle already, the industry of outrage's flames are reaching the clouds.  Ok, we get it - a lot of people are upset at the verdict.  However, being upset or disappointed isn't enough for some people, and so we see full-on outrage.

But now things have gone too far, I think.  Now we have Caylee's Laws popping up in a few states.  The idea is that it would be a separate felony for a parent or caregiver of a child to fail to report the child's death or disappearance within a certain amount of time after the discovery of said death or disappearance.  At first blush, it's easy to think that this is a good idea.  One might think that such a law will help ensure that a nefarious parent or caretaker won't be able to get away with...something?  The theory behind the law seems to be that Casey Anthony got away with murdering Caylee because she waited a few weeks before reporting Caylee as missing.  Presumably, if this type of law had been in effect in Florida, Casey could have been convicted of a felony and everyone in America would be happy and unicorns would appear and fart rainbows all over the place. Of course, Caylee would still be dead...


I get that new laws are drafted to meet new deficiencies as society evolves.  This type of legislation does not represent a legitimate attempt to address a new area of lawlessness.  Rather, it is indicative of how reactionary we are with regard to the law.  Children are not a new aspect of society, nor is the need to protect children or recognize that children are a vulnerable class.  Casey Anthony represents an anomaly not the norm.  How many similar cases have there been?  I don't expect that so-called Caylee's Laws will have any impact towards protecting children, and therefore the law is merely another tool to extract vengeance when a child is killed. I also find the premise that a parent/caretaker who kills a child would then have a legal obligation to report the death or face more criminal charges somewhat bizarre.

The kind of logic behind Caylee's Law would be better used if we outlawed prosecutors from bringing such garbage cases to the jury.  I don't mean to suggest that Casey is innocent; the prosecution simply had no chance of proving a murder case and should have realized that at the outset.  But that's just my knee-jerk reaction...

In other important news: (h/t: Lucianne)

Fast and Furious Update

VIA POWERLINE

The head of the ATF has met with the Committee on Oversight and Reform with just his personal attorney.  He went outside the DOJ for this meeting.  Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley sent a scathing letter to Eric Holder.

What emerges is that the DOJ attempted to control the investigation by limiting the access by Congress to those with direct knowledge of the matter, and more importantly the role that DOJ and executive officials played in the Fast and Furious operation. 

This is really fascinating, aside from the emerging scandal, but also in light of Obama's instructions for ICE to not prosecute certain kinds of illegal immigrants, many of which hail from Mexico.

My Views On the Casey Anthony Trial

So much has been written about this case already, but there are a few aspects that I would like to address.

1) The attorneys.  One rule of trying to assess trials that you aren't part of is that you need to keep in mind that you do not know everything that the lawyers involved in the case know.  Their trial strategy may at times seem strange or ill-advised to viewers, but it is important to temper criticisms by remembering that it's their case and know better than you.  So, critiques of trial strategy should be taken with a grain of salt.  That said, I had trouble watching the prosecutor's facial expressions during the trial.  First, it's unprofessional and unbecoming to behave like that during opposing counsel's time; it demeans the tribunal, it demeans our system.  Second, as the prosecutor, he is charged with representing the people; he is asking the jury to find a defendant guilty where the death penalty is on the table.  That's serious stuff, so I feel it's important to conduct one's self accordingly.  Those types of cheap theatrics are distracting to juries and do nothing to endear you to them.  Poor form by the prosecution.

2) The case.  I have tried over a dozen murder cases to juries.  I was shocked at the close of the evidence that this was all they had.  the verdict did not surprise me; as the alternate juror pointed out, the prosecution simply did not give the jury the material to find her guilty.  Maybe Florida is different, but the overwhelming majority of prosecutors that I have worked with would never have brought that case as a death penalty case; most would not have wanted to take that kind of garbage to trial and would have made a plea offer.  Murder trials only happen in a limited number of circumstances: unreasonable client; legal or factual issue that the case turns on; unreasonable offer by prosecution/nothing to lose by trying the case.  Every murder trial I have done has gone to a jury because there was an actual issue that needed to be resolved via trial - examples: degree of culpability; ID issue - or because my client either had nothing to lose by going to trial or was unreasonable in the face of overwhelming evidence. 

Plea offers work in two ways: there are the negotiations in which a defendant might get a decent offer for a reduced charge and/or jail time because he is saving the prosecutor the trouble of having to try the case, and there are the cases where everyone is hedging their bets because the prosecutor's case may have problems.  In short, iffy cases should be negotiated.  In this case, either the plea offer - if there ever was one - was unattractive (read: unreasonable) or the defense felt confident that the evidence was going to be as lacking as it was.  Every trial attorney I know will tell you that going to trial is the result of the two sides being unable to see the case similarly, and none of them relish the unknown quantity that is the jury trial.  I cannot help but wonder if this was a case where the elected state attorney ordered his assistants to go full-bore with a crappy but high-profile case.

3) The Media.  I have to agree with the defense team that the media earned the grade: F.  I found it unbecoming that attorneys on TV were falling over themselves to critique the case and the attorneys trying it, rather than focusing on explaining what was happening.  They were lousy cheerleaders and demeaned the profession.  They also didn't know what they were talking about in many cases.  Nancy Grace once again proved that she does more harm than good in the world.  I suppose it's better that she's confining herself to maligning people on TV, instead of prosecuting defendants in a courtroom.  Just as an aside, she has twice been reprimanded by the GA Bar for unethical practices as a prosecutor.  I cannot overstate how difficult and rare it is to get a State Bar Assn to sanction a prosecutor.  Nancy achieved that twice in a 10-year career.  But, before you think we can talk about a major case without bringing up OJ, the lead architect of his criminal acquittal chimed in to try to buff some of the tarnish off of her reputation.  Sorry, Marcia, but this case was not nearly as strong as the case you had and bungled against OJ.  Your infamy shall endure.

4) The public outrage.  Is it sad that Caylee is dead?  Of course it is.  However, it is important to remember that justice and vengeance are not the same.  This trial was not about justice for Caylee.  It was about justice for Casey - whether that meant acquittal or being found guilty.  We admit evidence into trials, not righteous indignation.  This trial was about Casey.  Do we have to like her?  No.  Can we think she did it?  Sure - we can think anything we want to.  Did the prosecution carry their burden? No. 

Nancy Grace claimed that the Devil was dancing because Casey was acquitted.  Wrong.  Our system contemplates that there will be instances when a guilty man goes free.  It is a bedrock of our system that Constitutional protections trump incriminating evidence - fruit of the poisonous tree, for example.  As such, we accept that there are limitations to how well our system can work.  However, it is abhorrent when an innocent man is convicted.  I submit that the Devil saves his dancing for the instances when an innocent man is convicted, because that is the truest example of when our system fails.

Shovel Ready

Sent in by a reader:

It pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Unions

2 weeks ago Charles Krauthammer wrote a very nice piece in the WaPo about the influence unions weild over the democrat party.  He linked to this page at opensecrets.org that illustrates the amount of money being given by unions to the democrats.  The numbers are staggering.

Yesterday at NRO's The Corner, Veronique de Rugy shared this graph:

This information is important to keep in mind as we start to hear the left bleat about the Citizens United case allowing corporations to have unfettered influence over elections.  Can't wait to see how Stephen Colbert uses his new Super PAC!

WaPo Fact-Checks President?!

Yes!  It's actually true!  The President has been fact-checked and debunked in today's WaPo.  The question is: will any of this distract the MSM from nit-picking every statement made by Michele Bachman?  Don't count on it.  Only 2 ways Bachman gets reduced scrutiny - drops out of the race or her poll numbers plunge giving the MSM a new front-runner to try to de-legitimize.

More Leadership!

Yesterday the President pitched a hissy fit at Congress for not doing what he thinks is a good idea, in this case raising the debt ceiling.  He admonished Congress to get to work and show leadership. He used himself as the very model of a modern major general, listing his leadership in getting Bin Laden and getting his daughters to do their homework (no matter their ages).  This all on the heels of telling American workers that the key to fixing the economy is for them to "up their game."  Leadership!

Today, the President continued his own special brand of leadership and told Republican Senate leaders that he would not meet with them to discuss the debt ceiling because it was not a conversation worth having.  It seems the President does not want to hear why the Republicans won't agree with him, and he has zero interest in working out a plan.  But why would he, when he can use Leadership to throw tantrums to get what he wants.  See, one tantrum brings the Republicans calling at his door.  A few more might get the Republicans to cave in and agree with him.  Leadership!

Also, the President's official paid water-toter, Jay Carney, called the brass at MSNBC and got Halperin indefinitely suspended for calling the President "a dick" earlier today.  Halperin's comment was so inappropriate and his apology was so insufficient that our thin-skinned President had to dispatch his goons to extract justice.  LEADERSHIP!

Instigating class-warfare and a cringe-worthy raffle to raise money for his campaign round out this week's lesson in Leadership!

CA and Taxes

California Governor Jerry Brown has put the final stamp on a law that will force online retailers to collect sales tax from customers.  However, there are a few distinct details to this new law that should probably be explained.  First, the rules of the game: the US Supreme Court has held (since 1992) that a seller must first have a “physical presence” in the state before it can collect sales tax.  California’s new law defines that physical presence in 2 ways: one is by having “affiliates” who refer customers in return for a commission that are located in CA, and the other is by having a “related company” operating in CA.  I would think that the first method is pretty clear and probably establishes a presence in a state.  The second method seems a bit vague and too open to varying interpretations, so stay tuned for the inevitable lawsuits.  I think that the fact that Amazon has not closed their other companies in CA suggests that they believe the latter method to pose legal problems to CA.

The target of this new law is Amazon.com and other big-bore online retailers.  CA businesses with actual stores have long complained that online retailers were enjoying a competitive advantage.  However, if one looks at, say, Target and Walmart, those stores continue to thrive, despite competing with Amazon nationwide.  So, perhaps the claim that government needed to step in to level the playing field is a bit overblown.  Also, there is almost zero mention of the numerous wage and hour cases that have been successfully brought against Walmart.  So, perhaps protecting Walmart is not actually good for jobs?

The upshot of this new law appears to be that Amazon and other on-line retailers are severing their relationships with their CA affiliates.  This means that a number of CA businesses will no longer earn money on commissions from these online retailers.  According to the LA Times’ article, the CA affiliates paid a combined $152 million in state income taxes last year.  CA hopes to raise $317 million in new taxes.  Keep in mind that CA began 2011 with a  projected deficitof $26.6 BILLION!!!   CA is also reducing the sales tax by 1%, or rather, the 1% tax hike from 2 years ago is expiring and will not be renewed. It may be that if online retailers sever their affiliates and therefore do not have to collect these taxes, CA makes nothing, and if the affiliates leave, CA loses revenue from income tax.

While it’s unclear what the ultimate outcome of this move will be, a few things are clear, beyond the simple reality of CA owning a broken economy.  By forcing Amazon et al to start collecting sales tax, CA has reduced the online retailers’ ability to compete in the market.  Amazon, for one, has done the calculus and determined that the reduced competitiveness coupled with the commission payouts hurts their profits.  In short, Amazon has decided that it’s better to cut the commissions and lose the referrals but retain the ability to compete in the marketplace.  This forces the affiliates to make a choice: lose the commissions or move out of CA.  It remains to be seen whether people leave CA in droves and reduce the tax base.  Jerry Brown is gambling that they won’t.  What we are seeing is the direct result on business decisions that taxes and other gov’t regulations have.  We are quickly approaching a tipping point where inhospitable conditions for doing business and uncontrolled spending by government will force companies to relocate. 

He's Just Saying What We Were All Thinking

Mark Halperin, Editor-at-large for Time, called Obama a "dick" on MSNBC. 

He quickly apologized,  so I suppose we can all move on.  The fact that this happened is not so surprising, given Obama's performance yesterday.  That it happened on MSNBC is hilarious, contrary to Halperin's assertion that it was not funny. I wonder what the reaction would be if this had happened on another cable news channel...

Leadership!

Obama, with all the gravitas of a high school senior on graduation day (yeah, you're wearing tie, but no one's really ready to take you seriously), rolled up his sleeves and gave a really stern talking-to to Congress.  It seems Obama is angry.  Angry because Congress isn't doing what he wants them to do.  Possibly angry because his approval rating continue to dive.  When Obama gets angry, look out, because he throws a cool, professorial tantrum.

This is Obama's unique brand of leadership.  We haven't seen it before, but that's probably because this is the first time he's really gotten angry.  Pay no attention to the fact that this is the first time in his short Presidency (I know, it seems soooo looonnnnggggg) that his polling numbers are falling despite his every politically motivated tactic to raise them.  Obama is trying to bring his anger leadership to bear  on Congress to get them to raise the debt ceiling and not go on vacation ('cause, you know, there's work to be done).  Why must the debt ceiling increase?  Obama wants it to.  What happens if it doesn't increase? The consequences will be "unpredictable."  While we don't know that the consequences will be bad, we are stuck in a catch 22 here: things that Obama has wanted and ultimately gotten have not turned out to be good, but at the same time, every unpredictable consequence during his presidency has turned out lousy as well.  What to do?  If you're Obama, you invent a consensus opinion.  Let's take a quick look at people who are not part of any consensus Obama pays attention to: Senior White House Lawyers who advise him that the Libya operation violates the WPA; all of his generals involved in the Afghanistan war operation kinetic excercise nebulous mission.  You start to get the feeling that Obama is only listening to the folks who tell what he wants to hear.  Leadership!

Obama points out that he has been busy...leadershipping on major issues, like Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the Greek Crisis.  Afghanistan is a bald-faced political move; against the advice of his generals, Obama sets the return date for troops to happily coincide with elections.  The Bin Laden football has been spiked into oblivion.  Was it leadership that emerged after dithering for 16 hours over what to do? That was 2 months ago!  Is Greece our problem, or rather, is it our most pressing problem at the moment?  The only reasonable feat that Obama could claim credit for was that his daughters do their homework early.  Of course, they are not protected by the separation of powers.

Obama wants Congress to get to work...but curiously he didn't seem to mention that the Democrat-controlled Senate has not provided a budget for over 2 years, though it is legally obligated to do so.  I guess those guys can go on vacation, but the House better stay.  Leadership!!!

The Wisconsin Wrestling Federation

Over at NRO's The Corner, Christian Schneider supplies us with an up-to-date round-up of the newest details to emerge from the secret cage match between Justices Prosser and Bradley.  Bradley has accused Prosser of putting her in a "choke hold" during an argument earlier this month.

There are a few interesting details there, including this description of the main event:

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

 Further, and more importantly,

To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”

Speculation is abundant as to why Bradley decided to forgo a criminal complaint against Prosser, deciding instead to go to the press ten days after the event. Some say Bradley’s complaint wouldn’t have stood up if given the scrutiny of a criminal investigation. Furthermore, others speculate that if any formal criminal proceedings had moved forward (a restraining-order filing, for instance), Prosser would be afforded evidentiary hearings, testimony, and discovery.

Things seem to be looking better for Prosser, but not for the Wisconsin Supreme court.

It's All Politics, All the Time

Let's say you're the President, and you ran a campaign that, aside from a lot of ridiculous slogans, was in part based on a promise to run the most transparent administration ever.  Let's say that you even went so far as to claim that your administration would protect whistleblowers more than any other administration has. 

What if, under your watch, an ATF whistleblower came forward with the news that the ATF had just screwed up, and in an operation designed to ensnare illegal guns and gunrunners who were taking these weapons across the US-Mexican border to arm Mexican drug gangs, had just let the guns and the bad guys slip away right under their noses?  The answer is that you would fire someone...but who to fire?  Well, if you are Obama, do you fire the head of the ATF - the guy in charge of the agency that just made you look bad?  Of course not.  You fire the whistleblower.  And then you hope that no one remembers what you promised a couple of years ago.  Although, I would be willing to bet that these guys have taken notice and exception.

But we really shouldn't be surprised that this President forgets what he said in the past when it's politically expedient to do the opposite today.

What Is Wrong With Stephanopoulos?

Exactly what is wrong with the liberal media. 

Stephanopoulos asked Michele Bachman whether the 23 children she served as a foster mother for were ready for the media scrutiny.  Clearly this is an attempt to rattle Bachman, and potentially scare her out of the election. 

What is fascinating yet unsurprising in this is that Stephanopoulos thinks that Bachman should be concerned with the treatment that the media is about to level at these children, when in fact it should be the media who should be concerned about the backlash that will result from going after kids.  We don't even need to explore the double standard that exists with regard to the children of democrats, like Obama's daughters who have been treated exceptionally well by the press, versus, say Palin's children - especially Trig. 

So Close to Being a Federalist, Yet So Far

Only Obama could screw up federalism.  Last week while he was busy not being the president and instead raising campaign funds, he proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue best left to the states.  We know that Obama loves to lecture and hates to take a stand on important matters, but as often is the case when he decides to wade into issues, he totally muffs it.

Without getting into a discussion on the merits of gay marriage, the fact is that gay marriage is an issue that simply cannot be left to the states.  During the last century, many states outlawed interracial marriages.  This created a problem, as an interracial couple who were married lawfully in state A could not have their marriage recognized in state B (where such marriage was illegal), at least so thought state B.  Ultimately the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required al states to recognize interracial marriages.

So, although through the Court and not through Congress, the issue of whether all states had to recognize interracial marriages was decided at the federal level.  While the gay community has not endured the same kind of historical inequality as certain races have in America (well, perhaps the black gay community has), I fail to see how gay marriage presents any differently to the Constitution.  In short, how on earth does this issue get decided ultimately at any level other than the federal one?

Obama tried to hide from the issue by channeling his inner Madison and promoting federalism as the answer.  Astounding that a President who has tried to expand the role of the federal government beyond many of its previous limits, the main promoter of Obamacare, could have the temerity to suggest that gay marriage is an issue best left to the states.

Of course, because one of the hallmarks of this administration is rushing in and then getting burned by the unintended consequences, if you click on the link at the beginning of this post and scroll down and read the comments left on the TP site, it becomes clear that Obama didn't help his cause out any with this pronouncement.

Maybe It's just Not that Big a Deal

On Friday, NY Gov. Cuomo signed into law a same-sex marriage bill.  Many New Yorkers went ape-sh*t at the news, and celebrated as if the host of problems facing NY had been solved.  We are still waiting to hear whether NY will impose a divorce tax.

However, the folks over at TP could not pass up on an opportunity to take a jab at FOX News.  TP finally had the evidence that proves what they have always wanted to believe: FOX News hates gays.  See, by not covering the "historic" event of NY recognizing gay marriage with as much zeal and fervor as, say, MSNBC, Fox News has disclosed its institutional dislike of gays.

Perhaps TP has a point - shouldn't the event of the first state to legalize gay marriage be the subject of intense media coverage?  That's really big news, right?  Except...NY isn't the first state to recognize gay marriage, nor is it the 2nd...or the 3rd, 4th, or 5th.  In fact, 19 states plus the District of Columbia either allow gay marriage, recognize gay marriage, or offer a civil union bestowing all or most of the state-level right of marriage to gay couples.

Let me put this another way: 12 astronauts have walked on the moon, the first two being Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.  Can you name the other ten?

This tells us a lot about where we get our news from.  For example, the liberals over at TP like to champion MSNBC for their intense and thorough coverage of NY's gay marriage bill, and MSNBC, knowing its audience, provided that coverage.  FOX News is derided as anti-gay because it devoted more time to other news items.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though - instead of every channel running coverage of the same events like OJ's white Bronco driving down the highway, we get a choice in what we want to watch.  I would suggest, however, that the ratings for the two news networks tell the ultimate tale of what viewers find to be compelling news stories.