» Fringe Blog – Writing on Film, Culture, and Things on the Fringe

Yakov Hussein

jelewis8 — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:29:17 +0000

Chrenkoff notes the media is spinning Saddam’s trial, making him out to be some sort of defiant anti-hero. Defiant is true; he wasn’t dictator of Iraq for nothing. However, the media headlines seem more intent on Saddam’s assertions that Bush is the true criminal.
Reading the news reports, I was struck by how Saddam’s responses seemed like an Iraqi version of Yakov Smirnoff. Here’s a script I made up that reflects the situation:
JUDGE: How do you answer these charges?
SADDAM: What charges?
JUDGE: You have been charged with invading Kuwait and generally being a carbuncle on Satan’s butt.
SADDAM: In Iraq, Satan carbuncles you! Which is what happened when the true criminal, the Great Satan Bush, invaded our sovereign land.
JUDGE: This trial isn’t about Bush.
SADDAM: In United States, Bush trials you!
JUDGE: What does that even mean?
SADDAM: I am innocent of all charges. I am president of Iraq!
JUDGE: You were deposed and have since been incarcerated on charges of human rights violations.
SADDAM: In Iraq, humans violate your rights!
JUDGE: That’s what we’re trying to say. You’ve killed and maimed hundreds of thousands–
SADDAM: In Iraq, hundreds of thousands kill and maim you!
JUDGE: Stop it!

Late Term Charges

jelewis8 — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:29:15 +0000

Via Ipse Dixit, the Kentucky Supreme Court just overturned a 21-year decision that barred homicide charges against someone accused of killing a fetus. Murder or manslaughter charges may be brought if the fetus would have been viable outside the mother’s womb (approximately six or seven months into the pregnancy).
While this doesn’t apply to abortions (why, I don’t know, since lots of viable fetuses never see the light of day because of late-term abortions, but hey, that’s another thing altogether), it is a step forward in recognizing basic human rights (for instance, the right to, you know, live).

SCOTUS Wilts, Calls It A Draw

jelewis8 — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:41:39 +0000

Meant to post this yesterday, but didn’t get around to it. SCOTUS ducked the Pledge of Allegiance issue, once again showing its spinelessness in cases where the clear majority of the people disagree with the plaintiff AND where the plaintiff is standing in murky legal water.
SCOTUS found Michael Newdow did not have legal authority to speak for his daughter, and thus threw the case out. Way to stand up for first amendment rights there, guys.
Via The Smoking Room

Military Tradition Goes The Way of the Dodo

jelewis8 — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:34:16 +0000

Another military tradition has been demolished by the courts. This one is a prayer spoken at mealtimes at Virginia Military Institute. The prayer reads, “Now, O God, we receive this food and share this meal together with thanksgiving. Amen.” Two students there asked for the prayer ceremony to be changed, and VMI refused. The cadets sued, and a lower court ruled in favour of the them. VMI appealed to the Supreme Court, which by refusing to hear the case, has left the lower court ruling in place. Incidentally, this is the second time a VMI tradition has been blown away by the Supreme Court. In 1996, it ruled that VMI must allow female enrollment.

Supreme Court To Decide Pledge Case

jelewis8 — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:09:23 +0000

The Supreme Court will be hearing the Pledge of Allegiance case today (Newdow v. Elk Grove) and will decide whether the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional. According to a poll, nine out of ten Americans want the phrase to remain.
I’ll be keeping a close watch on the results of this one.

Ginsberg Impartiality

jelewis8 — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:49:06 +0000

13 Republican lawmakers have asked Ruth Bader Ginsberg to sit out of any abortion cases because of her affiliation with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. With Justice Scalia being reprimanded for his affiliation with the Cheney hunting party, is this tit-for-tat politics, or just appropriate for impartiality on the highest court?
Justice Scalia’s comments regarding the Pledge of Allegiance case brought up from California’s ninth circuit court, which is going to be heard on March 24, gave Michael Newdow reason to suspect Scalia’s impartiality, and asked him to recuse himself from the case. He did, and now only eight justices will decide the fate of the Pledge of Allegiance being recited in public schools.
Such public comments could be costly. A tie will revert the ruling back to the lower court.
With Ginsberg’s affiliation with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ethical lines are being drawn again. Of course, NOW Legal Defense Fund president Kathy Rodgers believes Ginsberg’s impartiality is not affected by her support of the group. “She is always very careful in her remarks,” Rodgers said. “I’ve never heard her address cases that are in front of the court. So I don’t see any evidence of her violating her impartiality.” With all due respect to Ms. Rodgers, that opinion is, well, impartial at best.
“It is not illegal, but as a matter of judgment I would say appearing before the NOW legal defense fund is inappropriate,” said Geoffrey C. Hazard, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. “It is a demonstration of an affiliation.”
This begs the question: when does a judge’s public activities become grounds for questioning their impartiality? Discuss amongst yourselves.
UPDATE: Justice Scalia declined to recuse himself from the Cheney energy case, writing in response to the request from the Sierra Club, “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.”
Good point there.