Gender: Female
Industry: Law
Age: Unknown
Location: Undisclosed

396 matches |  131-135 displayed

1  26 27 28 29 30  80

---

Man's Best Friend Abandoned to Fate!

I was surprised, hurt, and concerned by the recent judgment of a three-judge Commonwealth Court Panel in Pennsylvania that ruled against making the service dog of a disabled person eligible for food stamps. Application of law, to be equitable, should vary from case to case. The service dog of a disabled person who is dependent upon his dog does seem to have a different status than ordinary pets, who though lovable, do not play an indispensable role in the survival of its owner. An exception cannot create a general rule, and we depend upon the courts to grant remedy in exceptional circumstances where the system does not provide established relief.

It does seem quixotic and makes me wonder how the case was prepared and presented, for the hands of the Court are usually tied down by proof and pleadings on record. Though in exceptional cases, the Courts do have power to act suo motu, clearly upkeep of a dog would have to be properly and intelligently presented to prompt the courts to take a favorable decision.

It seems awful in this case since the disabled person's fundamental Right to Life, the very reason for which the system allows him food stamps, becomes infringed when the law fails to secure the life of the dog on which the disabled is dependent. I may be biased for I am awfully fond of dogs. But I was under the impression that we have progressed enough to recognize our world does not belong only to humans but also to other forms of life.

When it concerns dogs, which are single-mindedly devoted to humans and the protection of humans, a species that finds place over and over in human literature, in cave paintings, in memorials and statues, it is hard to digest that the system is ready to abandon them in the name of the letter of the law. It is difficult to believe that our system is not strong enough to provide support to the service dog of a disabled person.

It is more disconcerting in face of the fact that the bench has gone on record with Judge Renee Cohn's obiter: ''This court is sympathetic to [Douris'] argument that his service dog is a necessity for him due to his disability, and that he lacks the funds to properly feed his service dog... We hope that there is some other state or federal program that might provide for the maintenance and upkeep of the dog.''

I was under the impression that in a democratic country with full separation of powers, courts had the authority to direct the creation of programs if such was deemed necessary. That even the court finds itself expressing sympathies without concurrent affirmative action leaves me wondering what actually happened. What is the status of man's best friend in U.S. society?

04-08-2010

Post Comment

---

When Can The ''End'' Justify The ''Means?''

This is an extremely important question of law. I do not care playing partisan to any kind of politics. However, substantial questions of law concerning our civil rights cannot be ignored just because politicians are already debating them. Actually, the political debate is now over, the Health Care Bill is now law, and the judicial debate has just started, making the new Health Care Bill, ripe for legal analysis.

With Indiana now joining 13 other states in challenging the new Health Care law signed by President Obama last week, the count now comes to 14 states who have challenged that law's constitutionality. For the new law compels almost every individual U.S. citizen to either buy insurance or pay fine.

Of course, with extended consequences, if you do not pay a federal fine it’s a criminal offense. U.S citizens have never been in such a position in history where denial to buy a service can penalize them. The severe contradictions hidden within the Health Care reform has precipitated this historic lawsuit.

Both philosophy as well as political science has held that an ''end'' cannot justify the ''means.'' If it did, then instead of fighting a prolonged war and helping to establish democratic governments overseas, the U.S. forces could have just taken out the lead terrorists and terrorist bases. And that would have been that. However, counter terror strikes downplaying the sovereignty of other countries are not an acceptable means. It is unacceptable even for the justified ends of destroying terrorist organizations.

And to prove that ''ends'' do not justify the ''means'' Americans die every day on foreign soil fighting a politically correct war, rather than adopting the politically incorrect means of wiping out opposition en masse. It seems pretty funny then, that the present federal government does not mind undermining the sovereignty of free states of U.S.A. That seems to be double standards.

And that is why, for may be the first time in the history of the nation, we find fourteen states already having joined a lawsuit against the federal government. If one can read the writing on the wall then the number of challenging states may soon become bigger. The people know healthy “ends” are not sufficient to justify unhealthy “means.” The federal government needs to make it clear just how our liberties do not suffer considering the license given to Health Care reforms. And we trust our courts to correctly interpret the law and serve their appointed role in our democracy.

03-31-2010

1 Comments

---

How Unhealthy is the Health-Care Bill?

The Health-Care Bill is sure hot topic nowadays, and very touchy, so I try to tread carefully and toe the Chicago line for that is the proper thing to do, apparently. However, if the line bites my toe, a kick can be reflexive, don’t blame me, it’s healthy reflex, not conscious action.

Since the HR 3590 has already passed Congress by a slim margin of a 219-212 vote, it is of relevance to observe what follows. The Congress roll call in the vote is by itself extremely interesting: Though none of the 178 Republicans voted for the HR 3590, 34 Democrats crossed the line and voted against the Bill. Though the Bill was passed, the scenario shows that no Republican finds it to be helpful for the country and a sizable portion of Democrats also hold the same opinion. It is also concerning that a certain, respectable section of the legal world is convinced that the Health-Care Bill would have unhealthy consequences upon the people of America.

Politicians need to take populist measures to ensure survival in office, however there is no such compunction upon the parts of the legal fraternity who are pointing out obvious discrepancies in the manner the Bill is being handled. Possibly, the concerned legal minds, in absence of the compulsion to take populist measures, are more objective in their assessment of the situation and the consequences of the Health-Bill. This is something we cannot disregard.

For example, Attorney General Ken Cuccinlelli has already gone on record and declared from his office that Virginia will challenge the federal government on the basis that the health care reform legislation is unconstitutional. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, as well as Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum have also gone on record that they will challenge the reform bill as unconstitutional. Of course, they cannot challenge the Bill before the President endorses the bill and signs it into law. But, that might now happen anytime, and it is worth our time to watch the happenings.

The essential question raised by all legal minds opposing the impending Health Care Law is that the spirit of liberalism espoused by the bill contradicts the fundamental principles of liberalism on which our nation stands. As Cuccinelli puts it, “At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.” Seeing that the impending Health-Care Law makes it mandatory for almost every citizen to be insured by 2014 or face a fine, does raise apprehension of our freedom of choice being curbed and the nation stepping slowly towards a soviet regime. The logic of the legal minds determined to challenge the Health-Care law as soon as it comes into being is that under the guise of health care and reform, the bill undermines the sovereignty of individual states as well as the freedom of the individual citizen. Challengers opine that the Federal Government can force a fine for inaction only upon individuals or entities who engage in interstate commerce. As Cuccinelli puts it, “If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.”

Something, I might add, no freedom-loving citizen would like. There is no doubt that the health reform is required and laudable, but we have to observe the cost carefully. Once the lines of State sovereignty and individual freedom are obliterated under whatever guise, precedence is established for a slew of other measures by federal government that may not be as healthy or health oriented for U.S. citizens. If that style of government comes to be in our own land, then why did we fight Soviet Russia for so many long years?

03-22-2010

Post Comment

---

Funny Money and Portly Porteous

Louisiana federal judge, Thomas Porteous from New Orleans has just joined the elite club of the only 13 federal judges to be removed by impeachment in U.S. history, raising the number to 14. The House okayed four impeachment articles charging Porteous with taking bribes and lying under oath. For once, Porteous was successfully able to unite members from both the parties in the House who voted unanimously to have Porteous impeached. This happened on Thursday March 11, and the case now goes to Senate for trial where I am sure Porteous will be able to pull off the 2/3 majority required to have him convicted.

Incidentally, it was this epoch making event that pulled me off my cryogenic slumber, where I was happily time travelling by projecting my astral body. The times of Hammurabi, too many corrupted judges, and Hammurabi had to include measures in his code against corrupted judges. Then there were the ancient lands beyond Indus, and even there in the earliest Hindu civilizations there were edicts against corrupt judges. The Egyptian papyrus scrolls record enough events of corruption of scribes. The bible and especially the Hebrew Scriptures show many passages against corrupt judges. Seems corrupt judges are part of the judiciary from the earliest times of our civilizations. Now, then is Porteous an exception or the general rule? Should he gain the protection of long conventions established from time immemorial, I wonder.

Now, don’t think that I feel sympathetic as a judge, truly. I like democracy, for the people, which means us, always get what we deserve. If we want rights, we need to fight for it. If we want the judges serving the nation, then the fear of the people needs to be put in some times. And I appreciate the House taking up the case, even when Porteous was let off by the judiciary which did not frame any criminal charges against him, ostensibly for lack of evidence, or limitation, or whatever.

Point is, Porteous is gone, and I am back. One funny judge removed from the bench makes place for another funny judge. What do you say?

03-17-2010

Post Comment

---

This one strikes close to home

Now, lots of stories just make you shake your head, but this one has prompted even the Judge to emerge.

Yes, it is about a fellow judge who may lose his seat.  Why, may you ask?  Especially when the judge has only been on the bench for less than three months?

Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Willie F. Singletary was elected in November last year, despite having his <a xhref="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080424 _Traffic_court_judge_may_lose_his_seat.html">drivers license suspended</a> until 2011 for not paying fines for 55 traffic tickets. 

He's getting a salary of $82,733 a year, but now video has surfaced of a campaign appearance by Singletary where he apparently had told the people that "You're all going to need me in Traffic Court, am I right about that?"

In other words, the Judge appeared to be promising to let them off the hook.  Now the state Judicial Conduct Board is investigating. 

Now, as the Judge, I'm never fond of Judges being investigated for frivolous complaints.  But this appears to strike at the notion of impartiality that Judges should have.  Plus, there's something wrong with a Traffic Court Judge who can't drive due to unpaid tickets. 

So if this judge is found guilty and removed from office, I won't be too upset. 

04-25-2008

1 Comments

---

396 matches |  131-135 displayed

1  26 27 28 29 30  80

Judged Blog

Blog Title

Blog Description

Blog Date