jeffreymark

PROPHETS OF DOOM OFTEN AVOID LITIGATION

Christianity Today asks if Family Radio rapture boy Harold Camping can be sued for fraud. Most legal experts think not. Their reasons may seem dubious, but secular law skirts the fine line of religious freedom for the good guys when it enters the realm of theology. CT opines:

Legal experts say that the laws that impede donors from moving forward with legal action against organizations such as Family Radio are the same laws that maintain freedom of religion in America. Giving a jury the power to determine the validity of a belief—even an outlandish truth claim such as an end date for the world—would make it possible for courts to decide which religions, even which practices within each religion, are acceptable, said Rassbach.

Tight First Amendment laws also serve as an acknowledgement that human religion is inherently flawed, that failure is natural for human belief systems and that it is not the role of government to assess religious failure or correct it, Brownstein said. "Any prophecy based on divine intervention presupposes the caveat that the ability to predict what God will do is inherently subject to the recognition that there are limits to human understanding of God's nature and decisions."

 

 

SENATE SLAVERY APOLOGY

Thursday the Senate passed a resolution formally apologizing for slavery and opening the the doors for reparations. One of my mentor bloggers, UCLA corporate law prof. Stephen Bainbridge, offers a compelling analysis of why there is no legal basis for corporate reparations made on behalf of an institution abolished several generations back. Professor Bainbridge suggests that legal liability can be established on the grounds of deterrence, compensation, and retributive justice. He then argues that modern efforts toward reparations advances neither deterrence or retributive justice. The good Prof's arguments provide for his students a didactic assessment of modern corporate law.

I might add as a theologian, that a moral impetus lies behind the apology and call for reparations. With today's identity politics and our culture's greedy disposition, reverse racism is at work. Many see this moment as a golden opportunity to engage a sort of misdirected anger and advance a selfish desire to gain wealth. Fortunately, if Prof. Bainbridge's argument holds up in the halls of justice, such racism and greed may need to seek an alternate, redemptive outlet. 

(Read Bainbridge's post here.)

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE NOTES

Debate over reinstating the Fairness Doctrine abounds particularly within the context of a new liberal Presidential administration. I understand the issue will basically put talk radio out of business because advertisers will not want to buy airtime during scantly listened to liberal broadcasting. Talk radio, dominated by conservatives, flourishes on the AM band. Liberal's attempt to make a go of it on talk radio have failed miserably. They drew a small audience and cannot afford to stay in business. Conservatives, on the other hand, revived AM radio, saved a plethora of smaller markets, and attracted billions in advertising dollars. 

Since I stand as a legal illiterate, I leave the legal comments to the experts like Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. Dr. Sekulow recently posted a history and transpicuous analysis of the Fairness Doctrine. Although President Obama publicly stated he does not favor the FD, he recently designated Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps to serve as acting Chairman of the Commission pending the formal nomination and confirmation of a new FCC Chairman. This prompted Sekulow to concern himself with the matter once again. Sekulow reminds us:

Copps, a known friend of the Fairness Doctrine, made the 
following remarks about broadcaster freedom during a 2007 conference in Memphis, Tennessee: 
 

Half a trillion dollars. That’s a conservative valuation of the airwaves that our 
country lets TV and radio broadcasters use – for free . . . And what do the 
American people – who own the public airwaves, by the way – get in return? Too 
little news, too much baloney passed off as news, too little quality 
entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV, too little local 
and regional music, too much brain-numbing national playlists, too little of 
America, too much of Wall Street and Madison Avenue. That’s what we get for 
half a trillion dollars. It’s one h--- of a bad bargain, don’t you think?37 

 
In 2008, Chairman Copps further opined that the FCC ought to “make sure our airwaves are 
open and covering a lot of local events, covering local political races, making sure viewers and 

 listeners both can benefit from a clash of antagonistic ideas and issues being covered. . . . We 
need to have debate about how you keep these airwaves serving the public interest and 
nourishing the public dialogue our democracy depends on.” 
 
While Copps is currently serving as acting Chairman of the Commission, reports indicate 
that, should his nomination clear the Senate Commerce Committee, Julius Genachowski will 
head the FCC as the new Chairman under President Obama. Unfortunately for those who fear 
the chilling effect of the Fairness Doctrine on free speech, Genachowski has given few hints as 
to where he stands on the doctrine. While he has neither expressly embraced nor rejected the 
Fairness Doctrine, Genachowski has exhibited support for “media ownership rules that promote 
a diversity of voices on the airwaves.” Interestingly, he also served as a former aide to pro- 
Fairness Doctrine stalwart, Senator Schumer. 
 
While President Obama reportedly does not support repromulgation of the Fairness 
Doctrine, the current refitting of the FCC could represent the President’s backhanded effort to 
revive the doctrine. Furthermore, President Obama’s recent advice to GOP leaders to stop 
listening to conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has given broadcasters yet another 
reason to fear that they will soon see an end to their First Amendment rights on the airwaves. 

Read Sekulow's entire piece here.

 

MICHAEL YON MAY SUE MICHAEL MOORE

...and none too soon in my book. Michael Moore is a despicable individual who ought to face trial for treason because of his attempted political destruction of President Bush during a time of war. Michael Yon reports on the suit:

Due to many meetings and holiday travel, I am still working on pieces about the incredible U.S. soldiers who took me on some dangerous missions in December.  Also, my trip with Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, harvested important information.  I can say this about Gates, as someone who will spend a lot of time on the battlefields this year, I am very happy that both President Bush and President-Elect Obama tapped Gates on the shoulder.  Gates is a winner who is watching out for our service members as well as the United States.  I also had a long and important meeting with General (ret.) Barry McCaffrey.  His trip reports from Iraq and Afghanistan have been brutally honest.  I have great respect for this American warrior.  I had other important meetings in Washington with thought leaders such as David Kilcullen, Ph.D., and I met with Fred Kagan, Ph.D., in Bahrain.  I saw Fred Kagan on an elevator and immediately asked for a meeting, which proved valuable to me.  Over the past few weeks I’ve also talked with very high-ranking U.S. officers about Iraq and Afghanistan.  My confidence on Iraq continues to grow.  Still, there is much concern about Afghanistan-Pakistan.
During my trip to Washington, D.C., I had a chance to catch up on some matters neglected while I was overseas.  My attorney may have to file a lawsuit against Mr. Michael Moore.  In May we contacted Mr. Moore, through his counsel, about Mr. Moore’s unauthorized use of my work on his website.  He did not respond.  My attorney has written again.  If Mr. Moore and his counsel continue to ignore our correspondence, we will proceed with a lawsuit. 
This lawsuit, though, should not be a distraction from combat reporting; the proceedings should be easy and require almost zero hands-on work from me.  But it will be potentially costly.  I’ve never sued anyone in my life.  Looks like Mr. Moore might be the first.  I told one very important person recently about the possible upcoming lawsuit and he said something like, “Someone should drive a stake through that guy’s heart.”  It won’t be that bad, but copyright cases are interesting and we have to deal with them often.

A PROPHET NEVER DIES

The idolized social prophet and poet Bob Dylan once warned our parent's generation of the inevitable change sweeping American society.

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'. (The Times They Are A-Changin,' 1963)

Although written in the context of the civil rights era, and presumably referring to the need for racial equality, Dylan's words have escaped their contextual boundaries and hauntingly issued a reversed warning in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision. Read attorney Scott Johnson's thoughts on the decision and its implications here.

CALIFORNIA AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Yesterday the LA Times reported on the California Supreme court's divisive decision concerning same sex marriage:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

While I disagree with same sex legal unions based upon biblical principle, UCLA corporate law professor and legal pundit Stephen Bainbridge favors same sex unions, yet disagrees with the court's decision based on legal procedures.

I strongly support civil unions and am more or less neutral on the policy question of gay marriage. How society gets there, however, matters a lot.

In my opinion this decision holds a couple of implications. First of all, the old saying "As California goes so goes the nation," may come into play here. Americans realize that California cultural influence does an end around to the east coast, and then spreads like a wave into the heartland. That leads to the second implication which suggests legal decisions designed to reverse traditional moral values frequently divide the nation and get handed down to a public whose skeptical eye often challenges the reasoning process. Bainbridge's analysis implicitly substantiates this claim. Thus, one must ask, "What does this sort of decision making process that skips legislation say about the morals of maverick judges?" Seems to me those who force social principles or the lack thereof into the collective moral code, disrupt the principled human spirit that molded this nation and may run contrary to the will of God.
Read more Professor Bainbridge here.

MORE DECISIONS LIKE THIS COMING DOWN THE PIKE?

Dale Carpenter at the legal leaning blog Volokh Conspiracy reports:

Iowa state trial court judge rules for gay marriage: I haven't seen the actual decision yet, but a Chicago Tribune story suggests that the judge was persuaded that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is a form of sex discrimination. That's been a common and usually unsuccessful argument in gay-marriage cases. There's apparently an immediate route available to the state supreme court, which could handle the case itself or decide to let the intermediate state appellate court consider it first. While the same-sex couples involved are celebrating, my guess is that the decision will be stayed pending appeal. Iowa does not have a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but this is sure to fire up support for one.

If the decision seems to break any new ground, I'll have more to say about it.

This may start a movement in several states to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. It certainly gives rise to seeing the need for such.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Like the Shakespearean play of the same title a great insignificant commotion continues regarding the Valerie Plame case. And like Shakespeare's great work it has turned into a comedy of buffoonery for everyone except Libby. BBC news offers us the latest:

A judge has dismissed a civil lawsuit brought by ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame against Vice-President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials. Ms Plame accused them of conspiring to leak her identity, thus ruining her CIA career, in retaliation for her husband criticising their Iraq war policy. US District Judge John Bates said Mr Cheney and the other officials had a right to respond to criticism.

SURVEILLENCE PROGRAM WINS ON APPEAL

Chalk one up for President Bush. The AP reports:

A sharply divided federal appeals court in Cincinnati handed the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program a major legal victory today, ruling that the American Civil Liberties Union and several other plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the program.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to a federal trial judge in Detroit and ordered her to dismiss the case, reversing a ruling the judge had issued last year that the program was unconstitutional.

Judge Alice Batchelder said the plaintiffs, who also included several lawyers and writers, could not "produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted" by the National Security Agency under the surveillance program.

Read the ruling here.

MORE DUKE INFO

I looked for an analysis from the legal experts earlier. Now Professor Bainbridge, corporate law prof. at UCLA, comments and connects us with more info.