Via Insty:
Kelo comes to mind, and a couple others also dealing with property seizures. The big one, which if re-litigated now would result in its overturning, would be ObamaCare because the “tax” enforcement has now been annulled. Not even Roberts could save it.
Talking about legislatures passing laws which seem to be quite insane, not to mention un-Constitutional and unenforceable, Joe Bob Briggs nails the mindset perfectly:
“We don’t like things as they are, and so we’ll make it really, really expensive for certain people to enforce their rights. We’ll make them fight every day for what should be rightly theirs for free. We’ll take away their birthright. We’ll screw with their businesses and screw with their wombs and screw with their assumptions about what the courts have guaranteed them, and some of them will give up, and some of them will make mistakes, and we’ll just make sure they have many bad days, and eventually they’ll get tired of fighting with us and we’ll get a team of brutal lawyers to take them down and put them in their place.”
And then having said that, Joe Bob concludes with the killer line:
Well, okay, I guess it worked with the Indians.
To us normal people, this is known as the “beating a dog till it snaps at you, then killing it because it’s dangerous”-style of government.
The only problem with this approach is that we’re not Indians. And we have some serious fucking teeth.
I see that the Supremes have fucked up yet again:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can proceed with their lawsuit against gunmaker Remington Arms.
The high court decided it won’t take up the case, but said the families can still seek damages from the gun company over the 2012 Newtown, Conn., attack that killed 20 children and six adults. Justices rejected Remington’s argument that firearm manufacturers are shielded from liability in crimes.
The families argue Remington marketed the AR-15-style assault rifle in a fashion that inspired shooter Adam Lanza to plot the attack. Advertisements, they say, promoted the gun as “a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”
The lawsuit says Remington should never have sold a weapon that dangerous to the public — and argues Remington used product placement in violent video games.
Remington has argued a 2005 federal law shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their products. Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices rejected that position.
I feel I should say something about this travesty, but what I say could possibly result in an unfriendly visit from a federal alphabet agency — to be met by an extremely unfriendly reception from yours truly — so I’ll just shut up.
So much for that “conservative” Supreme Court the Left has been wailing about.
If I had the money, I would buy a fucking Remington AR-15 right now, even though I’m not a fan of AR-15s (as any fule kno) and apparently the Remington variants are not highly regarded by the AR-15 cognoscenti.
I think I am going to buy another Remington product, however, just so they can get a few bucks into their coffers to defend themselves against this bullshit. But which one?
There’s the 1911R1 (as a possible replacement for my venerable Springfield):
Then the 870 pump, always a crowd-pleaser, and I’ve never owned one before:
And because I still don’t own a semi-auto .22 rifle (sssshhhh don’t tell the TX state police), there’s the little heavy-barreled 592:
Or I could just go for something a little more ummm deadly (seeing as that’s what’s getting everyone upset), like the Remington Semi-Automatic Carbine in (say) .308 Win:
None of that wussy AR-15 .223 shit for Kimmy, not in my current mood.
Sadly, right at this moment I can’t afford any gun, but I think I can formulate a plan to get one which would satisfy everyone except Michael fucking Bloomberg.
Watch this space…
Just when you thought Teh Law couldn’t get any more stupid, you get rulings like this:
A man who died from a heart attack after having sex with a woman he met on a business trip is a ‘victim of a professional accident’, a French court has ruled.
This ruling means that the employer of the man, known as Xavier X, will have to pay hefty compensation to his dependents.
No wonder the Brits want out of the EU — although their own courts are not exactly paragons of justice, either:
A teenage thug who killed a stranger with a single punch during an unprovoked attack outside a McDonald’s has been jailed for four years.
Fucking hell, if the penalty Over Here for killing someone with a single punch was only four years in jail (as opposed to 25-to-life or the chair), I’d have clocked Chuck Schumer twenty years ago.
It appears that the U.S. Senate is getting serious about people using stuff they found on the Intarwebs:
A bi-partisan bill working its way through Congress could drastically change how copyright claims are processed, and would create a system to impose up to $30,000 in fines on anyone who shares protected material online.
In other words, the Congress wants to make it easier to sue people who send a meme or post images that they didn’t create themselves, essentially a giveaway to lawyers who sue unsuspecting suckers for a living.
…and once more, a little more of life’s pleasures is sucked dry by the lawyers and politicians.
One of these days, I can see people going to a party sued by the studios (especially the godless Disney Corporation) just for wearing a character’s costume without prior approval from an attorney at Bloodsucker, Lamprey and Leech LLP.
Having recently been sued (and forced to settle out of court) by some cocksucker and his copyright huckster attorney for using an old photograph (which can be found all over the Internet and which had no attribution when I found it, so copyright was impossible to establish in the first place), I know exactly what’s involved here. (And if he or his shyster butt-buddy should chance to read this: by not identifying you or the work involved, I’m not breaking the terms of our agreement, you money-grabbing motherfuckers. It’s the principle I’m talking about — not that either of you would even begin to comprehend the word. FOAD.)
So as of today, expect to see only memes and such created by myself (e.g. see below), unless linked to the site of origin.
And that goes for the lawyers’ little lickspittles in the Senate as well. FOAD all of you, too.
I read this report with sadness:
A man has sued his unfaithful estranged wife after discovering that he is not the father of her eight-year-old son.
The man wants the woman to return ‘every penny’ he spent on the child he thought was his but was actually fathered by someone she had an affair with.
He also wants damages to compensate for distress and wants her to reveal the name of the other man.
My sadness is because of the effect all this will have on the child. For the cheating ex-wife? Not a smidgen of pity.
In the old days, a child born within the marriage was assumed both legally and morally to be the child of the husband — and it made a great deal of sense. Nowadays, with morality in tatters but with scientific tools such as DNA testing, that old standard is unnecessary.
In fact, I believe that all babies should get DNA-tested at birth. If the baby is born to a married couple and the husband is found to be not the father, then the actual father should be identified and forced to pay child support. If the woman is unmarried, of course, then the same should apply. (If she doesn’t know who the father is, then everything that follows is her own fault.)
Adultery that results in pregnancy should carry a penalty of some sort. The husband should not be penalized for his wife’s infidelity and carelessness. Good grief: if sperm donors are being forced to pay child support (as is beginning to happen in Europe — pure foolishness), then Roger The Lodger should have to face the same consequence.