Thursday, February 19, 2015
More Moore
— Dixie, Old American Folk SongOld times there are not forgotten.
Alabama is back, represented by Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of its Supreme Court and by the W.F. Burns Middle School in Valley, Alabama. Roy comes first.
In 2000 Roy was campaigning to become the Chief Justice. That was the year the Vermont legislature passed legislation approving gay unions. Campaigning a few days before the Alabama June primary election was to take place, Judge Moore commented on the Vermont law saying the next logical step was for a law to be passed that would allow unions between “two men and four women” or between “a sheep and a man.” He was, of course, speaking in jest. Musing further he said: “Let me ask you this. Are you going to pay your tax money to support a man and a sheep on welfare? Hmmmm?” Judge Moore won the primary and then the general election and became the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. As Chief Justice he had other opportunities to express himself on the evils of homosexuality. In a custody battle involving a lesbian mother he said that homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Homosexuals, he went on, are “presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children.”
While serving as Chief Justice, Roy commissioned a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments and had it installed in the central rotunda of the State Judicial Building. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling ordering removal of the monument and when the Chief Justice refused, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed Roy from office and the monument was removed from the rotunda. The monument is still gone. Elected again in 2012, Roy Moore is again serving as Chief Justice and is again asserting himself in opposition to a federal court.
In late January 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Callie V. Granade ordered Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, a ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to postpone. Accordingly, probate judges were required by the federal court order to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Chief Justice Moore ordered the probate judges to ignore the federal court’s order and to decline to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. As of this writing 51 probate judges have elected to follow the federal court’s order and 17 others have elected to follow Roy’s order. On February 13, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court, by a 6-2 ruling, acted on an emergency petition filed by the Liberty Counsel and two other groups opposed to same-sex marriage. It ordered probate judges who were issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples to respond to the Liberty Counsel’s petition that seeks an order telling probate judges to cease and desist their issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. The Alabama Supreme Court’s response suggests that six members of the Alabama Supreme Court believe the state judges have the right to ignore orders from a federal court. All briefs will have been filed by February 20 and the Alabama Supreme Court should have the opportunity to issue an opinion shortly thereafter. No one is taking any bets on the outcome.
Meanwhile, out in the country the W.F. Burns Middle School in Valley, Alabama, is in the news. W.F. Burns is, for good reason, concerned about the safety of its students. Unlike many schools that have promoted the idea that teachers should be permitted to carry firearms into the classroom in order to shoot possible assailants, W. F. Burns has decided to implement an idea for school safety already used in some other school districts hoping to enhance student safety.
School officials sent a letter home to all parents asking that they give their children canned goods to bring to school. The canned goods are not for eating (although they’ll be given to the needy at the end of the school year) but are instead an enhancement to procedures already in place to deal with intruders. According to the letter sent to parents: “The procedure will be the same as we have done in the past with the addition of arming our students with a canned food item. We realize at first this may seem odd, however, it is a practice that would catch an intruder off-guard. The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive. The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters their classroom. . . . We hope the canned food items will never be used or needed, but it is best to be prepared.”
There is a certain symmetry to the Alabama Supreme Court’s action and the school’s action. Throwing a can of peas at an intruder armed with an automatic weapon makes as much sense as the Alabama Supreme Court trying to decide whether a federal court’s orders have to be followed by state judges. The introduction of canned peas into the classroom, however, does no damage to the rule of law in Alabama. That is more than can be said for the Alabama Supreme Court’s actions.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Sex and Interior Decorating
Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three. . .
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles’ first LP.
— Philip Larkin, Annus Mirabilis [1974]
I do not ordinarily cover the newest fads. This week, however, I am making an exception because the newest fads are inspired by a movie that will be released the day before Valentine’s Day and the timing of this column is such that readers who are inspired by it can rush off to their nearest Target stores and present their purchases to their Valentines on the day itself.
The movie that is being released is called “Fifty Shades of Grey.” Just as Erica Jong’s erotic novel of several years back called “Fear of Flying” had nothing to do with phobias and airplanes, “Fifty Shades of Grey” does not attempt to instruct the interior decorator on the interesting effects that can be achieved by taking advantage of the subtle differences between different shades of grey or explaining why the chandelier looks better if it is not hung over the center of the table. Fifty Shades of Grey is a trilogy and is all about sex. The author, E.L. James (not her real name) can explain why she sought to mislead those who bought the books hoping to get tips on interior decorating. Those going to the movie may get new ideas about things of considerable interest to them but none of them will improve the décor around the house.
The movie (whose advent has been eagerly awaited by members of both sexes although reportedly, more by the fair sex than the other one) tells a story of a young woman’s introduction into the world of sexual bondage. I’ll not say more about that since (a) I’ve not seen the movie nor read the books and (b) even if I had, I’d not want to spoil the movie for my readers or reduce the number of viewers it would have attracted had I not written a spoiler. Many viewers will find the sorts of things that go on in the movie intriguing and will wonder where the artifacts that were used by the actors to enhance the activities displayed on the silver screen can be obtained. A quick search of the Internet discloses that a company known as “Lovehoney” is, as its website proclaims “The Official Pleasure Collection.” E.L. James is quoted on the home page of Lovehoney as saying: “I’m so excited that the toys I described in the books have come to life.” She is, of course, not speaking literally since none of the toys being sold have a life of any kind so long as they sit on the shelf. But readers may wonder how they can help bring the toys to life. Herewith the answer.
Although Lovehoney is the “go to” source for the toys, there are some who will be reluctant to order those toys on line because of fears their order may be disclosed in unexpected places on the internet. For them the destination store will be a Target store near their homes even though the product selection may be more limited than what is available from Lovehoney’s website. The fact that the selection is limited is offset by the fact that the buyer can acquire the sought after items more discretely than may be possible over the Internet. In one Target store, for example, the Lovehoney items were put on display right next to the Captain America toothbrushes. That is helpful to the sensitive type who, when buying a Lovehoney product can, if another shopper is standing nearby, pretend to be interested in the Captain America toothbrushes rather than the Lovehoney product.
It is impossible in a column such as this, to describe all the products that can be found on Lovehoney’s website and, to a lesser extent, at your local Target store. A few of them do, however, deserve mention. Among them are“his and hers No Peeking Soft Twin Blindfolds” for $14.95, and “Yours and Mine Vibrating Silicone Love Ring” that also costs $14.95 (and almost certainly comes with instructions.) For $12.95 a “Tease Feather Tickler” can be purchased and for another $11.99 a “Spanking Ruler.” (If you are shopping at Target that can probably be found in the school supplies section as well.) For the partner of the purchaser of the ruler, for $16.99 a “Soothe Me After Spanking Cream” can be purchased.
There is one benefit to shopping on line rather than at Target. According to the Lovehoney website, anyone spending $60 on “The Official Pleasure Collection” gets a FREE Charlie Tango. Not everyone will know what to do with a Charlie Tango but I am sure it will come with a book of instructions. The lucky person who gets this bonus should read the book before bringing Charlie to the evening’s activities. Have fun.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Post Mortem Justice U.S. Style
It hath often been said, that it is not death, but dying which is terrible.
—Henry fielding, Amelia
There’s a big difference between the Russian Court that tried Sergei Magnitsky and the United States Supreme Court that agreed to hear the appeal of Charles Warner. The Russians are content to try a dead man for crimes allegedly committed before death whereas the United States Supreme Court does not want the name of a man it permitted to be executed to appear on an appeal by that man in which he hopes the Court will stop his execution from taking place.
Sergei was a Russian accountant and auditor who worked in the Moscow law firm of Firestone Duncan. While employed there he was investigating a tax fraud that implicated local tax officials and police officers. Before he was able to complete his investigation he was arrested and imprisoned on the grounds that he had engaged in assorted acts of tax fraud. Under Russian law he could be (and was) imprisoned for one year without being tried. During that year he was denied medical treatment, confined to increasingly small cells and, eight days short of the one-year period, he died as a result of untreated pancreatitis,acute heart failure and toxic shock.
The family was outraged. It believed he was arrested in order to derail the investigation he was conducting and attributed his death to a lack of medical care. Russian authorities were understandably upset at these claims since, if true, they reflected badly on the Russian legal system. They were especially upset that in repeated interviews the family said Mr. Magnitsky died because of the failure of the authorities to give him proper medical care and, in addition, insisted he was innocent of the charges. When the family refused to quit giving interviews to the press, the authorities took advantage of a provision in the Russian criminal code that permits a dead person to be tried for crimes committed before death. Although the criminal code says only the family can demand a trial of the dead man, the prosecutor explained at the beginning of the trial “that the case was reopened to decide the issue of Magnitsky’s possible rehabilitation” since the family insisted on giving interviews in which they asserted Mr. Magnitsky’s innocence. That, said authorities, was the same as demanding a trial.
The Magnitsky trial lasted five-months and at its conclusion the judge delivered a 1 ½ hour verdict finding Mr. Magnitsky guilty as charged. Commenting on Mr. Magnitsky’s “physical absence,” however, he said no further investigation into his conduct would take place nor would any jail time be imposed on Mr. Magnitsky. It is by comparing this to the recent actions of Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Warner v. Gross that one appreciates how civilized that body is.
Warner is one of many cases that have been before the courts in which they have been asked to decide on the most humane way to rid society of its unwanted members. A number of recent executions have caused the subject of the procedure to act in ways that inspire revulsion in the onlookers since instead of seeming to die peacefully, they appear to be enduring excruciating pain. Warner was an appeal to the Court by four inmates on death row in Oklahoma. They were challenging the chemicals Oklahoma uses in executing criminals on the grounds that the chemicals cause extreme suffering and violate the constitutional ban on inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. The four men asked the Court to put their executions on hold while the Court considered their claims. Under the rules of the Court, five Justices have to vote in favor of stopping an execution but only four Justices have to vote in favor of hearing an appeal. In poor Mr. Warner’s case, things got backwards.
On January 15, 2014, four Justices (instead of five) voted to stop Mr. Warner’s execution and as a result he was executed a few hours later. On January 23, 2014, however, four Justices voted to hear Mr. Warner’s appeal and the case of Warner vs. Gross was added to the Court’s docket. Continuing to refer to the appeal by Mr. Warner’s name, however, was something of an embarrassment to the Justices since it gave the impression that the Court was agreeing to consider the appeal of a man who did not want to be executed after the Court had already permitted the execution to proceed. If it did not change the name there would be a disturbing similarity to the Russian court that spent 5 ½ months trying a dead man. Chief Justice Roberts would be the first to recognize the awkwardness of that. Fortunately for the Court, three other convicts, including Richard Glossip, had joined in Mr. Warner’s appeal. To avoid looking foolish, the Court removed Mr. Warner’s name and substituted Richard Glossip’s name. The case is now called Glossip vs. Gross. Whether that sleight change of name kept the Court from looking foolish, others can decide.
Discuss this column [56]