California and the Ridiculous State of Law in America

Environmental inadequacy.

There’s reason to rejoice that a California state judge issued an injunction on Friday against the state cap-and-trade scheme (C&T) proposed in 2006.  For one thing, the case’s citation name is Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board, and how often does that come along?  Irritated v. CARB would make an awesome name for a rock band.

The judge, Ernest Goldsmith, allowed the other elements of the 2006 law (AB 32) to proceed as planned, so small businesses and truck drivers and others who will be drastically affected by its emission-curbing requirements have no prospect of relief.  The important business of driving business out of California will proceed apace.

Of equal interest, however, is the basis for the judge’s decision to suspend the C&T plan. Continue reading “California and the Ridiculous State of Law in America”

Germans All Set for Dhimmitude?

One weird rule: obey.

Everyone knows at this point about the German judge who filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for her remark that she was glad Osama bin Laden was dead.  A great deal has been made of what she said and whether it’s appropriate to be “glad” that bin Laden was killed.  But what concerns me is that a German judge thought what she did was criminal.

The situation here is actually worse than it looks.  It would be bad enough if the problem were only that a bunch of Germans through it was inappropriate to cheer over bin Laden’s death.  That’s the least of our worries.  I had the same thought myself; but I don’t propose doing anything about it other than expressing my opinion.

The real problem is Continue reading “Germans All Set for Dhimmitude?”

Reclaiming the Meaning of Law

Time to reclaim what “law” means in the abortion debate.

MadisonConservative at Hot Air and Pajamas’ Zombie have each put down a stake in the abortion debate this week, and one of the most important things their posts highlight (unintentionally, I think) is how different our understanding has become, over time, of what it means to deal with something through the method of law.

Zombie starts out praising the moral consistency of Sharron Angle’s position on abortion, which is that it’s always wrong, even in the case of rape or incest.  If abortion is murder, then nothing can make it not-murder, in a moral sense. (Even the extremely rare case of the baby being a threat to the mother’s life would also, presumably, be covered by this principle.)  Life is life, and a baby in the womb is, by definition, innocent life.  The position of many Americans that abortion should be prohibited except in the case of rape or incest is, in Zombie’s formulation, “full of crap.”

MadisonConservative, struck by Zombie’s argument, admits to having once held that “cookie-cutter,” full-of-crap view himself.  His ultimate thesis, however, Continue reading “Reclaiming the Meaning of Law”