Lawyers and law students. I am offering a prize to anyone who

can write a brief argument that the Schiavo bill doesn't violate the equal protection clause. Winner will be the first argument that doesn't make me laugh out loud.

Because in Ratface's Amerika, where we live today, some are more equal than others.

This is determined by the Minions Of Ratface, who, most recently, in the spectral, allegedly human forms of Frist and DeWorstLayI'veEverHad, anointed the parents of Terri Schiavo more equal than anybody else.

The End



May I have my prize now, please?

of sanity in some very insane times. :hi:

the middle of the game.

Well, I never .............

::::: gathering briefs up around her waist, slamming door on way out ::::

If you have to gather your briefs around your waist before you leave you have gotta be practicing in some kinky courts. If you mean the other kind, get a briefcase with real noisy locks that snap shut, they are great for expressing displeasure.

.......need props.

too damn funny :D

Where's my prize?

interpretation or nomenclature of Mr. Tom!!!!!! That was ROYAL!

thanks for a good laugh.

Under what enumerated power, pray tell, is Congress acting here?

That's my question.

Medical and guardianship decisions have traditional been within the "police powers" of the State.

Oh, that's right. What are they saying - that this involves a fundamental right, that Florida is denying her?

That's cute.

You still think we're living in a country of laws.

How utterly dear. How quaint.

First, we must overthrow this government.

Then, if you get me that prize, I'll tell you what we do next ...........

any good.

Was that a lawyer joke?

Because, if it was, well........................

::::: adjusting briefs, snorting indignantly, relighting cigar ::::::::::

street when a gorgeous blond in a tight short dress walks by. One says: "Think we could screw her?" and the other says: "Outta what?"

THIS is a lawyer joke:

Two lawyers are thrown overboard when their boat capsizes, and suddenly they're surrounded by schools of sharks. Why are they not being devoured by the sharks?

Professional courtesy.

will that interfere with me getting my barcard? Don't they frown on that sort of thing?

(By the way, Agent Mike, I was just joking. I will uphold the Constitution through thick and thin. That is what you want me to do, isn't it, Agent Mike?)

No one ever asks to see that card.

Except when you're going into the slammer to see a client. But, those guards never really LOOK at it.

We're cool.............

:)

When I was a social worker, I used to go visit the clients at the local county jail. I can relate.

It was so weird walking down those quiet halls. I'd use the key, get into the "lawyer room," and sit before that wall with the window in it. Then I'd have to slide the paper and pen into that little slot, and use another pen to push it through (it was a medical consent I needed them to sign). Ah, memories ...

The most fun part was calling my husband's office from the sheriff's phone, and telling the blonde receptionist (not that there's anything wrong with that) to tell Mr. Maat that I was "in jail." It was funny until one time she interrupted a meeting and told him. He didn't blink an eyelash (I heard later), and told her that "I was on my own." He finally told her I was a worker, and was just having a little fun.

Anyway, end-of-blabbering.

Ah, memories ...

Remember Bush v. Gore. I'm just wondering whether Scalia is going to flip-flop when this case reaches the Supreme court and his famous language in Cruzon is pushed in his face about how these are state issues.

It will never make it to the Supreme Court, I'm betting.

I guess I still have hope ...........

There are certain aspects of human nature which are universally accepted. Among them is a will to live. Shiavo's parents say that she is still capable of noticing things, and I think they said responding. Doctors say otherwise; she is guilty of being functionally dead. According to the U.S. Constitution, we are all innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is functionally dead, we assume that she is alive. As a person assumed to be alive, she receives equal treatment under the law: those who have not committed a crime are permitted to live.

access to the federal court when no other parents have this access violates the equal protection clause (as to all other parents but them).

But, go and read a copy - if you can find it (I'll try to find it, too) - of John Conyers' remarks last night before the vote, and you'll find things like the Elizabeth Morgan case, where individuals got special bills passed, just for them. Same is true of corporations - banks, especially.

Conyers did a great job of enumerating how often this takes place.

Constitutionally speaking, I'd have said - five years ago - that a bill like this isn't at all meaningful to the rights and privileges of other American citizens. But, in today's climate, I am very fearful. Very fearful, indeed.

Now, to find a transcript of Conyers' remarks ..............

could ever happen.

while wearing only briefs. Does that count?

That the USSC has upheld cases where immigration rights were granted to individuals specifically named in Bills. Following that precedent, which in my mind raises the same equal protection issues, I argue that this Bill which grants special access to the Federal Bench, is good to go.

After all anyone else seeking access to the Federal Bench is still free to petition Congress for a Bill of their own, just as those about to be deported are.

-Hoot

doesn't violate the rights of the others.

A poor example selection on my part. Didn't the USSC hold that as long as Private Bills weren't punitive in nature, then they are Constitutional? This Bill doesn't punish anyone named in it, therefore it can be argued that it should be upheld.

God I just disgusted myself.
-Hoot

Its a dumb bill but there is no equal protection problem I can see.
No protected class, therefore no heightened scrutiny; bill upheld so long a government can articulate a rational basis, however lame.
Strikes me as problematic for other reasons such as bill of attainder.

How intelligent! You paid attention in Con Law, I can tell. Wow. I am impressed. Really, truly. My Con Law teacher was from Yale Law School and, therefore, a priori, unintelligible. I did well as I can write "unintelligible" bullshit along with the best of them.

Still impressed and have only laughed once. I wasn't funny so I don't win a prize. Thanks, this helped bring my raging, soaring blood pressure down.

INS v Chadha.
Congressional veto ruled unconstitutional.
Thousands of federal laws rendered null and void.

Considering that the Congressional veto is no longer applicable to anything,
(and assuming that some other administration were in power)
is Congress still legally able to do stuff like this?
And what does the Schiavo case signify for HMOs and hospitals?