Philosophy of Law

There's a bizarre saga unfolding on my blog, at the Office of the Independent Blogger. A few days ago, I made a blog entry dissecting a Jesse Jackson Jr. (Congressman from Illinois) article, and I wrote about how Jackson is considering a run for Mayor of Chicago, but is seeking out help from the Republicans, according to my source, failed Republican Congressional candidate, and nephew of a Bill Clinton Cabinet Secretary, Tony Cisneros. I wrote to reporters from the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune, asking them to write about it as "Jesse Jackson Jr. Seeks to Unseat Daley with GOP Help" is a legitimate news story. I know that they contacted Mr. Cisneros to find out more about his conversation with me (which is detailed in that entry, or the Jackson part is) because Cisneros then commented on the entry.

Following this, I made an entry defending myself from Tony Cisneros, and rebutting him, which you can find here. You want to know more about Cisneros? Read those comments and the first thing that'll strike you is that he writes in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. But you want to know more! you say? Well, Cisneros is off-the-wall, Bob Jones University (he went there) nuts: He preaches that the Catholic Church ordered the hit on Abraham Lincoln. Cisneros responded to that right here, and, last night, I fired back once more.

Naturally, the fact that a Republican Congressional candidate with significant influence in the Chicago GOP is having a nasty fight with a teenage blogger isn't being covered by the liberal media elite.

The most important thing to note, for me, is that my story about Jackson is accurate as my source on that, Mr. Cisneros, has never denied it or hinted at denying it.

Karl Rove is facing some serious legal problems (more on that right here) while the rest of the Republican Party is crying "persecution" in regard to Karl Rove and all their other scandals. So is Judith Miller, who just may be the biggest hack in journalism.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently declined to hear a case from Missouri about an abortion which violates State Law. Basically, a woman in jail wants an abortion and the prison is willing to take her to a clinic for it. However, state funds are not to be used for abortions in Missouri, but she doesn't have the money to pay for the bus and guards (about 300$) to take her to the clinic. She argues that she can borrow for the abortion, but not transportation, and the ACLU was all-too-willing to be her lawyer against Missouri. I think it's an abomination that the SCOTUS didn't hear the case, as this is one that should have been heard and reversed: If she wants an abortion, she has to pay for it and the transportation to it herself.

State laws mean something, okay kids?

This President, known for his secrecy, has decided to declassify the genome of the 1918 bird flu, making Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. How selectively secretive of him! There are other news quickies at that link, which I'm sure you'll enjoy, so give it a go.

Finally, George Ryan of Illinois (my state), Tom DeLay of Sugarland Texas, and Saddam Hussein are all on trial while Robert Bork attacks Harriet Miers.

I am the Independent Blogger of the Office of the Independent Blogger. Check it out and enjoy it before I'm classified an enemy combatant and taken off the Internet.

First thing I'd like to say is that I've cross-posted this quite vigorously.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, kiddies. Or, at least he's been indicted. Tom DeLay has, for those of you not quick on the uptake. In his absence, there's been quite a power struggle that you may not have heard of yet but should have. You can read more about DeLay here, as well as watch me dissect Pat Buchanan. Not that that's too much of a challenge as no one's ever accused good old Pat of being one of them ivy league geniuses.

The Governor of Illinois is a scumbag, or the former Governor is, and he's on trial now. Famous for his moratorium on the Death Penalty, Ryan is, in reality, a criminal who is set to be thrown in prison. While we may decry our system of government, justice does prevail.

Arnold Schwarzenneger is a girly man, Judith Miller, the woman who went to jail "for protecting" her "source" (that's not the real reason she refused to speak), has been let out of prison under awkward circumstances, Tom DeLay has been assured much power even without an official title and Karen Hughes needs to stay home as she's ruining our reputation abroad,. Talk about a long hyperlink!

This should be of great interest to many of you: The US and the UN are having a debate over who should control the Internet. We're not content to clash just on Iraq -- we need to argue over Cyberspace, too!

You probably don't know about these stories, but here's an article of mine on the President's bogus energy policies and the "fiscal conservative" lie of the Republican Party. Fiscal Conservatism, in the Republican Party today, is just another word for “nothing else to run on and something to pretend you believe in.”

There's a great amount of evil in Zimbabwe and stupidity in our government. What more can I say? Read it!

I am the Independent Blogger at The Office of the Independent Blogger. I'm "Independent" in the same sense that Ken Starr was. Meaning "Not Very Independent" indeed!

Hi everyone,

I wanted to tell you all about the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference coming up at the end of next month. It's from March 31-April 3rd in Manhatten, New York. Now is the time to register. Check out info about the conference at garc and The Grassroots AR Conference.

Hope to see you there,

t

is it morally reprehensible to "appropriate" those tacky "support our troops" ribbon magnets on the back of cars, if you find the notion offensive? let's take into account that unlike the breast cancer research ribbons, which actually takes the money from those sales to fund research, no one knows where the money for the yellow and flag ribbons go. it's sick.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/…

"I thought the most interesting part of his entire story was, 'I didn't murder her, I killed her,"' Calcasieu Parish District Attorney Rick Bryant said in his closing argument.

the facts of the case are:
rideau admits to having killed a woman in 1960 after a botched bank robbery at the age of 19.
he is convicted to death in '61.
in 1963, supreme court overturns the results of trial and orders a new one on grounds that his confession was aired prior to his trial, thus violating his right of due process.
he is convicted to death on his retrial in '64.
in 1970, the death penalty is repealed in america ~ his sentence commuted to life.
his verdict is once again overturned in 2000 due to blacks being excluded from his juries.
in his final trial, his conviction is manslaughter instead of murder and allowed to walk out a free man for time served.

manslaughter and murder are two very different animals. the former denotes lack of motive or circumstance that lacked premeditation. the latter denotes motive and/or premeditation.

while on the surface it seems to be outrageous that a confessed killer should be allowed to walk free once more, the purpose of our criminal justice system is a mix of social punishment and rehabilitation. that's one aspect of seeing this as a man who is set free for time served and knowing prison life.

another aspect that would be prudent to point out is the racial lines of justice of the deep south that permeated throughout the criminal justice of the time. civic injustices were committed here, most certainly. in 1991, Powers v. Ohio, justice kennedy stated that excluding jurors "solely by reason of their race" deprives them of an chance to partake in civil life and casts a shadow on the integrity of the court system by denying a sense of fairness that should exist. civil life in this context is the right to be political in the republic. this case sould never have lasted so long. the original case in which an all white jury in the trial of a black man in which a conviction was overturned was a case called Strauder v. West Virginia.

do i feel justice was served? i can't say with full convition that he should be free, but under the rule of law, justice was served and then some. did he take the life of another? yes. did he confess to it? yes. was it murder per se? whether he had every intention to kill someone or if he had panicked is a question between him and god. but as he has stated previously, he had panicked admist an air of fear of the law. his fear was rooted in southern social attitudes and that is a reasonable assumption of fear by him that no matter what, injustice would be done in an unfair setting. lo and behold he was correct in his assumption. if justice was done, it was that he served his sentence for his crime. he is probably with all due respect to the victim and her family, a reformed individual as he entered the prison system undeducated but now as become a writer and journalist reporting the social and bureaucratic structures of the criminal justice system.

While stumbling around on livejournal, I came across this community and figured I would join (though it does seem a bit on the dead side).

So in addition to introducing myself - Coby. 22. Female. Houston. Start law school in August. - I wanted to ask y'all what your favorite text is in regard to legal philosophy.