Robed Nazgul

Following up briefly on the case I ranted about a while back, a decision was recently announced: Supreme Court Tells Drugmakers ‘Label is No Shield’. The article is fairly brief, and easy to follow; and I’ve already been in front of my computer for too long this fine day, so no excerpt. Good news, though, for as long as it lasts.

Don’t laugh – check out what the Robed Nazgul hath wrought:

The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law, and the "laundry list" of reasons it has given for declining to do so are insufficient, the court said.

Carbon dioxide is a component of our exhaled breaths, you know. And legislating by ecofad is a very stupid idea.

Lots of things I want to touch on, and not much time for it. So, a shorter, and probably less coherent, look around this morning:

I would guess that most readers have heard about Angel Shamaya's situation in Michigan. For those who haven't, he's the founder of Keep and Bear Arms.com, and was recently—and suspiciously—arrested and jailed for carrying unpapered firearms, apparently. I've met Angel in person, and think the world of him. He was a big help when my friend and fellow LRTer the Hunter went through the legal wringer in Ohio on a firearms charge a few years back. Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, is currently helping coordinate various means of helping Angel. I've met Gary too, and hold him in high regard. He's accepting contributions to Angel's defense fund, using MSSA infrastructure to process them (without charging any administrative fees). The situation regarding donations may change over the next several days, but if I can scrape enough together to help, I'd still send it to Gary, because I trust him. A PayPal donation button can be found on the MSSA web site, if you'd like to use that option to make a contribution. For more details on donations and further developments in Angel's situation, I'd recommend keeping an eye on End the War on Freedom -- Bill's posting Gary's updates.

-:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:-

Jim Bovard—who appears to be on his way to becoming a Brazilian sensation—has a good piece up at LRC outlining how farming became a federal affair. Also over there, not so new but still highly worthwhile, is Becky Akers' explanation of how an inheritance case wound up being heard by the Robed Nazgul. Spot on, especially her closing.

-:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:-

Two items on Real ID: At least one Wisconsin newspaper apparently thinks the state should just roll over and take the fedgov ass-raping on ID. A Kalifornia editorial is much more to my liking: Feds must drop ID plan. There's still time to resist, and it's clear there's lots of educating still to be done on the issue. One idea was presented to me by a very dear friend I don't hear from often enough (that shouldn't be construed as pressure, though!): states can simply choose not to comply with making their driving permission slips acceptable federal ID. Hell, I'd almost consider buying a state's driver's license just for the grins I'd get every time I looked at it and saw "NOT VALID FOR FEDERAL ID" on it in big red letters.

-:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:- -:-

Some people, even those who should, simply don't know enough about the calculus of taking risks. How else to explain this handwringing over the lack of takers of bonds to rebuild New Orleans? I think a clue could be found in Iceland.

I took a fair amount of shit for making the observation here that the attempted theft of David Souter's New Hampshire home to make way for a proposed "Lost Liberty Hotel" isn't consistent with libertarian principles. None of the commenters was able to persuade me otherwise [yeah, calling me "over-cerebral" is such a devastating argument!]. So, if my words failed to persuade you, maybe Garry Reed can ... His new essay is Lost Principles Hotel. A sample:

Clements' web site (freestarmedia.com) proclaims him a media mogul wannabe with a TV show "in development" that will feature anti-government David and Goliath stories. One of the no-kidding suggested scenarios for his show: "Perhaps a government has threatened to use its eminent domain power to take someone's home and sell it to a shopping mall developer. Viewers can deluge the city council with mail, faxes and e-mail asking for repeal of the decision or show up to stop the bulldozers."

What? Doesn't Goliath Clements himself want to use government eminent domain power to take David (yes, "David") Souter's home and sell it to a developer? Guess Clements wants to be both David and Goliath simultaneously. Is that the lesson this hypocritical huckster learned from reading Ayn Rand?

Libertarians should never succumb to the egalitarian idea of justice that says everyone should get screwed equally. That's a concept of collectivism. Libertarians demand that everyone's rights be protected equally. Thievery through eminent domain is still thievery whether it's your house or David Souter's that’s being stolen.

Time to add Garry to my purely hypothetical short list.

[Speaking of friends, anyone know what's up with Brad Spangler? His site has been coming up 404 for several days now :( ...]

Two terrific pieces from a couple of friends for your enjoyment ...

Cat's got yet another powerful, thoughtful piece at Endervidualism. I won't give away her ending, so I'll tease you with a different bit from Demonizing Versus Deifying Dreamers and Dissidents:

I tend to worry more about those who are all action and no think than about those who are "all talk and no action." It takes a great deal of power behind talk to render it harmful, in a broader sense than the chance that a hearer might feel insulted or hurt by it. What does concern me is refusal to respect forethought - the obstinate human tendency to begrudge the thinker his time to think, to insist that action is always superior when in fact it's often the reverse.

While over there, I noticed that Tom has published a review of Les Miserables, which is currently in the rotation on HBO. I've read the book, but never seen the play or the movie ... sounds like I should. Thanks, Tom!

I didn't think anyone could make me laugh about the robed nazgul's recent antics, but I underestimated Garry Reed's skill at making his points with humor. If only they really were The US Supine Court:

All people are created equal, but people with money, power, and noses firmly affixed to the buttcracks of their hired legistraitors are more equal than others. ....

It's obvious to libertarians, if to no one else, that the Supremes have a continuing conflict of interest. They are biased in favor of BigGov. .... Who among them has ever made a living on the basis of free market competition? Who among them has ever lived outside the coddling collective of the BigGov bubble?

They should be permanently recused from every case that comes before them.

Ahhhh, we can dream, Garry ...

For various reasons, my general emotional state has been gradually descending the past few days, and has crossed below the "safe-to-blog" threshold. So I've refrained from saying anything. But I came across someone whose snark is much higher quality than mine would be, so I'll point you good folks there: Eminent case of domain poisoning, by Mark Steyn. It's too good to pick just a few quotations from, so if you've not already seen it, I'll simply encourage you to do so.

Got woken up in the wee hours [again!] by a powerful thunderstorm, preceded by very strong wind gusts that filled my room with variously-pitched moans and whistles as its force varied. I lay awake for a while, enjoying the light show, and thinking ... and my mind started churning on the "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea. An amusing idea, but something about it bothered me, and I hadn't made time to work that out. This morning, I see that John Lopez at No Treason nails it in Are You Happy Now?. Closing paragraph:

Do you understand the point being made, here? You can’t use the government as a club against a particular Supreme Court Justice: the government is a package deal. [emphasis and link in original]

I've written a fair amount on firearms, and I'm usually careful to point out that a gun is morally neutral, as are knives, swords, sticks, stones, etc. How a person uses an object gives it a moral value for that act, and that act alone. An object just is. Humans -- rightly and wrongly -- imbue objects and ideas with moral overtones.

But that isn't true of the power of the state. Its entire reason for existence is to use the threat of force -- or actual force if need be -- to get individuals to do something they don't want to do. Often, that's couched in disguising language, such as being for "the public good", or "national security", or "the children", but what's underneath doesn't change one bit: You'll do what we want or we'll hurt you.

So why are freedom-loving individuals cheering this on with the "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea? It strikes me as being born of a childish desire for revenge ... which is natural; liberty lovers aren't necessarily above such human desires. But it's using the tool of the state, which to me goes against everything freedom is about. I've written on this before, and so won't get into it deeply again today.

The state's power is the only tool I've been able to think of since my mind started down this path this morning that isn't morally neutral. We won't -- we can't -- succeed in expanding liberty if we're willing to wield it when it suits us.

What to do instead? I've already answered that question, though I may revisit it with more details at some future point. Otherwise, laughing at the state's minions is also an effective means of deflating them. Fortunately, we've a few people who grok that, and provide much-needed comic relief. Two friends have done so within the past couple of days. First, Russmo on the robed nazgul:

The second is Garry Reed, The Loose Cannon Libertarian. Here's a snippet from his latest essay, Bushwacked by the Patriot Act:

Our President, who thus far has never met a law he didn't like, threatens his first veto if the entire Patriot package isn't made permanent. "The Patriot Act," proclaimed Our President, "closed dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities."

Someone ought to inform Our President that those "dangerous gaps" also go by the name "Bill of Rights."

Far from scaling back the act, Our President proposes super-sizing FBI sinew so they can subpoena records in terrorism investigations without the approval of a judge or grand jury. This will be very helpful, as it will put the G-Men on equal jack-booted footing with the Gestapo, KGB, Stasi, SAVAK, CIA, et al.

Bill of What?

Okay, now I'm off to see about getting the Real ID Rebellion moved over to its own domain (that's why posting there has been so light of late), and having some fun. Hope you're able to do so today, too.

I don't know why it did so, but yesterday's Seattle Times has two stories semi-smushed together -- I guess that's because they're both robed-nazgul related. The main headline is 2 reporters facing jail after appeal is refused, and while that's a worthwhile developing story in its own right, the second one caught my attention. Scroll down to Police backed in lawsuit over restraining order for more of the same "let-us-protect-you-but-not-really-protect-you" doublespeak:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three daughters. ....

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt them.

Well, why not? They're certainly morally bankrupt. What else can you call the empty promises police protection has held out for years, backed by court rulings that reinforce the idea that they can't be held responsible for failing to "serve and protect"?

I love the closing quote from the woman's attorney: "The restraining orders are not worth anything unless police officers are willing to enforce them. They are just paper."

Yep. Getting a restraining order may give a besieged individual peace of mind, but it's an illusion. If you want real peace of mind, get something a wee bit stronger than paper. .38's the minimum I recommend.

Not really sure why, but I've been browsing news sites a bit, reading commentaries on the Kelo decision. So far, the award for "lots of words slung together that say nothing" goes to The taking of private property in the Helena Independent Record. Get this, from the closing paragraph:

But there is a strong consensus in this country that "a man's home is his castle" — that no matter how humble, personal property must be respected except in extraordinary circumstances.

Yes, this country was built on such "strong consensus" ...

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes, from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Doesn't this make the state's ownership of "we, the sheople" pretty much complete?

Yesterday Annie turns on the financial news, and as usual, puts on CNN in the picture-in-picture (PiP). On CNN they are announcing that within half an hour the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial will be announced. She watches her program, switching to CNN during the commercials. At the end of the hour, still no verdict, but we had many shots of Jackson's motorcade.

An hour later she puts on another program, with CNN in PiP. The verdict has come in and now CNN is devoting the entire hour to talking about it. The next hour came Paula Zhan who announced a special program on the verdict, starting with a "legal defense analyst". At that point we turned off the TV for the evening.

We know that CNN devoted at least four hours, and probably more, to this piece of news. And I do not think it is all that bad. After all, he is a well known person, and people are interested. Also, these high profile trials, with their attendant news coverage, give Jane and Joe Public a glimpse of the legal process. Not a bad thing.

But is it too much to ask that CNN devote the same amount of coverage to important Supreme Court decisions, such as Raich?

Can you imagine it:

"This is Wolf Blitzer with breaking news at the Supreme Court. We hear the Justices have a ruling in the medical marijuana case. Now over to John X our reporter at the court. John, what can you tell us?"

"Wolf, the Justices have ruled six to three that Federal law takes precedence over state law in this case. The interesting thing is that Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, used the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify the ruling."

"John, you say six to three, who dissented and why?"

"Wolf, dissenting were Chief Justice Rehnquist and justices O'Connor and Thomas. Justice Thomas' opinion is that the court has opened to door to unlimited federal power."

When they get to the "analysis" part, they have the pro and anti marijuana folks condemning and praising the decision. They do interviews with the court clerks and the attorneys that argued the case. On Larry King Live they have Angel Raich and her husband on for the call in.

All great entertainment. All which will draw good ratings, especially if they pumped it like they pumped the Jackson trial.

Is it too much to ask that they give real news, that has a serious impact on the lives of all inhabitants of the US, the same treatment they give to a celebrity trial?

Crud. I should've walked away from the computer after completing my last post, thus ensuring my happy mood would last longer ... but no, I had to look at the news. And what do I see? The robed nazgul have ruled that the fedgov war on drugs trumps states' laws on medical marijuana. First three paragraphs of San Francisco Chronicle story:

The federal government may prosecute people who use marijuana for medical reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today - even if they live in states where use of the drug is protected by law.

The decision delivered a blow to medical marijuana advocates, who had hoped for a precedent-setting ruling in their favor.

The 6-3 ruling overturned a decision by a San Francisco federal appeals court that Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville - physically ill women use pot to ease their pain - should be immune to federal prosecution.

How can anyone opposing the war on drugs seriously hope for a "ruling in their favor"? I think that surprises me more than anything else I've seen on this news thus far ...

I came across a very interesting commentary in today's Kansas City Star, which was originally published in the Dallas Morning News. It is Controversial rulings shine spotlight on judiciary, and it primarily addresses the activities of judges across the country. (I guess the sideswipes at the jury box will come later.) Here's the first paragraph, to give you some context:

A spate of controversial rulings has propelled the judiciary to the heart of America's political and cultural wars, unleashing a debate that has the potential to alter the balance of power among the branches of government.

The piece proceeds to discuss the matter in terms of typical liberal/conservative lines, but then becomes more interesting:

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn, himself a former judge, was chastised for questioning whether recent courthouse violence could be linked to frustration over judges "making political decisions."

Amid the tussle, the danger is that Americans will perceive justice as based on politics not law, [Indiana University law professor] Geyh said.

"We've always seen judges be attacked ... but now the assumption is the law is about politics and not much else," he said. "If the law is really not germane any more, than the logic of having an independent judiciary goes out the window."

As many freedom-loving writers have pointed out, much of the lawmaking that's gone on in the past several decades is largely unnecessary (I touch on this in the essay Law and Liberty). After all, the major liberty-stealing activities -- those that initiate force or fraud -- have been against the law for a very long time. I think a very good case can be made that virtually all of today's legislating is political, and is driven to some degree by lobbyists. Think about it: how much clout does Microsoft have in D.C.? What about the RIAA? The AARP? PETA? Scratch any recently-passed law, or pending legislation, and you'll find at least one congressvermin who's getting paid by some special-interest group to push it.

I think much of mainstream America sees and understands this, at least in part. But the commentary highlights another "dangerous disconnect" that's found to some degree even in pro-freedom individuals:

The current rancor apparently hasn't diminished the public's trust in the judiciary. A recent Harris Poll found 80 percent have confidence in the courts and justice system.

My guess is that's because many individuals don't have direct experience with the system; and also because, being products of the government educa brainwashing system, they fail to recognize how many court decisions, from local to the robed nazgul, violate the U.S. Constitution -- the supreme law of the land.

So what is justice based on in this country? When laws are passed that are in direct contradiction to the so-called "highest law" we have, and judges rule -- or pressure juries to return verdicts -- against it, no one can reasonably claim that law is driving it. From where I slither, it looks like pure protectionism to me -- and that isn't protection for "we, the people" but rather those who think they're our rulers.