C-10 Omnibus Crime Bill Illustrated

A whiteboard re-cap of Bill C-10, the Harper Government® omnibus anti-crime legislation that is currently being reviewed by the Senate…

The video urges viewers to contact the Senate to voice objections to the bill in its current form. Should you be interested in doing so, a while back the Canadian Bar Association helpfully identified ten key reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 would be a mistake.

Update: “More than two dozen current and former law enforcement officials in the United States – including police officers, prosecutors and judges – are warning the Canadian government against mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offences.” Read more here.

Vic Toews Should Retire… Now

Harper’s embattled Public Safety Minister claims that he “didn’t exactly say” that people could either side with the Conservatives or with child pornographers regarding those who oppose Bill C-30, his laughably named “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.” Only thing is… that’s exactly what he DID say – on the official record yet!

Toews should resign; it’s as simple as that. Better yet, he should just cash in his abundant stack of pension chips and retire altogether. This cynical, prevaricating old fool no longer has any credibility whatsoever. Too bad Stockwell Day isn’t around any more – by comparison, he was vastly more competent in this particular role.

Mitt The Ripper

The unaffiliated (definitely not co-ordinating with Stephen Colbert) SuperPAC “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” has just released the following advertisement, which logically proposes that if “corporations are people” then Mitt Romney should be regarded as a serial killer…

The way Colbert has methodically gone about illustrating on his show over the past several months the absurd ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has been absolutely brilliant. Now linking that effort to also ridicule the insane legal fiction of corporate personhood takes things to a whole new level.

Criminal Injustice

Conrad Black speaking earlier this month to Allan Gregg, just days before the putative Lord of Crossharbour headed back to a Florida prison to serve the remainder of his sentence for mail fraud and obstruction of justice.

In the interview, Black shares what his daily life in prison was like, what he’ll do and where he’ll live when he gets out, and shares his opinions on what he sees as a profoundly corrupt U.S. justice system.

Of his remaining sentence, Black says he is unenthused, but unintimidated: “It’s an outrage, but in one sense… the greater the palpable and demonstrable injustice with which I am treated, the easier it is to make my case and possibly be of some use in alleviating the problems of others who otherwise would be as vulnerable to this or more than I have been.”

Mubarak Obama!

Look for that catchy epithet to rapidly spread like a noxious weed throughout Wingnuttia.

On a more substantive note, the assertion being made by Fox News contributor Monica Crowley is, quite simply, utter balderdash.

Government officials routinely elect not to enforce all manner of nonsensical and/or patently unconstitutional laws that happen to be on the books, but have yet to be formally struck down by the courts. It’s hardly something that rises to the level of being an impeachable offense. Which, given Crowley’s experience as a former Nixon acolyte, is something one might think she’d be quite familiar with…

Update: I had to replace the video from “The Daily Caller” (an ostensibly right-wing version of HuffPo fronted by former Moony Times staffers) because, for some inexplicable reason, they had withdrawn it. So, that’s the reason Larry’s take on the story is here instead.

Reconsidering Citizens United v. FEC

Allen Asch (aka “LiberalViewer”) presents a very cogent counter-argument to the widely held perception that the recent SCOTUS decision fundamentally corrupts democracy.

I’m still not entirely convinced that the SCOTUS decision isn’t a perniciously harmful one — only time will tell on that score, I guess. But what’s more troubling are the questions that it failed to address when it comes to the distinctions between political free speech the influence of money on the democratic process.

Update: Murray Hill Inc. — The Best Democracy Money Can Buy!

Unequal Protection Under the Law

Thom Hartman and Ralph Nader discuss the mysterious legal concept of “corporate personhood” and its profoundly anti-democratic implications in the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

By the way, where’s the fulminating outrage from the right-wing about the “activism” of the Supreme Court judges in this instance that overturned more than a century of legal precedent and flouted their own purported doctrine of constitutional “originalism” in order to advance what can only be described as a corporatist ideological agenda?

Scalia on Globalization & the Law

Fora TV has picked out one of the most provocative extracts from Justice Antonin Scalia’s lecture to the American Academy in Berlin, here concerning the role of the judiciary vis-à-vis natural law, which is a highly contentious point, but just one of many raised in the somewhat lengthy talk.

Should you have the time, it’s worth listening to the whole thing, if for nothing else than the Q&A at the end which is predictably entertaining (which is where this clip came from). Whatever one thinks of Scalia’s legal opinions, he’s most certainly not dull or unfunny.

Franken Grills Sotomayor…

About the RARE triumphs of Hamilton Burger, Esq.

Hmmm… Good one! A trick question perhaps? After all, it could have been “The Case of the Deadly Verdict”… But then again, the correct answer may well be “The Case of the Terrified Typist” or even possibly “The Case of the Witless Witness”… Great mystery abounds!

Thanks Al, for raising these more comical legal issues for us to ponder at length.