Krauthammer on POTUS v. SCOTUS

As always, an interesting read from Charles Krauthammer. Read the original here.

Obama v. SCOTUS

The Washington Post
By Charles Krauthammer

Published: April 5

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

— Barack Obama, on the constitutional challenge to his health-care law, April 2

“Unprecedented”? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. “Strong majority”? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes.

In his next-day walk back, the president implied that he was merely talking about the normal “restraint and deference” the courts owe the legislative branch. This concern would be touching if it weren’t coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation — Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states — that fealty to it is the party’s litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.

With Obamacare remaking one-sixth of the economy, it would be unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation so broad and sweeping. On the other hand, it is far more unusual to pass such a fundamentally transformative law on such a narrow, partisan basis.

Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party — in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, moreover, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.

The president’s preemptive attack on the court was in direct reaction to Obamacare’s three days of oral argument. It was a shock. After years of contemptuously dismissing the very idea of a legal challenge, Democrats suddenly realized there actually is a serious constitutional argument to be made against Obamacare — and they are losing it.

Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?

Liberals were quick to blame the administration’s bumbling solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, for blowing the answer. But Clarence Darrow couldn’t have given it. There is none.

Justice Stephen Breyer tried to rescue the hapless Verrilli by suggesting that by virtue of being born, one enters into the “market for health care.” To which plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Carvin devastatingly replied: If birth means entering the market, Congress is omnipotent, authorized by the commerce clause to regulate “every human activity from cradle to grave.”

Q.E.D.

Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”

Really? The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.

Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn’t even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they’ve grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare’s constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.

As was Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

POTUS vs. Judiciary Rhetoric escalates

This is interesting. Never have I seen the executive branch pick a fight with the judicial. No wonder Congress is ducking their heads and laying low. Any bets how this will turn out? Read the original here.

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case
April 3, 2012 3:42 PM
ByJan Crawford

Updated 6:55 p.m. ET
(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.



The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.

UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but thepresident today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."

Home Associations are out of control...

I don't know about other people, but I despise most homeowner and condo associations. I (and my bank) own my place, and having a group of peers that attempt to wield what little power they have like a 18th century monarch because they couldn't get elected to the city council just annoys me...on many levels. Because of things like this. This is just bullying, plain and simple. Read the original here.

NH Woman Sued For Planting Flowers In Her Front Yard
By Jim Armstrong, WBZ-TV
March 19, 2012 10:55 PM

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (CBS) – Kimberly Bois’ tiny front yard garden isn’t much to look at right now. But in a few weeks, it’ll be in full bloom, and every blossom will cost her dearly.

Even though she says her builder gave her permission to do a little planting, the current condo board now says she’s in violation.

They’re charging the Portsmouth, New Hampshire homeowner $50 a day for being so petal pushy. That fine has reached close to $6,000, plus the board’s legal fees.

“It’s just not a happy place to live anymore for me,” says Bois, who planted the small flower bed with the help of her mother, who has since passed away.

She says, “It just feels like we’ve been bullied and really all we wanted to do was have a conversation to figure out how this can benefit all of us.”

A new certified letter arrives every month, ordering Bois to uproot her garden and keeping track of her fines.

It got so bad, she contacted a Realtor friend of hers to talk about just selling the place that she has owned since 2008.

That’s when she got the real shock: the board put a lien on her townhouse for their fines.

Bois says the whole situation has, “gotten out of control.”

She even offered to pull up the flowers and pay part of the board’s legal fees a couple of weeks ago – an offer she says was refused.

The association’s bylaws don’t expressly forbid planting flowers on your property, Bois explains, nor do they explicitly allow it.

Board members have told Bois they just want all the units to look the same.

“Now we’ve gone down a rabbit hole that I just can’t seem to get out of and it’s very sad, and it’s upsetting,” she says.

WBZ reached out to the attorney who represents the condo association, but he did not respond our request for comment.

Couple wins Wrongful Birth Lawsuit

What is a wrongful birth?  Is this malpractice, or overly litigious parents.  Read the original here....

Jury Awards West Palm Beach Parents Of Child Born With No Arms, One Leg $4.5 Million
By Jane Musgrave
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 1:06 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011
Posted: 12:28 p.m. Friday, Sept. 9, 2011

WEST PALM BEACH — After nearly nine hours of deliberation over two days, a Palm Beach County jury today awarded a West Palm Beach couple $4.5 million to care for their son who was born with no arms and one leg.

With the heartbreaking image of the small boy etched into their minds, jurors found Palm Beach Gardens obstetrician Dr. Marie Morel, OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches responsible for not detecting the boy's horrific disabilities before he was born. The amount they awarded is half of the $9 million Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana were seeking for their son, Bryan.

The teary-eyed couple said they were overjoyed by the verdict. "I have no words," Mejia said in her native Spanish. Both agreed the award will make a huge difference in their son's life.

The jury of four men and two women found Morel 85 percent and an ultrasound technician 15 percent negligent for failing to properly read sonograms that would have alerted the couple of their son's disabilities before he was born in October 2008.

Attorney Mark Rosen, who represents Morel and the clinics, said they would appeal.

During a roughly two-week-long trial that ended Wednesday, Mejia and Santana claimed they would have never have brought Bryan into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.

Instead, they went to the hospital in October 2008, believing they would have a healthy son.

"They went from the heights of joyous expectations to the depths of despair," their attorney Robert Bergin told the jury during closing arguments Wednesday.

While the jury is being asked to award the couple money for their pain, he said they don't want any money for their suffering.

"Ana and Rodolfo Santana know their mental anguish and their emotions are not important," Bergin said. "The only thing that will help make up for their mental anguish is to know Bryan's life plan is fully funded."

The plan, that would cost $9 million, will cover prostheses, wheelchairs, operations, attendants and other needs he will have during his estimated 70-year life, Bergin said. "It will give piece of mind to these people that no matter what happens to them, their son will be all right," said Jason Weisser, who also represents the couple.

Without discounting Bryan's enormous needs, attorneys representing Morel and the ultrasound clinics insisted their clients weren't negligent.

"There is nothing Dr. Morel wants more than for Bryan Santana to have a happy, healthy life," said attorney Mark Rosen. "That doesn't mean they're responsible. Is it fair to blame physicians for acts of nature?"

He argued that the couple rejected amniocentesis, which might have revealed the abnormalities. The couple rejected it because they were told that there was a 1 in 500 chance that removing amniotic fluid for testing would cause a miscarriage.

Mejia testified that a genetic counselor she saw after an ultrasound detected a possibility Bryan would be born with Down's Syndrome told her there was a 99.9 percent chance he wouldn't have the form of mental retardation. Rather than needlessly risk losing the child, she and her husband decided not to have amniocentesis.

In doing so, Rosen said, the couple decided that they would rather give birth to a child that might have a physical or mental disability rather than risk losing it. That, he said, is contrary to their claims that they would have aborted their unborn son.

"No one is happy about what happened to Bryan Santana but Ana Mejia made the decision in 2008," he said.

Weisser countered that the couple was told the risk of Down's Syndrome was slight. While other abnormalities might have been detected by amniocentesis, the prospect of having a child who was missing three limbs was never discussed with the couple.

"There's not one shred of evidence that they were ever told there was an issue with one of his limbs, let along three," he said.

In fact, according to the second ultrasound, all four limbs were intact. "That, ladies and gentleman is impossible," Weisser said. "It didn't happen."

Hippies do their hippie thing

Read the original here.

Nobel Laureates In Stockholm Climate 'Trial'

Published: 17 May 11 13:52 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation[1]
Updated: 17 May 11 16:18 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/33826/20110517/

Around 20 Nobel[2] prize winners will preside over a mock courtroom in Stockholm on Tuesday, with the Planet Earth and humanity on opposing sides of the case, as part of a symposium to highlight global sustainability.


"It's a civil court case to see whether we've breached our relations" with the planet, "and to see how to restore that relationship," symposium chair Johan Rockström told reporters at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

The "trial" will be one of the sessions at the third biennial Nobel laureate symposium on global sustainability -- a three-day event that opened in the Swedish capital Tuesday.

In addition to the Nobel laureates, leading scientists and environmental research group heads were on site to draft a Stockholm Memorandum on the findings of the meeting, which will be presented Wednesday to the United High-level Panel on Global Sustainability.

Rockström explained that one of the sessions had been shaped as a trial since "we've come to the point where just another meeting with another dialogue would fail to have an impact (and to clearly) communicate ... the possibilities and challenges we are facing."

"History will in any case judge us," Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren told reporters, explaining the "trial" was actually about humanity judging itself with future generations in mind.

Mario Molina of Mexico, the winner of the 1995 Nobel Chemistry Prize who is a science and technology advisor to US President Barack Obama[3], told the news
conference he hoped rationality, common sense and wisdom would strengthen the
planet's case in the "symbolic" trial.

At the conference's inaugural speech, Sweden's Crown Princess Victoria stressed the urgency of acting to make the world a better place.

"Mankind faces tremendous challenges if we are to hand our future generations a healthier mother earth, ... a planet more sustainable than it was when we received it from our parents," the princess said in a speech inaugurating the symposium.

"I see no better persons than Nobel laureates to carry this message to the world," she told the delegates.

The princess and delegates were welcomed at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences by a tiny group of protesters.

"Manmade climate change is an unproven, unscientific political ideal... If we implement what these people are saying, billions of people are going to die of poverty," said protestor Hussein Askary

The Stockholm Memorandum will be considered by the UN panel, which was appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon[4] and includes South Africa's
President Jacob Zuma and his Finnish counterpart Tarja Halonen and has been
tasked with putting together a "new vision" on sustainable growth.

The panel will draw up a report with suggestions before the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in 2012.

References
^ translation (www.thelocal.se)
^ Nobel (www.thelocal.se)
^ Barack Obama (www.thelocal.se)
^ Ban Ki-moon (www.thelocal.se)

You must prove you need a concealed carry permit?

Read the original here.

Federal Judge Rules Against Calif. Gun Advocates

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public — a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a concealed weapon in his county northwest of Sacramento.

Prieto was sued by opponents claiming sheriffs, who issue most concealed weapons permits, must give the documents to any applicant as long as they are not mentally ill, do not have a criminal background and complete a training course.

England signed the ruling Friday and it was filed in court on Monday.

Gun rights groups have filed similar lawsuits in Maryland, Massachusetts and New York, but Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va., an attorney for the gun groups, said none of the cases have been resolved.

Gura filed a notice Monday saying the groups will appeal Judge England's decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Gura had argued that Prieto's policy gives the sheriff arbitrary discretion over a fundamental constitutional right to bear arms.

England countered that California law currently lets gun owners carry an unloaded weapon so it can be quickly loaded and used in self-defense if needed.

As a result, "Yolo County's policy does not substantially burden plaintiffs' right to bear and keep arms," England wrote in his 16-page decision.

Meanwhile, the California state Assembly approved a bill Monday by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, which would ban openly carrying unloaded handguns in public.

Portantino introduced the measure after some gun rights activists carried unloaded weapons in public as a political statement. The bill, AB144, now moves to the state Senate.

Gura said the gun groups disagree with England's open carry reasoning.

"Obviously it doesn't do anyone any good to walk around with an unloaded gun, especially in public, because that's just an advertisement for a criminal to take it off your person," Gura said. "They're not going to have time to start loading their handgun. Criminal events usually play out more quickly than that."

The pending legislation is unlikely to affect the appeal because the gun rights groups did not base their lawsuit on California's open carry law, said Prieto's attorney Serena Mercedes Sanders.

The Yolo County appeal is pne of two concealed carry lawsuit currently pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, she said.

A federal judge in the Southern District of California in December ruled against gun-rights organizations in a San Diego County case. That lawsuit was brought by a different attorney who used different legal arguments.

"No case has held that there is a right to carry a concealed weapon," Sanders said.

England also ruled against gun advocates' argument that Prieto's policy of requiring that applicants be of "good moral character" gives the government "unbridled discretion" over who can get a permit.

Prieto's seven-page policy limits permits to those who can demonstrate they have been victims of a violent crime, have had threats of violence, or business owners who carry large amounts of cash.

The Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation and three individuals sued in 2009, alleging Prieto's policy also violates First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantees.

The judge disagreed.

"Regulating concealed firearms is an essential part of Yolo County's efforts to maintain public safety and prevent both gun-related crime and, most importantly, the death of its citizens. Yolo County's policy is more than rationally related to these legitimate government goals," England wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/federal-judge-rules-calif-gun-advocates/#ixzz1McObyi9r

Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

I know it's in the UK, but still. Read the original here.

Cops To Quiz Kung Fu Fighting Singer

Simon Ledger was arrested in a Chinese restaurant after a complaint was made to police.

The singer is set to be interviewed by cops at 8pm tonight after his bail comes to an end.

Simon, 34, often performs the song in Sandown, Isle of Wight. He said: "I hadn't even seen these two."

Now he fears he could get a criminal record.

Cops sprang into action and arrested Simon despite the fact that he regularly features the 1974 No1 in his act at a seaside pub.

Simon, who has performed on TV with Michael Barrymore, was doing a spot with a pal at the town's Driftwood Beach Bar on Sunday afternoon.

All went well until he began the Carl Douglas disco classic, with its famous Chinese-sounding riff.

Simon said: "We were performing Kung Fu Fighting, as we do during all our sets. People of all races were loving it. Chinese people have never been offended by it before.

"But this lad walking past with his mum called us w*****s and did the hand sign before taking a picture on his mobile phone.

"We hadn't even seen them when we started the song. He must have phoned the police.

"They phoned me when I was in a Chinese restaurant that night. They arranged to meet me and I was arrested.

"I thought it was a joke but they were serious. They seemed pretty amazed but said the law is the law and it was their duty. It's political correctness gone potty."

Simon added: "There are plenty of Welsh people at our shows - does it mean I can't play any Tom Jones?"

Bar owner Sean Ware said: "The song is in no way racist and nor is Simon. There is no way he would abuse anyone.


"He didn't start the song just because Chinese people were walking past. He had already started playing it."

Simon, who is on bail until today, wrote on Facebook: "If the lad who phoned the police is reading this, WHAT IS WONG WITH YOU? Sorry, what is wrong with you?"

A police spokesman said a 32-year-old man of Chinese origin had claimed he was subjected to racial abuse.

He added: "Police are investigating an allegation of racially-aggravated harassment. A man from Shanklin was arrested on suspicion."

j.pyatt@the-sun.co.uk[1]

References
^ j.pyatt@the-sun.co.uk (www.thesun.co.uk)

What's the opposite of Ex Post Facto....

I think this Preacher is an idiot, but what the hell is a "Peace Bond"? Read the original here.

Terry Jones Says He'll Sue Over His Arrest | Detnews.Com

Last Updated: April 25. 2011 1:00AM
Oralandar Brand-Williams and Mark Hicks / The Detroit News

The controversy over Florida pastor Terry Jones is unlikely to end anytime soon.

He said he plans to file a lawsuit against the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office and other government offices in connection with his arrest Friday following a jury trial that found he was likely to create a "breach of the peace" for plans to protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

And he still vows to conduct his protest, but it will be Friday outside Dearborn City Hall.

"We invite every American who still believes in the freedom and rights that our Constitution guarantees to come and stand with us," Jones said Sunday.

The controversial Quran-burning pastor said he is working with the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center because "we were arrested for something we had not done."

Jones' case is unique, said Richard Thompson, the center's president and chief counsel. "There are legal experts and commentators from all sides of the political spectrum who agree that what happened to Pastor Jones was a violation of the First Amendment."

Constitutional law expert Robert Sedler said he is glad Jones is challenging the "bizarre" ruling by 19th District Judge Mark Somers requiring Jones to post a "peace bond," jailing him for refusing and ordering him to stay away from the mosque for three years — all before Jones held the demonstration.

"The Supreme Court says you cannot deny a permit because of the message," said Sedler, a Wayne State University Law School professor. "The U.S. Constitution supersedes everything, which is why this is so bizarre."

At the trial, prosecutors cited an imam's remark that some see burning a Quran as worth 1,000 lives to explain why violence might erupt.

Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini, whom prosecutors were quoting about the Quran burning, said while safety concerns were legitimate, he was referring to reaction abroad. "I had no concerns at all that our community would react violently," he said.

A Quran-burning by Jones in March was blamed for violence in Afghanistan that led to several deaths.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110425/METRO01/104250347/Terry-Jones-says-he’ll-sue-over-his-arrest#ixzz1KYQjDxxX

What happened to fighting global warming?

This is why I hate the 'environmental' lobby: so-called environmental groups in Texas are desperately trying to derail the construction of wind farms. Too many environmentalists are just using environmental issues to try to push an anti-corporate, anti-capitalist agenda.

Coalition sues Land Office over wind farms
Groups, including King Ranch, want to require extensive environmental review of wind projects
The Austin American-Statesman

The famed King Ranch and a coalition of environmental groups sued Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in federal court Tuesday, seeking to require extensive environmental review and public comment on two planned wind power projects along the Gulf Coast in Kenedy County.

The coalition, the Coastal Habitat Alliance, also sued over the wind project in state District Court in Travis County. That suit claims that the state's Public Utility Commission illegally denied the alliance's request to participate in permit hearings for the wind project's transmission time.

The lawsuits threaten to delay or stop the two massive wind projects, which could place more than 600 turbines on 60,000 acres near Laguna Madre, south of Corpus Christi. Part of the wind projects would place about 250 turbines just east of a portion of the sprawling King Ranch.

The federal suit, filed in U.S. Western District Court in Austin, said the turbines could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay. It seeks to overturn the decision by the Texas General Land Office, which Patterson heads, to allow the projects to be built without environmental review or input fro the public. The suit contends that the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Texas Coastal Management Program require a permit process for an energy generation facility on the coast, including wind farms.

Might have a case...

I'm not normally one to advocate litigation in these sorts of cases and my first instinct is to defiantly ignore the suit as frivolous, but a man who is suing 1-800-Flowers for violating their privacy policy may have a case. While going through a divorce, Leroy Greer sent flowers to the "other woman." 1-800-Flowers sent a thank-you note to their house and when his wife saw it, she called the company, which sent her a copy of the receipt from his purchase to his mistress.

Apparently, the company's privacy policy states that customers can ask the company not to share personal information with third parties and he requested this treatment. Based on this, it looks to be a pretty clear case of breach of contract, which ended up costing him significantly in his divorce.

Married Man Sues Florist for Revealing Affair
ABC News

A married man is suing 1-800-Flowers for $1 million for revealing that he was cheating on his wife.

Leroy Greer said in a lawsuit filed this week in a federal court in Texas that he bought flowers for his girlfriend through 1-800-Flowers. He asked to keep his purchase private.

Greer said he was referred to the company's privacy policy, which states that customers can ask 1-800-Flowers not to share personal information with "third parties."

But, the lawsuit says, 1-800-Flowers sent a thank-you note to his house and his wife saw it. When she called the company, 1-800-Flowers faxed her a copy of the receipt from Greer's secret purchase.