The Birthers...Are Back!

The Birthers are those individuals who believe that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States of America because he is not a natural born citizen. Unfortunately for the Birthers, their most recent trip to the Supreme Court of the United States found that there claims were unfounded and were not sustainable, and SCOTUS dismissed the case. You can read about these latest developments at the Birthers website.

Here are some other interpretations of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be President of the United States (POTUS).

Change you better believe in!

Squatter-in-Chief

Usurper.

Welcome to Kenya...Birthplace of Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama the little Indonesian boy.

Barry Soetoro: The Indonesian Citizen.

A Typical Indonesian Family?

It seems that the Birthers are not sure where exactly the President was born or what citizenship he was born with. However, what is clear, they are certain that it was not the United States of America. It could have been Kenya, it could be the United Kingdom, and it may well be Indonesia. In any event, the confusion places the burden of proving his eligibility to become president fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Barack Hussein Obama II.

I am wondering how it was possible to pull off such a large-scale fraud of the people of the USA. Surely, Obama would have been vetted to the "nth" degree prior to him nominating for the presidency, and being nominated by the Democratic Party, right? Are the birthers for real? And do they have legitimate concerns.

Someone wake me up when it is December. Hopefully, there will be an answer to these most pressing questions and concerns.

Ho hum...

Anonymous Blogger -- Outed By the Courts & Google...

This is a follow-up to an earlier post on anonymous blogging and whether one can be truly anonymous when they blog, particularly if they are writing content that offends someone and they decide to take legal action. You can read that post here.

The anonymous blogger is Rosemary Port, a 29-year-old fashion student from New York, and she is so unhappy about Google giving up her identity and breaching her right to privacy that she is allegedly going to sue Google for USD 15 million.

Port's lawyer, Salvatore Strazzullo, seems to think that the case has enough legs to get all the way to the US Supreme Court. The arguments that Strazzullo are going to run with revolve around the fact that Google has "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her [Port] expectation of anonymity".

However, the other likely angles include that Cohen had a hand in publishing the sexually provocative pictures of herself and that the defamation action was nothing more than an attempt drum up some publicity for herself and defame Port into the bargain. Furthermore, Cohen has described herself as a "serial monogamist". Interesting choice of words to accompany the pictures posted of her.

This case would seem to have some ways to go.

A long story short, Port created a blog called "Skanks in NYC" and it seems that the only 'skank' Port focused on was Liskula Cohen. Cohen was offended and felt she had been defamed but was unable to proceed with any claim against the person doing the defaming because the blog was anonymous. Jumping forward, Cohen sues Google to get the identity of the anonymous blogger, the court decides that Google must hand over the identity, Google hands over the identity, and Port is outed.

Strangely enough, Cohen has 'forgiven' Port and pretty much brushed the matter off as Port being "an irrelevant person in my life". It would seem she knew Port, but obviously they were far from being friends. Although, they seem to have known each other well-enough that Cohen was comfortable allegedly trashing Port to Port's ex-boyfriend. Ahhhhh, the lives of models and fashion students.

It will be interesting to see if all the talk of taking this case all the way to the US Supreme Court comes to fruition.

Too Fat To Be Executed?

This is not necessarily a story I have been following closely, but it is a story that has some interesting legal implications. I have written about this particular case here.

Richard Cooey is a convicted rapist and murderer. These are charges that he has not denied. He was convicted of raping and murdering two young women in 1986. However, as he was waiting on death row in Ohio he also gained a considerable amount of weight. I guess sitting around 23 hours a day doing nothing much in one's cell could lead to a weight problem. Perhaps prisons need to work out how to give death row inmates more time for physical exercise. He weighed in at an impressive 125kgs.

Cooey had claimed that his obesity would mean that a lethal injection was tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and as such prohibited by the provisions of the US Constitution. The other claim that Cooey's lawyers were arguing was that Cooey was taking a medication that would adversely impact on the effectiveness of the lethal injection drugs and cause him to suffer unnecessarily.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was denied by Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens is one of the more liberal justices of the current Supreme Court.

Simply, executing overweight or obese people is no less constitutional than executing death row inmates living within the "healthy" range, at least, as it relates to weight.

The Retirement Age for Justices Set to Rise

The Working Committee of Commission III established to discuss and debate the Bill on the Supreme Court has agreed that the retirement age of justices of the Supreme Court should be raised to 70 years of age. However, it seems that the bill is not going to negotiate the halls of power in time for the current Chief Justice, Bagir Manan, to enjoy the benefits of the amendments.

The mandatory retirement ages for judges and justices (judges preside in lower courts and justices generally preside at the Supreme Court) has been steadily rising but is dependent on judges and justices satisfying required medical and health standards. Within this context there has been some debate as to whether judges should be appointed for life in the same way that justices are appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The idea of life appointments was to free judges and justices from political interference as they would no longer be worried about future appointments when their respective terms expired.

The setting of a mandatory retirement age would be the middle ground between renewable term appointments and appointments for life. In Indonesia, for example, appointments to the Constitutional Court are for a term of five years. At the conclusion of this term a justice can reapply for reappointment for an additional five year term.

The most recent increase in the mandatory retirement age has allowed Manan to serve as Chief Justice through until his 67th birthday which falls on 6 October 2008. Manan has not been seen to be active in the debate and discussion on the latest push to raise the mandatory retirement age and dismissed persistent questions on the matter from journalists with, “that’s the business of government”. When pushed he simply said that the Supreme Court has no legislative function as a judicial body and that the bill is part of “the authority of the President and House of Representatives (DPR)”.

However, Manan did add that in a philosophical way the push to raise mandatory retirement age makes sense as the longer a judge or justice serves in that capacity the more capable they would become in the performance of their jobs and duties. In response to persistent whispers that Manan might benefit from the amendments to the retirement age he invited journalists to his office and happily pointed out all of the empty bookshelves adding that his personal library had been moved to Bandung.

The bill is expected to be finished after Eid or perhaps in the next parliamentary sitting according to M. Nasir Jamil who has been involved in the discussion and debate of the bill and represents the Prosperous Justice Party. Jamil went further to say that none of the discussion related to any particular individuals and that the bill, once passed, will not operate retrospectively. According to Jamil the only way for Manan to extend his term is for Manan to do it for himself. However, Manan has ruled this out unequivocally by informing all of the journalists present in his office that he has already submitted his resignation to the President and all that remains to make his retirement official is the completion of the necessary administrative procedures.

There are critics of the proposal to raise the mandatory retirement age of justices to 70 years of age. One of these criticisms is that there will be no ‘regeneration’ in the Supreme Court’s judicial ranks. This is unlikely to gain much of a foothold as there is clearly a belief and an understanding that the justices that are to sit on the highest court in the land are to be the best of the best and as such when a vacancy becomes available then the next and most highly qualified candidate will be vetted and subsequently appointed to fill the vacancy.
The current retirement age for Supreme Court justices is 67 years of age. Current justices on the Supreme Court that are going to reach the mandatory age of retirement over the next several months include the following:

1. Prof. Dr. H. Bagir Manan SH, MCL / 6 Oct. 1941 / Chief Justice
2. Marianna Sutiadi SH / 12 Oct. 1941 / Deputy Chief Justice (Judicial Matters)
3. Dr. H. Parman Suparman SH, MH / 13 Oct. 1941 / Junior Chief Justice (Criminal Matters)
4. Prof. Dr. H. Kaimuddin Salle SH / 23 Oct. 1941 / Justice
5. Iskandar Kamil SH / 31 Oct. 1941 / Junior Chief Justice (Special Crimes)
6. Soedarno SH / 9 Nov. 1941 / Justice
7. German Hoediarto SH / 24 Nov. 1941 / Junior Chief Justice (Military Matters)
8. Andar Purba / 19 Dec. 1941 / Justice
(Source: Supreme Court Law and Public Relations Bureau)

Nevertheless, there are those that believe that regeneration is the key to success in terms of reform of the judiciary. A former Supreme Court Justice, Benyamin Mangkoedilaga, is one of those. However, he is also in favor of raising the current mandatory retirement age to 70. This agreement is based on the condition that any amendment to the mandatory retirement age does not become effective until 2009.

Generally, there is agreement on the need for the increase in the mandatory retirement age, and as Jamil has stated, the bill is set to be finalized and passed in the near future.

Bestiality -- Judicial Indiscretion?

The Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit is presiding of an obscenity trial that involves the importation and distribution of bestiality videos that are alleged to breach US obscenity laws. The Judge, Alex Kozinski, has reportedly posted some graphic bestiality material on his own website. When this was revealed publicly, both the defence and the prosecution filed motions to suspend the trial pending further investigation of the judge's website and posting on it.

Kozinski is a keen advocate for free speech and was in fact one of the leading voices in getting porn filters removed from staff computers at the 9th Circuit Court.

The person on trial is one Ira Isaacs who makes his living in the fetish porn industry and specializes by all accounts in films dealing with bestiality and defecation. Most certainly not everbodies cup of tea! But the legal arguments will be an interesting read. The trial will eventually proceed no matter the outcome of any investigation into the judge. Best case scenario is that the judge will be forced to recuse himself from the case.

The films that Isaacs is on trial for include the following titles: Gang Bang Horse Pony Sex Game, Mako's First Time Scat, and Hollywood Scat Amateurs No 7 for which he faces up to 20 years in jail and fines of USD 1 million if convicted on multiple counts of importing or transporting obscene material for sale or distribution.

Films that have "literary, scientific or artistic value" are not subject to the US obscenity laws. Therefore, the most likely form of defence here is going to be arguments to the effect that the films have some literary, scientific, or artistic merit. If the decision was to go Isaacs way then there would likely be an appeal to the Supreme Court because the implications of the decision would see purveyors of pornography arguing the literary, scientific, and artistic merits of porn across the board.

More to follow if and when the trial recommences.

State Sanctioned Killings in the US to Resume

The Supreme Court in a 7 - 2 vote rejected an appeal that the current form of lethal injection used to put death row inmates to death regarding its constitutionality; simply, the method is legal and constitutional.

The appeal hinged on whether the method breached an inherent right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

The decision is interesting as it includes seven separate opinions. This is indicative of a court with sharply divergent opinions and reasoning. This should also translate to more appeals regarding constitutionality. Whether the court accepts the appeals is a different story.

More to follow once I read the decisions.

(the photo of the Supreme Court is from my personal collection)