Category: Law

“Are you F**king high?!?”

As it turns out, in California the answer is probably “yes”:

California bill decriminalizing personal use of psychedelics, magic mushrooms heads to Newsom’s desk

Nah…. more homeless drug users won’t “immigrate” to California as a result of this bill, will they?

I love this quote from California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher:

“If Democrats don’t think this will make things worse, they’re hallucinating…”

Bizarrely, democrats had another take:

Democrat State Assemblyman Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, argued that veterans and first responders struggling with PTSD, depression, and addiction “deserve access to these promising plant medicines.”

WTF? Veterans and first responders – like military personnel and police officers? People with guns and PTSD? Do we really want them hallucinating on ‘shrooms?!? And should people suffering from “…PTSD, depression and addiction…” really be allowed to self-medicate without doctor supervision?

In truth, I’m all for people being able to take any reasonable drug that they want – even psychedelics. It’s their body and mind. However it should remain illegal for people to use such drugs in public, as it endangers them and others. Also, any users of such drugs should be restricted in their use and possession of firearms (particularly in California).

Any bill that permits the decriminalization of such drugs should include a stipulation that the use of these drugs in the public space is still illegal. This would keep drug use by homeless in the public space an offense that – if the cause of their homelessness – can be used by the courts to direct them into appropriate treatment.

Just say “No!”

I still think of this place we live as America. Less so today than yesterday, but hope remains. Then stories like this pop up:

Iowa governor signs law immediately banning abortions around 6 weeks of pregnancy

Ladies, you have the power to change this law. Simply point out that the risk of pregnancy is too great, given that a failed birth control product might leave you with a nine month to eighteen year responsibility for which you are unprepared. Point out, too, that many people won’t even know that they are pregnant within the tight 6-week window legislated by the new Iowa law. Then stop f**king all male politicians in Iowa.

If you have to go out-of-state to get an abortion, then by god they should have to go out-of-state to get laid.

Let’s see how quickly the law is repealed then…

Priorities?

Sooo… flavored vape cartridges are verboten for youths:

They’re illegal. So why is it so easy to buy the disposable vapes favored by teens?

But if they want to take puberty blockers and sex-change hormones – even on the public’s dime – no problem:

Puberty Suppression Now A Choice For Teens On Medicaid In Oregon

Or shoot heroin, of course:

New York City allows the nation’s 1st supervised consumption sites for illegal drugs

But that’s not the purpose…

… of HOV laws:

New bill allowing pregnant women to drive solo in the HOV lane sparks controversy

HOV/carpool laws are meant to conserve energy by encouraging people to carpool who would otherwise take separate cars. How does allowing pregnant women to use the HOV lane conserve energy? This is a common theme these days – twist a law to produce a secondary, unrelated effect in the name of “good cause” – in this case, “…helping expecting mothers get to where they need to get to in a fast, safe way…“.But what about me? Shouldn’t I be allowed to get where I want in a “…fast, safe way…”?

It’s the same way we get tax increases or extensions for “good causes” such as education (although such laws really only seem to help the teacher’s unions), child care, “green” issues, etc. But remember – these are still taxes, and every tax will eventually be paid for by the people.

There is simply no such thing as a “free” ride – even for a fetus.

“Batman, I think we’re boned…”

Ostensibly the first time in U.S. history that a Supreme Court draft opinion has been leaked. And what a doozy:

Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade, leaked draft opinion shows: report

For the record, I agree in principle with the purported draft opinion: the Constitution does not provide for a legal right to an abortion. Roe v. Wade was wrong because it allowed rights to be created from whole cloth, ignoring that any such rights derived from the 14th amendment must be “…deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” It was a poor decision from the start. Can you imagine what an activist court could do with the power to create rights out of thin air, as they saw fit, with no foundation in our Constitution, history or laws?

That does not mean, however, that I am anti-abortion. I agree that a woman should have the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy within a reasonable time for any cause, and later with reasonable cause (rape, incest, health, and severe disability for example).  And there is nothing to stop this from becoming a reality outside of the Supreme Court. Only now it will require a tough political decision by weak politicians (who should have made the decision in the first place).

The ability to pass a law legalizing abortion is squarely within the realm (and responsibility!) of Congress. The political decision of Roe v. Wade was required solely because Congress was too afraid to perform its duty. Congress skirted its responsibility, living for another day (pronounced “election”) by leaning on the Supreme Court to make the decision for them. But now the chickens have come home to roost, and Congress finally needs to do its job.

But, alas, the Democrats they won’t get party support for a bill that doesn’t irritate Republicans, and Republicans are just too stupid to know that all they have to do to sweep the House and Senate in November is to pass a bill legalizing a woman’s right to an abortion.

Really – just too f**king stupid…

Something from the “WTF?!?” bin

What – did you really think that criminals would not figure out how to game the system? Dream on!

This offender (reported as a biological male) did not identify as a female until they were in custody. As a result of their new-found identity – and DA George Gascon’s absurd policies – for molesting a 10 year old girl this offender will be sentenced to two years in a juvenile detention facility for girls. Really; you can’t make this stuff up!

California trans child molester, 26, gets 2 years in juvenile facility thanks to progressive DA Gascon

Here are the highlights:

Because Tubbs began identifying as female after she was taken into custody, and Gascon refused to try her as an adult, Tubbs was sentenced to two years in a juvenile facility.  In L.A. County, juvenile facilities can house both females and males, but in separate areas. Tubbs will be housed with the females. 

Two years is the maximum sentence for any juvenile in the new program over the age of 25, according to Deputy District Attorney Shea Sanna.

So I say again: WTF?!?

Politics of the Supreme Court

I’ve said it before (here and here), but I’ll say it again: gun control and abortion are flip sides of the same coin. Each is used to punish the opposition:abortion restrictions to punish the left, and gun control to punish the right.

But these political blackjacks are typically used by … well, politicians.  So why does it appear that Justice Sotomayer wielded a threat to the 2nd amendment during oral arguments in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health? Why was she using a political threat to gun rights while at the same time decrying the politicization of the court?

Here is the passage of concern, where she is arguing that a refusal to back Roe and Casey would signal a politicization of the court. I would urge you to read the entire transcript, or better yet listen to the audio of the arguments:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

MR. STEWART: I —

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I –I –I don’t see how it is possible. It’s what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions. Some of them, Brown versus Board of Education it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society that this is what the Court decided, this is what we will follow, that the — that we won’t be able to survive if people believe that everything, including New York versus Sullivan — I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment, by the way. There are many political people who believe the Court erred in seeing this as a personal right as — as opposed to a militia right. If people actually believe that it’s all political, how will we survive? How will the Court survive?

Justice Sotomayer is implying that the 2nd Amendment interpretation in Heller could fall victim to politics if Roe is overturned. But you know what’s sad about this exchange? We all know that if she had the votes she would overturn Heller in a heartbeat (Want proof? read her opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo). She’s a political “activist” justice, but she’s essentially claiming it’s unfair to use such tactics on topics she favors.

Can you pronounce “hypocrite”?