No not Garth from Wayne's World, but rather former MP Garth Turner. His new book, Sheeple, is a tell-all about his two years in the House (after an absence of 13 years) and his run-ins with the PM and his staff. I look forward to reading this book, because it has been a while since a juicy tell-all has been published, and I love to read gossip.
Based on what little I have read about the book so far, I am not sure Garth Turner is completely innocent either. Suggesting that we Albertans are a bunch of "hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish" losers doesn't exactly make him an endearing character. The atmosphere of silence in the Harper administration, on the other hand, doesn't sit well with us out West, where we have a very open and democratic provincial government.
Did kids in Justice Breyer's school stick stuff in his underwear when he was a kid, or did he do the sticking? This hilarious line came out in a rather unfunny case before the US Supreme Court, Safford Unified School District v. April Redding on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, in which the issue of what the reasonable limits are for school searches was under discussion.
In this case, a 13 year old girl was strip-searched, because someone alleged she had some pills on her. No pills were ever found. The US Supreme Court has taken a dim view of school-children's rights against unlawful searches and seizures, and, in this, even the usually liberal Breyer joins in as he did in the Bong Hits case.
A northern California county has decided, that since it is laying off 18 prosecutors due to the recessionary pressures on the budget, not to prosecute certain misdemeanors such "non-DUI traffic offenses such as driving with a suspended license and reckless driving, simple assault and battery, lewd conduct, trespassing and shoplifting."
The Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick, otherwise known as the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, highlights the non-realization of Chief Justice Roberts's goal of greater cohesion and unanimity among the nine Justices. Bong Hits is an example of the Chief Justice appearing increasingly among the majority, Justice Stevens speaking vigorously for the minority, and Justice Thomas's iconoclastic approach to constitutional issues. Importantly, the case also reveals a trend of alliance between Justices Kennedy and Alito and their shared Hamiltonian skepticism of local power, as well as Chief Justice Roberts' unsuccessful attempts to limit constitutional questions to narrow grounds of decision. This Essay explores the divided factions of the Court through the lens of Bong Hits and offers further insight into the Justices' constitutional jurisprudence.
With respect to the Chatterjee discussion regarding asset forfeiture, it seems that Grant and Marnie summed up my viewpoints on the subject in the comments.
As to the point that somehow the state is no different than any other plaintiff in a hearing seeking to dispute the ownsership of property, I guess this boils down to your perspective on the state, the power it wields, and those who are in charge of wielding it. Stories like this one do not give any confidence in the state nor its agents. Here is a man who was wronged by revenue canada and lost his business, yet the state stands unapologetic and refuses to make things right.
The experiences in the United States with asset forfeiture do not bode well for us in Canada.
By now, some are up in arms over President Obama's refusal to prosecute those who authored or implemented the torture memos. The UN dude on Torture claimed that the decision not to prosecute was illegal [must resist all sorts of comments about the UN and its self-righteous types]. Meanwhile the defenders of the memos claim that the they were effective and were done for the general good.
I was reminded, however, of our own equivalent episode of government heavy-handedness (reading Michael Cust's post) of PE Trudeau's famous interview, in which a very fiesty reporter asked the hard questions:
So the question for those who think Obama should prosecute the Bush team, should we be prosecuting those behind the invocation of the War Measures Act, including PET himself (if he were alive).
While we are on the subject of PET, here is the famous "fuddle duddle" incident, or at least the reporting behind it:
It seems that responding to a crisis 48 hours later is now too late. How times have changed! The story discusses the case of when some employees at a Domino's recorded themselves
It started when the two employees posted YouTube videos of themselves engaging in a number of public health law violations: putting cheese in the nose, blowing mucous on a sandwich and putting a sponge, used to wash dishes, between the buttocks. The videos went viral online, viewed by millions of people. They were identified by YouTube viewers, who alerted Domino’s officials. The pranksters were promptly arrested.
It seems now that "[y]our response time is only 24 hours."
This means that managers and lawyers will need to learn the skillsets of quick thinking and adaptation.
I know being a school teacher can be stressful, but you would have to be quite stressed to say you want to kill someone. What exactly the teacher said is the subject of dispute but also the basis of a lawsuit filed by the tecaher against the school for calling the police and sending her for psychiatric help. Ultimately theSupreme Court of New Jersey ruled against the teacher.
Recent Comments