I spent the afternoon in a tow yard, poking around the wreckage of my client's car. I have concluded that God wants this man alive for some reason. Three other people, not so lucky.

OK, here is how crazy people are in this country. Saw this video on Daily Kos. Had to share.

Here is a woman, wearing an "Israeli Defense Forces" T-shirt of all things trying to shout down a Jewish man talking about the need for national health care.

"Heil Hitler?" Really?

It's official. We are fighting a losing battle against a nation of idiots.

Doubtslinger does Health Care.

I don't know shit about health care. All I know, is I chip-in a fuckload of money per month to sleep at night knowing I am insured. I go to the doctor, pay my $5, then $10, now $20 deductible and I don't think about it.


Now I have to think about it.



Why, because there is a national health care debate? No--



Because my employer (a county government) hates America. As health care costs are spiraling, the right-wing fuck-wad dairy farmers that run this shithole of a county want to spend LESS next year than they did this year

I know in this economy, money is tight. But listen you shit-shoveling, Moe-Haircut, dairy-boys . The ONLY reason people like me, educated, professional, dedicated public servants stay working for piece of shit counties like yours in the armpit of California is because of of the few benefit government service offers - job security and health insurance.


Now I am told I will have a choice of health care "plans."


1) "Health Security Accounts," which, as I understand it, require me to give you the same fuckload of money a month, to capitalize a health insurance account, which I must then draw upon when I go to the doctor. My "deductible" for the family is 10K. Ok, let me see if I have that lying around here... paperclips, teabag, children's Benadryl... FUCK I ain't got it! Guess I won't get sick, and I'll wrap my kids in bubble-wrap. Oh and if I do get hit by a fuckin' car, y'all are only coverin' 90%. (No! Don't call the GOD-DAMNED ambulance, I can walk!)


2) Choice # 2, pay an $300 a month MORE than what I am currently paying to maintain the coverage I currently have.


So in a year where I am getting paid $300 less per month than last year to avoid layoffs, the dirt farmers want me to come up with another $440 month to keep the same damned insurance I already have!

I have begun to pay attention to health care. I have meticulously googled "health care for dummies" and have come to one conclusion: Kent Conrad is a douchebag.





Here he is. Senator from North Dakota. A state with a population of 641,148 people. On Sunday, this fella was on Fox News, where he announced the death of the "public option."




Ok. Who the FUCK are you? A senator from a state with fewer people than any major city in the United States announcing the death of health care reform? I'm sorry, come again? We could put the number of uninsured North Dakotans in a Volkswagon Rabbit. Are you shitting me?

This fucker says we should have"cooperatives". That is, as I understand it, a bunch of folks, pooling their resources and entering the health care market. That is, as I understand it, what we are already doing. Agencies and employers already pool together to bid on HMO contracts - the idea being that increased buying power lowers the price. (Oh, here is where I tell you I got a 17 on my economics final in college. Yes, out of a hundred. Yes it was a passing grade....) So if we just had a bunch of non-profit health insurance providers, then yeah, we could force private companies to compete? So how does a non-profit cover pre-existing conditions? How does a non-profit provide 100% coverage? How does a non-profit offer affordable deductibles? It seems like you would need a hell of a lot of people to pool their resources and spread the risk.

Well, isn't that what a public option does? Only on a scale that could actually make an impact.
So, Senator Conrad, the problem with a public option is that it might work, what, TOO well?

Consider this : my current HMO made an 8% profit on our county. That was roughly $2 million. That apparently was not enough for them. This year they increased their bid %25 - essentially saying we would rather lose your business than make only 2 million dollars.

Can you imagine what would happen if these bloodsuckers were forced to compete with a public plan like Medicare (which runs on a 5% nut).

Kent Conrad can, or rather, his campaign contributors can. That is why the backlash against a public option is so ferocious.

Look, I can afford healthcare.

This year.

Next year, I've gotta make some sacrifices to cover my family.

The year after that?

Maybe I'll be a dairy farmer.

C-Dog gone wild

Dog Days

Not much happening in July. Just hunkering down in the heat. Gotta love the dog-days

Appellate lawyers

A couple of years ago I went to a seminar on defending death-penalty cases. The first panel discussion was about improving relations between trial and appellate counsel. The speakers tried to set the stage for a "collegial" discussion, but it quickly degenerated into a floor fight. I had always assumed that if it should ever come to it, I would fall on the sword if it would help my client. I sympathize with the appellate attorneys trying to pull our clients out of the fire and I understand that we, as the trial attorneys, have to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect trial. If they can find a way to undo a conviction, we ought to just swallow our pride and go with it.

Today I got my first phone call from an appellate attorney. I was immediately set on edge by the nasal New York accent coming through the line. He was calling about my Rosa. Rosa is doing 40 to life for shooting her husband to death.

This fucker had the temerity to ask me why I argued for an aquittal instead of a manslaughter. It was obvious to him this was a manslaughter case, and in his estimable opinion I lost the jury when I argued for an acquittal.

Why did I argue for an acquittal? You must be fucking kidding me! I could not believe this!

Pinhead: "I mean, you told the jury that manslaughter was an option, but then you told them not to go down that road. What made you think you had a chance at an acquittal."

Me: "Well, shit Mr. B. Maybe it was because I thought she wasn't guilty. Call it a tactical decision. If you can make hay with that, go for it."

Pinhead: "Hey, hey, no I'm just trying to understand here. We're just having a collegial discussion.

Me: "I think you need to look up 'collegial'."

Then he asks me: "Did you advise her to testify?"

(I practically dragged her to the stand and chained her to the witness chair.)

"I think you had a much better case for a manslaughter before you had her testify, but I guess you had to put her on to make a case for self defense...."

"Did she really turn down 18 to life?"

By the time he was done, I wanted to rip his head off. In the end, I wished him luck.

12(b)(6)

Periodically, I like to take pot shots at the "Baker Boyz" - fancy-pants toadies at a high falutin' D.C. law firm who periodically surface long enough to defend the Bush administration in Op-Ed pieces, but not long enough to actually benefit from some sunlight.

http://doubtslinger.blogspot.com/2008/12/conservative-legal-scholar-or-asshole.html
http://doubtslinger.blogspot.com/2008/06/inferiority-complex.html


A while ago, they busted out their department of justice credentials in defense of Professor John Yoo. I took issue with their position that Mr. Yoo was just doing what lawyers do when he provided the legal framework for indefinite detention and torture of "enemy combatants."
I charitably conceded that the issue of Mr. Yoo's culpability was complex, but uncharitably called "bullshit" on the Baker Boyz.http://doubtslinger.blogspot.com/2008/04/drivel.html

Mrs. Doubtslinger and I have had spirited debates about the propriety of, and the chilling effect of holding lawyers criminally (or civilly) accountable for their legal advice. Several bottles of cheap chardonnay have been consumed wrestling with the issue -- Mrs. Doubtslinger advancing the considerable public policy arguments and measured practical considerations against such a course while I spew venemous invective and hew to an inflexibly rigid moral compass and say "bullshit!" between swigs from the bottle. Shit, there was more lawyerin' done in our bedroom than in the hallowed halls of Baker, Hostetler and Ghoul.

So anyway, I found this interesting:

http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/06/padillayooorder6-12-09.pdf

United States District Court Judge Jeffrey White denied Professor Yoo's motion to dismiss the civil suit filed against him by Jose "Dirty Bomber" Padilla. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to kill a lawsuit at its inception if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Apparently, the arguments posited by the Baker crowd didn't play too well in federal court. Remember what the Baker Boyz said....(flashback music and wavy fade......)

"In truth, the critics' fundamental complaint is that the Bush administration's lawyers measured international law against the U.S. Constitution and domestic statutes. They interpreted the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention forbidding torture, and customary international law, in ways that were often at odds with the prevailing view of international law professors and various activist groups. In doing so, however, they did no more than assert the right of this nation – as is the right of any sovereign nation – to interpret its own international obligations."

Well, not so fast fancy pants......

Judge Jeffrey white seems to think the law was pretty well established when Mr. Yoo penned his memos. (Which might be why the law professors and activist groups had their panties in a twist.)

As for the "don't blame me, I'm just the lawyer" defense, well let's review shall we?

Baker Boyz: "This is madness. The lawyers were not in any chain of command, and had no theoretical or practical authority to direct the actions of anyone who engaged in abusive conduct. Those who mouth this argument are engaged in a kind of free association which, if applied across the board, would make legal counsel infinitely culpable."

Judge Jeffries: "Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the
foreseeable consequences of their conduct."

Well said, Judge Jeffries. I'll drink to that. Looks like we're goin' to trial, boyz.

This is odd.

California's notorious Prop 8 is now being challenged in Federal Court. Opponents of the initiative (now "law") are arguing that it violates federal due process and equal protection.

Whatever the constitutional issues, this is going to be a pretty remarkable case. Not one public official from the state of California will be defending the suit. Not the governor, and not the Attorney General (who, in fact, will be arguing that the amendment IS unconstitutional!). The proponents of the amendment are left to swing away by themselves.

Recollecting my constitutional law, the courts will be applying a "rational basis" test, I believe, to the question of whether depriving gays of the right to marry is a legitimate state interest that justifies singling out a class of people for disparate treatment. (Sexual preference is not a constitutionally protected class like race or gender). So the state of California will have to set forth at minimum, a rational basis for allowing opposite gender marriages but forbidding same sex marriages.

But, here's where it gets wierd, officials from the state of California won't be making those arguments. They'll be arguing the opposite. So it will be left to the Mormons (and others)to argue that the state has a legitimate interest in defining "marriage" as between a man and some women, I mean a woman, and that the reasons for doing so are "rational." I'm sure "exhibit A" will be the Official Voter Information guide - in which we are warned that teachers will be FORCED to instruct our children that there is no difference between gay and straight marriage! And that "Humankind" has ALWAYS defined marriage as between a man and woman, blah, blah, blah -- in other words - no "rational" basis here. Just a lot of fear, hate, and prejudice against gays and, even worse, "activist" judges.

Also, since even the proponents of Prop 8 concede that domestic partnership laws are appropriate -- what rational reasons are left for the STATE to ban gay "marriage". The government's only legitimate interests in the institution of marriage are property arrangements and taxes, (all the other aspects of marriage are personal, moral, and religious -- i.e., none of your damned business).

I will be very interested to see what "rational basis" the proponents of prop 8 will put forth on behalf of (and in opposition to) the State of California. Even more curious, what rational basis exists to permit those gay couples already married to remain so, but to preclude others from the same right?

Stay tuned.....