[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Just short commentary on a bunch of random stories.
First, we see that we have killed one of Qdaffy’s* sons. Good, may he roast in flames, but um, then I guess we have to kill Qdaffy, too, right? Otherwise there will be a terrorist reprisal, right?
Boy it’s a good thing that Obama went into this war with the consent of the American people and of Congress as he himself said was constitutionally required. Oh that’s right, he didn’t. Sigh.
Also allegedly we hit a school for disabled children and an orphanage. Um, color me skeptical. To hear these dictators talk all we hit is their orphanages, baby milk factories and so on. It’s terrible if it happened and we should regret our mistake, but I won’t buy it until it’s confirmed after the dictator is gone.
Fox News calls in an expert who says, yeah, the layering in the birth certificate is not a sign of forgery. I’m not an expert, but it sounds pretty plausible. (And to put in the usual disclaimer, I am not a birther. I believe Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president and woefully over his head.)
I agree with pretty much everything Eugene Volokh writes, here. He is talking about a case in Pennsylvania where a Muslim man dies and his will demands the division of some of his assets according to Sharia law. I don’t mean he divided it up himself according to his religious principles. I mean his will said the assets in question “should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia.” So the court does it and gives twice as much to his sons as his daughters.
Volokh argues that if the man wanted to divide it that way himself that would have been okay. Its sexist and wrong, but it’s his property and it’s his right. But on the other hand our courts should not be in the business of interpreting the “correct” meaning of a holy book, or the contents of a faith. And yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. Still you should read the whole thing.
Meanwhile you might have heard that King and Spaulding, a law firm hired to represent the House of Representatives, withdrew from representation of the House in the DOMA litigation. Well, first Ed Whelan does a good job pointing out that this action was unethical under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Meaning they could actually get in ethical trouble over this.
But for much more fun, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has decided to fire King and Spaulding over this. And actually his argument for doing so goes beyond tit-for-tat:
[I]t is crucial for us to be able to trust and rely on the fact that our outside counsel will not desert Virginia due to pressure by an outside group or groups.
Virginia seeks firms of commitment, courage, strength and toughness, and unfortunately, what the world has learned of King & Spalding, is that your firm utterly lacks those qualities.
Ouch, that’s going to leave a mark. You can read the whole letter here, which is continually harsh. Cuccinelli points out, for instance, that the firm has no trouble representing terrorists, but apparently not supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act. Hey, King and Spaulding, did you know that the terrorists would like to see every gay person murdered? So if you drop everyone who is not perfectly politically correct on gay rights…
And of course Professor Jacobson has more thoughts.
*Qdaffy is how I have chosen to spell the name of the dictator running Libya right now, because 1) it is mocking him and 2) it seems to be about as good a spelling as any.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]