|
|
State Issues:
Privacy Taken to the Nth Degree
Privacy is a dominant theme in
United States public policy. Yet, although privacy is important, it is not
everything. As the lessons of the 9-11 have taught us, we cannot simply put our
collective heads in the sand and be "either for or against" privacy, no matter
what the circumstances. Seeking to protect privacy is both commendable and
necessary, but we cannot do it blindly and without cost.
That, unfortunately, is exactly how some Tennessee parents are approaching
student privacy protection for their children. Last month, all Nashville
schools, in response to parental complaints and on the advice of school lawyers,
stopped posting honor rolls. Some schools may go even further by banning the use
of school walls and bulletin boards as exhibition sites for good student art
work. Pep rallies, designed to applaud athletic prowess, and spelling bees are
being cancelled.
To read more,
click here.
Legal Reform: Guest Commentary
Blame it on the Bars
By Erin Murphy
Nothing gets the plaintiffs' bar
going like alleged "evil empires" with deep pockets -- big tobacco, gun
manufacturers and profitable corporations are always at the top of the list. Not
to be discounted is the alcohol industry, which has been battling dram shop
liability claims for decades.
Under dram shop liability laws, a party injured by an intoxicated person can sue
establishments contributing to that person's intoxication. The possibilities for
passing the buck are endless. Take two friends who go out drinking, get in a
fight, and one punches the other. The injured friend can then sue the bar. Also,
most dram shop laws cover serving alcohol to a minor. Thus in Texas, minors can
sue a drinking establishment for their own injuries sustained while intoxicated.
In other states, dram shop liability extends to serving the "habitually
intoxicated." Accordingly, an alcoholic's family can sue the bar that "let" him
squander away the familys savings.
To read more,
click here.
Freedom Line:
Drugged Into the Fray
Last week, the Center for Individual
Freedom published "Putting the Bottom Line Above the Law," which pointed out
that recent state and local plans to re-import prescription drugs from Canada
are not only bad policy but also blatantly violate federal law. For this latter
reason, the article noted that the "fundamental problem" with a Governor or
Mayor, "or anyone else, blindly re-importing drugs from abroad is that neither
he nor any other elected official is above the law." In other words, state and
local elected officials "shouldn't be leading the charge to break the law; they
should be doing everything in their power to uphold it," the article concluded.
But upholding the rule of law -- at least when that law is unpopular and may
cost a few more of our tax dollars -- doesn't seem to matter much to some of our
readers, as we soon learned. Instead, the Center's application of this steadfast
American legal principle was met both quickly and directly with dissention and
condescension. One reader accused us of "Keep[ing] America
Chemically-Dependent," while another wondered whether "the author of the article
[was] invested in pharmaceuticals?"
To read more,
click here.
Freedom Line:
The Self-Destruction of General
Clark
In the time between the New
Hampshire Democrat Primary and the rest of our lives, the presidential campaign
of retired General Wesley Clark should become nothing more than a bizarre
footnote to history. That does not mean that Clark will fade away, because the
grace to do so is nowhere evident in his personality.
Whether Clark's candidacy was the invention of the Clintons -- or a bunch of
their made guys so attuned to the bosses' wishes that they need no overt orders
-- is an open question about which the pundit ducks quack. On one hand, it is
difficult to imagine political masters of the universe (who well knew the
General before the rest of us) having such a low regard for the intelligence of
voters, even liberals. On the other hand, when the goal at the time was to
derail the candidacy of Howard Dean, pitching one resident of the asylum against
another might well have seemed smart. Who knew that both would fly over the
cuckoo's nest?
To read more,
click here.
Legal Update:
Chief Justice Rehnquist Brushes Off
Inquiry Request
Calling Senators' concerns "ill
considered," Chief Justice Rehnquist responded yesterday to an inquiry request
filed by U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Joe Lieberman.
In a letter dated January 22, 2004, Senators Leahy and Lieberman call into
question Justice Scalia's ability to remain impartial in considering the Cheney
energy case in light of his personal relationship with the Vice President. The
letter specifically requests the Court to explain what "canons, procedures and
rules are in place for Supreme Court justices to determine whether they must or
should recuse themselves under [federal law] or any other relevant ethical rule
or interpretation."
In strong defense of his colleague and the judicial branch, Justice Rehnquist
responded that "each Justice must decide such a question for himself."
To read more,
click here.
CFIF
History & Civics Quiz:
Question of the Week
What President of the United States later became Chief Justice of the United
States?
(a) William Howard Taft
(b) Franklin Pierce
(c) Grover Cleveland
(d) James Buchanan
For the correct answer,
click here.
Jester's Courtroom: Tales Stranger Than Fiction
Featuring bizarre and sometimes humorous real
life stories from the courtroom.
Dogsitter Blamed for Emotional
Distress
Reunited with his German shepherd
more than two months after its escape, Portland, Oregon, resident Doug Baker is
now suing the woman allegedly to blame -- his dogsitter. Baker accuses Lisa
Dunbar and All-Around Pet Sitting of allowing his dog Fremont to escape and then
providing sub-par assistance in securing Fremont's recovery. Baker seeks
$160,000 for damages, including lost wages, money expended in search of Fremont
and emotional distress caused by the two-month pursuit.
Along with missing work during the ordeal, Baker reports crying every day and
screaming every night of Fremont's 67 1/2-day absence. In his quest to find
Fremont, Baker consulted with four psychics, a witch and a professional animal
tracker, apparently all for naught. Baker's self-described "nightmare" only came
to a close after he received a telephone tip that led him to Fremont's location.
Dunbar denies that she should or could have done more to help locate her charge,
maintaining that she also took time off of work to assist in the search. Baker's
attorney said he hopes the suit will encourage legal changes to hold petsitters
to a higher standard of care.
Source: Associated Press
To read more,
click here.
Since many of these gems do not attain national attention, the Jester welcomes
you to share with us your favorite wacky stories from a courtroom near you!
Please be sure to provide the source. You may e-mail us at
mailto:info@cfif.org
Notable Quotes:
Quote of the Week
Computer Security Report
Commissioned by DOD on a $22 Million System to Allow Soldiers and Other
Americans Overseas to Cast Their Votes Via the Internet Starting This Year:
"[The program] has numerous ... fundamental security problems that leave it
vulnerable to a variety of well-known cyber attacks, any one of which could be
catastrophic... How do we recover if an election is compromised?"
For more Notable Quotes,
click here.
Do
you have a notable quote you'd like to share with the Center, e-mail it to
mailto:info@cfif.org
Be sure to provide us the source of the quote.
Ray's Cartoon Corner:
Ray's
Cartoon Corner
Visit "Ray's Cartoon Corner,"
the lighter side of CFIF's website. The Corner is a good place for freedom
lovers and free market advocates to go to catch up on the latest social,
economic and political issues affecting individual freedoms and rights through
the humorous medium of editorial cartooning. The cartoons are drawn by Ray
Gardner, a self described free market conservative and thirty-something
cartoonist who lives and works in Phoenix, Arizona.
To view Ray's latest
cartoons,
click here.
As a non-profit,
501(c)(4) corporation, the Center for Individual Freedom relies upon the
generous private financial support of individuals, associations, foundations
and corporations. Please consider becoming a proud supporter of the Center
today. To donate online, please
click here.
You may cancel your subscription at any
time by visiting here.
|
