legal musings

The Supreme Court has been really busy lately with many interesting decisions. Here are a few stories of legal importance, including one that hasn't made it to court yet, but as an arrest, still could have far-reaching implications.

• No More 'Millionaire's Amendment'
• So, when you are murdered, your killer can get out of punishment by claiming that it's just not fair that he can't face his accuser in court
• Bang, Bang
• Is this really the way to go about HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness?
  

random links

Here are a few interesting articles and posts I've been alerted to recently:

• Argentina's court way more progressive than the U.S.'s
• This is what happens when you save a cop's life
  
• A group focuses on charging Bush with war crimes

Thanks to Alan and Mom for the links.

badass female of the week (and past 40 years)

She was a black woman who just wanted to live with and love her white husband in peace. Mildred Loving, who died last week, inadvertently became an icon to those fighting strict and religiously fueled laws regulating marriage. Richard and Mildred Loving were married in Washington, D.C. in 1958, but after moving back to their home state of Virginia, were arrested for violating laws prohibiting interracial unions. Their fight to love each other went all the way to the Supreme Court, where, in 1967, laws banning interracial couples from marrying were turned over when the court said that the freedom to marry is "a basic civil right." Loving's incredibly appropriate last name has even been given to a national organization that recognizes June 12 as Loving Day, a day to celebrate interracial couples.
Unfortunately, this struggle still sounds familiar, even to someone born as late as 1985....Loving's struggle parallels that of many non-traditional couples currently wishing to wed. The court's decision to rid the nation of laws banning someone from marrying another simply because a third-party doesn't like it seems like a no-brainer to many of us today (and did to the court of 1967). Yet, why are we still fighting such a strong force that wants to keep gay unions, marriages, and parenting illegal? Is it only because the nature of the court has changed, thus making such a case obsolete these days? Or are we fighting greater social barriers? Will the issue of gay marriage progress with the passing of time, much as interracial marriage did, or are we facing a fiercer fight? What about those of us who see the issue as much more complicated than gay marriage or no gay marriage?
What do you all think?

funny tuesday

My line of work, surprisingly, can offer a lot of humor. As a law office that advertises itself as one serving those who generally cannot afford to hire an attorney, we get many phone calls from people seeking legal advice or representation for matters nowhere near related to predatory lending.
I think the one I answered this afternoon was by far my favorite. A youngish sounding man on the other end began the conversation with "Yea, I need to ask some questions about the laws." Knowing that I most likely could not answer his questions, I still asked him to explain the situation so that I could direct him to the appropriate organization. He went on to tell me this:
"My wife went to one of those, like, beauty colleges to get her hair cut. She wanted a Chinese Bob, but they, like, cut her hair real short, so she looks like a boy. So she went back in so they could fix it, and they, like, cut it even shorter. Just made it worse. So we called to get a refund, so we could, like, go have it fixed. So, like, what can we do?"
I was almost too shocked to laugh, although that didn't last long. I promptly told him that, while I did not know that he had a claim, if he did, the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division would be his best bet.
If I were actually allowed to give out advice over the phone, I would say this:
Um, like, hair grows back.