I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Judge Jones still on the lecture circuit

Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones III is still giving public speeches, at least occasionally -- I thought that by now he would have crawled back into his hole because of all the blistering criticism of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. I previously reported that Jones is scheduled to be a "keynote" (sounds off-key to me) speaker at a conference titled "Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines," to be held at Hofstra University in March 2009. Now I have learned that Judge Jones is scheduled to speak on Sept. 25 at Case Western Reserve University as part of a lecture series titled, "2008-2009 Year of Darwin and Evolution." BTW, critics of evolution and critics of court decisions about evolution are conspicuously absent from these events.
.
I presume that his speeches now are -- like his speech at a national meeting of the Anti-Defamation League and his speech at Bennington College -- harangues about the virtues of "judicial independence" instead of attempts to defend his Dover decision in particular, like his "true religion" commencement speech at Dickinson College. What Judge Jones does not realize is that the principle of "judicial independence" can go only so far in justifying an unpopular decision -- the public is supposed to be generally supportive of the constitutional principles and laws that court decisions are supposed to be based upon. Megalomaniacal Judge Jones fancies himself as a white knight in shining armor -- or a Horatius at the bridge -- heroically defending the Constitution and the ideals of the Founders against the tyranny of the great unwashed majority. Where a decision is unpopular, the court opinion should at least argue persuasively that the decision was reasonable and fair, but the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion utterly failed to do this -- the majority of expert opinions in law journal articles and elsewhere were critical -- often harshly critical -- of the opinion.

A note about Judge Jones' nickname "Jackass": That is what Dover defendant Bill Buckingham called him in an interview on the PBS NOVA TV program about the trial, and I decided I liked the name -- it is brief, alliterative, and to the point.
.

Labels: , ,

31 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> I thought that by now he would have crawled back into his hole because of all the blistering criticism of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. <

Perhaps he just considered the source if, by a great stretch of the imagination he was even aware of it.

I am sure that the braying of a dunghill blogger is not of great importance to him.

Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about your blisters. Have you tried calamine lotion?

Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Judge Jones is trying to use his fame so he can make more money in his name...While touring the speech market, the man believes he has no shame.

Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:38:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Michael said,
>>>>>> Judge Jones is trying to use his fame so he can make more money in his name...While touring the speech market, the man believes he has no shame. <<<<<<

Well, Michael, it looks like you started a poem there:

Judge Jones is trying to use his fame
to make more money in his name.
And though his speeches are quite lame,
he still speaks and has no shame.

Anyway, Canon 6 of the "Code of Conduct for United States Judges" prohibits federal judges from accepting honoraria:

CANON 6

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULARLY FILE
REPORTS OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED
FOR LAW-RELATED AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES


A judge may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extra-judicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge's judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:

A. Compensation. Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.

B. Expense Reimbursement. Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge's spouse or relative. Any payment in excess of such an amount is compensation.

C. Public Reports. A judge should make required financial disclosures in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

COMMENTARY

Additional restrictions on the receipt of compensation by judges are imposed by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference thereunder. That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation. The restrictions so imposed include, but are not limited to: (1) a prohibition against receiving "honoraria" (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article), (2) a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a 15% limitation on the receipt of "outside earned income."

Saturday, September 20, 2008 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Here is something else to think about, ViU, you lousy sack of #$@&*%. After I filed my federal lawsuit against the smog impact fee, it took about 3-4 years to finally get rid of the fee and get state authorization for refunds, and as a result a lot more people paid the fee and a lot more people never got refunds, dunghill. Had the federal judges granted me standing to sue, the fee might have ended a lot sooner because the US EPA might have realized that it would be required to take action against the fee, or the court itself might have struck down the fee. I had an airtight case -- the state lost its federal-court tax suit immunity by "leaving the sphere that was exclusively its own" (US Supreme Court case of Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal laws and regulations. I spent a lot of time and money on my lawsuit and I was entitled to a fair hearing. Instead there was no oral hearing and no opinion.

Now just drop dead and go to hell, damn you, and stop cluttering up my blog with your crap. Just get struck dead by a car or a meteor or something.

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:50:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

"Just get struck dead by a car or a meteor or something."

Really, Larry? You wish that on anyone?

Tells us a lot.

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:16:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Erin said...

>>>>>>"Just get struck dead by a car or a meteor or something."

Really, Larry? You wish that on anyone? <<<<<<<

I don't have any choice. My no-censorship policy prevents me from censoring his breathtakingly inane comments, which clutter up this blog with garbage. His comments usually contain nothing but stupid insults and ad hominems.

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:54:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

OK, maybe I did overreact, but the fact is that ViU has been trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering up the comment sections with his garbage. He often does not address the issues at all and even when he does he usually just makes dogmatic statements and does not back up his positions with arguments. If I delete his crap which makes no contribution to the discussion, I am charged with hypocrisy for violating my no-censorship policy. I work hard on this blog -- it is obvious that I spend a lot of time researching and writing many of my posts -- and I get really pissed off when trolls try to sabotage this blog.

Monday, September 22, 2008 2:26:00 AM  
Blogger Erin said...

"OK, maybe I did overreact, but the fact is that ViU has been trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering up the comment sections with his garbage."

Larry, this is expressly why you created this blog. Having announced to the world that the purpose of this blog was, "to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums," (and noting that largely the blogs and other internet forums that you've been banned from feel the same way about you.) ViU is doing exactly what you wanted. Stop condemning him for it.

"He often does not address the issues at all and even when he does he usually just makes dogmatic statements and does not back up his positions with arguments."

Unlike you, for example. (Irreducible complexity! Law!)
We, as commenters, have attempted to argue with you in a reasonable way. Your response is generally name calling.

"His comments usually contain nothing but stupid insults and ad hominems."

As compared with your posts which generally consist of stupid insults (Jackass Judge Jones, Chris Comer come to mind) and ad hominem attacks (I could cite examples if you'd like).

"If I delete his crap which makes no contribution to the discussion, I am charged with hypocrisy for violating my no-censorship policy."

If you delete his "crap" which may or may not make any contribution to the discussion, (I've found that it generally does.) you are RIGHTLY charged with hypocrisy. Sorry, that's just the truth.

"I work hard on this blog -- it is obvious that I spend a lot of time researching and writing many of my posts -- and I get really pissed off when trolls try to sabotage this blog."

You may work hard on it, and you may research, but it is obvious to everyone reading that your research powers are limited at best. (Inability to complete the reading of an 8 page research article is a prime example of this; frequent cries of "bibliography bluffing" is another.) Viu is not a "Troll" by common internet usage. He is, however subject to your syndrome of constant redefinition (to suit your needs) of words. His posts are relevant, they are on topic; it seems you just don't like them. Additionally, constant comments from regular readers hardly count as sabotage. If nothing else they indicate that you have a regular readership. (If not one that reads for the reasons that you'd like them to.)

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> After I filed my federal lawsuit against the smog impact fee, it took about 3-4 years to finally get rid of the fee and get state authorization for refunds, and as a result a lot more people paid the fee and a lot more people never got refunds <

Had you filed a well prepared lawsuit, instead of the amateurish drivel that was laughed out of court, perhaps you would have received the hearing you wanted.

Don't worry thought. Although those on your side looked at you as a counterproductive bull in a china shop, it is doubtful that they would have won their case much faster without your help.

> I had an airtight case <

Like all of the other cases you lost, dunghill?

> I spent a lot of time and money on my lawsuit and I was entitled to a fair hearing. <

Spending time and money does not entitle you to anything.

Now stop trying to sabotage your own blog with these mindless bleatings.

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Erin eructed,
>>>>>> "OK, maybe I did overreact, but the fact is that ViU has been trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering up the comment sections with his garbage."

Larry, this is expressly why you created this blog. <<<<<<

What? I created this blog to be cluttered up with garbage by trolls?

>>>>> ViU is doing exactly what you wanted. <<<<<<<

Wrong. See where it says under "About Me" in the blog's banner, "Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged"? That statement has been in the blog since Day 1. Most of ViU's comments consist entirely or mostly of insults and ad hominem attacks. And his comments about the issues are mostly dogmatic, with no supporting facts or arguments.

>>>>>> We, as commenters, have attempted to argue with you in a reasonable way. <<<<<<

Bullshit.

>>>>> You may work hard on it, and you may research, but it is obvious to everyone reading that your research powers are limited at best. <<<<<<<

Can you do better? Show me your blog, bozo.

>>>>>> Additionally, constant comments from regular readers hardly count as sabotage. If nothing else they indicate that you have a regular readership. <<<<<<<

I need your kind of readership like a hole in the head.

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:52:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU barfed,
>>>>>> Had you filed a well prepared lawsuit, instead of the amateurish drivel that was laughed out of court, perhaps you would have received the hearing you wanted. <<<<<<<

ViU, you lousy dunghill, you are just a sore loser. You have this pathological compulsion to prove that you and the judges are always right and I am always wrong. This is one-upmanship at its worst.

I have been over this many times. The key to federal-court standing in this case was the Supreme Court's ruling in Parden v. Terminal Railway that a state loses its federal-court immunity by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" by entering an area under federal regulation or subject to federal regulation. I made that argument in federal court -- the attorneys who won in state court did not make that argument when they tried to sue in federal court. Their federal judge gave them a full hearing and wrote a good-sized opinion of about 10-20 pages (I don't remember the exact length). In my lawsuit, there was no oral hearing and no written opinion, and California did not file a brief responding to my argument. An expert witness later testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA, and I had the good sense to sue the US EPA too.

I had no significant legal training and this was my first experience as a litigant outside of small claims courts. Under the circumstances, I did remarkably well.

In my appeal, I did make the big mistake (but what did I know) of confusing the issue by trying to argue the merits of the case rather than sticking to that one principle of standing -- I don't know if it would have done any good for me to stick to that one principle, but not doing so only made things worse. I argued that the US EPA, by withdrawing California's waivers of federal pre-emption of auto emissions regulations, could prevent the fee from being charged on motor vehicles produced in the future. I argued that if California really needed the waivers, it would have allowed car owners to use the $300 to improve their auto emissions controls instead of sticking the money in the state's general fund. And the fact is that California did not need the waivers then and never needed the waivers because for most years the federal and California emissions standards have been the same or nearly the same. The factory manual for my 1978 AMC Gremlin showed that the California and federal models were identical and the factory manual for my 1990 Pontiac Grand Am showed that the federal and California models differed at most by a computer chip design and maybe not even that. Apparently what persuaded Congress to allow the waivers was the idea of using California as a "testing area" for new emissions-control technologies and equipment. Anyway, I paid the same court fees as the Dover plaintiffs, the Cobb County plaintiffs, Association of Christian Schools International, Yoko Ono, etc. and was entitled to a fair hearing.

You lost, ViU. Get over it already.

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> See where it says under "About Me" in the blog's banner, "Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged"? That statement has been in the blog since Day 1. <

> ViU, you lousy dunghill <

> Jackass Jones <

> idiot <

> ViU, you lousy sack of #$@&*% <

------------------------

> ViU, you lousy dunghill, you are just a sore loser. <

I am not the one who lost every case he ever filed. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You can't even meet that standard.

> In my lawsuit, there was no oral hearing and no written opinion <

Nor was one necessary. We have gone over this many times but it always seems to go over your head.

> and California did not file a brief responding to my argument. <

It wasn't necessary.

> I had no significant legal training <

A more accurate statement would be that you had no legal training at all. Nobody questions this.

> Under the circumstances, I did remarkably well. <

If you consider being laughed out of court at the first appearance "remarkably well", you were sensational.

> I paid the same court fees as the Dover plaintiffs, the Cobb County plaintiffs, Association of Christian Schools International, Yoko Ono, etc. and was entitled to a fair hearing. <

Paying court fees does not require the courts to waste time on flawed and amateurish crap.

Even people on your side asked you to take their names off of your email list. Of course you reacted to that like a spoiled child, as we would have expected you to do.

You lost, Larry. Get over it already.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:49:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:41:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>the majority of expert opinions in law journal articles and elsewhere were critical -- often harshly critical -- of the opinion.<<<

False. The majority of expert opinions in law journal articles were favorable to the decision. In addition, those that were favorable appeared consistently in the top tier journals (except when appearing as rebuttal articles to those critical of the decision), whereas those critical of the decision only appeared in fourth-tier or lower publications.

The reality is that the acclaim for the decision decidedly drowned out the criticisms.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:47:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin, I censored your comment above for violating my rule against lying about objective facts. Contrary to your following statement, California never cited Quem and furthermore never responded at all to my argument invoking Parden:

>>>>> California cited Quern in their motion to dismiss Larry's suit, specifically that waiver is granted only by the express intent of Congress. <<<<<<

You are free to re-post your comment with the above lie removed. If you no longer have a copy of the comment, I will re-post it for you if you wish.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:06:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Kevin, I censored your comment above for violating my rule against lying about objective facts. Contrary to your following statement, California never cited Quem and furthermore never responded at all to my argument invoking Parden:<<<

Larry is lying. California did in fact cite Quern in their motion for dismissal. They did not reply to his argument in District Court invoking Parden because they cited Quern before Larry invoked Parden. Furthermore, they cited Quern in the appeal brief, as well as directly attacking Larry's Parden claim that they left their sphere of influence.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:35:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin said,
>>>>>> California did in fact cite Quern in their motion for dismissal. They did not reply to his argument in District Court invoking Parden because they cited Quern before Larry invoked Parden. Furthermore, they cited Quern in the appeal brief, as well as directly attacking Larry's Parden claim that they left their sphere of influence. <<<<<<<

We can discuss this issue separately -- just leave it out of your big comment. I don't want this crucial issue to be obscured by being mixed in with other issues. I deleted your big comment again so that you can remove this issue from it.

Your following statement in the last deleted comment is especially noteworthy:

Note that I never asserted that California replied at the District Court level to his Parden claim.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:07:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>The key to federal-court standing in this case was the Supreme Court's ruling in Parden v. Terminal Railway that a state loses its federal-court immunity by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" by entering an area under federal regulation or subject to federal regulation.<<<

This is an incorrect interpretation of Parden. What Parden actually ruled was that Congress had the power to waive state sovereign immunity if the state left "the sphere that is exclusively its own." The Court specifically noted that it was a two part question:

Two questions are thus presented: (1) Did Congress in enacting the FELA intend to subject a State to suit in these circumstances? (2) Did it have the power to do so, as against the State's claim of immunity?

The language of the decision firmly upholds the fact that it is a two-part question that depends on what Congress intended.

The Court revisited Parden several times over the years. In Edelman v. Jordan, the Court found, in specific reference to Parden and another case, that:

The question of waiver or consent under the Eleventh Amendment was found in those cases to turn on whether Congress had intended to abrogate the immunity in question, and whether the State, by its participation in the program, authorized by Congress had in effect consented to the abrogation of that immunity.

The Court affirmed this interpretation of Parden, making the test explicit:

The Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of federal law, Illinois had "constructively consented" to this suit by participating in the federal AABD program and agreeing to administer federal and state funds in compliance with federal law. Constructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights, and we see no place for it here. In deciding whether a State has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only where stated

"by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction."


Claiming that a state waives immunity simply by entering an area subject to federal regulation is a claim for constructive waiver, which Edelman overturned. The ruling in Edelman was upheld by Quern v. Jordan, follow-up litigation to Edelman.

Our cases consistently have required a clearer showing of congressional purpose to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity than our Brother BRENNAN is able to marshal. In Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., 411 U. S. 279 (1973), the Court concluded that Congress did not lift the sovereign immunity of the States by enacting the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, because of

Page 440 U. S. 344

the absence of any indication

"by clear language that the constitutional immunity was swept away. It is not easy to infer that Congress, in legislating pursuant to the Commerce Clause, which has grown to vast proportions in its applications, desired silently to deprive the States of an immunity they have long enjoyed under another part of the Constitution."

411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 285. [Footnote 15] In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, the Court found present in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the "threshold fact of congressional authorization" to sue the State as employer, because the statute made explicit reference to the availability of a private action against state and local governments in the event the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Attorney General failed to bring suit or effect a conciliation agreement. 427 U.S. at 427 U. S. 448 n. 1, 449 n. 2, 427 U. S. 452; see Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 105, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); H.R.Rep. No. 92-238, pp. 17-19 (1971); S.Rep. No. 9415, pp. 9-11 (1971); S.Conf.Rep. No. 9681, pp. 17-18 (1972); H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 9899, pp. 17-18 (1972). Finally, in Hutto v. Finney, decided just last Term, the Court held that, in enacting the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Congress intended to override the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States and authorize fee awards payable by the States when their officials are sued in their official capacities. 437 U.S. at 437 U. S. 693-694. Although the statutory language in Hutto did not separately impose liability on States in so many words, [Footnote 16] the statute had

Page 440 U. S. 345

"a history focusing directly on the question of state liability; Congress considered and firmly rejected the suggestion that States should be immune from fee award's."

Id. at 437 U. S. 698 n. 31. Also, the Court noted that the statute would have been rendered meaningless with respect to States if the Act did not impose liability for attorney's fees on the States. Ibid.; see Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., supra at 411 U. S. 285-286. By contrast, § 1983 does not explicitly and by clear language indicate on its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States; nor does it have a history which focuses directly on the question of state liability and which shows that Congress considered and firmly decided to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States. Nor does our reaffirmance of Edelman render § 1983 meaningless insofar as States are concerned.


According to official court records, the accuracy of which Larry disputes, California cited Quern in their motion to dismiss Larry's suit, specifically that waiver is granted only by the express intent of Congress. Since Quern is precedential over Parden, there would be no need for them to respond to Larry's constructive waiver claim - they had already addressed it.

Of course, that still leaves one question. Did Congress expressly intend to waive immunity for states participating in the Clean Air Act?

There are three possible methods to sue the government under the Clean Air Act. The citizen suit provision (USC 42 §7604), the judicial review provision (USC 42 §7607), and the Adminstrative Procedures Act (USC 5 §§701-706). The judicial review provision is not available for district court cases, so that just the civil suit and APA provisions would be available. What is Congress's express intent on state immunity under these two statutes?

USC 42 §7604:

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf—
(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution)...


USC 5 §702:

Nothing herein
(1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground;


(bolding mine)

It is therefore the express intent of Congress that states do not surrender sovereign immunity upon entering the sphere of influence created by the Clean Air Act. You lost, Larry, fair and square.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:16:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin, you lousy pettifogging, cyberbullying, cyberstalking troll, I had to go through all this crap years OK with crooked judges and crooked government lawyers and I thought that I put it behind me, and now I have to go through it all over again with you and ViU.

Your legal analyses are too complicated and are full of errors. The more complicated a legal analysis, the less the likelihood that a court would actually follow it.

For starters, nothing that anyone says now could possibly excuse the brush-off I got from those crooked judges. There was no oral hearing and no written opinion at either the district court or appellate level. There was no shred of evidence that any of the judges read the briefs. California did not answer my argument about Parden (more about that later). So you have already lost the argument right here.

Also, the Eleventh Amendment does not apply at all, because the Eleventh Amendment only protects a state from suits by citizens of other states and foreign countries, not suits by its own citizens --

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Aside from the fact that I was a continuous resident of California for about 14 years before the suit and paid state income taxes, I assert that the fact that I was subject to the California tax that I was challenging in court made me a citizen of the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Eleventh Amendment can sometimes also be applied to suits by a state's own citizens, but did not so apply the Eleventh Amendment in Parden

>>>>>> This is an incorrect interpretation of Parden. What Parden actually ruled was that Congress had the power to waive state sovereign immunity if the state left "the sphere that is exclusively its own." <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill -- Parden ruled that Alabama, by operating the Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks, was engaging in interstate commerce even though the railway was entirely in the state of Alabama, and that the railway was therefore subject to federal workers' compensation laws.

>>>>>>In Edelman v. Jordan, the Court found, in specific reference to Parden and another case, that

The question of waiver or consent under the Eleventh Amendment was found in those cases to turn on whether Congress had intended to abrogate the immunity in question, and whether the State, by its participation in the program, authorized by Congress had in effect consented to the abrogation of that immunity.<<<<<<<

The Supreme Court is full of crap right there -- what gives Congress the right to abrogate an immunity granted by the Constitution, or to make participation in a federal program conditional on consent to such abrogation?

>>>>>> Claiming that a state waives immunity simply by entering an area subject to federal regulation is a claim for constructive waiver, which Edelman overturned. <<<<<<<

Edelman v. Jordan did not overrule Parden, dunghill. And in both Parden and the smog impact fee, Alabama and California were not merely entering areas subject to federal regulation, they were entering areas already under federal regulation -- railroad workers' compensation laws in the case of Parden, auto emissions regulations in the case of the smog impact fee.


One thing that Parden and the smog impact fee had in common was the interstate commerce issue -- that issue was absent in Edelman v. Jordan. The state courts' ruling against the smog impact fee was largely based on interference with interstate commerce. The smog impact fee also involved the privileges and immunities clause guaranteeing citizens of one state equal treatment in other states -- that issue was also absent in Edelman v. Jordan. Rulings in one case cannot be so easily extrapolated to another case. Just as the court distinguished Edelman from Parden, a court could distinguish Fafarman v. California & EPA from Edelman.

>>>>>> California cited Quern in their motion to dismiss Larry's suit, specifically that waiver is granted only by the express intent of Congress. Since Quern is precedential over Parden, there would be no need for them to respond to Larry's constructive waiver claim - they had already addressed it. <<<<<<

YOU STUPID SACK OF $%#*@, what do you mean, no need to respond to my "constructive waiver claim"? if California believed that something in its motion to dismiss refuted my answer to the motion, then California was obligated to show how in a reply to my answer! WHAT A STUPID NO-GOOD DUNGHILL.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

Whenever Larry sees that he is losing an argument (He almost always is, but it is only occasionally that he realizes it.), He resorts to censorship.

> just leave it out of your big comment. <

Because it shows Larry to be wrong. Larry claims that he will censor things that are contrary to fact, but in this case, he is leaving his statements that are contrary to fact and censoring the truth. Does anyone wonder why he is taken to be a hypocritical dimwit all over the net.

> Your following statement in the last deleted comment is especially noteworthy: <

Have the integrity not to comment on items you have arbitrarily censored. We have no reason to believe you are not misquoting or taking them out of context.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

And I suppose that Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, etc. are better, dunghill?

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> And I suppose that Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, etc. are better, dunghill? <

Of course they are better. They have only blocked your posts for cause. You go into a censorship snit every time you realize you are losing.

Too bad you don't have the integrity to disband your one-man Association of Censoring Blowhards.

Seriously Larry, do you really not understand why you are the laughing stock of the blogging world?

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry brayed "I said that I have a rule against lies about objective facts, dunghill."

Then when Kevin corrects Larry's lie about the objective fact of whether California ever cited Quem (they did), Larry censors the truth.

I can just imagine Larry as a little hairy troll working away in his cave and cursing the outside world.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:52:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Then when Kevin corrects Larry's lie about the objective fact of whether California ever cited Quem <<<<<

As I said, you lousy trolls are just sore losers, dunghill. You have this pathological need to prove that you and the judges are always right and I am always wrong. It is all just one-upmanship. You trolls are not only making yourselves look bad, but you are also hurting the credibility of decent dissenting commenters.

I am not denying that California cited Quem in its motion to dismiss. Maybe California did, maybe California did not -- I don't remember. But that question is irrelevant because I raised a new issue in my answer, the Parden v. Terminal Railway decision, and California did not reply. And there was no oral hearing and no opinion. So you lose. Get over it already.

Also, California's motion to dismiss had attached to it a complete copy of the unpublished opinion dismissing the suit of a bunch of attorneys who challenged the smog impact fee in another federal district court. Attaching this brief was a violation of the then existing local 9th circuit rules prohibiting citation of unpublished opinions and prohibiting citation of district court opinions, whether published or not. These local 9th circuit rules have been superseded by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure's Rule 32.1 requiring all federal courts to allow citation of all unpublished opinions.

You and Kevin are probably lying about the contents of the briefs in my case. Those briefs were not filed electronically and are probably not considered to be sufficiently important to scan into the court's electronic records. Anyway, even if the briefs are there in the electronic records, a PACER account -- which most people don't have -- would be necessary to access them.

>>>>> I can just imagine Larry as a little hairy troll working away in his cave and cursing the outside world. <<<<<<

I think that the Internet term "troll" is not a reference to the trolls of mythology -- I think it refers to the "troll" -- meaning a lure or a line and lure -- used in the trolling method of fishing, where the lure is pulled behind a moving boat. That makes sense -- Internet trolls post inflammatory comments as lures in the hope of getting angry responses.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> I am not denying that California cited Quem in its motion to dismiss. <

So you originally lied about it? Why haven't you censored your original remarks?

> Maybe California did, maybe California did not <

Since you can't show a single case of where Kevin has lied, and there are almost daily cases where you have, let's assume that it is true.

> and California did not reply. And there was no oral hearing and no opinion. <

Since you were laughed out of court, they did not need to do so.

So you lose. Get over it already.

> Anyway, even if the briefs are there in the electronic records, a PACER account -- which most people don't have -- would be necessary to access them. <

It has been fairly obvious that Kevin has access.

Keep making a fool of yourself. We are quite entertained.

Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:12:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> I am not denying that California cited Quem in its motion to dismiss. <

So you originally lied about it? <<<<<<<

No, dunghill, I censored Kevin Vicklund's comment because he implied that California replied to my answer to its motion to dismiss.

>>>>>> Since you were laughed out of court, <<<<<

Before a judge can laugh someone out of court, the judge first has to read the briefs, dunghill.

>>>>>> It has been fairly obvious that Kevin has access. <<<<<<

I never said he didn't, dunghill, but you can't access what isn't there.

As I said, under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be among the first to be euthanized to protect you and others from the consequences of your stupidity.

You can now catch fire so I won't have to piss on you, dunghill.

Friday, September 26, 2008 6:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

I'm disappointed about the new proposal in Texas about the methods of teaching science. I hope it will be voted down...

Friday, September 26, 2008 12:21:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Michael,

I agree. You might want to read my new post about the proposed Texas science standards.

Friday, September 26, 2008 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> I censored Kevin Vicklund's comment because he implied that California replied to my answer to its motion to dismiss. <

He didn't seem to imply anything of the kind in the material that you have not arbitrarily censored. Are you sure that this isn't one of your whacky "interpretations"?

> Before a judge can laugh someone out of court, the judge first has to read the briefs, dunghill. <

I am sure that he read the briefs before he laughed you out of court. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Friday, September 26, 2008 3:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home