86 posts from May 2008

I was chatting to Nick Tomlinson au blog, and this ad for the 1988–9 Vauxhall Cavalier came to mind. Yes, the car of the future is the Opel Vectra A!

   No mention of a nuclear power cell, which GM actually did promise us in the Futurama shows of the 1950s.

Un pub britannique de 1988 pour l’Opel Vectra A, s’appelle Vauxhall Cavalier en Grande-Bretagne.

Another great actor passes on: Harvey Korman from The Carol Burnett Show, Blazing Saddles and History of the World Part One. (He regarded these as his best credits.) ‘Korman reportedly suffered complications related to the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm he experienced four months ago,’ according to IMDB News. Two clips follow—I’m afraid I haven’t found any of ‘Count de Money! Count de Money!’

   Mr Korman gave a wonderful series of interviews from earlier this year, which are quite enjoyable.    You will be missed, Harvey.

New Zealanders, remember these? Bring back the great Kiwi jingle!

The latter first ran in 1982 or 1983, I believe, and it continued into the late 1990s. I hope my friend Chloë, whom I met in 2002 but was actually at law school with prior to that, made heaps from the repeat fees.

For American readers wondering what the heck I meant by $2 a litre, which is what we are paying now for regular (actually $2·01), I did a quick calculation this morning. This translates, in US dollars, to between $5·90 and $6 per gallon. Four bucks a gallon is a memory …

The Futon Critic has an in-depth review of the American Life on Mars pilot, but notes that it will be reshot because of the producers replacing David E. Kelley wanting to recast. It doesn’t look too bad, and contrary to all those fans moaning because they didn’t hear the Bowie song in the trailer (do you guys know how much is paid to get a song into an ad? And was it used in any of the British trailers?), it is worked in to the story in exactly the same way as the UK one: it’s on Sam’s Ipod.
   Some names are changed, there’s a character called George Randall (played by Lenny Clarke) who seems to be neither Chris nor Ray, it’s LA 1972 and not Manchester 1973 (probably to allow for the story to cover the presidential election, fitting for 2008 in the US). Sam hears or sees Maya through the TV, and Annie Cartwright is already a detective, not a PW. We knew all of this already, but the Critic has a few more incidental details of the pilot.
   The author of the review, Brian Ford Sullivan, believes the show will likely be successful, rather than follow the route of the American version of Coupling.
   Now, it Brits really want to get upset, wait till the Americans redo The Vicar of Dibley next year.

Finally, I have read the judgement from California about gay marriage. It may be prudent to post a comment from an earlier post, in response to a commenter, Madonna. I should note that I am not part of a conspiracy behind an ‘anti-gay industry’ or ‘“ex-gay” head cases’. I’ll also refrain from saying ‘You’re not bright,’ as you did to another Voxer, but I will begin with your own words, ‘Let me educate you.’ One proviso: I have read fewer Californian cases than, obviously, someone trained in an American law school. I have written based on what I have observed with Californian and American cases.
   It may also be instructive to read the below in conjunction with the previous post, also a response by me to a commenter who was considerably more civilized, in where I deal with Perez v. Lippold in more depth.

After having read the majority opinion, I remain unconvinced. While I agree the article is biased, I have to come to the same conclusion as Justice Baxter, principally for many of the reasons I outlined above.
   This may be time, now, to address Madonna’s points.
   First, Madonna, your attack on another commenter is unwarranted, and it’s a shame you would deny her her opinion from the outset without putting your reasoning first. It would not be unfair to dismiss anything that came afterward from you.
   I can equally attack you with your words:

No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

Precedents do not govern, they persuade. And if you do look back at Californian decisions, regardless of whether the issues are as controversial or not, they show a gradual, progressive moving forward of the law, catching up to public opinion in many cases. I believe you are ignorant of this basic fact of how the law has worked in California and, indeed, your own country, based on this very general, sweeping proposition. Indeed, Perez itself shows this, and I find the lead judgement in particular to be very, very clever.
   These precedents which I have at least enquired into do show some persuasiveness but none of them get around the problem California has with the Governor’s vetoes. The fact that the ‘a man and a woman’ definition has been placed in really do not help supporters of gay marriage. So we are essentially stuck with the position that I stated in my comment to the Gay Curmudgeon.
   Effectively I believe that the law has been circumvented, and not very cleverly, the majority judges trying to bury the core issue with legalese.
   Your bill argument is unconvincing. If the Governor’s position is so dead wrong, then vote the man out. I come back to the basic idea: the judge’s role is to interpret the law. And a bill is not law.
   As are your arguments, from a legal standpoint, about polls (not really a consideration generally for courts, though they are slightly persuasive), while another state’s court ruling is based on the legislation of that state.
It is also irrelevant which party appointed the judges.
   The position I had in the above post, then, is the one I must take. Perez shows how a clever court gets around restrictive legislation. You obviously believe that the law is restrictive and unfair here and perhaps even offends public policy. I respect your view. Common law precedents are littered with cases where the court has got around such law. The court in this latest case has not done its job and I would say that if the majority had an agenda to accept marriage for same-sex couples, then it has done it in a clumsy way that opens the case for future attacks.
   Even if I were on your side totally—and I am not saying I am totally against you, either—I would advise you both to continue campaigning for your cause, because this judgement is weak when compared with others that have, let’s say, pushed the law in a certain direction.
   Your battle is far from over though given current trends in the California, you may yet win. However, I will guarantee you now that it won’t be on this decision.

The following is a comment in response to the exchange from my earlier blog post on gay marriage in California. I believe it is important (for my own ego!) to address charges that I am prejudiced against gays or am a bigot. It is a pity that while I am open to seeing the other side of the argument in favour of gay marriage in California, as a heterosexual man I am already labelled (prejudged) as being incapable of that.
   I am going to Lawcrawler to see if I can find this controversial judgement and will give my thoughts on it later.

T. G. C., I am reading your extract short of seeing the full judgement, and I find it somewhat unconvincing.
   Let me address one point: the article I posted is an article I posted. Simple. I do find it somewhat offensive that you and Madonna would attribute its position to me when even I have not done so. Yes, you may feel it has a personal endorsement by its mere appearance here. In that case your opinion of me is forgiveable. I can understand that the article inflames certain passions. However, it is my opinion that if the article were fair, then the judges in this case do not understand their jobs.
   A bit about my history, so at least we can get on the same page here. I have a fairly good grasp of the law as I am qualified with an LL B. I live in a country that was an early pioneer in homosexual law reform and has a proud tradition of embracing lifestyles that traditionalists would be appalled at. I could probably even find you two gay couples who would attest to my views on the subject that I would say most gays (here) would believe are reasonable and fair.
   My posting an article is for promoting understanding, certainly my own, and certainly, too, to contrast the way your country handles legal positions against the way my one does.
   Let me take one of your highlighted points:

we disagree with the Attorney General and the Governor to the extent they suggest that the traditional or long-standing nature of the current statutory definition of marriage exempts the statutory provisions embodying that definition from the constraints imposed by the California Constitution, or that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from determining that constitutional question

   Obviously without reading the statute I am less informed, but this is fairly true: in general, in most common law jurisprudence, courts to interpret laws in line with (state or federal) constitutions.
   Then, however, we have a conflict if the definition of marriage is codified, and this is perhaps the stem of the conflict more than anything.
   Traditionally, even when legislation is interpreted in the spirit of a constitutional document—a familiar argument here given the Treaty of Waitangi—it is not done by completely violating the wording of that legislation.
   To you and Madonna, it may be an issue of what the public wants, but if you have a Governor who keeps vetoing such bills, then I find it unconvincing that we rely on those bills in legal interpretation. In fact, this fact alone illustrates the law’s insufficiency at this present stage for those supporting gay marriage.
   The judicial task when faced with wanting to respect the will of the people and equal-rights doctrines in a constitution is to find third ways, clever exceptions that provide citizens with what they want without violating the legislation before them. This is a given in common law.
   While this means that gay marriage will take far longer to be recognized if this is the prevailing trend, law is something that takes decades to remould, but it should not be short-circuited.
   The law of negligence is a classic example in tort: probably most law students will recall this took decades before the landmark Donahue v. Stevenson case in 1928 and Lord Atkin’s classic judgement.
   Laws are slow, they are often reactive, but it is the system we are laboured with. An ideal world would be one without laws and with self-regulation between people acting with their complete free wills. I hold this to be an ideal and it matters, at the end of the day, little what definitions state about this word or that—but it does matter to me that while we have our current system, it is conducted fairly until the people decide on another system again.
   You bring up Perez v. Lippold. You are right that this is actually highly convincing and I thank you for reminding me of it. I do know a little about this case but there are some distinctions based on religion, the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutional interpretation, and these really helped the couple there. The respondent also presented some heavily biased opinion that the court saw through.
   There was indeed a law written in statute that barred the marriage of the couple in that case, one that was, admittedly, steadily eroded by the courts as it expanded the definition of marriage to increasingly more races.
   The court held (inter alia) that the sections in that legislation were too vague especially when it came to racial classifications—which was how ultimately it got around the interracial ban.
   You see, there was no legislating from the bench: the judge in Perez showed how lacking the legislation was, how it offended the basic tenets of the requirements of American law, and it was effectively a challenge to the legislature that: if you want to block us, revisit the law and redraft it if you dare. This I accept as this fight goes on all the time in a democracy.
   This is why I asked you and Madonna to find me the judgement, though since I haven’t heard back, I’ll have a trawl through Lawcrawler myself in a sec.
   Without clever methods of finding a way around fairly strictly worded statutes, I do believe from what little I know (yes, maybe I shall accept the ignorance charge) the judges crossed the line here.
   Contrary to your and Madonna’s biased views of me, I retain an open mind.

John Armor in the Sun–Sentinel gives an excellent summary of the controversial case in California over gay marriage, where judges have ignored the separation of powers, trying to create laws from the bench. He begins:

The recent decision on gay marriage handed down by the California Supreme Court will have long-lasting and widespread effects far beyond the issue at hand. It creates a dangerous precedent justifying judicial violation of the separation of powers and demonstrates the increasing inclination of some judges to usurp the lawmaking powers reserved for the legislature and the people.
   Creating laws is clearly designated as a legislative function in both the California and U.S. constitutions. For example, it is the business of California’s legislators (or the people, in the case of a referendum) to vote for, or against, gay marriage. Enforcing the laws and applying the Constitution is the role of the courts. But as Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his dissent, in handing down this decision, “the majority places this controversial issue beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.” …
   Sadly, some of our judges have become black-robed politicians who happen not to be elected and who serve for life. They have turned their courtrooms into ad hoc statehouses, handing down laws that appear to have more to do with their personal beliefs than the Constitution.

   The rest can be read here. My view: if a schmuck like me outside the US understands the legislative function, democracy and the separation of powers, how come those four judges don’t?
   Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, this is an assault on democracy and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
   If I were an American, I’d be very worried—dodgy politicians on the one hand, and contemptuous judges on the other.

This has been, apparently, doing the rounds for a while, but I have missed it. It finally came on PDF today from a colleague. Normally I don’t have a lot of sympathy for law-breakers, but this gets extra marks for imagination.
   A Mr Justin Lee was booked for speeding, doing 116 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. This was issued by a police officer:

   Mr Lee wrote a letter, concerned about the above: Very clever—and cheeky. I should note that American English is not normal here, but Mr Lee probably had the wrong language installed on his computer; plus ‘grand theft auto’ is not used as a colloquial term, unless one is referring to a computer game.
   The police responded, unhumorously:

What is it with earthquakes? I channel surfed the networks and two of them had ’quake scenes (one fictional, one reporting from China). I hope this isn’t one of those signs, especially as China and New Zealand are in that Pacific ring of fire.