Anyone Contact You Lately To Discuss Your Prescription Buying Habits?

I once got a telephone call from a "survey" company that concerned my "prescription" drug purchases. Now, I really only have two prescriptions, one for my blood pressure, and one for relief of stress. But, I was rather surprised that this company knew my information, what drugs I took and where I purchased them from. I was aghast that my personal medical history was out there for others to pick at.

Seems I am not alone (subscription required for full reading):

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Vermont law that barred the sale of doctors' prescription data to drug companies, ruling the law interfered with the pharmaceutical industry's First Amendment right to market its products.

Data companies such as IMS Health Inc. gather information from pharmacies about which medicines doctors are prescribing and ...

Jury Deadlocks On 23 Counts, Find Blago Guilty Of One Count

So ..... does anyone think that Blago's high profile television campaign that aired just before the trial (think Celebrity Apprentice where Donald Trump mumbled at the end of the episode Blago was voted off, something to the tune of "I hope you beat the charges") tainted the pool across America of possible jury members?

The jury was deadlocked on 23 of the 24 counts. Deadlocked. That means that they couldn't come up with enough people that felt the prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald of the outing of Valerie Plame prosecution that really only got as far as getting Libby convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice) presented a coherent case.

PATRICK FUCKING FITZGERALD? The one we thought would really give us the "perp walk" we all wanted to see re kkkkkKarl Rove do?

We really are doomed. The stupid people are taking over, and no smart person has a key to the room they are escaping from.

Come on, stupid people! Do the right thing and stop being enamoured by faux famous people.

UPDATE: 8/18/10 - It appears that the jury had one renegade holdout and that the other 11 jurors were ready to convict.

"He was lucky," [John] Grover said of Blagojevich. "I hate to put it like that, but the amount of evidence that prosecution presented to us — there was so much of it. I don't see how anybody could come to any other conclusion."

Happy Days Are Hear Again For The GLBT Community

Cheers for the rainbow coalition! The news was agog yesterday over the ruling by Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case. I still have my "No on 8" sticker attached to my book case at work (which I am sure irritates a few people)!

While watching and listening and reading all the different responses to the ruling, the most important thing I've learned is the way in which the ruling was set out, with approximately 25 different sets of "statements of facts." See, in our legal world (of which most people have no clue since they don't work in the system - and let me stress for those that do not work as lawyers, judges, clerks and whatnot, that the law is not based on common sense -- the law is the "law" and law is set by rulings that become precedents for future rulings) the process of appeals is not about "hey, I don't like how this proceeding ended, I want to appeal and get a different ruling." Once a decision in a court of law is rendered, the appeal process is a very narrow process, and procedurally bound by certain rules. One of these rules is that an appeal does not allow "new" ideas or arguments -- in essence, a re-hearing. An appeal requests the next court above to review the manner in which a court or judge made a decision, and absent a clear "abuse" by the court or judge, the higher court is bound by that ruling if it appears, by the "statement of facts" that no other ruling could have come out in the case.

Judge Walker's statement of facts, a longer list than is typically normal, sets the stage for complete "refutation" (laughs) of Prop 8. The proponents for this proposition (the defendants in this case) did not present a credible argument to the court, nor did they put on any credible witnesses (Judge Walker ripped a new asshole into each of the defendants' witnesses, finding them to be whack jobs at best), and stuck to the legal framework of existing law that prohibits discrimination in this State, and that by singling out one identifiable group of people and stripping them of rights, is not based on any legal authority as is statutorily written in our laws.

The argument that the majority rules falls on deaf ears when it comes to the judiciary. Mob mentality is abated by the use of the judicial system, so that when, despite a majority held belief, a principal adopted is so egregious to another group of people, the judiciary is where such acts are generally struck down. It has been repeated over and over so the stupid people (my meme!) can understand that if the majority rules process really were the law of the land, women would still be in the house, having as many babies as the Duggars, would not be voting, blacks would still be using a separate entrance to buildings, and male blacks would still be lynched for looking at a white woman. The stupid people can yell all they want about the majority ... it's the legality of the issue the majority is touting that has to be looked at by the judicial review. And, in the case of Prop 8, finally heading its way to the Supreme Court, that will be our Roe v. Wade for the GLBT community to finally get equality in marriage. SCOTUS, regardless of any one individual judge's opinion on the issue of marriage, will have to review this case from the standpoint of rights. And as has been ruled time and time again, a law cannot be formed that enshrines personal rights to one group while at the same time prohibits those same rights to another group.

Get over it - and that includes YOU, Mr. President. This was a HUGE victory for equal rights, and it will be upheld all the way through the Ninth Circuit up to SCOTUS.

Judge Rules On Certain Provisions In Arizona Immigration Bill, Grants Injunctions To Portions

The court blocked implementation of certain portions of the Arizona controversial immigration bill. Here is part of the ruling:

Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United Statesis likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B):
requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work.

Section 6 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

My Bankruptcy Brief In Opposition To Wife's Ridiculous Brief Called "Fun To Read" By BK Trustee

Today I was told by a bankruptcy trustee's attorney that a document I filed in opposition to the debtor's wife's opposition to the appointment of the trustee and request to hire a broker to sell the community property residence (which has enormous equity) was "fun" to read. I had to laugh at that. My briefs have been called all kinds of things, but this is the first time I've had a brief referred to as "fun to read."