31 December 2017

Arbitrary Endpoint

Just to sort of close the year out on an appropriately pained note somewhere near C#"…

  • Why doesn't it really surprise anyone that Roy Moore is not only unfit for office (as discussed here several times), but is a sore loser who can't accept that Manifest Destiny doesn't include him as a US Senator? It's almost as if a horse's ass is allowed to vote with fewer barriers — and a better ID — than many melaninically-enhanced residents of Alabama. If anything, DennisRoy Moore's history argues that the only "religious test" that should be imposed on temporal office and power in the US is that proclamation of intent to impose religious values — no matter whose they are or what they are — in office should be disqualifying.
  • The first substantive rule of attorney ethics (except in California) reads:

    A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

    Model R. Prof. Cond. 1.1. (California buries a less-clear equivalent in Rule 3-110.) This means — at minimum — that before filing suit asserting a particular statutory cause of action, the lawyer filing the suit should read the damned statute to make sure it provides the remedy what the client wants.

  • Congratulations, Wormyfruit: You've validated my demand for user-replaceable batteries. And, in a more general sense, for open systems not controlled by the original vendor. Lexmark, you're next. Then, this was supposed to have been resolved with 1960s and 1970s antitrust doctrine concerning "tying" — the reason that you do not, in fact, have to buy Xerox-brand paper for your Xerox-brand photocopier — but enforcing such doctrine has gone out of style.
  • In the next few months, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in Carpenter v. US on whether cell phone location records are protected by the Fourth Amendment. Professor Kerr offers a typically thoughtful description of the issue. I don't agree with his preferred outcome (IMNSHO, location data concerning a particular citizen — or noncitizen! — gathered by law enforcement authorities without a warrant impairs the Fourth Amendment right of the People to be secure in their persons), but both the column linked to and internal links in that column provide some necessary education.

    And, for you fans of TV crime dramas: A decision that this data is private only requires law enforcement authorities to get a warrant — show a judicial officer that there is probable cause that this particular data will result in admissible evidence relating to criminal activity. That is not a very difficult standard.