Thursday, August 27, 2009


We are pleased out first post on the ominous subject of the State's so called "interest" in the health and demographics of population growth drew so much interest and comments. So we continue with the second part of our view on this subject.

(Those of you tuning in hourly awaiting the big PD expose, fear not. We are vetting sources and checking the documents and dealing with certain legal issues, including semi-anonymous email threats from those at certain buildings on 14th street who believe they may be mentioned in the post. Have patience.  UPDATE: Our putative PD post is causing concern on 14th street. Without us even mentioning his name, one very top advisor/supervisor (hanger-on'er)  is running around telling people he hopes the "asshole who runs the blog names him" so he can take some sort of legal action. "Get in line pal", is all we have to say about that. 
Care to comment on the woman who left the office and is now in California? Why did she leave? Any comment? Care to comment on the "attorney" who can't pass the Bar's background check but was offered a job anyway?  He doesn't happen to have any "family" working at your office does he?  Still making PDs wear suits to the jail? How's that working? Anyway, keep ranting about us. At least we know you're reading the blog. And that's a good thing. 

In Buck v. Bell we analyzed the 1927 decision upholding the State of Virginia's "right" and ability to forcibly sterilize some of its citizens. Some of you, ignoring that the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion, brushed Buck v. Bell aside as a decades old irrelevant case with little meaning. Ignoring for the moment that forced sterilization's continued through the Nixon administration, how relevant is the decision in Maher v. Roe, 432 US 464 (1977)?

In the wake of Roe v. Wade, Connecticut issued regulations limiting Medicaid payments to women seeking first trimester abortions to those that were "medically necessary." Two indigent women challenged the regulations.

Since State Medicaid payments payed for "normal" child-births, the issue was framed by the court as whether a State could distinguish between funding abortions and child-births differently under the US Constitution.

Powell wrote for the majority 6-3. The first thing Powell addressed is what Roe did NOT cover: Roe did not declare an unqualified ‘constitutional right to an abortion. It implies no limitation on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds’.”

Since Roe implies no limitation on the State to make value judgments, the door can certainly swing the other way: The State can make a value judgment favoring abortions as a policy. Impossible you say? Read on McDuff...

“The State unquestionably has a strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth . . . an interest honored over the centuries.” Fn 11. (Emphasis supplied.)

And now it gets really really scary because here's what Powell wrote for the majority in footnote 11:

“In addition to the direct interest in protecting the fetus, a State may have legitimate demographic concerns about its rate of population growth. Such concerns are basic to the future of the State and in some circumstances could constitute a substantial reason for departure from a position of neutrality between abortion and childbirth.”

Put another way: Two so called conservatives (Rhenquist and White) three moderates (Burger, Powell and Stewart) and one liberal (Stevens) had absolutely no problem signing an opinion asserting the State's right to regulate the fetus in compliance with State mandated population and demographic growth concerns.

The State may want population growth and won't pay for abortions. Or more likely, the State may decide we have enough people for now and can "depart from a position of neutrality between birth and abortion" and....and ? And dare we say it? Justice Rhenquist signed on to an opinion that clearly says the State may ENCOURAGE (or more) abortion to control the population.

You see, as we have been saying forever, there is no difference between this popular distinction between liberals and conservatives. They both fervently believe the State owns you, they just differ on what the State should do with that ownership.

In Buck v. Bell the Court allowed the State to sterilize imbeciles and epileptics, and people wrote we were over-reacting.

In Roe v. Maher, the court called the spade a spade- the State owns the fetus and may in the future fund or refuse to fund certain procedures based on "legitimate state goals" like population growth.

And all you women thought the Roe cases were protecting your body.

Please note: We ARE NOT talking about abortion here.
We are talking about the philosophical underpinnings of these cases, which have little to do with abortion and everything to do with individual rights or the lack thereof.

We are NOT saying President Obama wants death squads.

We are saying as we approach this debate on health care to watch what is said and written and the philosophy behind it very carefully. Because as we read Maher, the philosophy and constitutional underpinnings for justifying the ability of the State to tell elderly people that the state can't afford to pay for their medical care anymore, or of forcing abortions for population control, are well in place.

Do you still think Buck v. Bell was an aberration and insignificant?

FN1: In Maher, the court clearly states the Constitution imposes "no obligation on States to pay for ...any medical expenses of the indigent."
How does that square with the current debate?

NB: Due to our long standing blog policy, we don't write about personal issues of Judges, including where they live, or how much money they have unless it directly affects some aspect of their work. Apparently, cheaper and more "National Enquire-esque" type blogs don't have that same policy. C'est la vie.


Anonymous said...

17th street? Check your GPS.

Anonymous said...

Quick, Rumpole, very quick!

Anonymous said...

"National Enquire-esque" type blog? Ouch. That's gonna leave a nasty mark. David Markus with an O will not be pleased.

Anonymous said...

it's sad that the public defender's office has become what it has. most people on this blog have no idea what a great office it was in the 1970's. The lawyers who worked there then became the best lawyers in the united states. now it is run by people like rory stein who has always been a snot nose who thought he was better then his class. and who the hell is carlo martinez?

Anonymous said...

To the person who doesn't like Maria Ortiz-

What's wrong with a Nova law degree? I have one. I also have 2 other degrees from more "prestegious" institutions. I have also been pretty successful in my legal career.

To say where I went to school or the legal positions I have held would allow people to know who I am and I long ago realized that the shallow one this blog will foam at the mouth to insult someone to make up for their own inadequacies. I am not up for that today.

However, Nova is a good school and I don't think it's fair to blame your complaints about her as a judge on that.

I seriously doubt YOU went to Harvard.....

Anonymous said...

Kudos to KFR and Miami-Dade prosecutors for not caving to victim's unreasonable demands.
See: http://www.justnews.com/video/20571865/index.html

Anonymous said...

u are a clever blogger. but the federal blog kinda reminds me of a high school rag.

Rumpole said...

7:56- all in good fun with Mr. M.

But on a serious note- No Judge should have even the area of town they live in publicized. John Schlessinger and his wife, besides being Judges are both former prosecutors. The DBR should not have said the area in which they own their home. They are entitled to privacy, safety and to have their personal lives kept personal. I understand the need for financial disclosure, but I very strictly enforce my rules about keeping private lives private unless a Judge does something in their private life that directly affects their work.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Good Video. Damn Mark Eiglarsh looks good on Camera. Good job Mark!

Anonymous said...

Nova is a good school...

Oh please. I can think of good reasons to attend Nova (for example, when you live and work in Broward), but a "good school"? Compared to what? Ave Marie?

The Law School Rankings by US News & World Reports are certainly flawed, but they provide a rough guidepost to quality. Of 184 law-schools, 139 ranked higher than Nova.

Here's some data for the class admitted in 2007:

Acceptance Rate....... 47%
LSAT (Median)......... 149
LSAT (25-75%)......... 147-151
GPA (Median).......... 3.27
GPA Range (25-75%).... 3-3.53

Acceptance Rate....... 34.3%
LSAT (Median)......... 159
LSAT (25-75%)......... 156-162
GPA (Median).......... 3.64
GPA Range (25-75%).... 3.44-3.83

Acceptance Rate....... 26.6%
LSAT (Median)......... 169
LSAT (25-75%)......... 167-170
GPA (Median).......... 3.72
GPA Range (25-75%).... 3.61-3.82

Anonymous said...

As I'm pre-occupied, here's are two questions to which I'd love to know the answer:

Using the latest US News and World Report as a measuring stick, how many judges of the Eleventh Circuit are graduates from a "Top 60" law school? How many are graduates of a "Tier Four" law School.

Under the latest US News rankings, UF, FSU and UM are ranked 51, 52 and 71, respectively. Stetson is considered a "Tier Three" school, while Nova and St. Thomas are in "Tier Four."

Anonymous said...

can we start talking about the hot PD and SAO hires, PLEASE?

Anonymous said...

Tomorrow! August 28th!
PDO versus SAO smackdown take two!

With the SAO winning by appeal the PDO is trying again to have their caseload reduced on Constitutional grounds this time.

Be there REG Courtroom 4-3 for case number F09-019364 to see the fireworks!

Anonymous said...


Please handicap the judical races for 2010. I want to donate money to the judges, but I would prefer to donate to judges I know will not get any opposition. That way, I get full "credit" for the donation and a 99% refund after the qualifying date.

However, please do not let this handicaaping get in the way of your NFL handicapping.

Nova Law Grad

Anonymous said...

can we start talking about the pd intern who is nailing the all the milfy judges and defense attorneys? dude is my hero

Anonymous said...

Reemberto Diaz, Vicki Siegler, Carol Ferrero, David Singer and Jayne Weintraub were all in my Law class at Nova. It gave us a Good solid education.
D. Sisselman
Nova '80

Anonymous said...

Remember that judges have to pay a filing or qualifying fee of about $6,000 plus 2-3 publicists, printing and other expenses. Even if a judge does not get opposition, campaign expenses could easily run into $35,000.00 or more.

Anonymous said...

I bet you Nova is better than UM.

Anonymous said...

5:20 pm, don't you know that's the Captain's job.

Anonymous said...

milian is a MILF

Anonymous said...

Aphorisms to live by:

A stopped clocked is right twice a day.

Even a crappy law-school produces the occasional star.

Although Harvard has fewer law grads than Nova sitting on the 11th Circuit, Harvard's still pretty good.

Anonymous said...

Rump, it cracks me up!! All this threat of suing you just confirms what all of us sick in our gut pit PDs have been hearing for a while.

Anonymous said...

Best Law Schools
Ranked in 2009

U.S. News surveyed 184 accredited programs to get the information used in the ranking of top law schools.

My Compare Schools List Sort by Rank | Name
Score Tier 2008-2009 Tuition Total full-time enrollment Distance

1 Yale University New Haven, CT
100 1 Full-time: $46,000 per year 588 Enter your zip
2 Harvard University Cambridge, MA
95 1 Full-time: $41,500 per year 1,730 Enter your zip
3 Stanford University Stanford, CA
93 1 Full-time: $42,080 per year 539 Enter your zip
4 Columbia University New York, NY
88 1 Full-time: $45,674 per year 1,266 Enter your zip
5 New York University New York, NY
87 1 Full-time: $42,890 per year 1,423 Enter your zip
6 University of California--Berkeley Berkeley, CA
84 1 In-state, full-time: $30,944 per year, Out-of-state, full-time: $43,189 per year 865 Enter your zip
6 University of Chicago Chicago, IL
84 1 Full-time: $41,835 per year 593 Enter your zip
8 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA
82 1 Full-time: $44,330 per year 786 Enter your zip
9 University of Michigan--Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI
81 1 In-state, full-time: $41,500 per year, Out-of-state, full-time: $44,500 per year 1,151 Enter your zip
10 Duke University Durham, NC
80 1 Full-time: $42,938 per year 611 Enter your zip
10 Northwestern University Chicago, IL
80 1 Full-time: $45,332 per year 779 Enter your zip
10 University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA
80 1 In-state, full-time: $36,800 per year, Out-of-state, full-time: $41,800 per year 1,155 Enter your zip
13 Cornell University Ithaca, NY
78 1 Full-time: $46,670 per year 591 Enter your zip
14 Georgetown University Washington, DC
75 1 Full-time: $42,065 per year 1,631 Enter your zip
15 University of California--Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA
74 1 In-state, full-time: $31,103 per year, Out-of-state, full-time: $41,624 per year 1,012 Enter your zip
15 University of Texas--Austin Austin, TX
74 1 In-state, full-time: $23,427 per year, Out-of-state, full-time: $38,697 per year 1,233 Enter your zip
17 Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN
73 1 Full-time: $42,206 per year 578 Enter your zip
18 University of Southern California (Gould) Los Angeles, CA
72 1 Full-time: $44,510 per year 605 Enter your zip
19 Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO
69 1 Full-time: $40,436 per year 831 Enter your zip
20 Boston University Boston, MA
66 1 Full-time: $38,266 per year 822 Enter your zip
20 Emory University Atlanta, GA
66 1 Full-time: $39,776 per year 697 Enter your zip
20 University of Minnesota--Twin Cities Minneapolis, MN
66 1 In-state, full-time: $24,686 per year, Out-of-state, full-time: $35,089 per year 780 Enter

Anonymous said...

I notice that the Nova grads seem to do much better in the Justice Building than the UM or most of the out of state schools. Other than being overpriced, Nova seems to be just as good as any other school.

Anonymous said...

this nova stuff is really funny. nova is not a good school. a good school is defined as hard to get into. nova is easy to get into. therefore, nova is not a good school. however, many good lawyers graduate from bad school. got it nova grad?