Monday, March 25, 2013


The Supreme Court takes up two separate "Gay Marriage" cases this week. On Tuesday  the court  hears argument in  Hollingsworth v. Perry, which examines whether the State of California violated the Due Process clause when voters enacted a law that prohibited Gay Marriage.  On Wednesday the court hears argument in US v. Windsor which examines the scintillating issue of whether section three of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the fifth amendment's equal protection of law guarantees. 

Here is our take: WHO CARES? How does it bother anyone if two people of the same sex get married? Who does it affect and how does it affect them? Even better,  lets say two people of the same sex do not get married but walk around and introduce themselves as a married couple. Should that be illegal? 

Passover this week, so it should be a light week in court. 

Judge Firtel caught some flack this weekend for granting a bond in a case in which the defendant failed to appear.  The Herald Hyperbole is here. 
Nothing good can come of this. 
Every time a judge gets negative publicity for granting a bond, it gets harder for the rest of us to get one for our clients. 

That's why we have two recommendations:  First:  from now on, every time your client gets a bond over the opposition of the prosecution and appears in court for a hearing, we recommend that you continually remind the judge of the prosecution's initial opposition. 
"My client is present your honor. If you recall, a year ago the prosecution vociferously argued against bond, and yet my client has made every court appearance and has not been re-arrested." 
Try it. It works. It's a way of reminding the judge that his/her decision has been validated. 

Second: email "you know who" at the Miami Herald and see if the Herald will publish an article: 
"John Smith, whose bond Judge Fairness lowered from $250,000.00 to $30,000.00 eleven months ago, returned to court today for trial, despite the prosecution throwing a fit during the bond hearing in which they whined that the defendant wouldn't return and would surely engage in a one man crime wave rivaling that of the fictitious Tony Montoya in Scarface."

 The second thing will never happen. The story doesn't sell newspapers. But our brethren criminal defense attorneys could and should continually remind judges that the prosecution opposed their client's release every time the case appears in court. 

Let my clients go. 
See You In Court. 


Anonymous said...

Rump, this is a totally serious question. I suffer from bipolar disorder. I am going through a pretty severe manic phase - which does not negatively affect my work - but is wreaking havoc on my personal life. My doctor has recommended hospitalization, which I tend to agree with. The question is, no one at work knows that I am bipolar, how do I request time off for hospitalization without letting the cat out of the bag?

Anonymous said...

It seems only assholes run for judge nowadays. We had De la O and Labora last year, Al Milian this year. Now comes Martin Zilber: http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/investigations/MI92527/

Are no nice people left who want to be judges?????? Why so many jerks

Anonymous said...

Rump, please defend Firtel's decision. Sure, every bond set is a gamble by a judge, but please explain how this gamble was reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Firtel was wrong. if he was already out on another case with ankle monitor and he goes out and commits this crime, he should have been held no bond. Once again your true colors show Rump. It's ALL about the money for you.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like 5:37 will be running for judge then. Shoe seems to fit.

Anonymous said...

Your gay marriage advocacy uses a trick you should recognize, given your career: burden shifting.

No large scale civilization, since the beginning of recorded history, recognized same sex marriage. You and your like-minded friends propose an historic change to that? Carry the burden! Don't demand that opponents prove why change shouldnt happen.

Persuade your fellow Americans. Go door to door, campaign at town hall meetings, buy billboards, etc.

In other words, do what Americans do -- participate in democracy.

But wait... uh oh. Isn't that just what Californians did? Used democracy? Empowered voters? But the vote didnt go your way, did it? Quick! Get a court to issue a decree! So much for democracy.

Anonymous said...

Defendant out on bond shows to court..
Dog bites man
No Story

Anonymous said...

Cant free the Slaves, society will fall apart.
Cant Let Women vote nor work society will fall apart.
Cant let Colored and Whites Marry society will fall apart..
50 years ago in FLA and 17 other States it was illegal for Blacks & Whites to Marry.

An ally said...

I agree with you that it shouldn't matter who marries who as long as the parties are all consenting adults and the fact that a same-sex couple is married doesn't hurt anyone else's male-female marriage.
But when you say Who Cares? it makes it sound like this is a trivial matter. For those that are discriminated against, this is a huge matter. Recognition of who you are is a huge deal. To afford others certain rights and not have them yourself is a huge deal. To hear a hospital say you can't visit your spouse because they don't recognize your marriage is a huge deal.
I care. And so should you.

Anonymous said...

I am a conservative legal beagle. If DOMA goes down on 10th Amendment grounds as it should, liberals will rue the day they appealed this decision. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the federal government to legislate on marriage. Nothing. The court in Boston was dead on the money on this one. But beware fellow leftists. 50% of what the federal government does is not authorized by the constitution. I hope this starts a trend of actually paying attention to what the 10th Amendment says.

Anonymous said...

Anybody else as sick of college basketball as me? The networks have tried to make each one of the tournament games into a major big-costume drama (with plenty of commercials, of course) and the 40 minute college games end up lasting longer than the 48 minute pro games, but the quality of play (especially when compared to our hometown pro team) is pathetic by comparison. Most of these college players who the networks try to make into national heroes couldn't even play on a pro developmental squad. It's time for it to end, and, thankfully, it will in less than two weeks, and then the big boys have the newtworks to themselves.

Anonymous said...

946............since when do voters trump the Constitution?

Yes, our society is consider something no other large scale civilization has ever done. However, we ARE different from them all. We have a Constitution that recognizes rights that no other country recognizes. I wouldn't trade that for anything.

When it comes to civil rights (including the right to choose one's life partner), the issue isn't what the democratic majority approves of, but what the Constitution allows.

From a constitutional standpoint, I can't see how the government can prohibit a person from choosing the person he or she wants to spend the rest of his or her left (or incentivize people to choose partners that meet the government's moral standards).

Frankly, it amazes me that with the divorce rate as high as it is and all of the horrible crap happening around the world, we're still debating who can get married to who.


Anonymous said...

9:46 here. When great lawyers start making sloppy legal arguments, it's a good sign that politics are in play.

BTDT, first you beg the question. Does the constitution recognize such a right? That's exactly what's to be determined.

Second, you attack a strawman - the government prohibiting you from spending the rest of your life with someone.

Third, you make a non-sensible argument about how the government ought not incentivize its moral standards. Really? Then what should the government do at all? Why legislate anything? What are ground for advocating gay marriage, if not one's own moral standards?

I'm all for gays marrying, and I'd vote for it in Florida. But this continuing liberal reliance on judicial fiat is bad law, makes for bad constitutional arguments, betrays a lack of respect for voting and the "common people", and creates a monstrous federal government.

Anonymous said...

Gays are fighting for the right to get married?

That's like praying for jury duty.

Anonymous said...

Running for Judge- 2014:

2014 is going to be a year where younger lawyers feel empowered to run. The days of these incumbents sitting pretty needs to come to a close.

It should not be about who has the best name. It should be having crap judges get opposed.

Not to mention, some of the new appointees need to earn their stripes in an election. Who will challenge them?

Judges like Fleur Lobree will be opposed again because of their name. That is unfortunate because she is a nice person and a good judge. Hopefully she is networking and making more contacts now that she is no longer sitting on Biscayne Boulevard at NDJC as a county judge.

Bottom line- lets see some young lawyers like Diana Gonzalez get out there and try and change the establishment. She was the underdog and did it--who is next?

2014 needs to be a new era of judicial politics in Miami Dade!

Anonymous said...

9:46, As for your 2nd response to BTDT re: attacking the strawman:
The full issue (as I see it) isn't if the government can prohibit you from choosing who you want to spend your life with. It's that people who choose to spend their life with a person of the opposite sex are given rights and privileges that those who choose to spend their life with a same sex person are prohibited from having.

Anonymous said...

Someone please tell me why me marrying my gay boyfriend offends his or her marriage to his or her spouse?

Anonymous said...

Funny how people just 60 years ago thought it was ok to put a couple in jail for trying to get married when one was white and the other black and now, they worry that gay marriage will ruin society.

I hate to quote Rodney King but, "why can't we all just get along?"

Anonymous said...

@1:39, Unfortunately mental disorders as well as affective disorders are still overloaded with burden of stigma and shameful. There is effective and safety psychiatric treatment for these tiring disease. I have bipolar and had worked at my full-time job for seven years when I had to disclose because I ended up in the hospital and missed two weeks of work. When I got back to work and applied for short term sick leave I had to have a doctors note on letterhead. Thus forcing me to give some kind of explanation as my letterhead had the name of the hospital I was in. It turned out to be a good thing for the most part. I chose only to disclose to my boss and it was a relief actually not to feel like I had to continue to “hide” it. And he was extremely understanding and kind. Best of luck to you.

Most men are under the impression attractive women are married or taken and to tend stare at from afar or fantasize in the shower or while in bed. Hot women get judged "she must be a gold digger" "her life must be perfect" "she must be snooty." A hottie who is single will feel undesirable and think there must be something wrong with her. As posted in the previous thread @5:12:00 in walks the average Joe who sees this woman and thinks "What do I have to lose, I'll ask her out." Boom! Average Joe lands a beautiful girl.

Average Joes stand a better chance of getting a hottie because they don't have a big ego and are not looking to land a hot looking girl to parade and show off to all his buddies and do the whole 'locker room talk' afterwards. The Average Joe will romance his hottie and make her feel special; not only for her body, but also for her mind and soul.

Anonymous said...

1:39, You want to cope with your condition? Run for judge seems to help all the other assholes. Want proof look at Rodriguez-Chomat Brennan "The Witch"& Cueto aka "El Loco Juez". So don't be so hard on ya self.

Anonymous said...

It's the stigma that keeps people who suffer from bipolar disorder from seeking help,” “It causes a stereotyping of people with psychiatric disability that keeps us from recognizing the fact that there is treatment. So they keep everything hidden. And they suffer. Their careers are destroyed, and their lives are destroyed.

Anonymous said...


First, past discrimination does not justify future discrimination.

Second, banning gay marriage has no effect beyond discrimination against a group. It does not further any legitimate interest. Specifically, homosexuals are free to act married, say that they are married, kiss, hold hands, etc. The only real effect is that they are denied fundamental rights.

In some ways, the ban is like the ban on sugary drinks in NY; you cannot buy one big gulp, but you can buy several small gulps, so what is the real effect?

Anonymous said...

A little mixed up logic on your behalf.
If you are allowed to buy a Big Gulp you get a big straw. Using the comparison to marriage, the big straw is all of the benefits that married couples get.
If you have to buy small drinks, you can look married, act married, kiss, etc with each of those small cups.
However, if you can't actually get married (the Big Gulp) you're left holding the short straw and can't get the benefits.