The Almighty has filed an answer in the suit against His Holiest of Holies in the 4th Circuit Court of Nebraska. Well, the news article says “filing,” so it could be an answer or a motion to dismiss. I think the latter. Because His Omniscience avers that there is no juris­diction over His Incorruptible Personage in the Nebraska courts.

According to the Clerk of the Court, the filing from the King of Kings “mirac­u­lously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!” The document lists a Corpus Christi law office telephone number.

I’d love to get my hands on copies of the filings. If anyone knows if they can be found somewhere on The Interwebs, let me know!

A play of which I am not terribly fond.

The real subject of this post is bar require­ments. For those unfa­miliar with our American system of regu­lating the legal profession, all persons purporting to offer legal advice, or purporting to represent clients in court, must be licensed by the Supreme Court of the state wherein they are prac­ticing. Like doctors, masother­a­pists, fortune-​​tellers, and taxi­der­mists, state govern­ments license lawyers, and no one without a license may practice law. In order to gain a license, or in lawyer esoterica, “be admitted to the bar,” a prospective attorney must meet some require­ments. These require­ments vary from state to state, but nearly always include passage of some qual­i­fying exam­i­nation (the “bar exam,”) and passing a character and fitness exam­i­nation. The former is the type of exam you are all familiar with from school: you sit and write for two and a half days. Some bubbles. Mostly writing. Then they grade you. The latter, however, is an exam­i­nation like what you get from the doctor: they look at you really closely to make sure you are the sort of person they want prac­ticing law in the state.

In order that they might carry out the character and fitness exam­i­nation, they make prospective attorneys fill out some lengthy forms divulging every­thing. If you can think of it, and if it’s not a legally imper­mis­sible consid­er­ation, they make you divulge it. Traffic tickets. Expunged court proceedings. Medical history. Every address and every job you’ve ever had since you were 18 (or in the past ten years, whichever is longer). Then they use all this infor­mation to judge your character and fitness to practice law. Moral turpitude, if you will. In practice, your truth­fulness and thor­oughness in divulging naughty things from your past will be of more impor­tance in most situ­a­tions than the nature or character of those naughty things. Hence the impor­tance of being earnest.

But alas, woe and regret! The forms require six character refer­ences: three who have known the applicant well for at least 5 years. Weep and repent! I know (maybe) one qual­i­fying person! Who knew having no friends might actually derail my career plans. I guess I’m just unfit to practice law in Key Midwestern Swing State.

Today, my law school hosted a mini-​​panel on equality as part of the University’s ongoing “Diversity Week,” and as part of the Law School’s “Constitution Week.” Several professors spoke on their research into equality and the Constitution. All three took a Progressivist stance.

By Progressivist, I mean this:

It is one thing to insist that the law be applied equally to all. It is entirely another to insist that equality requires the unequal appli­cation of the law. For instance, if equal operation of the law has the effect of ‘disen­fran­chising’ some group (the poor; the uned­u­cated; the disin­ter­ested), then the law must be applied unequally in order to even out the effect. The argument is that ‘equal’ operation of the law ignores the contextual differ­ences between groups, and so equal operation of the law rein­forces those contextual differ­ences. Examples of contextual differ­ences appar­ently include wealth, education, color, history of oppression/​disenfranchisement, gender, &c., &c.

Here are just some of the problems:

1. The law does not exist to enforce “contextual equality,” or “equity” as it was termed by a panelist. The law exists to protect indi­vidual rights, and it accom­plishes this by setting objective rules for when and how government force may be used. The law is not a vehicle for enforcing income equality, or education equality, or weight equality.
2. This is not a country of groups. It is a country of indi­viduals. Groups do not have rights; only indi­viduals do. It would be silly indeed to insist that the law enforce ‘equity’ on an indi­vidual level, so this group­think is essential to the Progressivist’s position. How, as Ayn Rand asked, can one purport to be a defender of minority rights, if one ignores the rights of the smallest minority?
3. There is nothing relevant to legal deter­mi­na­tions (that is, deter­mi­na­tions of whether and how government force should be applied in particular instances) beyond that which is ethically relevant. The fact that one is rich does not affect one’s guilt for a murder. The fact that one is of Asian extraction does not affect whether one’s contract is enforceable. Only voli­tional acts are morally cognizable, and the law should concern itself with only those voli­tional acts related to the instant purported rights-​​violation.

In all, it was a pretty unfor­tunate display.

New York Senator and aspiring Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton is set to unveil her new plan to enslave physi­cians and ensure that all Americans have equal access to death today. Highlights will include: indi­vidual mandates, requiring all Americans to buy health insurance; employer mandates, requiring employers to pay for employee health care; and insurance mandates, barring insurance companies from charging unhealthy clients more for coverage. Specifically,

Clinton’s package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.

But here’s how her ‘top policy advisor’ describes the plan:

It puts the consumer in the driver’s seat by offering more choices and lowering costs.

Balderdash! Telling insurers they can’t charge more for unhealthy people means everyone will have to pay higher premiums. And when those premiums pass out beyond the ability of most Americans to pay, guess who will step in to pay it. Hillary. But as she will be extracting all that money from American taxpayers in the first place, this program promises to bankrupt Americans and make quality health care a thing of the past.

Hold on to your backsides. We’re in for a bumpy ride.