by publius
As you may know, Professor Dawn Johnsen (Obama's still-pending nominee to lead OLC) has been subjected to extremely unfair criticisms, largely because she was a vocal opponent of Bush's lawless OLC.
But this post from Powerline is just repulsive. It relates to the course Johnsen is teaching while waiting for our bold Senate to act. Take it away Paul:
The course Johnsen will teach is called "Sexuality, Reproduction and
the Law." In her course description, Johnsen says: "We will focus on
regulation aimed at sexual activity, reproduction and sexual
orientation. . . ." Last I heard, except for folks who are into rape,
sex with animals or offspring, or paying for sex, there isn't very much
remaining regulation aimed at sexual activity, reproduction, or sexual
orientation.Maybe that's why the course only runs until mid-October.
The bolded part is arguably one of the most uninformed things I've ever read (particularly from a lawyer). Even putting aside the snide sexist ridicule, the post is simply wrong. Off the top of head, I thought of issues like "don't ask, don't tell," and employment discrimination. In fact, there was a Supreme Court case this very term on pregnancy discrimination in pension calculations.
But then I thought — hey, maybe Google can help. And so I spent approximately six seconds typing on Google and found an actual draft syllabus (pdf) from this very class in a prior semester. Do you want to see the shocking radical subjects covered in the class?
Hide the kids, here they are:
- Foundations of the Right to Sexual Privacy: Contraception and Abortion
- State Regulation of Sex Outside Marriage, Marital Rape and Natural Law
- Sexual Orientation Discriminations and Transgender Issues
- Adolescent Sexuality and Sexuality Education
- Same-Sex Marriage & Domestic Partner Benefits
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Military and Adoption
- Theories of Sexuality, Gender and the Law; Sex, Gender and the Workplace
This is shameful stuff, even by the lofty standards of Time Magazine's Blog of the Year. He should apologize.
Isn’t she insufficiently opposed to the existence of foreign law….or something?
Linkworthy takedown. Unfortunaely, there are no awards or raspberry trophies in blogging, otherwise I’d second the nomination right alongside Legal Insurrection’s idiotic mustard nontroversy.
You should probably give the full name of the author (Paul Mirengoff) and the blog and make sure that it is in the title so that it is more easily found on Google.
You’re expecting shame of the shameless.
Neither publius nor Johnsen has even brought up the issue of the illegality of vibrators in a number of Southern states, laws which are intended to limit a woman’s access to orgasms (sorry, there is no other way to put it) even when she’s alone.
Just say the word “sexting” and you get all sorts of DA’s and politicians trying to scramble to find a legal and criminal response to the latest incarnation of flirting and the booty call.
Plenty left to not just regulate, but also discuss.
In Arizona, you can openly carry vibrators strapped to your leg in handy holsters to public forums in case you want to cause Democratic Congresspeople to have orgasms as they push death panels on everyone’s granny.
And even if he were correct–if decisions like Roe and Lawrence have eliminated all state regulation of sex, reproduction, and orientation except for rape, incest, beastiality and prostitution–that’s no reason not to study Roe and Lawrence, is it? I would think it would be all the more reason to study them.
Thullen wins so many threads that we might just have to award him a win over the whole blog. Possibly even the entire Internet.
Congrats, Dr. Science, on the elevation to Demiurge.
Why we need to study Roe? It isn’t like we can understand and interpret what words mean. Judges just vote and then we read about what happened until they vote again.
Why else would we live in Arizona, John?
Apologize? For what?
If there’s just SO much important stuff to cover, why is the course only 2 months long?
More dubious scholarship from the Left, which has this amazing capacity to either infantilize serious, complicated issues (“The public option means everyone gets insurance!”), or inflate minutiae into college courses (“Theories of Sexuality, Gender and the Law; Sex, Gender and the Workplace”.
Is it a survey course or an in depth treatment?
This is a rather dubious comment showing very little actual thought on the topic.
“Neither publius nor Johnsen has even brought up the issue of the illegality of vibrators in a number of Southern states, laws which are intended to limit a woman’s access to orgasms (sorry, there is no other way to put it) even when she’s alone.”
Or, as I was blogging six years ago.
On the more positive side, also six years ago, the USB vibrator.
But more seriously, how about our insane sex offender laws?; this is a post of mine I’d really like to urge people to read, although it’s hardly the first time I’ve addressed the topic. But check out the facts and figures and dreadful effects these crazed laws have.
See also here.
There’s also the ongoing moral panic about sexual solicitation of children on the internet, which doesn’t actually happen very much.
tomaig, I hope that was just bad snark.
I actually just spent my morning going over a very brief refresher course on Sex and Gender in the workplace, as I do every Fall when reporting back to duty as an instructor. As with every year, I note that there are a million mixed messages and odd underlying theories in our presentation. From the district’s POV, it is clearly a case of CYA. However, I would be very intrigued to see exactly how this framework arose and the different ways in which it is interpreted. For some of us, the interpretation of sexuality and gender in the workplace isn’t an abstract debate, but rather a constant litigation ground up for interpretation by teenagers and their parents in addition to the standard colleagues and supervisors.
In Arizona, you can openly carry vibrators strapped to your leg in handy holsters to public forums in case you want to cause Democratic Congresspeople to have orgasms as they push death panels on everyone’s granny.
I would love to see someone who has a big, can’t-overlook vibrator strapped to their leg, with the same indignant posture stand beside one of these nuts who are openly carrying guns to the town halls.
If done correctly the visual would be perfect – Two people standing side by side with obvious compensations issues.
“why is the course only two months long?”
Premature matriculation.
Correction dr. science:
“You are *never* alone when you have a vibrator.”
I second the “lets all go armed with giant rubber phalluses to any health care town hall” Maybe adding “you’ll get it when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands” on the signs we carry.
aimai
I think “warm, tingling hands” is more like it.
I also forgot to mention this 2004 post on the criminal act of selling sex toys. Thank goodness the law is protecting citizens of various states from these dangerous criminal fiends!
except for folks who are into rape, sex with animals or offspring, or paying for sex
Wasn’t he the guy that used to call himself “Big Trunk”?
I agree with Gary–our current sex offender laws are a travesty. Two sixteen year olds have sex and their parents find out–they may end up with a ‘sex offender’ label for life.
It is a pet peeve area of brutal government power, poorly applied, that few people seem to care about.
One of my other big ones in that vein is the civil asset forfeiture regime. A cop who thinks you have too much cash in your house can confiscate it because it must be ‘drug money’ with no further proof whatsoever. Then, ridiculously, the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn’t drug money. Oh and I hope you can pay your lawyer without that money…
Sebastian,
Your understanding of federal civil asset forfeiture law is out of date. Since 2000, the burden is on the DOJ to show on a balance of probabilities that the money is proceeds.
Pithlord,
Is that only for Federal forfeiture? I read recently of local forfeiture cases that were pretty extreme still occurring in Texas.
Plus, it should still be “beyond a reasonable doubt” for any type of punishment meted out by the government.
“I agree with Gary–our current sex offender laws are a travesty.”
I have an idea/suggestion, Sebastian: don’t you have a blog where you can write a front page post about this? You could even (I’d be grateful, as no one has, as is usually the case with my posts, save for exceptions here and there) link to me.
“One of my other big ones in that vein is the civil asset forfeiture regime.”
Yes, that’s also crazy. Some good links from a a blogger we can both probably admire.
“Since 2000, the burden is on the DOJ to show on a balance of probabilities that the money is proceeds.”
I’d be interested — I’m not doubting you, just interested in details — on a cite on that. IANAL, so I’d like to know more about what a “balance of probabilities” means in theory and practice.
It would, I think, be a heck of a lot less than “the preponderance of evidence,” and obviously isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Is this actually “due process”?
Is this 2006 case reasonable? What do you think of this?
How about, Pithlord, this 2007 case of Luther Ricks?
except for folks who are into rape, sex with animals or offspring, or paying for sex
Or was he “Hindrocket”?