Welcome to Wednesday on Lawyers & Liquor! I’m your host the Boozy Barrister, and today we’re gonna start stirring some shit up nice and creamy, a veritable shit stew, regarding the ability of a parent to withhold vaccinations from their children! That’s right, in the far off year of 2018, we’re seriously going to talk about the ability of the state to tell a parent they have absolutely no right to refuse to do something that common sense, common decency, and love for your fucking child should dictate you do goddamn anyhow without the state having to step in and call you a genuine fuckwit.
Goddammit, do I hate people some time.
Anyhow, at the end of this whole thing we’re going to be going over the rights of parents to refuse to inoculate their child for some dipshitty reason or another versus the power of the state to come in and smack the shit out of the self-same parents, forcing them to fucking give their kids a little pokey-pokey for the welfare of the human race as a whole. But before we even start to talk about that, we need to talk about something else, because it all fucking plays into the question of whether or not the government can force a kid to a receive a vaccination over the objections of the parents. We need to, first and foremost, talk about the religious liberty rights of a parent in relation to seeking medical treatment for their kids, and more specifically the rights of the parents who claim to hold religious beliefs that prevent them from seeking medical treatment for their kids.
So, without further ado, let’s look at Part 1 of “The State Can Inoculate” – The Religious Belief and Medical Care!
Continue reading “The State Can Inoculate – A Legal Discussion of State-Enforced Vaccinations Over Parental Objections, Part 1”
Yesterday was Gay Wedding Cake day in the lawyer world. If you’re not really sure what I’m referring to, I’d like to congratulate you on finding a new home under that rock. I hopes it’s spacious and has great wifi reception. For the rest of us that live in the real world, like the poor bastard behind the keyboard at Lawyers & Liquor, the internet went nuts when the news of the Supreme Court’s ruling of the case of the baker who refuses to be a Marie Antoinette-esque figure to LGBTQ+ couples and demands that they not eat his cake set the world aflame as people tried to read into its meanings. It was so bad that mere moments after the opinion was released I was fielding a phone call from a senior partner at my office who wanted to talk about it – meaning he wanted me to read and summarize it for him.
Most of the talk, though, was people desperately trying to find meaning in an opinion that never once really touched on the primary issue before it. Instead of talking about whether the butcher, the baker, and the leather gear maker have a right to deny service to literally anyone in the world they want by screaming “But my Jesus” and locking the doors at the mere sight of a rainbow, SCOTUS punted the ball. The Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling that applied to only that one set of facts, said “Fuck all of you waiting to hear if we’re about to descend into madness,” and based their ruling off of the baker not getting themselves an impartial tribunal at the first level in this shit.
Continue reading “Come on Arlene’s – A second bite at the apple in the wake of Masterpiece Caskeshop”
Let’s talk about the meme in the room, okay? This Film Friday, I’m eschewing a discussion of traditional media and the law and diving into the depths of internet memes and news stories to talk about a current events issue and, hopefully, put people on notice that the police are not your fucking friends when they’re talking to you and, even if you think you’re being absolutely clear, you have to literally use magic words to be entitled to your full constitutional protections.
That said, let’s dive into the case of the “lawyer dog.”
Continue reading “Film Friday: Lawyer Dog and The Incredible Injustice”
[Yes. I know it’s Tuesday. Fucking roll with it, folks, I was busy last week.]
Holy hell, and I mean that much more literally than I normally do, it’s the second Friday of the month and that means it’s time for us to get a visit from an old priest and a young priest here on Lawyers and Liquor as we dance with the Devil for this month’s Freaky Friday! This month we’re going to talk about how The Exorcist isn’t just a movie that made split pea soup just about the most un-appetizing meal anyone could ever fucking offer you while causing an entire generation of sexual deviants to look at their crucifixes in a whole new light, but also about how the exorcists are a group of folks amazingly prone to liability as the case we’ll talk about this month prove it.
So strap in, gimme three Hail Mary’s, and call your mother to make sure she’s not sucking cocks in hell while we fight the powers of darkness that, in this case, are the ones trying to cast out the demons for Freaky Friday, our exploration of the weirder side of the law.
Continue reading “Freaky Friday: Exorcists Can Get Beatific Immunity”
Holy hell was that vacation just what the doctor ordered. I mean, the doctor didn’t order it. My office did. Because I’ve been going full bore for a few years now without the chance to unwind for a bit, and I was starting to have the burnout effects cropping up all over. Still and all, I’m back now, and that means it’s time to bring everything up to date, doesn’t it? So, for the first (belated) Lawyers & Liquor post back from the mountains of Tennessee and my revelry in the numerous distilleries bordering a great national park, we’ll be lighthearted.
Like, you know, how a court recently ruled your unlicensed dog can probably be shot by the cops without violating the Fourth Amendment.
Just some really light stuff.
Continue reading “Fido is Contraband: No Property Interest In Unlicensed Pets”