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”
So yesterday I posted on Professor Buck Ryan and how he possibly, maybe, somehow could argue a right to due process exists. Not too long after publishing it I got an email with links to the response from the University of Kentucky asking if it changes my thoughts at all.
The short version: Not really.
The long version: Not really, because the University’s response only states there are additional allegations outside of the song, doesn’t elaborate on the nature of the complaints or the details of the investigation, and fails to identify the case it says supports its position.
The longer version: Not really because of all of the above, because the case the University references is a non-binding district court decision currently on appeal, and because I think, after having read the case the University referred to, that this is an arguably distinct situation which is covered by a specific University rule (which was recognized by the judge in that case) that may very well create a statutory entitlement to due process for Professor Ryan.
Continue reading “More Than Good Vibrations: Following Up on Buck Ryan”
I keep being tangentially related to scandals and shit this past couple years, and always through former professors.
First it was the case of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin, who I learned from and who went out of his way to try and help me find a job immediately out of law school. He was caught up, unjustly in my opinion, in the whole “Porngate” scandal in Pennsylvania and was eventually forced to resign. Note: I have a very nice framed picture of he and I on the evening he swore me into the Pennsylvania Bar, and it’s never coming down.
Now it appears my old journalism professor has gotten in trouble for singing.
Sit back, this is going to be a long post, mostly me gibbering about Constitutional shit, and is subject to being ripped apart by actual intellectual and constitutional practitioners who didn’t spend large portions of Con Law doodling in the margins of their texts.
Continue reading “I Slept Through Con Law: My (likely incorrect) take on Professor Buck Ryan’s Issue.”