Even more Culver CIty News! Here's a picture of Culver City's former Assemblyman and California's former Speaker of the House

Actual Culver City News of a sorts: Sunday's California Section to the LA Times contained a story about a lawyer whose court ordered reinstatement had been upheld by Supreme Court's failure to take up the case. The Cal Bar disbarred him, and fought his reinstatement, because he had been a drunken louse who ruined a lot of cases and stole a lot of money. When one of his clients sued him, the attorney replied with a blizzard of malicious, baseless lawsuits against that client. The Bar said his response to this client's case proved that he was not rehabilitated.

The Client was Howard Bennet, and the lawyer had lost his age-discrimination case (by missing deadlines) against the CC Unified School District. The article quoted Howie and he was still pissed. All this Sturm and Drang had earned him a $20,000 malpractice award.

My thought is that teh fact that the Attorney hates Howie Bennet is poor evidence that he remains unreasonable.

Damn, when props are due, props are due. Scazzilia just breathed fire into the 6th Amendment.

RM: Eh, methinks they only let him write the opinion because it was a unanimous decision. Insane though he may be, his peers gotta throw him a bone every now and again.

Is gay marriage a litmus test of intelligence, or has anyone actually heard a reasonable argument against? What I mean is that I see intelligent arguments for Socialism (say what you will about persistent unemploymnet, but the French don't work half as hard and enjoy their lives), for voting for John Kerry (ugh) or Bush or Nader, for trade barriers and for Free Trade, for wanting to build an empire for being isolationist, etc etc. Reasonable minds legitimately differ on most issues before Congress. But what possible function is served by denying the legal fruits and burdens of marriage to gays? Just one?

EK: It's quite simple. Allowing gay marriage would change a crucial foundation of society and serve the interests of...could it be... ;)

RM: In Mass., none. Or in legalese: "[T]he marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection."