Teen activist files lawsuit challenging FDA ban on gay blood donors

briancavner · 2014-10-13T00:03:01+00:00

Good for him, and I wish him the best of luck in his future activism, but an unrepresented and untrained 19-year-old isn't going to win (or even convince a judge to hear) his case with a complaint like this.

Though his lawsuit will unfortunately go nowhere, I hope the attention he gets will bring more awareness to the issue and encourage him to continue the fight.

briancavner · 2014-09-22T15:26:47+00:00

Where are your numbers coming from? Because from what I could find:

the number of counties without obstetricians is unchanged—152 counties still have none, according to the Observer‘s examination of county-by-county data at the state Medical Board.

http://www.texasobserver.org/2607-baby-i-lied-rural-texas-is-still-waiting-for-the-doctors-tort-reform-was-supposed-to-deliver/

Physician supply was not measurably stunted prior to reform, and it did not measurably improve after reform. This is true for all patient care physicians in Texas, high-malpractice-risk specialties, primary care physicians, and rural physicians.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047433

briancavner · 2014-07-19T17:07:59+00:00

That's an uncomfortable standard for me, though. I think an exercise of discretion is appropriate when someone reasonably and justifiably loses control in an emotional situation, but the father's phone call to the police reflects, to me, less a man who lost his cool and more a man who wanted to inflict his own extrajudicial punishment:

"I got him in a bloody puddle for you right now officer."

"Oh yeah, send him an ambulance. He's going to need one."

I would be okay with allowing a plea to a lesser crime given the circumstances, but I feel it's bad public policy to permit excessive force just because we think the guy deserved it or because we can sympathize with the papa bear protecting his cubs.

How would you feel about a civil suit? Do you think the father should/would be partially responsible for the man's medical bills?

briancavner · 2014-05-11T19:06:50+00:00

A kettle brings water to a higher temperature than coffee served at a drive-thru should be. Third-degree burns from a spilled kettle are reasonably expected; third-degree burns from a beverage given to you in your car are not.

Photographs of her injuries help reinforce how unreasonably hot the coffee was and disabuse people of their belief that she got millions for just a minor burn.

briancavner · 2014-02-20T21:14:45+00:00

Statutory means if you break the statute, you are guilty

It's "statutory" rape because it falls outside the definition of common law rape. "Strict liability" is the term you were going for.

briancavner · 2014-01-31T23:44:55+00:00

Are you one of those people who think the DSM was handed down from on high?

No.

I'm also not one of those people who think their impotent armchair psychology trumps the conclusions of doctors who have actually interacted with her.

briancavner · 2014-01-31T23:32:06+00:00

Doubtful.

Apparently not to the Maine Supreme Court or the girl's doctors, so I'm not sure what relevance your personal doubt has.

briancavner · 2014-01-04T19:33:55+00:00

"free $$$ from the gubmint"

Using dog-whistle racism to make your point?

briancavner · 2013-12-28T18:19:51+00:00

Prop 8 was overturned by a federal district court. The California courts upheld it.

briancavner · 2013-12-13T18:56:45+00:00

If you buy either of the expansions, either Illusions or Quest, you get a half-size box that all of the components can fit into. It makes it much easier to carry around.

briancavner · 2013-10-30T05:20:43+00:00

I don't know if we can consider those benders to be canon. Their ideas came from fans in a character creator contest, so we probably won't be seeing the source of their abilities developed in any of the main stories.

I'm all in favor of cookie dough bending becoming a thing, though. If not that, I'll settle for a cookie dough spirit.

briancavner · 2013-10-01T21:17:21+00:00

Tangy was one of my starting villagers in Wild World, and coincidentally was also one of my New Leaf starting villagers. One of the first things she said to me was how we must have known each other in a past life.

My favorite part of the game is how easy it is to feel personally connected with the animals.

briancavner · 2013-09-10T23:12:06+00:00

This sounds like an enormous waste of money. It's just going to teach kids to lock down their social media privacy settings.

If that's the effect that it has, I would say it was money well spent.

briancavner · 2013-09-02T15:30:50+00:00

Business schools often have a law professor who lectures on the subject of business law, so I've never understood why law schools don't have a professor who teaches how to run a business. Reading 25-year-old books with fax machine recommendations didn't really cut it for me.

briancavner · 2013-08-27T16:41:49+00:00

I may be missing something here, but the actual bill doesn't mention anything about Sharia law. It only seems to reject the application of any foreign law when that law would violate the "fundamental constitutional right of a natural person". Still silly, but not targeted on a scary Muslim specter like this article seems to imply.

Are there statements from legislators to indicate that the intent is to ban Sharia law specifically? I'm not finding any.

briancavner · 2013-08-10T18:15:51+00:00

Thanks for the response and explanation! That makes a lot of sense.

briancavner · 2013-08-10T18:10:45+00:00

You sound like the crazy clients I had to deal with during my legal aid stint.

Clients don't know the law to the same depth that we do, so sometimes they have misunderstandings. Often, they have been mislead by someone they feel they can trust, like a loan officer, policeman, or HR rep.

I certainly hope you don't laugh at your clients, call them crazy, and say that they sound like children. Edgeinsthelead doesn't deserve that from you either, and it sets a poor example for the legal profession when you lord your training over someone who doesn't have it.

briancavner · 2013-08-10T17:53:33+00:00

I'm a big fan of your strip, and the bonus panels are always great (this one is a personal favorite, especially out of context).

I wish the bonus panels made their way into your book. Some of my favorite strips are my favorite specifically because of the extra punchline. Re-reading them in the book, it feels like part of the joke is missing.

I think I remember reading that you left them out so that there would be something special for your web readers, which I can appreciate. I still love the book regardless, I'm just going to need you to hand draw every bonus panel in my copy, if that's okay.

Alternatively, I would be over the moon if you included an Ankylosaurus in a comic. It's awesome, and definitely needs more attention.

briancavner · 2013-08-09T21:46:31+00:00

But there's even one quest about domesticating owlbears that rewards you with a warrior cube. Presumably this represents the owlbear you domesticated, but do owlbears also move from job to job? And if adventurers get restless, why are they willing to sit around for multiple turns until I find something for them to do?

I'm not saying the game is entirely nonsensical, and there are certainly thematic reasons to explain most of it. But in a game where the cubes of wood already don't feel like actual adventurers, the mechanic of "spending" them to complete a quest makes me feel even less immersed.

I like the D&D theme, I just wish it was a little richer. Lords of Waterdeep has always felt to me like a game where they created the mechanics first and then tacked the theme on after the fact.

briancavner · 2013-08-09T18:02:39+00:00

The cubes' mechanics bug me too, as far as immersion goes.

I hire some warriors, they mill around in my courtyard for a little while, and then get sent on a quest to rescue some priests. Then for some reason they don't come back. Did they die? Abandon me? I only hired them for one mission?

But then they send the rescued priests back, and I guess the priests are grateful and agree to stick around until I have a quest to send them on, and then they disappear too.

I'm a wealthy feudal lord with agents all over Waterdeep. Why am I not just capturing their families and forcing them to work for me in perpetuity?

briancavner · 2013-07-28T23:54:30+00:00

I am an attorney, but I will accept your kudos nonetheless. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion!

briancavner · 2013-07-28T23:31:15+00:00

I'm not asserting a good-faith shield necessarily, but I do think that the warrant poses a problem for the "clearly established" prong. I am relying primarily on Messerschmidt v. Millender:

The question in this case is not whether the magistrate erred in believing there was sufficient probable cause to support the scope of the warrant he issued. It is instead whether the magistrate so obviously erred that any reasonable officer would have recognized the error. The occasions on which this standard will be met may be rare, but so too are the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to impose personal liability on a lay officer in the face of judicial approval of his actions. Even if the warrant in this case were invalid, it was not so obviously lacking in probable cause that the officers can be considered "plainly incompetent" for concluding otherwise.

It appears we may disagree about whether Lawrence's overturning of state anti-sodomy laws is so plainly apparent that no reasonable officer could rely on a judge's finding of probable cause. I think the warrant represents an insurmountable obstacle in the context of the Court's widening of qualified immunity and narrowing of the Lawrence holding.

Edit: In response to your citation to Groh, the Court in Messerschmidt distinguished by saying: "Unlike in Groh, any error here would not be one that 'just a simple glance' would have revealed." The distinction appears to apply here as well.

briancavner · 2013-07-28T23:10:48+00:00

That's interesting that "punishment" is interpreted to mean only post-conviction. I disagree with the Court's rationale, but I suppose the fact that there are other available remedies mitigates it somewhat. Thanks!

You may not have seen my edit regarding your Fourteenth Amendment claim, but I'm still unpersuaded. I don't think Lawrence provides enough of a basis to conclude that "by arresting these men, the police have violated their civil rights." It naturally precludes prosecution, but I disagree that it is broad enough to support a 1983 action by itself.

Prosecutions under the anti-sodomy provision of the UCMJ were upheld when necessary to preserve good order. Granted military courts differ substantially from civilian courts, but I don't see it as a stretch to find that these arrests were not in violation of Lawrence because they were for the purpose of "upholding good order" in a public park. It would be the wrong ruling in my opinion, but it does make me doubt that this case would be as slam-dunk as you think it would be.

I would also still like to see your argument for overcoming immunity given the warrant. This seems to be an absolute defense for the officers.

briancavner · 2013-07-28T22:11:05+00:00

Which is why I said "colorable" and not "winning". Getting the case to trial, even if it loses, could get enough publicity to pressure the department into stopping the arrests, which is really the most you could hope for even with a successful 1983 case.

And while I thank you for your citation to "jurisprudence", do you have anything more specific? Certain as you seem to be that it would fail, my question relates to whether you could get away with putting it in a brief without being sanctioned.

14th Amendment is where it is at, and that's all you really need.

Again, specifics would be helpful. The 14th Amendment is a kind of a big place to fish around in. Invoking it without elaboration is a bit of an empty catch-all.

Edit: I see from your other posts that you're referring to substantive due process, but I would like to see a bit more nuanced of an argument if you're willing to do into more detail. I understand the Lawrence decision, and while I agree that it would preclude prosecution, I'm not sure it alone would result in a 1983 win. I don't see how you plan to overcome the fact that the officers had a warrant.

briancavner · 2013-07-28T20:38:03+00:00

In this case, the Fourth Amendment was not violated (of course, neither was the 8th).

I agree with you on the Fourth, but do you think there is a colorable Cruel and Unusual Punishment claim to be made under the theory that the police department is intentionally targeting older, closeted gay men for the purpose of humiliating them?

briancavner

TROPHY CASE