Thursday, April 29, 2010

Florida Joins UN International Arbitration New World Order!


You know how tea partiers/conservatives always rail about the UN, "foreign law," and that whole pesky New World Order thing?

Well, you better not tell them Florida is poised to adopt -- gasp! -- UN standards for international arbitration:
The Bar’s international law section, hopes the bill and new rule will prompt more companies to use Miami as their seat for arbitration because attorneys all over the world are familiar with the UNCITRAL model.

With South Florida’s high concentration of bilingual professionals and easy access to Latin America, it’s a convenient spot to conduct international arbitration, he said.

“The whole vantage point here is an international one,” Palmer said. “You have to be very mindful of what someone in London thinks, what someone in Stockholm thinks. There’s no particular problem with the old law. Just nobody knows what it is. Everyone in international arbitration knows this law.”
Got it......commies!

Using that logic, we might as well start counting in grams or meters or whatever the hail they use to count cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.

UNCITRAL -- that was the computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey?

BTW, I wonder what Marco Rubio thinks of this egregious international intrusion into our state's sovereignty?

23 comments:

  1. A buddy of mine recently had to go before some sort of arbitration organization over his credit card. Poor sap.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SFL, I thought of you when I read this article.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100427,0,4578399,full.story

    I can't imagine being an attorney in CA, so I'd be willing to bed that you're glad you don't have their headaches. This story is simply amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On Wednesday, when asked about judicial activism as he spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One, Obama spoke of judges who ignore the will of Congress and the democratic process, imposing judicial solutions instead of letting the political process solve problems.

    "In the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach," Obama said. "What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error."

    He said the notion of judicial restraint should apply to liberal and conservative jurists. Instead, the president said arguments over original intent and other legal theories end up giving judges a lot of power – sometimes more power than elected representatives have.

    Obama said judges should presume that the laws produced by the House and Senate and state legislatures should get "some deference as long as core constitutional values are observed."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Question for all you Shumie Guys--

    what is an acceptable time to call ST on cinco de shumie?

    ReplyDelete
  5. cheese eating surrender monkeys, and jerry lewis

    shumie fourth of july?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In case you missed it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMOf8_lZT1U

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Menudo videos on the side are more interesting

    ReplyDelete
  8. What about carrot eating Toofess Magilicuttys?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another strawman, SFL - You're on a roll!

    Btw, take a gander at Prof. Randy Barnett's op-ed in today's WSJ Online. Mandate/Schmandate!

    ReplyDelete
  10. He's joking, swlip, try to keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I like Professor Barnett, he's a cranky libertarian who basically thinks everything is unconstitutional.

    But I think his premise is wrong -- there was no "tell" in the joint committee on taxation addressing the revenue provisions -- that's their job, after all -- and from my limited recall of law school commerce clause jurisprudence, I have to think anything that comprises one-sixth of the U.S. economy probably also affects interstate commerce.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Prof. Barnett is G_d, okay? Can we agree on that?

    Anyway, you miss his point regarding the commerce clause issue. The question is not, Does health insurance affect interstate commerce? I don't think anybody would seriously dispute that (although there is that annoying McCarron-Ferguson Act, which would have to be repealed). The question is, Can Congress justify a mandate requiring individuals to engage in commercial activity based on the commerce clause?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I got his point, just not buying it and thought the "tell" thing was a little lame (the idea that everyone is running from that justification because no authority exists to support it).

    Doesn't mean our Supremes won't lap it up, however.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see. So, if Congress passes a law requiring, for example, that every household buy at least one GM vehicle, you're okay with that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. SFL, read this on health care-

    http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Lazarus%20Issue

    swlip can skip it, he has epistemic closure.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Congrats on learning a 4-syllable word, 1:47 pm.

    Funny that Lazarus hangs his argument on the very "tax power" that Barnett discusses in his WSJ piece.

    In other words, Lazarus essentially abandons the commerce clause argument in justifying the individual mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. courts are supposed to affirm legislation on alternate grounds if necessary

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is that from Anon on Con Law?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Any claim "swlip" has on stipulating individual rights if forfeited by his desire to create sub-classes of humans for use as S&M bondage toys.

    I'm not an attorney, but I understand the structure of the law better than he does. Nothing forces you to buy anything. There is a tax on those who have no health insurance to cover the costs the incur when they use "free" emergency room services.

    Get health insurance, and you don't have to pay the tax.

    BTW swlip, I'm ranking torture advocates right next to pedophiles but but bellow rapists on my moral scale.

    How does it feel down there?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Forgot to take our meds, today, did we?

    ReplyDelete
  21. that assumes he had access to them in the first place, something the reform bill attempts to fix

    ReplyDelete
  22. Funny how it could be suggested that the person who DOESN'T want the return of 15th century torture dungeons is the one who needs psychiatric treatment.

    If I was a psychiatrist, I'd call that "projection".

    ReplyDelete