On February 7th, 2012, a federal appeals panel in San Francisco, California ruled that Proposition 8, passed by 52% of the vote in 2008, is unconstitutional.

According to U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, considered to be among the most liberal appellate judges, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Instead of dismantling the same-sex marriage ban in a general sense, the court took a more narrow approach. In short, it did not address the issue of whether the Constitution protects the rights of all same-sex couples to marry. Instead, because same-sex couples had the right to marry for a brief time in California, a proposition cannot take that away.

If a minority group possesses a right, the people of a state do not possess the Constitutional power to “use their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed,” wrote Reinhardt.

“Without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause” of the federal Constitution, Reinhardt wrote.

“The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” the Court maintained.

Decision: 2-1

• Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Jimmy Carter appointee, held that the law was unconstitutional.
• Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by President Bill Clinton, concurred with Reinhardt.
• Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented.

Sandra Rodgers, a passenger of the Costa Concordia, a cruise ship that capsized off of the shore of Italy on February 13, is suing Miami-based Carnival.

According to Rogers, a British citizen, “the evacuation of the ship was completely chaotic. There was certainly no ‘women and children first’ policy. It was disgusting.” During the evacuation process, Rogers was separated from her children and lost her deceased husband’s ashes. Rogers was planning on scattering his ashes on her trip.

Says Rogers, “Thank God we didn’t do as they had told us as we may not have made it off the ship alive.” At first, the crew told passengers to return to their cabin because the ship was experiencing a simple technical problem.

Carnival’s Response

The capsizing of the ship claimed 11 lives and 21 people are still missing–approximately a week later. After a catastrophic event like this, the Cruise Firm is inspecting each of their ships. Carnival Corp.to conduct a fleet-wide review of its cruise ships’ safety and emergency response procedures.

Micky Arison, chairman and CEO of, said the company wants “to make sure that this kind of accident doesn’t happen again.”

That is not enough to passengers like Rogers.

The cases that the United States Supreme Court hears are often controversial, ranging from gun-control laws to abortion, immigration to economic regulation, environmental protection to campaign finance.

It even decides between the different schemes of government that are within America. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote that because “controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions” of the state and federal government will naturally arise, there must be, “under the general government” a “tribunal which is ultimately to decide” between the two (Federalist 39).

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is facing a similar task. Instead of deciding between the powers of the state and the powers of the federal government, the Pakistani Supreme Court must mediate between the civilian government, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, and the powerful military government.

The military government alleges that an ally of Zardari inked a secret memo, seeking U.S. help to curb the Army’s powers.

According to Newsweek Pakistan, “The scandal threatens to embroil Zardari and fan tensions between his weak government and the military‚ the chief arbiter of power in Pakistan‚ forcing aides to deny that controversy and illness could see him driven from office.”

While America’s judicial system is controversial and political, let’s be thankful that it has not, at least since the Civil War, attempted to prevent full scale war. Wrote Madison, “Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact” (Federalist 39).

Burlington, NC, October 24, 2011 – The Vernon Law Firm is pleased to announce the  inclusion of Wiley P. Wooten in the 2012 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in the practice of Family Law.

Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 41,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.9 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys inpractice.”

Upon hearing the news of his selection to The Best Lawyers in America® Wiley P. Wooten, Esq., Shareholder and Director, commented, “At Vernon Law, we are committed to delivering excellent legal representation to every client we serve.  I am proud and honored to be listed in this well respected publication.”

Vernon Law, founded in 1933, has been assisting clients with their legal needs in Alamance County and throughout the Burlington-Greensboro area in North Carolina for over 74 years.  The attorneys at Vernon Law are licensed to practice in North Carolina and in federal courts, and together they represent over 220 years of combined legal experience.

Vernon Law attorneys have been leaders in the legal profession and in the Burlington-Greensboro North Carolina community, holding office as President of the North Carolina Bar, President of the Alamance County Bar, and Clerk of Court of Alamance County, as well as many other positions of civic and business leadership.

Charlie Sheen, best known for his role on the sitcom Two and a Half Men and the movie Wall Street, went off his rocker recently, if he was ever on a rocker.

In an interview on 20/20 in March, Sheen said some really ridiculous things about himself.

When asked about having a form of bi-polar disease, Sheen retorted, “Wow what does that mean? Wow and then what? What’s the cure? Medicine? Make me like them? Not gonna happen. I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there. Now what?”

What is funniest, or perhaps most strange, depending on how one looks at it, is that Sheen appeared completely serious about what he was saying.

Later in the interview, Sheen claimed to have tiger blood. With a straight face.

While many blogs, YouTube users, and Tabloids have had a good laugh or two at Sheen’s expense, the law does not find it so funny.

In January of 2011, Sheen’s hit show was shut down by Warner Bros. Studios so that, reportedly, he could seek treatment. Sheen sued the company for $100 million, money that would cover his participation in the show.

Up until very recently, sources indicated that a $25 million settlement was his best bet.

Now, according to TMZ, Sheen will receive $25 million for his work in the show in addition to $100 million “in the next 7 – 10 years…for the actor in syndication profits.”

It looks like Sheen has the last laugh. In court, he’s more than just bi-winning. Maybe he really does have tiger blood!