June 4 roundup


  • Concerning
    “Man cited for littering after cash to panhandler hits ground”
    I can understand authorities not wanting pan-handlers wending their way through traffic; it slows traffic up, and who is going to pay if a pan-handler is not seen in time and bumped? Drivers feeling charitable should be encouraged to direct their money to worthwhile homeless shelters.

  • Re: “New law keeps many homemakers from qualifying for credit cards”

    Sorry, but I’m feeling to experience empathy, or even the slightest concern, for someone who argues that she (typically) should be granted credit in the absence of an income stream. The new regs do not keep “homemakers” (how quaint) from getting credit cards, they keep persons without income from which to repay the debt from getting credit cards in their own name alone. The “homemaker” can still obtain credit jointly with a spouse based on the spouse’s income. The “homemaker” can either rely on the spouse’s income and obtain credit in joint names (so that the lender has a remedy to collect against the person with the actual income) or be denied credit in her own name (because no responsible lender should be extending credit to a person against whom the would have no reasonable legal recourse int eh event of nonpayment). Why is this confusing to anybody?

  • The stay-at-home-homemaker does have an income stream if he or she is married to his or her partner. Regardless of which one produces the income, they have equal legal rights to it. In this respect, the relationship is different from that of college-age children, who either have no legal claim at all on their parents’ income if they are legally adults, or have only a limited maintenance claim, if they are minors.

  • […] 2009 (CARD Act), a law passed by a liberal Congress in 2009 and signed by President Obama, “keeps many homemakers from qualifying for credit cards,” notes the world’s oldest law blog, Overlawyered. As Sheryl Nance-Nash notes at […]