Friday Open Thread

 

"Ceremony" - Galaxie 500

Continuing with the Boss-town sound -- nice cover of the Joy Division/New Order song.

Sorry for the limited appearances.  It's been meetings, meetings, meetings, the last couple of days.  Heading off to a couple more in about ten minutes.  Then hopefully a slow pre-holiday afternoon dedicated to getting my act together at the office and then home.

As I expected, the horse race coverage in the presidential race is going full throttle.  It all seems a little premature to me and in the end seems to keep coming back to the same thing -- a fairly tight race with both parties having their bases largely intact, trying to persuade the few persuadables and crank up the voter turnout among loyalists.  I think Obama continues to have the edge in terms of paths to 270 and in his overall appeal as a candidate, but continue to worry that things out of his control may prove problematic.  I am anxious to see the next jobs report and have my fingers crossed that Europe will continue to muddle through until November.  (I see no good end there -- merely the putting off of even more turmoil to come.)

It occurs to me that we are also about a month away from hearing from the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act.  I am less optimistic than I once was and worry that a negative ruling is going to leave in place only a crumbling system with no hope of reform.

I am encouraged on the other hand by the recent polling on gay marriage.  It would be great to win a couple of statewide referenda, even though I am loathe to have civil rights decided by popular vote.  A couple of wins on this score would signal that the changing dynamics we see in polling have really come to fruition.

Alright, I need to get on the road, but I put things in your capable hands for the next few hours. 

Comments

[Eric Wilde]

Nice to hear the Galaxy 500. For many years they were my mainstay and I cannot count the many hundreds of times I listened to their first album.

Happy Friday!

[kathy a.]

there was a very troubling SCOTUS decision yesterday, significantly damaging double jeopardy protection. the defendant was charged under a variety of theories, and the jury told to consider the most serious charges first. jurors found him not guilty of capital murder and first degree murder, then deadlocked on a lesser charge. in a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS decided he could be retried on all charges.

the double jeopardy clause is meant to restrain prosecutors from having multiple "bites at the apple." a person who is acquitted should not have to stand trial again. the majority's reasoning appears to be very strained; my guess is that the whole thing turned on the fact that when the mistrial was declared, jurors had not yet signed the verdict forms on the more serious charges, which they had in fact already decided. our heroes in dissent are sotomayor, joined by ginsburg and kagen.

as discussed a bit in the last thread, the importance of avoiding a republican president naming the next member(s) of the high court cannot be overstated. double jeopardy may not interest you much personally, but i assure you, other issues that may come before the court will.

[oddjob]

Romney makes it so easy that today's Doonesbury strip is a great example of shooting fish in a barrel. ;)

[oddjob]

"Consumer sentiment rose to its highest level in more than four years in May as Americans stayed optimistic about the job market, while higher income households expected to see bigger wage increases, a survey released on Friday showed...."

[oddjob]

Here's a lovely, quick bit of snark:

What's wrong with Washington?

(Hat tip, Sully.)

[nancy]

The Guardian has taken a closer look at Americans United for Life , the organization about which I'd guess most Americans have been only dimly, if at all, aware. I'd never heard of them until jeanne marie wrote in comments recently about how she traced the source of this year's wave of legislative efforts to AUL.

The group has a modest budget, some $3.7m last year according to public filings. But its influence is considerable and expanding: it has been involved in every legislative case involving life before the supreme court since Roe v. Wade.

"Seven years ago, when we started putting Defending Life together, we had five pieces of legislation," said Yoest, who earns $194,337, including benefits. "Now we have 44."

In a sense the Komen flap was useful. Certainly the strategic picture was made more apparent. And these folks had to come out of the shadows. People should be relieved to know that constituents haven't suddenly gone crazy demanding wild (and unforgettable) legislative maneuvers.

Funding sources for AUL however are 'confidential' of course.

[Paula B]

Wishing everyone a safe Memorial Day weekend. Come back in one piece on Tuesday, if you can. We've got a lot of work ahead of us.

[kathy a.]

obama and roberts, on the occasion of roberts' nomination as chief justice of the US. roberts was of course resoundingly confirmed. our POTUS voted against his confirmation.

nancy, thanks for that link about AUL.

[kathy a.]

digging a little deeper in the balloon juice thread from which i borrowed the above link (without a deserved hat tip), there is a link to a 2005 daily kos diary by then-senator obama. seems to me that obama is holding true to what he said then.

[Bill H]

Memorial Day weekend, and San Diego begins its tradition of sobriety checkpoints, stopping drivers without reasonable cause to evaluate their sobriety. Opinions as to legality thereof? Paula B?

Being a long term recovering alcoholic I'm inclined to approve, but I may not be the most valid critic on the subject. My drunk driving never cost anyone, but that doesn't mean I feel good about it.

[Paula B]

I'm probably not the one you want to ask, Bill. If I were Queen of the World, I'd put a sobriety checkpoint at every corner, and maybe between corners on weekends. As for legality, well, we have independent rights but we also live in society, where we expect to be protected from harm by others. We expect police to catch bad guys, thereby protecting us from such harm. I don't see much of a moral leap from that point to catching drunks on the road who have the potential to cause great harm, intentionally or not. But, I'm not a lawyer, so can't comment on the legality thereof. We have a busload of very sharp attorneys here in cogworld, and they might want to chime in.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I'm with Paula on this, but as a lifelong non-driver, I don't have the emotional connection with an automobile that many drivers have. And I've always felt that, ethically if not legally, drunk driving, like arson, shows a 'reckless disregard' for human life. The consequences, even if unintended, so easily spread out to 'innocent bystanders' that I find it harder to minimize the offense. (For example, I would have automatic and severe penalties -- league-enforced, not legal -- for athletes who are convicted.)

As for the legality of random stops, I'd like to hear from our in-house defense attorney, BBW, but my amateur feeling is that it should depend on the consequences of the stop. If the purpose is merely to 'get drunks off the street' and no prosecution ensues, I see no problem at all, and of course there is no problem if there is 'probable cause,' if the officer observes the person showing signs of not being in contol of the car. Even if there is a checkpoint set up which stops every car, still nothing questionable.

But a demonstrably random stop, where the driver is stopped because he's, say, the twentieth person past the checkpoint, that would make an interesting case, and I can see some fascinating arguments on either side. IANAL, but -- you've noticed -- I wish I were.

[Sir Charles]

I really don't know much about the case law on these road blocks, but I get the sense that they have passed muster.

I was stopped in one in Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago. I was sober as could be, having not had a drink even on a long delayed evening flight, for which I was grateful.

One of the great benefits of living in a city is never having to drive after drinking to excess -- although I find in my old age that I rarely have more than one drink any more.

Drunk driving is a genuinely dangerous thing -- likely about the single most dangerous activity that people engage in on any kind of broad scale in the society -- so I too am pretty sympathetic to efforts to stop it.

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

That double jeopardy decision is outrageous.

And Obama does seem t have been pretty prescient in his assessment of John Roberts.

[janinsanfran]

I probably have mentioned here that I'm working for a campaign these days. Our campaign manager just sent the full staff a link to this site which I think folks here might appreciate. We're enjoying our last real weekend off til it is over ...

[kathy a.]

jan -- that's great! i am strongly supportive of the campaign. go team go.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

For the OT, there is a very nice chart detailing all the laws passed in just the first fifteen months after the Disaster of 2010 that are 'women-centered' and usually part of the War on Women. I believe it was put together by Guttmacher, but I found it here (h/t Sin City Siren).

It's a great chart, but I would have eliminated some of the pro-women laws -- unless I am missing something, I see no problem with requiring education on dating violence and abusive relationships.

On the other hand, some of the more innocuous provisions have 'Catch 22s.' Requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in local hospitals seems neutral, or even positive, providing a further level of safety. Then you look a little closer, and discover that hospitals are entirely free to decide who gets admitting privileges, and hospitals located near abortion providers in these states -- at least in Mississippi, I expect in the others -- will not provide such privileges to doctors who provide abortions.

Rather than being innocuous, the proponents of the law had no problem admitting it was specifically designed tp close the only provider left in the state.

Another improvement might be to mark the states based on the parties of the Gov and Leg. For that matter an alternate chart sorted by state would be useful.

But the chart is powerful as is, and only a little research shows that in almost every case the anti-women regulations were proposed by, co-sponsored by, and voted for by Republicans, passed by Republican legislatures, and either signed by Republican Governors or passed over Demicratic vetoes.

There are exceptions, particularly for the last, some Democratic Governors ARE Blue Dogs, and other Republican Governors have even attempted to veto obnoxious legislation unsuccessfully. Not sure if it includes anti-women legislation, but even Jan Brewer has tried to stop some of the crazier legislation her party has produced. But a chart showing each bill and the party vote on it would be even more devastating. (And a hell of a lot of work. It'd be worth it, but even I would have to suggest that it would be nice to find all the Val McDermids off my wish list if I spent the days it would take.)

But yet again this shows -- Hi, Jayhawk -- that the non-partisan 'false equivalency' inadvertently supports far more evil than it condemns.

(I was going to keep going, but got called away for meals. and now the Mets are on. More later.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

jan: WONDERFUL! The cause is worth working for -- and while you probably have all the necessary research and sites on hand, this is one I would help out with -- if there's anything I can do here in Bklyn.

And my adv9ice always is to remember that your audience has heard most of the arguments before, maybe start by trying to think outside the box.

(It would be a bitch of a job staying just inside the lines of good taste, but I picture a conversation between two survivors of murder victims, one saying how they even saw the execution of the murderer, and the gruesomeness eliminated the chance for closure, and the other saying how, every day he can picture 'his' murderer and know that his suffering has not been ended 'the easy way.'

(Or what about interviewers with actual murderers in jail, speaking about whether they felt at all deterred by the existence of a death penalty in their state or not?

(And one final pushing of the envelope, again, all these are tricky even to try, but imagine an interview with a victim who had celebrated that 'his' murderer got the death penalty -- showing videos of his reaction -- who has since found out that the murderer was in fact innocent -- hopefully before, not after, execution.)

[kathy a.]

prup, i'm familiar with the SAFE California campaign, and it strikes me as very well set up.

many people already oppose capital punishment for moral or practical reasons. this campaign is really geared toward others who may not have considered the issues so carefully. one centerpiece is the extreme cost of capital punishment vs. life without the possibility of parole -- over $180 million per year, and a projected savings of $1 billion in the first five years. you may have heard, california is suffering a huge budget crunch.

something really amazing is the range of supporters already. the drafters of the initiative that became california's current death penalty law now support repeal, and replacing death sentences with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. many current and former law enforcement support this initiative -- including jeanne woodford (former warden of san quentin, and former director of the entire prison system), and gil garcetti (former DA in los angeles). also a number of victim family members, and people who were wrongfully convicted and then exonerated.

the LATimes recently published an editorial endorsing this initiative, which is a big deal because it normally does not take positions so far ahead of an election.

[nancy]

Memorial Day weekend, and San Diego begins its tradition of sobriety checkpoints, stopping drivers without reasonable cause to evaluate their sobriety. Opinions as to legality thereof?

Count me in the strongly opposed camp. Checkpoints? If these things were restricted, perhaps. They aren't. I see invitations to profiling and harassment along with invasion of privacy. Males from 18-30 are special targets for extra-legal attention. In one case I'm closely familar with, a couple crossing from Montana into Idaho, on their way home to Washington were pulled over at a checkpoint and found to possess a small amount of medical marijuana. Idaho does not recognize these prescriptions, so the couple's two-year old son was put in child-protective care while the parents went into detention. It was two-weeks before the child's grandfather was able to locate the child while a judge considered the case.

In another, a random traffic stop led to a migrant worker who could not produce documentation being separated from his small child. Father deported, child put in protective custody with the odds of being reunited with family remote.

Field-sobriety tests are famously suspect, but when videotaped can make the unimpaired look to flunk the test. My son was pulled over for one, refused it, was taken to the station house and sent on his way, after his girlfriend passenger was told to be 'breathalyzed.' She tested .000. They didn't make it to a late-night concert to which they had tickets.

I could go on and won't. Way too reminiscent of 'produce your papers' for me. And obviously IANAL. End of rant.

A holiday weekend just puts pretty public-policy ribbon on random police checks of which there are too many in this country as far as I'm concerned.

[nancy]

I should add that the state of Washington has a long history of dependence on the kind of undocumented worker who was pulled over and separated from his child. The orchards and growers in the state would never get in their harvests without them. George Bush got that one right.

[janinsanfran]

Glad to see that kathy a. has followed up about the SAFE California Act. (I went outside to enjoy what may be one of my last free weekends before November!) We really do have a plausible chance of assembling a majority -- the only way that we can replace the death penalty with the state's next harshest sentence, life without parole. This has to be done by initiative. One of the worst features of California's dysfunctional polity is that initiatives cannot be modified by the legislature, only by yet another initiative. Heck of a way to run a state.

And kathy -- I had missed that double jeopardy decision. Dreadful; scary.

Thanks for the suggestions Prup -- we may not get all the way to your specifics, but we are flooding the media with statements from relatives of murder victims who oppose the death penalty and with true stories from exonerees who have been released after bad convictions. There are too darn many of both sorts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

jan: In a Gallup Poll Report on what is 'morally acceptable':

Americans' views on the moral acceptability of each issue held largely steady this year compared with last -- except in the case of the death penalty. This year, 58% of Americans say the death penalty is morally acceptable, down from 65% last year. The 58% reading is the lowest in Gallup's 12-year history of asking about the death penalty in this way. Gallup will update its longer-term trend question on the death penalty in October, which will help confirm whether the downturn in support seen in the current poll is part of a larger trend.

Of course, morally acceptable does not automatically mean 'support it in practice.' And the question has an ambiguity. I would answer -- knowing what was meant -- 'morally unacceptable.' Yet I accept the Nuremberg Verdicts, and believe I would accept the sentence for treason (strictly used) or domestic or international terrorism.

(And I have to ask the logical conundrum about 'what happens if someone is already serving life without parole and commits a murder in the prison, or orders or arranges for one outside?' I honestly haven't an answer for that -- life in isolation might be the next step, I guess, and that seems a legitimate punishment.)

Anyway, the drop is significant, and implies a good shot at success, and cheers to you. The figures are also broken down by party, with only 42% of D and 73% of R finding it morally acceptable, the largest percentage variance on any issue. (In most of the questions, Independents are close to D, but here, at 62% they are more in the middle.)

The whole chart is fascinating. I'm not surprised that only 42% of Republicans find two unmarried persons having sex to be acceptable, but would have expected far more than 66 percent of Democrats. (A third of Democrats find it unacceptable or have no opinion!)

The single most unacceptable behavior tested for? Married men and women having an affair, which is less acceptable than polygamy.

The most acceptable? Using birth control.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

jan: I opened the morning by checking at C&L -- Maddow Blog, my usual 'first hit' doesn't update on weekend any more. I checked Mike's Blog Report, and the first one sent me to a site which has a large banner saying how the person would be unable to do much updating before November because of their work on the SAFE California campaign. My first reaction was "Gotta tell Jan about this." Then I looked more closely and my reaction was:

Congratulations!

(Also deep blushes I'd never clicked through on you before.)

((Also also HELLO Morty! If only there were someway to have a virtual cat show here. Between Morty, Bill's Calico, and maybe I'll even finally get some pictures taken and figure out how to put them up and can enter Kittenz, Tiki and Quint -- Captain Puddles is very camera shy -- we have quite a feline phalanx here. And of course Stanley, our 'honorary cat' would have to be the judge.))

[Bill H]

My question on drunk driving checkpoints didn't draw a lot of interest, which is rather interesting in itself. In San Diego, Jim, those found with overlimit BAC are always prosecuted for DUI, but functional and blood tests are administered only if the officer detects signs of inebriation.

It's a sort of perverted "probable cause" because the stops are made without probable cause for the purpose of creating probable cause to administer the tests. So the test is okay because the officer had probable cause to administer the test, but did he have probable cause to even be talking to you in the first place? And it was talking to you that created the probable cause to administer the test.

To me it smacks of entrapment, and I'm not crazy about it. But I am with you, Jim, about the "reckless disregard" thing. That's precisely what it is, and I have no problem coming down like a collapsing house on those who do it.

I do think, though, that this is another of those "Those who would surrender liberty to secure safety deserve neither," and lean toward opposing checkpoints.

[Paula B]

"Those who would surrender liberty to secure safety deserve neither."
When those words were written, this country did not have 312 million people, automatic weapons nor the level of racial and class strife that we have now, although some may want to argue that point. The numbers alone are enough to warrant protection, even from accidents in high-density environments. Law abiding citizens DO deserve safety and protection. I, for one, am sometimes annoyed by the inconvenience that goes with protection of all kinds but see that as a small price but necessary to pay for some level of assurance that our children and everyone else can live another day.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

This is turning out to be a fascinating question because it shakes up the 'usual positions.' Bill, thanx for sticking around. When i saw your website, I knew we needed you to shake us all up a bit and get us thinking rather than reacting.

Which don't mean nohow you get free passes from this Brooklynite. The trouble with using slogans as answers is there's always an opposite slogan that is no more wrong. ("He who hesitates is lost." "Look before you leap.") Your slogan gets 'if you choose liberty for those who want to destroy the society that provides the liberty, you may wind up with neither.'

Nancy makes a strong argument for your position, and I toyed with the idea of suggesting that 'no evidence found in such a stop can be used to prosecute the driver for an unconnected offense.' But wait a minute, what happens if the evidence is a body, living or dead, wrapped in plastic in the trunk, or the half million dollars stolen from the local bank. Do we give the driver immunity -- 'fruit of the poisonous tree'?

And many domestic terrorists, the right wing types, have been stopped from carrying out their plans because of stops like this. Either a whole trunkload of bazookas or C-4 is found, or, sadly, the terrorist opens fire on the cop for simply stopping him -- not because of evidence but because he's a member of the "Patriot" branch.

Nancy's argument is strong, yes, but it depends on police 'enforcing laws we don;t like.' As a lifelong marijuana smoker, I don't want to see someone busted the way she describes -- but how would i feel if it had been heroin or meth? I don't want cops ever doing the work of Immigration Officers, particularly if it separates families -- but what about a cop acting like a CPS employee, discovering signs of physical or sexual abuse against a child in the car, and acting, thus 'separating' a family -- that needs to be 'separated.'?

It's no easy question, but I have to come down -- maybe 55-45 -- on the side of allowing the stops and checkpoints. But I'm hardly locked in, so...

next argument?

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

I'm not crazy about check points either -- it's just that I am not sure what level of constitutional protection drivers are afforded. I also tend to be much less inclined to see privacy rights associated with an activity like driving -- one where your behavior has such tremendous implications for your fellow drivers. (I am even more unsympathetic to complaints about red light and speed cameras -- even though I've been tagged by the latter at least a half a dozen times.)

[nancy]

Drunk driving is a genuinely dangerous thing -- likely about the single most dangerous activity that people engage in on any kind of broad scale in the society -- so I too am pretty sympathetic to efforts to stop it. Not so sure about that single-most part, Sir C. And yes, decent-mass transit solves the problem in urban areas. But, that said...

I'm kind of surprised to find myself so much in the minority on this thread. I would remind you that the younger generation have grown up with designated drivers, 'call your parents,' 'call a cab,' and the concept of the party 'keymaster' -- remember John Cusack in his trenchcoat in Say Anything ?

My recent 'close calls in a crosswalk' moments have been with drivers who simply don't accept that using cell-phones, texting and driving are frightfully dangerous. While illegal in my state, it's considered a secondary infraction. Five children died in a cell-texting accident here and the manslaughter trial went to a jury. The driver was acquited because apparently there was no way to prove causality of the accident. This same driver had previously been involved in a similar accident, but the jury was not allowed that information. (An aside; he's a Mormon grandfather -- no alcohol involved).

I'd be happy with emphasis patrols to put a stop to this practice because there is no officer discretion needed. Cell is being used and spotted. Fine away. Caught again? Lose your license.

[beckya57]

I'm also pretty unsympathetic to complaints about driving checkpoints etc. I'm in many ways a communitarian at heart, and am not a fan of freedom arguments when other people's safety or well-being are endangered. Drinking, texting, phoning etc. while driving are just plain dangerous, and mine and others' rights to safety trump drivers' rights every time in my book. Another big issue these days is sleep-deprived driving--another major cause of accidents. Everybody go get some sleep!

[Paula B]

Good point, Nancy! We may have an electronic equivalent of check points someday for cell phone use and/or texting, and that will certainly upset a lot of folks, too. But, the intent will be the same: Keep impaired people off the road. There are plenty of innocuous activities you can't do while you drive, like sleeping and watching television. Drinking and texting are simply two more. You can do them all you want, but not behind the wheel.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And, to soothe the Constitutional consciences, remember that driving (on public streets) is not a right but a privilege that is only granted under certain circumstances -- that you have a valid driver's license, that you have paid-up insurance, etc. One of those conditions is that you obey the various laws about driving. (I suppose it would even be possible to argue that by applying for and receiving a license, you make an implied contract that you will obey those laws.) One of those laws is the one that prohibits you from driving while drunk.

Given that -- remember, anyone can drive in whatever condition he chooses to on his own property, if he has a mansion or a farm or the like, or in his own driveway -- the idea of police randomly stopping you to see if you are in fact obeying the agreement you made seems less of a privacy intrusion. I can imagine some types of stops being questionable, but they would have to involve some other problem, such as the stops being targeted by race, or by some bumper sticker, or even by type of car -- stop Fords, not Beamers or vice versa.

And one further question. How do you distinguish such stops from, for example, roadblocks checking for criminals being hunted who are presumed to have escaped by car? For that matter, what if the police have information that a criminal is fleeing in a particular type of vehicle but don't have the license plate or the exact year. May they stop any car of that type, even though they know all but one search will turn up negative -- and again, may they use information they discover -- in plain sight, they don't have a right to search a spot too small to hide the fugitive -- in an unrelated prosecution?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

After I wrote the above I asked Em for her opinion -- and remember, neither of us have driven an inch in our lives, and it's been 56 years since I've lived in a household that owned an automobile, and 30 years for Em.

She brought up a question none of us raised. Is the purpose of the stops deterrence or prosecution? Are they designed to keep people from driving drunk, or catching and prosecuting those who do? And how does that affect our opinion?

Any responses? (I'm being quiet because I am again trying to make up my own mind.)

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

There are about 10,000 - 11,000 deaths a year in the U.S. due to drunk driving, so roughly a third of the fatalities on the road. That's about the same as the number of homicides by gun.

Cell phone use -- and texting -- are problematic as well. In DC, it is illegal to not use a hands free device, but this law is broken all of the time. I also see people using their hand held devices at lights all the time when I am out walking. I would like to see this cracked down on as well, as it is every bit as dangerous as drunk driving.

(I have cut way down on my use of even the hands free cell phone in the car as the statistics show more and more danger with this activity.)

becky,

Sleep deprived driving is also scary. I worry more about this with myself these days than anything else.

Jim,

I think the check points really are about deterrence. They can only cast a net so wide, but they are a bit daunting I think for the would be drinker and driver.

[nancy]

There are about 10,000 - 11,000 deaths a year in the U.S. due to drunk driving, so roughly a third of the fatalities on the road. That's about the same as the number of homicides by gun.

Then where are the helpful long holiday weekend 'gun stops' in response to that problem? Not in my neighborhood. Not in San Diego. Not nowhere. Which is what makes me completely distrust the 'randomness' of all of this driving public safety hoo-ha. These are dragnets all wrapped up in 'we're in the business of keeping you, the public safe." With targeted stops and perfect police discretion to be of course assumed.

The word 'random' seems to me to be a bad signal.

Prup -- I think Em asks the right question and I suspect the answer is 'whatever can be found and used.'

[KN]

kathy a. - The present scotus in coming out clearly and unambiguously as both partisan and extremely right wing. Scalia is corrupt, no question about it, he panders to sources of right wing money. Thomas is a liar and a cheat, he broke the law for years and his only challenger, Weiner the weeney, was put to bed without his diaper by the noise machine in less than a month. But a SCOTUS judge who happened to willfully break federal law for years? Give him a pass.

Roberts is also a member of the scum bag parade, he lied to congress in his confirmation hearing saying that he would act as an umpire. Citizens United proved he was instead the third base coach. They all should be impeached. Correction, should have by now have been impeached.

I don't quite understand, when did lying become the standard form for political speech?

[Bill H]

"this country did not have 312 million people" That, Paula, is an extremely important point, and one which is highly pertinent to this discussion as well as things like requiring permits for firearms. The issue, I think, related to that point has less to do with safety than it has to do with the pressures imposed by living in a society that is as crowded and pressured as today's. Such social pressures necessitate a different mindset.

Also with respect to the checkpoints, California has what is commonly called "implied consent." This is a law that says that in return for being given a license to operate a motor vehicle you agree to be tested for the presence of intoxicants and waive the requirement for probable cause. If you refuse the test your license can be revoked. I wasn't deliberately omitting that, it had slipped my mind.

The claimed purpose of the checkpoints is more for deterrence than prosecution, and that seems valid, since they announce in advance that they will be conducting them and in what numbers they will be doing so, but not where they will be located.

[kathy a.]

KN -- there has only been one SCOTUS justice impeached, samuel chase, and he was acquitted of the impeachment charges by the senate. what do you think would be the outcome of impeaching any sitting justice today, considering the senate as it presently operates?

technically, nothing the justices say in opinions is "political speech." it is instead their views on the constitutionality of things. we are pretty much stuck with the SCOTUS we have. our concern must be with how the composition of the court changes, as it must inevitably change.

[KN]

Having now read the entire thread some comments come to mind.

I doubt if anyone here has ever experienced a random checkpoint under conditions a bit more threatening and intimidating. We tend to think our police forces are generally reasonable. I wonder why that is? They are certainly biased in some respects, for example racially, considering that the prison population is skewed rather extremely towards incarcerating blacks.

The next question that arises is how much latitude does a random stop allow for the police to violate constitutional rights concerning search and seizure? If someone is found to be impaired while driving due to a field intoxication test does that allow for a random search of their vehicle?

Then we have the ambiguity of the court system itself. Suppose someone is pulled over in a random check point who happens to have an obama bumper sticker. Are they
searched in more depth than some happy chappy who sports a sticker saying Do Not Re-Nig?

I don't think that random checkpoints are at all constitutional or even necessay. Yes there is a problem with fools who drink too much and then drive and end up killing themselves or innocents. It is tragic, but the way to cure it is to engage with the drunks and get them home in a safe manner rather that imposing some legal excuse to opress a whole class of people. No drunk driver hits the road in absolute anonimity. The bartender knows he is wasted.

No, I am opposed to this approach to so called law enforcement. It is a gateway to a police state. I have been through many checkpoints in places all of you would be frightened of considerably. I have been fired on twice at such places with automatic weapons. Both times we were doing nothing at all illegal, but we were constued by the gun toters as being a possible threat, so they wanted to detain us.

Detention, isn't that an interesting word? It has some currency in the wider discourse today does it not. It is a euphemism for unlawful incarceration.

Another step on the path to third world status for the good old USA. I hope the idiots enjoy the consequences of their stupidity.

I think I will stay here in Brasil.

[KN]

kathy a. - you are quite right of course, I am an unapologetic idealist. Regrettably, my idealism is not very much compatible with realism. I know this. I have known it for some decades in fact.

But that does not alter the situation in any way, one must call a spade a spade. Whether it will do any good is utterly beside the point, if it is not done, then history, or something like it, will not have any counter argument to disabuse the hagiography of tyrants.

There are villians among us, I am reminded of phrases from Shakespere, smilying damn'ed villian. The course ahead is indeed fraught with danger and despair. It is always so when dominance is ultimately challenged. And it will be challenged, because nothing human can controvert the imperitive of life.

Individually we are too cowardly to commit suicide when it is in our own best interest. Collectively, we are too ignorant and arrogant to avoid doing so on a global scale. It probably will not be very pretty.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bill, the 'implied consent' is similar to what I described as an 'implied contract.' I'm glad to see there is actually legal backing for that view, because i think it is very useful in determining the constitutional question.

KN: Your position is even more extreme than Nancy's and both of you make the same mistake. The type of policeman you fear, and the abuses you fear exist in a non-regulated environment. They can, today, commit them with impunity.

Ignoring for the moment the different question of Constitutionality and just looking at abuses, setting up a system of random check points would, in effect, limit the policeman's autonomy and discretion. The worst case scenario would be a totally ineffective system -- which would leave the corrupt or racist policeman in precisely the situation he is in now. I can't see how it could increase his chance for abuse.

But the more truly random and systematic the check points are, the more the opportunity for abuse would be l8imited, especially if the system included video records of the traffic flow and the policeman's actions.

[Bill H]

"if the system included video records of the traffic flow and the policeman's actions."

As a matter of fact, the San Diego checkpoints do.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

jan: I assume the people at SAFE California know all about the weekly series, Criminal Injustice that appears at Critical Mass Progress, but in case you don't, and for the rest of you, it seems worth checking out.

(I'm not sure about CMP overall -- I've just discovered it, but it seems -- at first glance, so don't hold me to this -- to be about the farthest left group that is strongly pro-Obama. At the same time it does tend into confusing 'sloganeering' with thinking -- I'm not sure if anyone can use the term 'ableism' without losing me a little. In fact, the 'late Sixties tone' overall, good and bad, is very familiar to me, and brings back memories of WBAI and that incarnation of Pacifica. Back them, CMP would have had an hour show weekly or more. For all I know they do on this month's version of Pacifica.)

But Criminal Injustice seems worth following for its own sake. It's a weekly article on the title topic, dealing not just with misapplied death penalties but with unjust incarceration on all levels. (The 'article' can even be a poem, and was, recently, about the Trayvon Martin case and racial injustice overall.)

And even more important than CI is a link to the National Registry of Exonerations that is being maintained jointly by U Mich and Northwestern U. They are attempting to document every example of an exoneration of a wrongly convicted defendant in the US. So far the list is 'only' 890, but I am sure there are many more to be placed on the list.

If you are wondering, here is there definition of 'exoneration':

Exoneration—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant, the defense attorney and the court at the time the plea was entered. The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person.

This goes beyond the death penalry, but of course it strengthens the case for abolition.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One further comment about the registry is that the summery list is entirely searchable by state, date, etc.

[beckya57]

KN, I'm with you re the current SCOTUS, but unfortunately nancy's right, impeachment is a practical impossibility. The SCOTUS is probably the best counter-argument to the "the Dems are as bad as the Republicans, they're all in bed with corporations, it doesn't matter who's elected president etc." argument. If we hadn't had so many Republican presidents in the last 40 years the SCOTUS would look very different, and we wouldn't have had Citizens United and we wouldn't be dreading the outcome of the ACA decision. Thanks to all of those GOP presidents the current SCOTUS is a throwback to the Lochner era, God help us all.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Apologies, but not only is impeachment a 'practical impossibility' but -- except for Thomas, where there are some real ethical questions -- it would simply be wrong. Ever since the School Prayer Decisions -- if not since Brown v Board -- I have been arguing, against the 'Impeach Earl Warren' crowd -- that you do not impeach someone simply because you disagree with a ruling they have made.

(The argument that Roberts 'lied' is weak to invisible as well. Every Justice since Bork has 'shaped' the presentation of his or her views so that they could present themselves as an 'impartial umpire.' In fact, they had their opinions -- on some issues -- pretty well made up, and we knew it. But if those opinions were ones we agreed with -- that Roe was rightly decided, for example -- this doesn't bother us.)

I'd gladly see the trio of Scalia, Roberts and Alito gone -- and would support the impeachment of Thomas on other grounds. But I was right to oppose the impeachment of Warren, of the other inconvenient judges who made decisions the impeachers didn't like. I can't find a way to 'distinguish' this suggestion from that one.

(but may I at least wave one of my banners, and point out that this was one of the foreseeable consequences of the Kaineism of the DNC and the way we all slept through the 2010 Disaster, seeing it as entertainment (Crazy Chrissie, the Obtuse Angle, the Pallodinosaur and Wrestling Linda) rather than a vital sruggle that would make it impossible for Obama -- if he wanted to -- to appoint a strong Progressive -- especially to replace one of the Four Horsemen of Hell or 'Heads or Tails' Kennedy.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Shortly after writing the above, I checked in on FLA POLITICS, yet another of the really important state blogs, and found a link to this column by Stephem Goldstein.

The comments about Rick Scott were particularly pointed, but all of the specifics are worth it. But, of course, given my own ideas, the sentence I love is

"When good, well-intentioned people sit on the sidelines — watching politics as though it were a spectator sport or gullibly believing everything they hear — bad things happen to all of us, everywhere."

[kathy a.]

in the past, some justices appointed by republican presidents were more moderate, thoughtful, and independent. the three living retired justices are john paul stevens (appointed by ford), sandra day o'connor (appointed by reagan), and david souter (appointed by bush I).

o'connor resisted the pressure to overrule roe v. wade. she concurred in lawrence v. texas, which found a ban on homosexual sodomy unconstitutional. she voted with the majority in atkins v. virginia, which found the execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional -- and contrary to conservative commentators and some on the court, found it appropriate to consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions. sandra was no flaming liberal, but neither was she in lockstep.

souter also resisted (and noted the importance of resisting) political pressure to overturn roe v. wade. he dissented in bush v. gore.

stevens supported the separation of church and state and 4th amendment protections against search and seizure, and generally supported use of the commerce clause to regulate. he dissented in bush v. gore. his views on capital punishment evolved over the years: in 1976 he voted to again permit the states to use the death penalty, but by the end of his career he became opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances, and said that the vote he most regretted was to reinstate capital punishment.

the late justice harry blackmun (a nixon appointee) was expected to be a strict constructionist. he wrote roe v. wade. although he had voted to uphold the death penalty, at the end of his career he repudiated it in all cases.

notwithstanding these historic examples, the ideal republican nominee these days is not someone with that independence or flexibility of mind. if it is frightening to see romney being frog-marched even farther to the right, it is terrifying to think of that mindset applied to the SCOTUS vetting process.

[beckya57]

kathy: agreed, but that just reflects how much the GOP has changed. I was referring to dumb liberals equating the Dems and GOP in the current era (and yes I know there's a lot the Dems do badly, so quit yelling at me already). Souter is actually an example that the right wing frequently points to, screaming "Never again!" Meaning that they'll never accept another nominee who's not totally devoted to The Cause (see Miers, Harriet). Probably the most lasting and devastating effect of Bush v. Gore is that we'll have Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS for decades, guaranteeing an endless string of pro-corporate, anti-the rest of us decisions.

[janinsanfran]

Prup: thanks for the link to Criminal Injustice. SAFE CA is very aware of the importance of spotlighting the truly appalling number of exonerees that various overworked and underpaid legal workers have been turning up. One hundred and forty people have been released from U.S. death rows. Next month we are arranging a tour of Southern California by several of the death row exonerees who are part of the national organization Witness to Innocence.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

becky and kathy: Overall the Republicans might have had a better record on SCOTUS over the first 9/10th of last Century. You've mentioned O'Connor, Souter and Stevens.

Add Holmes, Stone, Cardozo, Warren, and Brennan. And, for 'respected conservatives' you have Taft, Hughes and the second Harlan. That's 10 of the 28 Republican appointees from TR through 1990. (Of course, you could assemble a nice group of disasters from the others, from VanDevanter, Sutherland and Butler on.)

The Democrats had only 19 in that time, and while they had a lot of strong choices, the list includes the Truman foursome of Burton, Minton, Vinson and Clark, Roosevelt's choices of Murphy, Rutledge and Byrnes, Whizzer White, Abe Fortas, and the ultimate pre-Scalia disaster, the vile James McReynolds. The greats are much smaller a list, with only Brandeis, Black, Douglas, Frankfurter, Jackson and Marshall even candidates for 'great.'

On the other hand, the current 4 horrors have cost the Republicans whatever advantage they had.

[nancy]

KN: Your position is even more extreme than Nancy's and both of you make the same mistake. The type of policeman you fear, and the abuses you fear exist in a non-regulated environment. They can, today, commit them with impunity.

Prup -- Last flog of dead horse. Traffic patrols, from what I know of them locally, are just not as even-handedly applied as we like to believe. And they are increasingly used to generate cash through 'traffic safety violation.' I'm surprised you don't understand the revenue generation objective at work here.

That's my problem. Impaired driving is dangerous, day in, day out, and that's hardly news. So applying manpower to three-day weekend spot stops yields exactly what? Trouble for those who don't get memos. And brand new unaffordable hassles for the ever-under-represented.

Being not middle-class-connected and more than low on resources will likely multi-amplify for unemployed young man, driving a clunker on the wrong side of town, who happens to get a traffic ticket in one of these patrols because a brake light is out. But it's soccer mom, after a couple glasses of wine and who regularly blabs while driving on her cellphone, yet not spied by the spot patrol, who is more likely to blow through a crosswalk in the future without being ticketed. And who is more of a danger to me and mine.

But, I take your point about a system. In theory soccer mom would be just as concerned about being pulled over randomly and thus stay off the road an extra half-hour.

For the record, I don't fear the police -- I'm fearful of certain situations that invite policing agencies to over reach.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I can't claim anything like definitive knowledge about the prevalence of road blocks, but my strong sense (and the one I got stopped in) is that they are generally located on highways in suburban areas where there are a lot of drinking establishments. Thus, unlike the abusive stop and frisk policies being used in places like NYC -- which I am vehemently opposed to -- I suspect that the drunk driving roadblocks do not disproportionately effect minorities.

Roadblocks stop everyone, so they are the opposite of profiling like policies. (Traffic stops for "cause" in this area -- especially on i-95 are notorious for having a disproportionate impact on black men.)

I suspect that soccer mom is not that likely to kill you on the road. I'd be more concerned about men under the age of thirty -- and hard core drunks.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One pleasant aspect of the end of DADT

[oddjob]

she concurred in lawrence v. texas, which found a ban on homosexual sodomy unconstitutional.

Although for different reasons than the rest of the majority. O'Connor had no problem with sodomy bans per se, but only as long as they were across the board. The Texas law permitted sodomy but only as long as the participants were of different genders.

Justice O'Connor also concurred with the majority in the 1986 SCOTUS ruling for Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law, a ruling that was overturned by a 5-4 majority in the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

O'Connor refused to go along with that decision to overturn.

[oddjob]

it is terrifying to think of that mindset applied to the SCOTUS vetting process

Agreed. From what I gather the wingnuts were infuriated when Souter turned out as he did, after Warren Rudman had championed his nomination and made Souter out to be a conservative in the movement conservative mold. In fact Souter was an actual conservative - the sort of judge who believed in the importance of honoring precedent.

[oddjob]

One pleasant aspect of the end of DADT

Thank you for linking to that! :)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

You're welcome, oddjob.

Continuing on two threads, here's a 96-year old woman who wishes there'd been one more checkpoint on Long Island -- and is fortunate to be around to make any wishes at all. (This was the front page of the print edition, btw.)

And on SCOTUS, just a game, but, limited to Justices appointed 1900-1990, Holmes to Souter -- thus including Scalia, but not the other horors, or the Clinton-Obama nominees, name your best and worst court.

Okay, I'll start:
Warren (CJ)
Brennan
Holmes
Stone
Brandeis
Black (but not Douglas)
Jackson
Harlan (Hughes eminence does not counterbalance his extremism.)

the last one is hard, with arguments for Marshall, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Stevens, and O'Connor at least makable. But I'll pick Blackmun over Stevens because they both grew on the court, but Blackmun had farther to go, and the pull of life-long friendship -- with Burger -- to overcome.

(I'll give my 'worst Court' later. It's hard to decide whether reactionary opinions, incompetence, corruption, or simple ugliness as a person gets 'more points' -- but McReynolds, the First Associate, wins on all. And I'm promoting Scalia to Chief over Rehnquist or Vinson.)

[oddjob]

Ron Paul's libertarian extremism is making advances within the GOP.

[nancy]

Oddjob -- The article you linked to re the Pauls is most unnerving. Lordy, what sort of dynasty might this turn out to be?

What do you suppose Rand's view is of the Creationism Museum? He's a Baylor grad I believe.

Prup -- I'd bet that young woman was drinking, driving, texting and puking. After restitution she's going to be needing a new identity on linkedin. Ay.

[oddjob]

Lordy, what sort of dynasty might this turn out to be?

Ron Paul's son's name is not "Rand" by accident. Ron Paul is a huge fan of Ayn Rand.

[oddjob]

Fascinating must-read from the only man to have been classmate to both Mitt Romney (at Cranbrook) and Barak Obama (at Harvard Law):

Sidney Barthwell just might be the only person on the planet who went to school with both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama....

Hat tip, Sully.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

oddjob: While Ron is a Rand fan, when this came up during the campaign, it turned out that Rand is, in fact, short for "Randall" -- or so they claimed. Of course, Paul is one of those "I wouldn't believe you if your tongue came notarized" types, but that's what he claimed.

Btw, oddjob, I keep mentioning them, but have you (or anyone else) checked out the YouCanPlay Project at You Tube?. They have 17 videos uploaded now, and the idea of any major organization of sports professionals lining up behind the idea of supporting LGBT athletes still amazes and pleases me. (I wish I knew if the videos were being shown on the air, but Em is the hockey fan and she ignores any sort of commercial.)

As of now you have a collection of All Stars both in a joint video and individually, you have fans supporting gay fans, you have women's hockey teams, college teams, broadcasters, all telling gay athletes "If you can play, you can play."

The UConn Men's team has even said "If you are gay and looking for a safe place to play, come here." (And THAT was a step beyond what I expected to see for a few years.)

Again, all I can say is that it is worth knowing about, spreading the word about -- and just maybe shaming some other sports into having the same sort of organization.

[oddjob]

Rand is, in fact, short for "Randall"

Ah. I missed that, so I stand corrected.

(Given Ron Paul's fondness for Ayn Rand his son's nickname is, um, interesting.)

[oddjob]

I'm not really in a position to watch YouTube videos, so no, I haven't.

the idea of any major organization of sports professionals lining up behind the idea of supporting LGBT athletes still amazes and pleases me

I know what you mean!!! :)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I've been researching the YouCanPlay project since I uploaded the last comment. Other sports -- very discretely -- honor their gay fans with special days at the park -- but I've never heard them mentioned over the air -- and I do get MLB Extra Innings. And the occasional pro in various sports will come out and support the idea of LGBT players.

But this was started by the President and General Manager of the Maple Leafs (who recently also had a 'proposal on ice' featuring two women) and -- which I hadn't known until I read this -- was put together with the unanimous support of the other Hockey GMs. It has been promoted by NHL.com, and mentioned on NHL Network -- and the videos were made with the aid of HBO sponsorship.

The only thing that has been missing so far is an athlete actually coming out. I've heard nothing about this except in my imagination, but the idea of a member of the Stanley Cup winners doing it during the celebration would be magnificent.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

oddjob, if you can watch videos on other sites, they are also available

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oops. here.

[oddjob]

:)

The day that gay American professional athletes - in team sports - are a non-event is in the not too distant future. If you had told me that when I was in my twenties I wouldn't have believed it.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Hmmm, I wonder what would have happened if Glenn Burke -- the first openly gay MLB player -- had simply been a better player. Robinson's importance was sealed because of his skills -- the Rookie of the Year Award he won was based on pure statistics, not because of his race or courage.

Burke, on the other hand, while he complained that he was never given a proper chance, simply was, at best, a fourth outfielder who'd be used for defense, pinch running, and who hit about .220 for his career. (It seems like the Dodgers have always had someone like that -- someone who fit in well with their team but who, when/if traded, bombed -- going all the way back to my memories of Brooklyn Dodger Yearbooks (Don Williams sticks in my mind) of the early fifties. Burke was just another one -- except for his sexuality.)

[oddjob]

Faux News ceases to bother with the pretense of being anything but a GOP propaganda channel.

[kathy a.]

geez, oddjob. that is really creepy.

[kathy a.]

media matters on the same subject.

[nancy]

Can someone 'splain to me why the FCC has nothing to say about Fox's antics? I mean, I know about the nullification of the Fairness Doctrine, but when does political product placement as news get someone's attention? Or is this just caveat emptor that comes with the purchase of a cable television subscription?

Hey Prup. My Mariners are in Texas and score is 16-0, M's, in the third inning. Record books are being consulted.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I heard, and didn't believe it, and Em wandered back asking if they'd had some sort of problem with the scoreboard. Understand they'd never scored more than 6 runs in an inning, then double 8s -- and Holland and Tateyama (?) aee both good pitchers.

But hey, I figured my Beloved Mets season would be over already (and I'd have given up on them for the year -- bad I can take, but not bad and dull -- and it looked that way. Nope, notatall) and they are -- or were yesterday -- one of the Wild Card teams.

(Btw, hate this fifteen teams to a keague, inter-league play every day idea they are trying next year.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

From the 'do you scream, cry, punch someone, or barf' file.

It may not for the legal definition, but this is child abuse.

[oddjob]

this is child abuse

I like Dan Savage's question: what if that four year old is gay?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The latest "You can play" video should make the Bostonians proud. To quote the description:

Northeastern University's student athletes, coaches, staff and fans were all invited to participate in making a You Can Play video supporting LGBT athletes. Filmed in May 2012, the Boston university welcomes all athletes to its teams.

I still can't help hoping, and somewhat expecting, that this is building up to a special one that would be released when, or just after, the Cup is decided, but even if not, still so much worth telling people about -- and hoping other sports will do the equivalent.

[kathy a.]

DOMA held unconstitutional.

[oddjob]

DOMA held unconstitutional.

Well that was a quick appeals court decision!

(On the other hand, while I'm not trained in the law I'm nonetheless inclined to think that as long as you're capable of reviewing the relevant issues dispassionately it's kind of an open and shut case.)

[kathy a.]

3-0, my friends; 2 judges appointed by republicans.

[oddjob]

On the other hand, I've now read comments online elsewhere pointing out that the reasoning in the opinion could be used to uphold the legitmacy of California's Prop. 8, even as it strikes down Section 3 of DOMA.

[kathy a.]

the core of the decision is, of course, wonderful: “Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.”

but this case is also very interesting because the DOJ refused to defend DOMA, having concluded it was unconstitutional. congress hired its own lawyers to defend DOMA.

(something similar happened with the prop. 8 litigation, when california's AG declined to defend prop. 8, and the proponents of the initiative were allowed to hire their own lawyers. a couple of other groups were not allowed to intervene -- that is, become formal parties to litigation between individuals and the government.)

oddjob, i think you've got a good grip of the situation. "we don't like 'em" is not a very good defense to a claim that equal protection has been violated.

here is a link to the decision, in PDF format.

[kathy a.]

oddjob, i haven't seen that criticism re prop 8 and don't have time to look for it. but my off-the-top impression is that it is off-base.

this decision dealt solely with whether there was a basis for the federal government to deny benefits to persons legally married in a state. the court took pains to make the decision narrow, rejecting stronger standards of review and some of the arguments put out there. there was very little in the way of legislative history to inform the court of motives.

prop 8 is dealing with a state initiative. my impression is that the record is VERY well-developed in that case -- there was an extensive hearing. no time to go back and review all that now, but if i recall, the intent was clearly to discriminate, and the pro-8 people were not able to put out any rational and factual basis for discriminating.

i do not recall the level of scrutiny in the prop 8 decision. equal protection is kind of a messy area of law, because so many standards might apply. the 1st circuit today used pretty much the lowest standard, i think -- avoiding controversy.

[oddjob]

IIRC Judge Walker's decision stated that the defense's case failed even if one used a rational basis level of scrutiny, and that he felt the matter merited a higher standard of scrutiny than that.

[nancy]

O/T

Since yesterday, I've been preoccupied with this shocking tragedy and crime which hit too close to home. My son arrived in Seattle for a job interview at 5:00 pm Tuesday and by 11:00 am Wednesday, his stomping grounds and safe zone was experiencing lock-down and home-to-home police visit-checks. City and its population is in mourning at the tail end of several months of anomalous random violence. Homicides in the city already number, in May, last year's total count.

Hand-gun control though? Thanks Justice Scalia. I do believe it was once possible, but now I'm not so sure. Am I wrong?

I want cops back on the beat, on foot and in neighborhoods -- every half-hour but at random and in pairs, strolling by neighborhood small businesses, on sidewalks where they get to know the locals. Take the money used for showy in-patrol-car 'street patrol emphasis-stops' during three-day weekends, the ones I mentioned earlier, and redistribute the manpower and resources to much better effect, afaic.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Sorry to hear about that grim story. The increasing ability of virtually anyone to get their hands on these incredibly hand guns and to carry them in public is just madness personified.

I am a big fan of foot patrols in dense neighborhoods. Sadly, though, I don't think that they would typically be effective in these kinds of cases. It's very difficult to stop a determined murderer.

[kathy a.]

nancy, this is open thread so you can't be off topic.

that disaster in seattle is so terrible. you know how i feel about guns -- and particularly about the gun-nuts who'd rather put a couple dozen guns in the hands of mentally ill people than have anybody tread on their personal "right" to have all the semi-automatics a person can buy.

[nancy]

Sir C -- That determined murderer was well-known and 'angry' to the people who politely asked him to once again leave the cafe yesterday. Cops on a beat might have been a proper deterrent. I guess that's the sad component, sorry to say. Had this guy been concerned and aware about regular police presence, would he have walked into that cafe?

I don't know.

[nancy]

kathy a. -- lots of local folks are going along with the 'mentally ill' meme. possible he was just an angry and out of control major league asshole? then what do we do. cause that kind of person will get to keep his arsenal. he had six guns and a concealed weapons permit.

this seemed very premeditated to me. coffee on the way from green lake to tacoma via the u-district? after being asked repeatedly to leave the establishment for being a threatening and hostile presence.