'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'

We think this case made it to the Supreme Court for the message on the sign.

From MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - A high school senior’s 14-foot banner proclaiming “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools’ control over student speech.

If the justices conclude Joseph Frederick’s homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.

“I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drugs,” Chief Justice John Roberts said Monday.

Tribe's Video Gambling Nixed

From the Houston Chronicle:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Catawba Indian Nation may not offer video gambling on its reservation because it would violate a state law prohibiting the games, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The Catawbas, the only federally recognized tribe in South Carolina, sued in 2005 for the right to offer video gambling, arguing their 1993 land deal with the state allowed it.

A South Carolina law banned video gambling in 2000.

The state contends that the land deal means the tribe's reservation falls under state, not federal, gambling laws. The Catawbas disagree and said they would appeal.

"This is just another round," said tribe attorney Dwight Drake.

Senate Seeking Answers to Attorney Firings

The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON, March 13 — Senate Democrats vowed today to get explanations, with or without subpoenas, from high Bush administration officials as revelations about the dismissal of federal prosecutors put renewed pressure on the White House.

“Just when we thought our faith could not be shaken any further, it has been,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The latest revelations prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been unprecedented breach of trust, abuse of power and misuse of the Justice Department.”

Mr. Schumer was reacting to disclosures by administration officials on Monday that the White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers.

Mr. Schumer, who called over the weekend for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, renewed that call today. The senator also said Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, “should not wait for a subpoena” but should come before Congress at once to tell what he knows about the affair.

So should Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel and one-time Supreme Court nominee, “who was deeply involved in this ill-conceived project,” Mr. Schumer said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said she had always believed that the attorney general’s office “stood apart from the White House.”

“And now I learn that much of what I had believed, at least about this attorney general’s office, is in fact not the case,” Senator Feinstein said. Predicting that a full inquiry may take a while, she said: “We will go that distance. And we will dig just as deep as is required.”

More of the Story

The Sooner Thought Podcast

Even law watchers have to take a break every now and then, and when we do, we listens to the Sooner Thought Podcast by our good friend Alex.

DISCLOSURE: We're not just saying that; Alex really is a friend of ours, and we're not above plugging for a friend. No money has changed hands, we're doing a favor because he asked nicely and we think his podcast is entertaining, thought-provoking ... well, you get the picture.

We don't know about his choice of guests sometimes, like this Jake numb-nuts from Ravel Babel. Just go check out his site and you'll see what we mean.

Give Alex and his Sooner Thought Podcast a try. You'll never go back.

Libby

We all know the outcome of the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Here are comments from the Democratic congressional leaders:

House Speaker Nancy Peolsi:

Today’s guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.

This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Washington, DC — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on news that a jury has found Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

"I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Going overboard?

Does this strike you as going just a bit too far? Or is it OK to mark offenders this way?

From MSNBC:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The cars of sexual predators would be marked by fluorescent green license plates under a unique proposal before Ohio lawmakers.

A bill introduced Wednesday by two legislators, Democratic Rep. Michael DeBose and Republican Sen. Kevin Coughlin, would require all habitual and child-oriented sex offenders to display the easy-to-spot plates.

It is something no other state has tried, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though some require a designation to appear on sex offenders’ driver’s licenses. An earlier Ohio proposal to require pink plates for sex offenders was unsuccessful.

What's next? Summary execution?

Politics Real Reason for Prosecutors' Dismissals?

The New York Times has received copies of "[I]nternal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months ..."

For months the Justice Department has been claiming the fired prosecutors were let go because of performance issues. As the Times article points out. the attorneys were rated “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent.”

But wait, an unnamed senior Justice Department official had this to say: “The reviews don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities.”

But the Times article points out:

However, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence.

So what does this leave? Politics.

Ya think?

Appeals Court Rules Against Detainees

Chalk one up for the Neo-Cons.

From The New York Times:

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a new law stripping federal judges of authority to review foreign prisoners’ challenges to their detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The decision set the stage for a third trip to the Supreme Court for the detainees, who will once again ask the justices to consider a complex issue that tests the balance of power among the White House, Congress and the courts in the murky context of the fight against international terrorism.

It also prompted some senior Democratic lawmakers, who have fought the Bush administration on the matter before and who now hold sway in Congress, to vow enactment of a law more favorable to the prisoners.

The Supreme Court previously ruled twice that federal statutes empowered the courts to consider Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions challenging the grounds for their detention. In response to those rulings, Congress twice rewrote law to limit the detainees’ avenues of appeal. The most recent rewriting was at issue in Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision.

Police Taping Facing Limits

If your are exercising your right of free speech in New York you will no longer be videotaped by the police.

A federal judge in Manhatten has ruled that the police do not have carte blance to videotape peaceful demonstrations unless there is a clear indication of "unlawful or terrorist activity."

Exerpt from The New York Times:

Citing two events in 2005 — a march in Harlem and a demonstration by homeless people in front of the home of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — the judge said the city had offered scant justification for videotaping the people involved.

“There was no reason to suspect or anticipate that unlawful or terrorist activity might occur,” he wrote, “or that pertinent information about or evidence of such activity might be obtained by filming the earnest faces of those concerned citizens and the signs by which they hoped to convey their message to a public official.”

While he called the police conduct “egregious,” Judge Haight also offered an unusual judicial mea culpa, taking responsibility for his own words in a 2003 order that he conceded had not been “a model of clarity.”

The restrictions on videotaping do not apply to bridges, tunnels, airports, subways or street traffic, Judge Haight noted, but are meant to control police surveillance at events where people gather to exercise their rights under the First Amendment.

“No reasonable person, and surely not this court, is unaware of the perils the New York public faces and the crucial importance of the N.Y.P.D.’s efforts to detect, prevent and punish those who would cause others harm,” Judge Haight wrote.

What's this say about prison life in Texas?

Man Seeks to Hasten His Execution in Texas

Better dead than on death row in Texas.

Anna Nicole and DNA

Seems that even the dead can't rest when paternity tests are ordered by judges.

This from FOX News:

A judge on Friday refused to order an emergency DNA test on the body of Anna Nicole Smith as part of a paternity suit involving her infant daughter, but he ordered that the body be preserved until a hearing in 10 days, attorneys said.

Two men are contesting the paternity of 5-month-old Dannielynn, and experts say the custody decision could determine the child's inheritance.

With major legal issues undecided, Smith's legacy could take years to untangle and could leave the baby girl with millions of dollars or nothing at all.

Why would the entire body have to be preserved? Seems that a tissue sample would be sufficient. Anna Nicole's so-called celebrity continues to spill over.

Astronaut needs psych eval

Lisa Marie Nowak, astronaut turned arrestee who is free on bail following charges of attempted kidnapping and attempted murder, should have a thorough psychological examination prior to her case going forward.

However, the charges against her are in Florida. Need we say more?

Two Charged in Boston Fiasco

Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens pleaded not guilty to charges of placing a hoax device in a way that causes panic and disorderly conduct in a Boston.

They are the two men were hired by an advertising agency to place boxes resembling Lite-Brite boards promoting a program on the Cartoon Network. Panic ensued when the Boston police were notified of suspicious devices and treated them like a terrorist attack.

The city closed major highways and subway systems and went into full "we're under attack mode." The devices were up for two weeks before coming under suspicion. Officials in nine other U.S. cities apparently saw them for what they were and took no action.

Turner Broadcasting reportedly agreed to pay the city up to $1 million to help offset the costs, which they will undoubtedly recoup through the free advertising.

Boston officials, who some say over reacted, would be smart to quietly dismiss the charges and let the matter die.

When the punishment doesn't fit the crime

A 20-year-old Georgia man is going to prison for 10 years for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. The prosecutor seems to be punishing the man for demanding a jury trial and not taking a plea deal for five years in prison and registering as a sex offender.

Read Susan Filan's comments about the case.

Exerpt:

Everyone agreed, including the prosecutor and the girl herself, that she initiated the act.

It was all captured on video — the evidence used to convict him at trial. On the tape, police saw a 15-year-old perform oral sex on one partygoer, and after finishing with him, she turned and did the same to Wilson. Under Georgia law at the time, this was considered aggravated child molestation, a felony for teens less than three years apart to have oral sex. It carried with it a 10-year sentence, even though it was only a misdemeanor for those same teens to have sexual intercourse.

District Attorney in More Hot Water

Seems that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong is finding himself in more ethics trouble.

The North Carolina Bar Association is accusing Nifong of withholding DNA evidence and making misleading statements to the court.

Nifong recently dropped rape charges against three members of the Duke University lacrosse team when the victim started wavering on her account of the incident. The district attorney withdrew from the case earlier because previously ethics charges created a conflict of interest.

If Nifong's purpose in pursuing the case was to make a name for himself, he sure succeeded. Just what that name is remains to be seen.

Model Bargains Out of Jail

Former supermodel Naomi Campbell struck a deal with prosecutors that will keep her out of jail.

Originally charged with second-degree felony assault on her maid Ana Scolavino, which carries a sentence of to two to seven years in prison, Campbel pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault which carries a much lesser penalty.

Campbell admitted throwing the cell phone which struck Scolavino in the back of the head but insisted it was an accident because she did not mean to hit her.

In exchange for her plea, Campbell with pay Scolavino's medical expenses of of $363, complete five days of community service and attend a two-day anger management program.

As is said, money talks, or in this case, takes the catwalk.

Minimum Wage Opponents Missing Point

Opponents of raising the federal minimum wage cite all kinds of statistics supporting their view, as do proponents.

Guys like George Will and Rich Lowry claim the minimum wage only affects a small number of Americans, but claim that raising it will cause all kinds of economic damage to business, including causing some of them to lay off workers or go out of business altogether.

We'll let others argue those points.

But Lowry says, "The effect of the hike basically will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summers or after school."

What's wrong with that?

With the cost of college tuitions increasing dramatically every year, and the cutback of grants and loans available for students, many teens are working to help pay their way through college.

They need all the help they can get and deserve a chance to make enough money to better themselves.

The problem with guys like Will and Lowry is that they have either forgotten what it's like to struggle to get ahead, or never had to in the first place. Now they want to deny that opportunity to others.

Spring Break Plans May Include DUI Lawyer

Several of my son's friends were over the other night talking about going to California (specifically San Diego) for Spring Break, and boys being boys, they got to talking about getting rowdy.

Now they know not to drink and drive, but being young and thinking they are invincible, these boys (young men really) do not always make the right decisions.

That's when I told them it might be wise to know about a San Diego DUI Lawyer before they make the trip. So they got on the Web and found Rick Mueller, who from the looks of his Web site is a fairly competent lawyer when it comes to DUI.

He's got a victory page devoted to cases where he has saved his client's driving privileges. Let's face it, you have to be able to drive in this country, so being able to keep your driver's license is essential.

Another positive point is the page on defenses to California's DUI breath test. Pre-knowledge of one's rights is always a good thing.

Now, I don't expect these guys to get into trouble while in Sunny Southern California, but I'll sleep better knowing that if the worse happens, they'll know who to call.

---

This is a sponsored post. Please see Disclosure Policy.

Disclosure Policy

This policy is valid from 10 January 2007

This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation.

This blog abides by word of mouth marketing standards. We believe in honesty of relationship, opinion and identity. The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog. That content, advertising space or post will be clearly identified as paid or sponsored content.

The owner(s) of this blog is compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though the owner(s) of this blog receives compensation for our posts or advertisements, we always give our honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question.

This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest.

To get your own policy, go to http://www.disclosurepolicy.org

Is U.S. Mail Really Private?

The U.S. mail is not private and the government does not need a search warrant to open your mail, according to the latest signing statement by President George Bush. As defined by the Bush White House, a signing statement is something this president uses so he doesn't have to follow the law.

Why haven't the American people heard about this before now since it happened in December? Media Matters for America points out that it's because the issue was largely ignore by most of the major media outlets.

Exerpt:

On January 4, the New York Daily News reported that on December 20, President Bush attached a "signing statement" to a postal reform bill that "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant." According to the Daily News: "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it." ABC, CBS, and CNN have largely ignored the story, however, and ABC's Good Morning America reported that Bush "acquired new powers" and suggested that they were "included" the bill.

Have the American people become so numb to the constant law violations of the current administration that we don't care anymore? Are we really that far gone?