Sen. Diane Feinstein has decided that Roland Burris should be seated:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein rejected the reasoning that all of the chamber's Democrats, herself included, had cited in a letter last week — that corruption charges against Burris' patron, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, tainted his appointment. "Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators.

Funny, less than a month ago, Feinstein signed a letter saying the opposite:

Please understand that should you [Blagojevich] decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.

Begging the question, does Feinstein read the letters she signs?

Speaking for me only

Problem Number 1, acting, as Erwin Chemerinsky does, if your judgment that the Senate would be ill advised to reject Roland Burris, the Blago Farce appointee, is the equivalent of violating the Constitution. Chemerinsky writes:

The desire of Senate Democrats, and even Obama, to keep Blagojevich from picking the new senator from Illinois is understandable -- a federal attorney arrested the governor on charges of trying to sell the appointment for personal gain. Although Burris is untainted by the scandal, any selection made by Blagojevich is suspect. But the taint of Blagojevich's alleged crimes does not justify ignoring the Constitution.

Not seating Burris, pursuant to the Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution is the opposite of ignoring the Constitution. It may be that the interpretation of the Constitution forwarded by Senate Democrats is some day found to be incorrect by the Supreme Court. I doubt that day will come. But clearly the Senate is not ignoring the Constitution here. We all can have our judgment on whether it is wise for the Senate to do this, but it is absurd to argue that because the Senate disagrees with your judgment that it is acting unconstitutionally. More . .

The Framers of the Constitution probably saw no need to define the characteristics of a jury when they guaranteed criminal defendants the right to a jury trial because it was commonly understood at the time that a jury consisted of twelve persons who needed to arrive at a unanimous verdict to find guilt. In 1970, however, the Supreme Court decided that six jurors were good enough, although it later concluded that five were insufficient. Despite that decision, 47 states and the federal government still require a twelve person jury in serious felony trials.

William Bolivar Deltoro, convicted of sexual assault by a Florida jury of six and sentenced to life, is asking the Court to reconsider the 1970 decision. As Steven Calabresi and Michael Saks argue, the Court should take the case and correct its erroneous precedent.

[more ...]

Local governments generally deny that they use traffic tickets to raise revenue, but two economists who reviewed tickets issued in North Carolina drew conclusions that tend to confirm a common suspicion: traffic tickets are more about generating dollars than public safety.

Traffic tickets go up significantly when local government revenue falls, they found. Their study showed for the first time evidence of how "local governments behave, in part, as though traffic tickets are a revenue tool to help offset periods of fiscal distress." ...

Controlling for other factors, a 1 percentage point drop in local government revenue leads to a roughly .32 percentage point increase in the number of traffic tickets in the following year, a statistically significant connection.

Rising unemployment rates also correlate with increased ticketing. As the recession pinches local budgets, expect more traffic citations to be issued. The lesson: drive carefully, don't roll through stop signs, and invest in a good radar detector.

The Senate has refused to seat or swear in Roland Burris because his appointment was not signed by the Illinois Secretary of State.

Mr. Burris made his way to the office of Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the Senate, to whom he presented his credentials. Afterward, the aspiring legislator stood in the rain outside and declared, “Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the State of Illinois.”

...Ms. Erickson had already said that the appointment letter forwarded by the governor’s office did not comply with Rule II of the Senate’s standing rules, which requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state.

Jesse White, Illinois Secretary of State, refused to sign the appointment papers because of the Blagojevich criminal matter.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

THEY TOLD ME THAT IF WE TOPPLED SADDAM HUSSEIN, gas would be cheaper than it was in 2001. And they were right!

Professor Reynolds is confused regarding the cause of the drop in gasoline prices. The Iraq War did not lower gas prices (in fact, there is strong evidence it raised petroleum prices). The Bush Depression did. From the article cited by Reynolds:

The tumble in [gasoline] prices, from a high of more than $4.05 in early July, has meant incredible savings. Republicans said Democrats should issue a mea culpa. "I wonder if the same people who blamed the president for the increase in prices will now credit him with the reduction in prices. It's only fair," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed, Bush and Republicans should be thanked the way Hoover and Republicans were thanked for driving down commodity prices during The Great Depression - by decades in the political wilderness.

Speaking for me only

Two new TalkLeft reader diaries to recommend:

Steve M on the legalities of the coming Minnesota Senate contest.

Dalton Hoffine on Rawls and international law.

This is an Open Thread.

Writing about Leon Panetta's selection as CIA Director, Ann Althouse quotes a misinformed (Brennan's statements in support of rendition and torture after leaving the CIA are what did him in, not his tenure at the CIA) NYTimes piece and draws and interesting conclusion - inside the CIA, they can not say no to torture:

[Quoting the NYTimes piece] "[Obama's] first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks."

By contrast, Panetta wrote a piece in The Washington Monthly that said: "We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that." That's very nice, but . . . [i]f you aren't on the inside, dealing with the details and responsible for outcomes, it takes nothing to say that, and in fact, it's the most obvious opinion that anyone would take. . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Consider what Ms. Althouse is saying - that if you are "on the inside," saying no to torture is impossible. It seems to me that if that is true, then clearly the CIA could not have leadership come from inside its shop. More . . .

Bernie Madoff is in more hot water. He and his wife mailed packages of jewelry and other personal effects to their sons and a few others last week, in violation of a court order preventing him from transferring assets.

The Government asked the Court to revoke Bernie's bond. The Court has ordered briefs.

Bernie's lawyer also now disputes he is cooperating with the Government. He said that it's the company that is cooperating.

Go Al! Via TPM:

As someone who defended Norm Coleman's (and before that, Al Franken's) right to avail himself of all legal options to be sure that he did not win, I think it is time to acknowledge Franken's victory. Coleman must know now he has lost. He has no path to victory now. For the sake of Minnesota, he should concede.

Speaking for me only

NYTimes:

President-elect Barack Obama has selected Leon E. Panetta, the former congressman and White House chief of staff, to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization that Mr. Obama criticized during the campaign for using interrogation methods he decried as torture, Democratic officials said Monday.

. . . Aides have said Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. head with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Good for Obama for not letting the CIA's torture apologists pressure him into naming one of their own. The President-Elect makes it clear that torture will not be tolerated in his administration. As Panetta wrote in a March 2008 Washington Monthly article:

President-Elect Barack Obama today named four people to fill top spots in the Justice Department, which presumably will be headed by his nominee Eric Holder. They are:

• David Ogden for Deputy AG, the #2 spot. "Mr. Ogden, also a senior official in the Clinton Justice Department, has led the transition at the Justice Department since Mr. Obama’s election and has long been rumored as the front-runner for the #2 post."

• Dawn Johnsen to lead the Office of Legal Counsel..."A professor at Indiana University law school, she served on an acting basis as head of the office of legal counsel in 1997 and 1998 in the Clinton administration."

More...