Lawyers report that 5,000 D.U.I cases in Arizona could be dismissed due to a fight over the source code for the Intoxilyzer 8000, in use since Dec. 2006 and alleged to be error-prone. The Judge (as have others across the country) ordered CMI Inc. of Owensboro, Ky, the company that makes the device, to turn over the source code and it has refused, even though it has already accumulated fines of more than $1 million, just in Florida.

(The device has been approved in 6 other states. Colorado uses the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, so I doubt it will happen here.)

It's not the first time this has happened in Arizona.

A dozen years ago, about 5,000 cases were dismissed within a few months after prosecutors agreed the breath-test device in use then, the RBT IV, manufactured by Intoximeters Inc., was faulty.

The number of Tucson DUI arrests in 2007-08: 5,963, although not all involved the Intoxilyzer 8000.

E.J. Dionne gets at something here:

Fundamentally, ours is a non-ideological nation. Many who would like the government to act more boldly still need to be persuaded of government's capacity to succeed. Here again, Obama's situation closely resembles Reagan's. Like our 40th president, Obama has been authorized to move in a new direction. If Reagan had the voters' permission to move away from strategies associated with liberalism, Obama has sanction to move away from conservative policies. Reagan was judged by the results of his choices, and Obama will be, too.

I happen to believe that progressive policies will be the most efficacious for the country. Obama said in the campaign that he believed that too. But what he needs to do is push for the policies he believes will work. Because his political success depends on the success of his policies. "Center Right" and "Center Left" will mean nothing to the voters. Which is why Dionne is right when he states:

The economy continues to deteriorate:

• Fannie Mae Posts $29 Billion Loss
• Feds Increase AIG Bailout by $40 Mil, total now $150 billion
• Circuit City Files for Bankruptcy
• And the Dems are calling for an auto industry bailout.

At the start of the whole Center Right Meme, Jon Meacham wrote:

But history, as John Adams once said of facts, is a stubborn thing, and it tells us that Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Carter to Clinton usually wind up moving farther right than they thought they ever would, or they pay for their continued liberalism at the polls. . . . The pattern has deep roots. FDR had a longish run (from 1933 to 1937), but he lost significant ground in the 1938 midterm elections . . .

You see Meacham says FDR's Dem Party "lost" in the 1938 election (of course, FDR did not lose, the Dems maintained huge majorities in the Congress) because of FDR's "liberal overreach." The thesis is that FDR's "court packing" scheme was "liberal overreach I suppose (though of course the 1937 Supreme Court term famously provided FDR with victories for his New Deal.) Or perhaps FDR's attempts to knock out some of the more conservative Dem members of Congress in favor of more progressive ones is what Meacham is talking about (though that does not make sense as FDR largely failed in this effort.) Paul Krugman provides a different thesis - that FDR stumbled in the 1938 election because he turned Center Right:

Via Scotus Blog, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three criminal cases today:

• Chambers v. United States (06-11206), on whether failure to report to prison is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminals Act.

• United States v. Hayes (07-608), on whether federal gun laws require a domestic relationship between an attacker and victim to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of “domestic violence.”

• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (07-591), on whether the Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports for use in their prosecution.

The Washington Post reports that three Bush Administration appointees are likely to remain in an Obama Administration, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, whose term expires in 2011.

Mueller has championed new guidelines, set to take effect Dec. 1, that give agents pursuing terrorism leads the power to conduct long-term surveillance of suspects, engage in pretext interviews in which agents conceal their identities and infiltrate groups that the FBI thinks may threaten national security. Obama has not spoken out on the guidelines, which have roiled civil-liberties advocates, but has indicated support for a new domestic intelligence czar who would provide more oversight of the FBI's intelligence operations.

Yesterday, I included rejecting the new FBI snooping guidelines approved in September and October by Bush, Mueller and Attorney General Mukasey among my suggestions for President-Elect Barack Obama. Grits for Breakfast has more.

How likely is that if Mueller is staying on as FBI Director? Center for Investigative Reporting has this analysis of the new guidelines: [More..]

Some fraudsters are peddling phony tickets to President-Elect Barack Obama's inauguration. The Washington Post reports the only source for tickets, which are free, is the Congressional Offices. They are setting up a website with information.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies has printed about 250,000 tickets to the Jan. 20 swearing-in ceremony at the west front of the U.S. Capitol.

The tickets are free and will be given to members of Congress and to President-elect Barack Obama's presidential inaugural committee, once that is established. Those who want to attend the ceremony should contact their local member of Congress to request tickets.

One drawback for out-of-towners planning to attend: "Tickets will not be given out until one week before the inauguration." Maybe the airlines will offer last minute inauguration fares? I don't think so either, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there.

The Chicago Police are under investigation for multiple complaints of using pepper spray against election night revelers celebrating Barack Obama's victory. One incident sparked a lawsuit.

A family filed a federal lawsuit charging officers in unmarked squad cars pepper-sprayed and shouted racial slurs at their young children as they drove on the West Side.

There are unconfirmed reports of as many as 50 pepper spray incidents in the same Chicago district.

Barack Obama's Transition Chief John Podesta says stem cell research and drilling are among the top George W. Bush-issued executive orders he will reverse when taking over the White House.

Grits for Breakfast has one they'd like see Obama take action on: the new FBI snitch/snooping guidelines approved last month. You can read them here (pdf) or a summary here.

Seems like a good time to start a list. What executive orders or other Bush-authorized decisions would you add to that list?

(Part 1 is here)

A substantial victory margin for Barack Obama and two strong elections for the Democratic Party unquestionably constitute a mandate. But a mandate to do what? In a broad sense, it is a mandate for change. In specific terms, the answer is somewhat less clear.

Paul Krugman argues that the mandate is for “a new era of progressive policies” because “this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.” That is certainly true with regard to the progressive changes that were at the forefront of the election: a tax policy that requires the wealthy to shoulder a greater burden while providing middle class relief; health care reform; investment in the nation’s infrastructure; more robust regulation of the financial industry; withdrawal of troops from Iraq; a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy over aggression. It is less clear that voters intended to send a mandate to enact a broader progressive agenda.

[more ...]

It's too bad the country's problems would not be as easy for Barack Obama to solve as it would be to fix college football's ridiculous system for crowning a national champion. Of course Barack Obama was joking when he said "he would make a college football playoff 'one of my legislative priorities' as President." But I am sure he wishes the country's problems would be as easy to solve as the college football mess. Because there is nothing so simple.

College football already has the mechanisms for choosing the teams that would be in an 8 team playoff. The champions of the 5 major conferences (SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, Big Ten and ACC) receive automatic bids to BCS bowls. The BCS even has a mechanism for an automatic bid for lesser conferences - whose champions get an automatic bid if they are among the Top 12 BCS ranked teams at the end of the season. The remaining bids are at large and can be chosen by the BCS rankings. Will there be griping? Perhaps. But if you did not win your conference how serious a gripe can you have?

More . . .

The problem with political reporters is they know so little about politics. Even the smart ones. Ron Brownstein writes:

If Obama is shrewd enough, there's a lesson for the new president in the failure of the old one. Bush and his chief political strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of cementing a lasting Republican electoral majority. Instead, Bush has left his party in rubble.

The 2008 election represented a final grade on Bush's bruising and polarizing political strategy. . . . His legislative strategy centered on minimizing dissent among congressional Republicans; his electoral strategy revolved around maximizing his vote among Republicans and conservative independents. Through Bush's first term, that approach generated undeniable successes. . . . But through Bush's second term, this insular strategy grew unsustainable. By targeting so many of his policies toward the priorities of his conservative base, Bush ignited volcanic opposition from Democratic voters and steadily alienated independents.

This analysis is simply and undeniably wrong. How Bush got his policies through is not what has caused the Republican electoral debacle. It was the performance of his Republican policies. If Bush's policies had been successful, Republicans would be expanding their majorities TODAY. It is ironic that political reporters never can accept that elections are judgments on the efficacy of the policies of the governing party, not the process by which policies are enacted. More . . .