I assume, like me, this afternoon turned a little hectic for Jeralyn and TChris. I was out of the loop and have no idea what is going on. Let us know here. This is an Open Thread.

Sandy Levinson raises this interesting issue:

One of the valuable points made in Saul Cornell's book on the Second Amendment is that self-defense was treated as a "common-law" right and not a "constitutional right" at the time of the Framing. So, as a matter of sheer historical accuracy, Scalia was probably wrong in suggesting that the Second Amendment had anything to do with safeguarding a right of self-defense. But, of course, there are other amendments to the Constitution, including the Ninth Amendment, which reminds us that there are rights beyond the ones enumerated in the first eight amendments.

. . . It is sad that supporters of gun rights are stuck with Scalia's opinion instead of one that truly engages with the materials of American constitutionial history and theory and provides a much more plausible backing for the decision.

Read the whole thing.

Patrick Waller was convicted of a 1992 kidnapping and robbery. Why?

Three of the four people abducted picked Waller in a photo lineup. The fourth later picked him out of a live lineup, [Mike] Ware said. Waller maintained his innocence and presented an alibi at trial but was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

This is another case of mistaken identification leading to a wrongful conviction. After more than 15 years in prison, new evidence proves Waller's innocence.

DNA testing conducted last year excluded Waller as the contributor of DNA found at the crime scene .... The DNA testing proved a match to another man who Ware said has confessed to the crime and implicated an accomplice, who also confessed.

[more ...]

What sense can we make of the national polls? Newsweek says Obama by 15. LATimes says Obama by 12. Gallup tracker says it is tied. Ras says Obama by 4. And today, the Time poll says Obama by 4. What can we believe?

Let me assure you of one thing we can believe, Obama will not win this election by double digits. Period. But let's see if we can makes some sense of the numbers. Setting aside voter screens and other polling anomalies, let's look at the ranges each candidate scores in these polls. Obama ranges from a low of 42 to a high of 51. Much of the divergence is likely due to the inclusion or exclusion of leaners. RCP's average has Obama at 47 which seems about right.

More . . .

Politico writes:

Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric. Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands and make striking departures from customary politics. Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge and minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues.

Pols are pols and do what they do. That's why as citizens and activists we must act for issues, not pols:

Read the whole thing, but here is the key excerpt, it seems to me:

Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama's support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:

Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.

[MORE . . . ]

What a hilarious diatribe:

I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns). Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.

. . . I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he's taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing. . . .

Sure you did Keith. Sure. Those of us who saw the segment know a bit better than that. And excuse me, John Dean is no Glenn Greenwald and no one who knows Glenn's work would even think to say such a thing. Unless of course you are a Keith Olbermann and what that has come to mean - Obama's O'Reilly. The man is a farce.

Speaking for me only

North Carolina might do something useful for the victims of wrongful convictions in that state. In addition to increasing compensation from $20,000 to $50,000 per year of incarceration, the legislative proposal would provide for tuition at a state university campus or community college, or for job training.

The bill is inspired by the recent exoneration of Dwayne Dail, who served almost 20 years before DNA showed he was innocent of the rape he was accused of committing.

Just five people since 2001 qualified for the money so it won't create a big strain on state budgets, but it could have a huge impact on the lives of those who spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

North Carolina should pass this bill and other states should follow its example. People who have been unfairly disadvantaged by state action deserve the state's help as they try to get their lives back together. Free health care, housing assistance, and therapy should also be part of the mix.

Michael Blair has been saved from a death sentence imposed for a murder he didn't commit.

The ruling comes less than a month after prosecutors acknowledged that DNA evidence does not implicate Blair and shows that another man, now deceased, is a plausible suspect in the girl's death.

That man, identified in court papers only as Suspect No. 4, learned where 7-year-old Ashley Estell was buried and bought a plot for himself as close as he could get to her grave. He's been dead at least 10 years, according to court documents that didn't make it clear whether he was actually buried in the plot he purchased. ... Blair, now 38, was convicted in 1994 of strangling and molesting Ashley in suburban Dallas.

Blair is serving three consecutive life sentences for child sexual assaults he actually committed and to which he confessed. He maintained his innocence regarding Ashley. [more ...]

The Division of Motor Vehicles in North Carolina issued 10,000 license plates that began with WTF before someone spoiled the fun by complaining.

DMV officials got word of the plates last July when a 60-year-old technology teacher from Fayetteville complained about the plate after her teenage grandchildren clued her in.

The DMV actually featured a WTF license plate on its website. According to the linked story, "[o]fficials are trying to remove the plate from the site." Trying? Maybe DMV should call the technology teacher's grandkids to ask for help.

Now that the DMV has been clued in, it's offering all WTF plate recipients a chance to trade in their plates for a less expressive combination of letters. It's also inviting "anyone who has an issue with their plate" to "contact their local DMV office to request a new one." (The linked story helpfully links to a slideshow of 20 internet acronyms someone thinks parents should know.)

Via the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Late yesterday, a federal court judge ruled that the government did not have to disclose whether it was illegally spying on Guantanamo attorneys’ conversations. The judge ruled that the National Security Agency (NSA) could not be forced to reveal information about its domestic spying program because, “confirming or denying whether plaintiffs' communication with their clients has been intercepted would reveal information about the NSA's capabilities and activities.”

Plaintiffs had argued that the government cannot use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to shield illegal surveillance of attorneys. In response, the court said that because of the breadth of a statute protecting the NSA’s secrecy, “the Court need not address plaintiffs’ substantive arguments concerning the TSP’s illegality.”

What it means: [More..]

From the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed one of the first new habeas corpus petitions since the Supreme Court ruled on June 12 that the men at Guantánamo have the constitutional right to habeas corpus. The petition was filed on behalf of detainee Mohammed Sulaymon Barre, a UN mandate refugee from Somalia protected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

In related news, the CCR, Amnesty International and other groups are challenging the CIA's refusal to release documents about its secret prisons and detention program, alleging a cover-up: [More...]