Here's a thread for reactions, your own and others, to today's Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller. I have provided selected quotes from the opinion here.
(188 comments) Permalink :: Comments

Update: D.C. v. Heller has been released. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Anton Scalia, has affirmed that the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The opinion is here.
I will update with selected quotes below as I go through the 157 page opinion. First quote:
(86 comments, 1396 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Where is Sen. Barack Obama on the death penalty? With Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Here is what Sen. Obama had to say about today's excellent Supreme Court ruling striking down a state statute allowing the death penalty to be imposed for crimes where no death occurs:
When asked about Supreme Court ruling against the use of the death penalty in instances of child rape today at a news conference in Chicago, Obama answered, “I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.”
He continued, “Had the Supreme Court said, ‘We want to constrain ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,’ that would've been one thing, but it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”
He sounds just like John McCain: [More...]
(205 comments, 572 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
The Los Angeles Police Department has a "longstanding police policy that prohibits officers from initiating contact with people for the sole purpose of learning their immigration status." That policy is consistent with the belief that police officers should not accost individuals to seek information without a more legitimate reason than nosiness. The policy also protects individuals from police inquiries that are based on officers' assumption about national origins.
The frequently misguided organization Judicial Watch got it wrong again in a lawsuit it filed to free LAPD from that self-imposed restraint. Judicial Watch argued that "the city should not be using taxpayer money to enforce the policy, saying the order blocked cooperation between the local police and federal immigration agents." Wrong.
Judge Rolf M. Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court granted a motion from the city and the American Civil Liberties Union for a summary judgment to throw the suit out, arguing that Mr. Sturgeon was unable to show that the order violated federal law or impeded immigration officials from communicating with the police.
(3 comments) Permalink :: Comments
Gov. Bobby Jindal, often mentioned as a running mate for John McCain, was against a legislative pay raise in Louisiana before he wasn't against it enough to stop it.
During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises.
The legislature more than doubled legislative salaries, a particularly undeserved raise in light of the state's slow recovery from Katrina and the economic devastation that haunts many of its residents.
Even while denouncing the money lawmakers are giving themselves, the governor has tried to depict the matter as an internal legislative affair that does not require his meddling.
Jindal has two more weeks to pull the trigger on a veto, but he apparently doesn't want to derail support for his "reform" agenda, which includes "allowing science teachers to use 'supplemental' material that critics say is merely a stalking-horse for teaching creationism." For this they're getting a raise?
(10 comments) Permalink :: Comments
In the mail today -- a copy of William McKeen's new book Outlaw Journalist: The Life and Times of Hunter S. Thompson. It will be available on July 8 but you can order now at Amazon.
I'm especially anxious to read it because in the second section of eight pages of black and white photos of Hunter, is one I took of his wife Anita and son Juan. I've never been credited in a book before with "Photograph by..." and it's pretty exciting. Mr. McKeen contacted me a few years ago and asked for permission to use it. I asked Anita what she thought and she said it was fine.
Now, the book. [More...]
(10 comments, 234 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
This is Obama now:
My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."
Can you say "willing to say or do anything to win?" Or if you prefer, the "new" politics.
Speaking for me only
(196 comments) Permalink :: Comments
Everybody at TalkLeft is working today and our morning open thread is full.
Here's another one.
(147 comments) Permalink :: Comments
Newspaper magnate and British Baron, Lord Conrad Black, already serving his 6 1/2 year federal prison term for fraud, lost his appeal today.
The Chicago Tribune report is here. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is here (pdf.) It contains some interesting comments on "the ostrich instruction" which basically tells the jury if they find the defendant buried his head in the sand to avoid knowing what was going on, they can find him guilty.The convictions relate to millions of dollars that prosecutors said were illegally pocketed from the Hollinger International newspaper empire, since renamed Sun-Times Media. The former media baron has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence and has vowed to continue to fight the convictions.
Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion. The trial judge was Amy St. Eve, the same judge that presided over the Tony Rezko trial. [More...]
(4 comments, 768 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
Conservatives love playing this little game, acting as if the “elite” Democratic candidates are not in touch with people like themselves, even though the guys doing the attacking — like Rove, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity — are wealthy and cosseted. ... Everyone who ever became president was in the elite one way or another, including Andrew Jackson. ...Rove’s mythmaking about Obama won’t fly. If he means that Obama has brains, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama is successful, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama has education and intellectual sophistication, what’s wrong with that?
The election isn't about who you'd want to have a beer with. It's about who will best govern.
(177 comments) Permalink :: Comments
The other Supreme Court decision of interest today to criminal law junkies is Giles v. California (pdf). The issue is whether a defendant forfeits his right under the Confrontation Clause "to confront a witness against him when a judge determines that a wrongful act by the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify at trial." Hearsay statements made to a police officer that incriminate a defendant typically cannot be used at the defendant's trial unless the person making the statements is available to be cross-examined. A murder victim is obviously unavailable, and the issue was whether an exception to the confrontation rule exists when the defendant has caused the unavailability of the witness.
Giles shot his ex-girlfriend. At trial he claimed he acted in self-defense. A police officer testified that the ex-girlfriend had reported three weeks earlier that Giles had accused her of having an affair and had threatened to kill her.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a defendant does not forfeit his Confrontation Clause right to bar testimonial statements made outside the courtroom (in this case, the ex-girlfriend's statement to the officer) when the person making those statements has not been cross-examined, even if she's unavailable for cross-examination only because the defendant killed her. The Court rejected the popular notion of "forfeiture by wrongdoing" unless the wrongdoing was designed to prevent the testimony from being given.
(20 comments, 738 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
I'll be at work today, here's an open thread for you. Also check out:
- Christy at Firedoglake recaps Sen. Chris Dodd's speech last night on FISA. Glenn Greenwald does too.
- Spencer Ackerman has moved his blog to Firedoglake. Cool graphic and definitely one to put in your RSS feed.
- Peter Swire at Think Progress on laptop searches by border security.
- Collateral News on Floating Prisons.
All topics welcome and please be civil.
(203 comments) Permalink :: Comments
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |







