35 years ago, women did not have a constitutional right to control their bodies. That changed when Roe v. Wade was decided. It is fashionable today in legal circles to attack the legal reasoning of Roe. While I believe Justice Blackmun's prose could have been better, the central legal premise was and remains sound:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, . . . ; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments . . . ; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights . . . ; in the Ninth Amendment, . . . .; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," . . . , are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, . . . ; procreation, . . . ; contraception, . . . .; family relationships, . . . ; and child rearing and education, . . . This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. . . .

35 years ago today, an important step was taken in recogizing the equality of women and in recognizing the right to privacy. Fighting to preserve this advance has been central to progressives and Democrats since then. The challenge remains. Roe now probably stands with a precarious 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. There is no more important issue in this Presidential campaign than the appointment of Supreme Court justices. John Paul Stevens is 87. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter are 68 and older. We MUST elect a Democrat. Nothing is more important in this election.

Hillary Clinton is on her way to Salinas, California where she will receive the endorsement of the United Farm Workers, founded by Cesar Chavez.

Clinton is wheels up to California, where she’s set to pick up a major endorsement from the United Farm Workers of America — founded by legendary Latino organizer Cesar Chavez. The union backing only strengthens her already rock-solid support among Hispanics.

It is expected that 5,000 will attend the event.

Hillary Clinton maintains her double digit lead in California in the highly respected Field Poll (think the DMR poll in Iowa). The problem Obama has remains the same, women, Latinos and working class Democrats:

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama in California now stands at 12 percentage points – 39% to 27%, with 14% preferring other candidates and a relatively large proportion (20%) of likely voters undecided. Clinton’s lead is largest among women, Latinos, lower income voters, non-college graduates, and seniors. Conversely, Obama is preferred among blacks, college graduates and Democratic primary voters with household incomes of $80,000 or more. Clinton and Obama run about even among men, liberals, and white non-Hispanics.

He needs to find a way to crack this problem, or he has virtually no chance of winning the nomination. His expected win in South Carolina is not likely to come from the type of winning demographic that will work in California or other 2/5 states.

In a 5 to 4 split decision, the Supreme Court has held that inmates can't sue prison guards for destruction of property under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case is Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 06-9130.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia joined Thomas. The dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

"The seizure of property by an officer raises serious concerns for the liberty of our people and the act should not be read to permit appropriation of property without a remedy," Kennedy said.

Background on the case is here and the Court's opinion, authored by Clarence Thomas, is here.

Crime and drugs may not be a big topic in this year's elections, but it is at the Oscars. "No Country for Old Men" and "Michael Clayton" scored seven nominations apiece, including best picture.

In the best supporting actress category,

Completing the list of best supporting actress nominees are 83-year-old Ruby Dee as the mother of a Harlem kingpin in "American Gangster" and Amy Ryan as the drug-dealing mother of a kidnapped daughter in "Gone Baby Gone."

Here's the complete list. Some films that I thought would get some nominations but didn't: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and Hotel Chevalier, the prequel to The Darjeeling Limited. [More...]

There is a true silliness to the way certain quarters want to act as if Hillary Clinton initiated the negativity in the debate last night. Take for example the normally levelheaded Josh Marshall:

One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. . . .

I take it Josh missed Obama's tendentious attacks. Here is where it started. Here was the first attack of the night, in Obama's FIRST answer of the debate:

So it is absolutely critical right now to give a stimulus to the economy. And Senator Clinton mentioned tax rebates. That wasn't the original focus of her plan. I think recently she has caught up with what I had originally said, which is we've got to get taxes into the -- tax cuts into the pockets of hard-working Americans right away.

An unprovoked and tendentious attack one could call it. I call it campaigning and highlighting differences about what each candidate SAID. This CAN NOT be out of bounds in a campaign. But who was the first with a personal attack? Well, that would be Obama again:

[W]hile I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

That is a tendentious personal attack. Maybe Josh Marshall missed it. I imagine he heard Hillary's tendentious personal attack in RESPONSE:

I was fighting against those [Republican] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

Some can only see bad in Hillary and good in Obama. I submit the picture is a bit more complicated than that.

The Dow is down 440 points in the first half hour of the trading day. The Fed held an emergency meeting and cut the prime interest rate of 3/4 by a point. Recession seems to be here. And George W. Bush is the President for the next year. This is not good. This is an Open Thread.

The question of the competing health care plans has been one of the major differences between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on one hand, and Barack Obama on the other. Clinton and Edwards favor mandates, which would require everyone to have health insurance (while providing subsisides to those who can not afford it). Obama opposes mandates. Last night it was discussed again. Here is a key exchange:

There was only one reference to criminal justice issues in the South Carolina debate. It had Obama and Hillary in agreement. John Edwards didn't weigh in on it, but he would agree as well.

From the transcript: [More....]

Just in case the fork isn't deep enough into Rudy Giuliani's presidential aspirations, the New York Times helps out a bit.

It's a three page article filled with examples. It begins:

Rudolph W. Giuliani likens himself to a boxer who never takes a punch without swinging back. As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him.

Now that the Democratic debate in South Carolina is over and the next real action isn't until Tsunami Tuesday, February 5, it's a good time to ponder what the real issue will be in November.

I sincerely doubt it will be race or gender, no matter who gets the Democratic nomination. It will be the economy -- or, if Bush decides to help the Republican candidate by ratcheting up the fear of terror and elevating the threat level, national security.

So, here's a poll below the fold. What do you think the major issue in November will be?

A new policy goes into effect in Michigan today. Undocumented residents will not be allowed to obtain drivers' licenses. But, that's not all.

The new policy also prohibits people who are legal but not permanent U.S. residents from getting licenses. Legislation to allow those on temporary work or student visas to get licenses is pending in the Legislature.

States that allow drivers licenses for the undocumented include:

Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington do not require drivers to prove legal status to obtain a license.

Unfortunately, we can't count on any of the Democratic candidates to take a strong stand on bringing the undocumented out of the shadows. While Hillary flubbed the question during a Democratic debate, John Edwards opposed licenses for the undocumented. And Barack Obama, well, he first said he was in favor of it but then weaseled out just moments later. Then he went back to his first position. As Hillary says, it's hard to figure out where he stands on a number of issues. This is one of them. [quotes below.]