Unwisely yet predictably, Connecticut legislators are considering enacting a three-strikes law in response to a gruesome multiple murder last month by two inmates with lengthy records.

The New York Times has an editorial today in opposition.

The appeal of a “three strikes and you’re out” law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent. In California, which has a particularly draconian law, a man who shoplifted $153.54 worth of videotapes was sent to jail for 50 years. These laws are not only overly harsh. They are enormously expensive, because of all of the prison cells that are needed to warehouse minor criminals who pose little threat to society, many of whom are elderly by the end of their sentence.

....adopting a one-size-fits-all sentencing system makes no more sense than releasing criminals without adequate information.

So many of our worst and most draconian laws stem from reaction to a single crime. As I've written repeatedly,

More...

Now that everyone has had a chance to twitter at Sen. Larry Craig's misfortune of being popped for toe-tapping in the men's bathroom at the airport, I'm glad to see some liberal blogs take note of the underlying issue....why are we paying police to hang out in airport bathrooms in the first place?

Arianna writes:

There clearly are very serious potential threats to our safety to be found in airports -- outside of bathroom stalls. Is sending Sgt. Karsnia into the men's room to spend all day trying to get other men to look at him and tap his foot really the best way to use our limited law enforcement resources?

....Since the news about Craig broke, the media focus has been on his sexual perversions -- it's time to turn the spotlight on the perverted priorities of America's law enforcement community.

HuffPo is asking for your help in gathering numbers:

More....

Playing gotcha on the exact phrasings in the Constitution is pretty silly and Professor Althouse tries it on The NYTimes:

"The New York Times editors think that the phrase 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is in the Constitution..." Oops! But if it's a living Constitution, surely, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have evolved there by now. Let's run with it! Possibly to things the NYT won't even like.

(Emphasis supplied.) For the record, a pretty important amendment to the Constitution, the 14th, states:

. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis supplied.) Not precisely "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," but not exactly made up out of whole cloth as Professor Althouse seems to suggest. Just sayin'

Senator George Aiken famously said about Vietnam "declare victory and get out." Is President Bush about to employ the Aiken Solution in Iraq?

President Bush raised the possibility Monday of U.S. troop cuts in Iraq if security continues to improve, traveling here secretly to assess the war before a showdown with Congress. . . . Bush said, "when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure." . . . "I am more optimistic than I have been at any time since I took this job," said Gates. . . .

I'll believe it when I see it, but whatever ends the Iraq Debacle is fine by me. Let Bush declare victory. Just end the Debacle.

The APSA had a panel on the New Originalism, and Professor Jack Balkin's Progressive Originalism was front and center.

Larry Solum provides a terrifc writeup on the debate. Balkin's highlight:

Balkin thought he should talk about "progressive originalism". How do you do it? For Balkin, the issue is how to be faithful to the constitution's commands as law. Fidelity requires that we be faithful to the text and the original meaning of the text. The text has rules, standards, and principles. Where the constitution enacts a principle, you must be faithful to the principle. This leads to a distinction between original expected application and original meaning. Early originalism conflated this two.

More...

I think I have been the most virulently anti-Castro "progressive" (I'm a centrist remember?) blogger you'll find. So, if you read Steve Clemons, you'd think I would favor Hillary Clinton's stance:

Hillary Clinton has stated quite clearly that she is content to stick with past policies -- those of President Bush -- when it comes to Cuba.

You'd be wrong. I oppose the embargo. I prefer Chris Dodd's approach; on the merits:

Hmmmmmmmm:

. . . [Bartlett] and his wife, Denise, were on their way to the shop where he occasionally teaches Wicca and Reiki (RAY'kee) healing when they stopped at a liquor store and bought two $5 Mega Millions tickets for Friday night's estimated $330 million jackpot. On Sunday, he said one ticket was a winner. "If it wasn't for this place I wouldn't have won the lottery," Bartlett said Sunday at Mystickal Voyage, the New Age shop. Bartlett, an accountant from Dundalk, said he made a bargain with the multiple gods associated with his Wiccan beliefs: "You let me win the lottery and I'll teach."

(Photo of Haymarket Square, Chicago, 1886)

Blawg Review has a Labor Day Special Historical Edition. Here's the criminal law bloggers section.

Diary Rescue: Thanks to Edger and Andgarden for posting these new diaries:

• Can The Iraq Occupation Be Ended Before The 2008 Elections?

• "Odd Couple" or Ineffective Couple?

Atrios writes:

I've been saying for along time that Bush's Iraq policy is "staying."

He says Dems are afraid of "Karl Rove." Are they? What will the Dems do about Iraq? September is here. What say you Dems? Will you capitulate again?

My old saw is

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

Stoller points to an LATimes article that demonstrates too many "anonymous" Dem strategists do not understand this central pointt:

Phil and Sue Waters helped organize their suburban Denver megachurch to campaign for an anti-gay-marriage referendum on last year's state ballot. But even these core GOP voters are feeling less excited about pitching in for the party's candidates in 2008. . . . "I'm still a Republican, but I'm very close to being an independent," said Phil Waters. "I'm closer to the middle than I used to be because of the way the Republicans have screwed things up."

Now what would a political consultant garner from this? Here's what the "anonymous" ones in the LATimes article "discovered:"

Democratic analysts say the 2006 election underscored the importance of downplaying partisanship and campaigning to the middle.

Idiots. Downplaying partisanship in AN ELECTION!! But of course this has ALWAYS been their advice no matter if Dems win or lose. Instead of recognizing that this is a great opportunity to redefine Democrat ideals as centrist and Republicans ideologues as extremist, these "anonymous" Dem strategists want to blur distinctions. Another LATimes story demonstrates just how stupid an idea this is:

Paul Krugman:

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence . . . [b]ut many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.

. . . The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is.

. . . [T]he usual suspects [say], General Petraeus is a fine, upstanding officer who wouldn’t participate in a campaign of deception — apparently forgetting that they said the same thing about Mr. Powell.

. . . So here we go again. It appears that many influential people in this country have learned nothing from the last five years. And those who cannot learn from history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it.

One thing Krugman does NOT say is this - where are the Democrats? So, I will. Where are the Democrats?

This may be the best Keith Richards compilation I've seen yet. I can't believe he was ever that young. Watch the whole thing.

Who cares what one critic in Sweden thinks?