Welcome news, if the accusation is true:

A 27-year-old man described as one of the world’s most prolific spammers was arrested Wednesday, and federal authorities said computer users across the Web might notice a decrease in junk e-mail.

The charges, however, seem like overkill.

Last week, a federal grand jury returned a 35-count indictment against [Robert Alan] Soloway charging him with mail fraud, wire fraud, e-mail fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.

Couldn't he just be charged with being an incredible nuisance? And sentenced to spend the rest of his life deleting spam emails from our mailboxes?

What does it take to get the NYPD to obey court orders? So far, it's taken a $100,000 settlement and the threat of a contempt finding.

In 1992, a federal judge found a law prohibiting loitering “for the purpose of begging” unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement in New York City. The decision was upheld on appeal, but that hasn't stopped officers from illegally arresting hundreds of people for violating the law. Some have been arrested repeatedly, and some prosecutors have tried to bring charges under the unconstitutional law.

Police essentially ignored a second order to stop enforcing the law issued in June 2005.

It was only after the plaintiffs — half a dozen people who were unlawfully arrested or charged for panhandling or loitering — asked in December [2006] that the department be held in contempt that the Police Department “turned their behavior around,” Judge Scheindlin wrote.

More ...

Hollywood actor/former lobbyist/current Beltway heartthrob and, former ineffectual Senator Fred Thompson condones perjury, obstruction of justice and hypocrisy. First, his defense of a convicted perjurer and obstructor of justice:

I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.

Free a convicted perjurer and obstructor of justice! No justice! No peace! Who knew Holly-Fred was a dirty, effing hippie? Must be those Holly-Fred values.

Forget the sentencing letter issue. There's a bigger one.

Team Libby filed its two sentencing memoranda today (here and here.)

Turns out, the Probation Department calculated Libby's guidelines at 15 to 21 months, before applying any departures. And, it found at least three grounds for departure from the guidelines:

In this case, the PSR identifies at least three mitigating factors that are present to such a significant degree to warrant downward departure: (1) Mr. Libby’s outstanding record of public service and prior good works; (2) collateral employment consequences for Mr. Libby, including the expected loss of his license to practice law; and (3) the improbability of any future criminal conduct by Mr. Libby.

The Probation Department also found that the aberrant behavior departure warrants consideration:

More...

Professor Jack Balkin continues his fascinating discussion of Professor Bruce Ackerman's theory of Constitutional Moments.

I may be the only person here interested in this, but I still feel it mandatory to link it for you.

My previous discussions on this can be found here and here.

31 year old attorney and tuberculosis patient Andrew Speaker is now in Denver at National Jewish Hospital. His life for the forseeable future won't be pleasant.

He'll likely spend several weeks in a drab hospital room with a high-tech vent and an ultraviolet light that kills bacteria as it is sucked out of the room. His only view of the outdoors will be the wall of a building, a patch of grass, and some patio tables and chairs on the ground below. He will be allowed to have visitors, but they must wear face masks, doctors said.

....Normally, patients with similar diagnoses — Speaker is believed to have a low level of TB in his system — would be allowed to leave the room while in the hospital. But doctors plan to keep him in the room for the immediate future until they can preform more tests, officials said.

Sounds like jail.

So the Third Way's Scott Winship is still hung up on labels:

The biggest issue folks had with my last post was with my claim that the country tilts right of center. Since I indicated yesterday that I'd defend that claim today—yes, I realize that I didn't provide much evidence yesterday—and since I'm intending this post to be an example of the kind of evidence-based argumentation that I have in mind, let's get this party started.

Winship's proof? why self-indentification polls of course. Well, I self identify myself as a Centrist. Who disagrees with me on that? Let's face it, labels mean nothing as to what people believe on specific issues and that really is the point isn't it? Winship mentions Paul Waldman's argument on the issue (which, for those who care, I am looking at you my good friend Ed Kilgore, is the whole point of the Politics of Contrast - make folks deal with the actual stances of the two parties) and promises, eventually, to actually bring some facts to his argument for "empiricism." About time Scott. For a guy arguing for fact-based empiricism, you sure are taking your sweet time bringing some actual facts to the table.

Via digby, President Bush inspiring confidence:

[T]here is not much real give in the administration's policies. . . . [B]y all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness. Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Oh gawd.

Via Glenn Greenwald, the latest Beltway hearthrob - the Hollywood actor/former lobbyist Fred Thompson - describes how he would have dealt with Iraq:

This is what Thompson said last month when interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News:

WALLACE: What would you do now in Iraq?

THOMPSON: I would do essentially what the president's doing.

Ok. If you like George Bush's Iraq Debacle, then Fred Thompson is your man, or at least one of them. Because all of the leading GOP Presidential candidates say the same thing.

I'll be out the rest of the afternoon and we haven't had an open thread yet this week. So here you go.

The criminal law world has been awaiting the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Claiborne and U.S. v. Rita, which address unresolved questions from the Booker case (argued in the Supreme Court by TalkLeft contributor TChris) which ruled the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory.

The issue in the Claiborne case is whether a sentence below the guideline range must be justified by extraordinary circumstances. Scotus Blog reports:

The case of Claiborne v. U.S. (docket 06-5618) was heard by the Court on Feb. 20, along with a second Guidelines case (Rita v. U.S., 06-5754). The cases were heard in tandem because they both test what sentence under the Guideline may be treated as "reasonable" when challenged on appeal. The Clairborne appeal asks whether a sentence below the Guideline range is presumed to be reasonable, while the Rita case asks whether a sentence within a Guideline range is presumed to be reasonable.

But today the Public Defender's office representing Claiborne confirmed he was shot to death in Saint Louis in recent days.

So what happens to his case?

More...

Judge Reggie Walton ruled today that following Scooter "I. Lewis" Libby's sentencing, he will release the more than 150 sentencing letters received in the case, both those asking for leniency and those asking for a harsh sentence.

The order is here (pdf).

Personal information such as home addresses and phone numbers will be redacted from the letters.

The Judge gave Libby's lawyers a little wiggle room. If they think additional personal information should be redacted from specific letters, they have until June 4 to identify that information in an ex parte submission to the court. The Judge says that he will only consider those further redactions that contain "plainly sensitive or confidential" information.

There's a sentence in the Order that indicates to me the Judge thinks the charges Libby was convicted of are quite serious. He writes that the number of letters received are indicative not only of the high public interest in the case but "of the weightiness of the underlying charges."

Team Libby can't be happy with that sentence.

Update: Marcy weighs in.