California's plan to outsource its prison management problem to private prisons in other states met with a judge's disapproval, forcing the state to confront the reality of its bloated prison population. The decision is a loss for Gov. Schwarzenegger in his struggle with the state's powerful prison union.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the Service Employees International Union challenged Schwarzenegger's transfers for violating the emergency act and a provision in the state Constitution. That provision prohibits using private companies for jobs usually performed by state workers. The judge agreed with the unions on both points.

The governor worries that the state will be forced to release dangerous prisoners to alleviate overcrowding. If the governor used his pardon power to free prisoners serving lengthy "strike" sentences for nonviolent crimes and to shorten drug sentences, he'd find it easier to house the violent criminals.

The evidence is in: voter ID laws suppress voter turnout, particularly in minority populations. But the GOP already knew that.

States that imposed identification requirements on voters reduced turnout at the polls in the 2004 presidential election by about 3 percent, and by two to three times as much for minorities, new research suggests.

In 2004, TalkLeft called attention to the abusive conditions under which a mentally ill inmate had been confined in Dallas County. Three years later, Dallas County is paying $950,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by the families of three mentally ill prisoners who were denied medication during their confinement.

Just over half of the award went to James Mims, a Dallas County jail inmate whose psychiatric medications were withheld for two months in 2004, his attorney David Finn said. Mims also nearly died when water was shut off in his cell for two weeks.

Dallas County taxpayers might want to ask whether the jail plans to improve its management of mentally ill prisoners.

Tony Blair has had enough.

Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

The administration's spin: Blair's cut-and-run strategy is "a sign of success."

Jim Wallis a few months ago:

"When the Democrats became just the party of rights, they lost something, a moral appeal," Wallis contends. The Democratic patchwork frayed as some of its largest constituencies, particularly working-class whites, began to feel culturally estranged from the party. The breaking point was in 1972, when Republican Richard M. Nixon argued that a vote for Democrat George McGovern was a vote for "acid, amnesty and abortion." To many voters, McGovern embodied an emerging perception that liberals were outside the American mainstream.

Jim Wallis today:

So Kos, let’s made a deal. How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith – and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can’t come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do). If we progressives, religious and secular, could stop fighting among ourselves (shooting ourselves in the foot) and join together on some really big values issues – like economic fairness, health care, and a more just foreign policy – think of the difference we could make. How about it?

You first Jim. As Kos responded:

I have no idea what Wallis is talking about. Isn't his point exactly what I wrote? Maybe I'm missing something, but it's as if Wallis didn't bother reading my post and merely heard about it second-hand.

With "friends" like Jim Wallis, Dems need no enemies.

See also Frederick Clarkson and PastorDan.

In a divided 2-1 ruling, Boumediene v. Bush, a panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the "enemy alien" detainees at Guantanamo do not have a Constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus. The decision is an exercise in disengenuity. It accepts as undisputed fact, with the merest discussion - that the detainees do not have a Constitutional habeas right because (1) Guantanamo is outside of the control of the US government in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court holding in Rasul and that (2) the detainees are "enemy aliens" for habeas purposes.

The DC Circuit concedes at fn. 8 that in fact the detainees are NOT enemy aliens, but that it does not matter anyway - thus standing Eisentrager on its head. And this is not insignificant - for the reasoning could be read to allow the Executive to detain American citizens outside US territory as well.

Consider this language:

[U]nder the common law [habeas corpus], the dispositive fact was not a petiotioner's alien enemy status, but his lack of presence within any sovereign territory.

In essence, the DC Circuit adopts the flawed thinking of Judge Robertson's Hamdan decision. The key passage begins at p. 17 of the DC Circuit opinion. Just like Robertson, the DC Circuit misreads Eisentrager and Rasul. The DC Circuit has now perversely opined that, with regard to the Great Writ, the Congressional power extends to jurisdictions that the Constitution did not. Ironic in light of the view of the Unitary Executive and the all powerful wartime Commander in Chief.

I'm live blogging the Scooter Libby closings at Huffington Post.

• Government
• Defense

Also check out Marcy at Firedoglake.

Update: Argument transcripts (in pdf) are here (Rita) and here (Claiborne).

original post:

Before the Supreme Court's Booker decision, federal courts were required to follow the federal sentencing guidelines. The guidelines required judges to enhance sentences to punish for crimes the judge believed were related to the crime of conviction, even though the additional crimes weren't proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the post-Booker regime, judges could impose any "reasonable" sentence after considering the guidelines and a number of other factors.

After Booker made the guidelines advisory, some federal appellate courts did their best to restore their mandatory nature by announcing that guideline-compliant sentences are presumptively reasonable while reversing sentences that weren't as harsh as the guidelines recommended. In today's NY Times, Linda Greenhouse spotlights two cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court today -- cases challenging the presumption that guideline sentences are reasonable.

The presumption “simply resurrects the system rejected in Booker,” Thomas N. Cochran, an assistant federal public defender in Greensboro, N.C., told the court in the brief he filed on behalf of Victor A. Rita Jr., the defendant in one of the two new cases.

Update: I'm the guest poster at Hillary's blog today. If you follow my link, you'll see I've chronicled her election bid since 2000. I haven't yet decided whom I'm supporting to ultimately get the nomination. But I'm heartily endorsing her seeking it.

Hillary Clinton's blog went live today. Some of you may remember that she asked for submissions to become the first guest poster. More than 10,000 entries were received. The winner with the first post is Kelly G. Here's her entry.

Imagine my surprise when Peter Daou called me today to say my submitted post will be up tomorrow! Out of 10,000 plus submissions, I'm pretty amazed. So don't forget to go on over (when you're not checking out my live-blogging of the Scooter Libby closings at Huffington Post or reading what Big Tent and/or TChris have to say here.)

As I'm sitting in my hotel room in D.C. tonight, which is right across from a fire station with huge sirens going off every half hour or so as the firetrucks respond to the latest emergency, and about to catch up on the news of the day and then watch "24" and "What About Brian", two songs keep resonating through my head: Don Henley's New York Minute .

More...

As readers of this blog know, I believe the way to end the US involvement in Iraq is to announce a date certain for ending funding of the war. There is much confusion on how such a strategy would succeed. I think the fundamental confusion is the failure to understand that to defund the war the Congress need not pass any legislation at all. It merely must REFRAIN from passing legislation that funds the war.

But here is the most important part of the equation - the Democratic leadership of the Congress must announce now the date certain when it will no longer fund the Iraq war. It must tell the American People now that the funding will end on x date, and that it is incumbent on the President to adjust his actions accordingly. It must tell the American People NOW that if the troops are left in the field AFTER the announced date it will be the President who has placed our troops in increased danger. It will be the President who does not support the troops.

I'm flying back to Washington today for Tuesday's closing arguments in the Scooter Libby trial. Since today is a holiday, I don't know how many people will be online, but I figured I'd give those of you who are a place to talk.

My live-blogging Tuesday will be over at Huffington Post. My nightly wrap-ups will appear both there and here.

A big thanks to TalkLeft readers who helped make possible my three trips to cover the trial and to Arianna Huffington , Firedoglake and Media Bloggers for the press passes.

Former prosecutor Victoria Toensing has an op-ed in the Washington Post today (debunked nicely by Larry Johnson) outlining her case for Scooter Libby's acquittal. In two words: jury nullification.

(Thanks, Victoria, for attempting to personally smear the prosecutor on the eve of closing arguments. I bet if a true criminal defense lawyer wrote an article like that you'd accuse him or her of trying to influence the jury pool.)

Toensing is playing to the court of public opinion here, not the court of law. By setting forth her grounds for indicting others in the case, she's advocating exactly what Patrick Fitzgerald has said he's on guard against: the defense playing the jury nullification card, arguing that it's not fair Libby was charged while others weren't.

I don't think Team Libby is going to make that argument, at least not directly. They know Patrick Fitzgerald would repeatedly interrupt Wells' closing to object and there's few things worse than losing your rhythm and the jury's undivided attention in closing because of objections from the other side.