From Students for a Sensible Drug Policy:

The Drug Czar is going on the road to convince schools to take advantage of millions of dollars in federal grant money made available for the express purpose of testing teens' urine. Parents everywhere should be "pissed off" that their hard-earned tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet - literally - on programs that usurp family decision making and do nothing to stop young people from using drugs.

The cities are Orlando, San Diego, Falls Church, VA and Milwaukee, WI.

If you live in or around any of these cities, please get in touch with SSDP as soon as possible to find out how you can counteract the Drug Czar's propaganda machine when it comes to town. Students, parents, and activists had a great time raining on the Drug Czar's parade last year. Let's make sure he and his cronies know that we'll continue to be there providing the truth wherever and whenever they proliferate lies.

Here's their full webpage on student drug testing. Here's a small portion:

With all the Alito reading I'm doing--150+ emails a day, news articles, transcripts, blogs, etc., there's little time to actually blog. There is other news going on, particularly in death penalty cases. Here's a few:

• FBI to Recheck Fingerprint Analysis in All Death Cases (after flaw in Brandon Mayfield case exposed

• Should DNA Results Lead to New Trials

• Panel Calls for Moratorium on Executions

A judge in Michigan, Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis C. Kolenda, has decided to ignore the Supreme Court and deny poor people the right to appointed counsel for their appeals.

The ACLU has filed a class action against the Judge.

In a move reserved for extraordinary cases, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a class action in the Michigan Court of Appeals to force a Michigan judge to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting poor people the right to attorneys on appeal.

“Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost unheard of in the judicial system,” said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director. “And, in this case, the judge seems to believe he is above the law, or at least above the Supreme Court.”

by TChris

The First Amendment right to free expression applies in courthouses, even if some might be offended by the message expressed. The Supreme Court in 1971 reversed the conviction of a man who wore a shirt in a courthouse that used a four-letter-word (yes, that one) to express the man’s negative feelings about the draft. The Court noted that the statute didn't address courtroom decorum, but was applicable across the state, rendering his presence in the courthouse irrelevant to the First Amendment inquiry.

A Massachusetts judge is unwilling to extend that precedent to protect the free speech rights of courthouse observers who express a message that is popular among criminal defense lawyers: "Stop Snitching." Expressing displeasure with tattle-tales seems harmless, but the judge viewed the shirts as an attempt to intimidate witnesses, and has banned the shirts from the courthouse.

[Judge Robert] Mulligan's policy, which takes effect immediately, says that anyone wearing "Stop Snitching" clothes will be barred from courthouses, and anyone seen wearing such clothing inside will be ejected.

My recap of yesterday's Alito hearing is up at Altercation, called "Alito Plays Dodge Ball."

Here's some space to vent, on Alito or anything else.

by TChris

The conservative judge who imposed the mandatory sentence thought it was excessive. Twenty-nine former judges and prosecutors agreed, joining a brief that asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the sentence. Yesterday the court ruled:

A federal appeals court has upheld a 55-year prison term imposed on a Utah man with no criminal record who was convicted in 2003 of selling several hundred dollars worth of marijuana on three occasions.

Half a century for selling a few hundred dollars worth of weed, just because he had a gun hidden on his person? Weldon Angelos is the poster casualty of the failed war on drugs. (TalkLeft background on his case is here and here.)

The Tenth Circuit articulated many reasons for believing Angelos’ lengthy sentence reflected the “will of Congress,” including facts that the government never had to prove to a jury. As noted by sentencing expert Douglas Berman:

A new Washington Post-ABC poll finds that most Americans think the corruption in Washington is widespread.

The survey found that 58 percent of Americans believe the Abramoff case is evidence of "widespread corruption in Washington," while barely a third -- 34 percent -- say it is limited to just a few individuals. The public thinks corruption is far more prevalent in Washington than it is in their state or local governments.

The Washington Post has the morning and afternoon hearing transcripts of Judge Alito's testimony today.

Rep. John Conyers has announced the Democrats will hold a hearing on Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program on January 20.

Rep. Conyers also highly recommends constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe's letter outlining the illegality of the program, which he includes in his post.

As predicted, much of today's confirmation hearing concerned abortion rights. As GW law prof Jonathan Turley points out in USA Today,

The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues. For Alito, this may have the welcomed effect of obscuring a more troubling question from his past writings and cases: Alito's extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights.

Turley also opines:

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito's cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito's bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

Jason Leopold has an update on RoveGate and quotes Luskin yesterday as saying,

"I think it's fair to say that there is no change in [Rove's] status. He is not a target of the investigation, but there remains an open investigation," Luskin said.

Jason also writes:

....sources knowledgeable about the case against Rove say that he was offered a plea deal in December and that Luskin had twice met with Fitzgerald during that time to discuss Rove's legal status. Rove turned down the plea deal, which would likely have required him to provide Fitzgerald with information against other officials who were involved in Plame's outing as well as testifying against those people, the sources said.

Luskin would neither confirm nor deny that a meeting with Fitzgerald took place last month.

Everyone is blogging the Alito hearings. I'm not going to do a play-by-play, I only got to watch bits and pieces and here's the transcript from this morning.

Of particular interest, Sen. Leahy questioned Judge Alito on his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that advocated against having women at Princeton. While at Princeton, Judge Alito was a member of this group. He listed it on a job application for the Reagan Administration. Today, while not denying he was a member, he says he has searched his memory and doesn't recall it, and therefore, he must not have been an active member.