by TChris

Career lawyers in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would have moved to block the Texas redistricting plan that provided Republicans with additional House seats in the last election, on the ground that the plan reduced minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act. A memo reveals that their concerns were overridden by a political appointee who was more concerned with assisting Republicans than enforcing civil rights laws.

Alberto Gonzales yesterday defended that decision-making process as a mere disagreement among professionals. Yet, as Last Night in Little Rock reported here, career professionals in that Division have been bailing out of their Justice Department jobs precisely because their commitment to enforcing civil rights laws is frequently undermined by “disagreement” with appointed officials who put politics first.

by TChris

If a police officer doesn’t know why a suspect is fleeing, it’s reasonable for the officer to shoot the suspect to death and ask questions later. As you pause to consider the absurdity of that proposition, ask yourself why a government lawyer would consider it reasonable for an officer to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who had just stolen $10 in a burglary. And then ask whether a lawyer who expressed that belief should serve on the Supreme Court.

As an assistant to the Solicitor General, Judge Alito weighed in on a case involving an officer who was investigating a possible burglary. The officer heard a door slam, then went to the backyard where he “shined his flashlight on a youth who appeared to be unarmed and who was trying to climb a six-foot-high chain link fence to escape.” The officer “seized” the kid by shooting him in the head.

In responding (pdf) to a media motion to unseal 8 pages of the Court of Appeals decision (pdf) upholding Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper's PlameGate supboenas, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald advises the court that he has no objection to unsealing the portions about Libby, but objects to releasing portions about others who have not been indicted and who have not disclosed the substance of their grand jury testimony or cooperation to the public.

The New York Times has this report on Fitz's filing. Armando at Daily Kos provides his perspective.

My take on who Fitzgerald is protecting with this filing:

• Reporter Bob Novak and his source
• Walter Pincus' source
• Bob Woodward's source
• Those who have flipped in exchange for immunity (Ari Fleischer may be one of these) or for lesser charges or a lesser sentence (e.g., perhaps David Wurmser and/or John Hannah.)
• Stephen Hadley, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell (Assuming they are not already included as a source for Novak, Pincus or Woodward.)

Here are the most salient portions of Fitz' filing:

Hearty congrats to defense lawyers Gerry Schargel and Jerry Lefcourt who won an acquittal today in federal court in New York for Murder, Inc's Irv Gotti (aka Irving Lorenzo) and his brother Christopher on money laundering charges.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard missed the message in Singapore's barbaric execution yesterday of 25 year old Nguyen Tuong Van.

"I hope the strongest message that comes out of this ... is a message to the young of Australia -- don't have anything to do with drugs, don't use them, don't touch them, don't carry them, don't traffic in them," Howard told Australian radio.

No. The message is that mandatory executions of non-violent drug offenders are inexcusable acts of barbarism that warrant sanctions against the offending government.

by Last Night in Little Rock

The NY Times reports this afternoon that NYC police searches of bags in subways are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a deterrent to terrorists.

by Last Night in Little Rock

The Democratic National Committee had a contract for two billboards near both of Rep. Jean Schmidt's offices in the Cincinnati area to criticize her for her comments about Rep. John Murtha for "attack[ing] one of our veterans for cheap political gain."

The graphic on the DNC's website shows the billboard as saying "Shame on you Jean Schmidt."

Lamar, however, inexplicably backed out of the contract just as the billboards were to go up, as discussed in an e-mail from the DNC to contributors to the billboard campaign because of the content of the billboards, already approved by Lamar, was determined to be "inappropriate."

by TChris

The bad news is that Kevin Boyd was executed this morning, making him victim 1,000 of the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976. The good news is that the nation appears to be falling out of love with death.

Amid the refinement of DNA techniques and the sporadic release of inmates from death row because of uncertain guilt, a growing number of people tell pollsters they believe that innocent prisoners have been executed. Although the majority of cases over the past three decades have been upheld, legal errors and sometimes poor defense work revealed during layers of appeals have convinced many Americans that the system is imperfect.

I've been waiting years to see a report like this in today's Los Angeles Times.

A recent inspector general's investigation of the FBI's informant program noted violations in that agency's use of snitches in 87% of cases reviewed.

The story behind the story:

A Yemeni immigrant's activities cast a shadow on federal agencies' use of informants. One man the felon fingered didn't go quietly to prison.

Ismael took on the system and won:

He says he never lost faith that the truth would emerge. "I knew there were corrupt agencies, like you see in the movies," Ismael said. "But I figured the court couldn't be corrupt, too. "If the court were corrupt, people wouldn't want to live in America."

Snitch testimony is purchased testimony. It is bought with promises of leniency. Freedom is a far more precious commodity than money. The incentive to lie is enormous. Only by telling the Government's version of the truth does the snitch get his pay-off: a lesser sentence for his own misdeeds.

Say no to snitching.

Jeanine Pirro has met with Gov. Pataki and decided to stay in the New York Senate race.

Earlier this week, New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno urged Pirro to switch her candidacy from the Senate race to the Attorney General's race. Crooks and Liars reported, via today's New York Post, that Jeanine was holding an "emergency summit" with Gov. Pataki (who has been one of her few important consistent backers)to discuss it.

My view: Jeanine in the Senate race is political suicide.

The right wing news site Insight reports through anonymous sources that Bush has relieved Cheney of national security duties. It would be great news, if true, but given the source, I'm suspect. [Via Raw Story.]

This paragraph is the most intriguing:

Mr. Bush is not expected to replace Mr. Cheney unless the vice president follows the fate of his former chief of staff. The sources also said Mr. Rumsfeld is expected to remain in his post until U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq.

Is Cheney really in jeopardy from Fitz's investigation?

by TChris

Before and during the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, Arlen Specter seemed quite concerned about the limits of judicial power. In particular, he thought the Court had overreached in limiting or striking down legislation enacted by Congress, including the Court's decision declaring unconstitutional a portion of the Americans With Disabilities Act that prohibited state governments from discriminating in employment on the basis of disabilities.

Sen. Specter seems to be satisfied with Judge Alito’s views on abortion after quizzing him today. But why isn’t Specter asking Alito the very question that consumed him earlier this year -- whether Alito respects the authority of Congress to legislate?

Alito doesn't think Congress has the power to regulate machine-gun possession, or to broadly enforce the Family and Medical Leave Act, or to enact race or gender discrimination laws that might be effective in remedying race and gender discrimination, or to tackle monopolists. Alito thus neatly joins the ranks of right-wing activists in the battle to limit the power of Congress and diminish the efficacy of the judiciary.

Will Specter ask Alito why he voted to strike down the Family and Medical Leave Act as it applies to state governments -- a position that was too extreme even for former Chief Justice Rehnquist? Is Specter still interested in ferreting out adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement, who believe courts should strike down a variety of health, labor and environmental laws as beyond the scope of congressional power? Why is Specter suddenly silent on these issues? (More on Alito’s record of judicial activism here and here.)