by Last Night in Little Rock

I was in Chicago doing a CLE for the Federal Defenders of Northern and Central Illinois and the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on computer searches. I was picked up Thursday night by a friend in Chicago on the NACDL Board who took me out for real Chicago pizza. The conversation: Chicago politics. Always fascinating. It ran the gamit from the former Governor Ryan trial (not going well for the Government) to Mayor Dailey tearing up the downtown airport runway in violation of a court order in the name of national security, to Barack Obama and Keyes ("inevitable Obama"; when will Obama run for President? '12?), what the 2005 gubernatorial races mean for Republicans, to 2006 for Illinois Republicans.

And this bombshell: The only Republican that stands out in Illinois is Patrick Fitzgerald, because of what he is doing in Washington.

Does Fitzgerald have any political ambition? I doubt it. He wouldn't have taken on the Special Counsel's job if he did. If there are rumors of his political viability, it is the people saying it, not him, and not his handlers, because he doesn't have any handlers.

The New York Times Saturday reports that Judge Alito is a "conservative libertarian," one of a growing number of judges who rule in favor of First Amendment rights but take a much dimmer view of consitutional guarantees designed to protect the criminally accused:

Judge Alito's broad reading of the freedom of speech and press clauses of the First Amendment stands in contrast with his narrower interpretation of other constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and the Sixth Amendment's guarantees of fair trial rights for criminal defendants....Judge Alito has exhibited little patience for the First Amendment claims of prisoners.

Right after I read this article, I happened upon an article in the Palm Beach Post reporting that Rush Limbaugh had another hearing Wednesday at which his lawyers argued that his medical records and communications were privileged and could not be used to support a charge of doctor shopping against him.

Columnist Robert Scheer has been fired from the LA Times after 30 years. He doesn't know why.

The publisher, Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Beginning Wednesday, his column will appear at Huffington Post.

Update: Armando at Daily Kos reports that Jonah Goldberg will be a colunist at the LA Times. What a waste. If this is a sign of where the LA Times is headed, I doubt I'll be checking them as frequently.

Watch Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as they turn to rap to recruit soldiers.

[hat tip to Debbie.]

by TChris

Not funny:

"Today when most of the country thinks of who controls Massachusetts, I think the modern-day KKK comes to mind - the Kennedy-Kerry Klan."

Gerald Walpin, a Federalist Society board member, made the remark while introducing Gov. Mitt Romney. Although Romney “laughed along with the audience and thanked Walpin for ‘a very generous introduction,’” Romney later came to his senses, acknowledging in a press interview that the comments were "ill-advised":

"It's not appropriate to joke about the Ku Klux Klan," Romney said.

No kidding.

by TChris

It’s rare (too rare) for a federal judge to second-guess a jury’s guilty verdict, but Judge Jeffrey Miller disagreed with a jury's decision that the government proved Michael Zucchet’s guilt on seven counts of fraud and extortion. Judge Miller yesterday acquitted the former San Diego councilman of those charges, concluding that the government failed to prove Zucchet’s guilt. Judge Miller ordered a new trial on two other charges.

Another former councilman, Ralph Inzunza, wasn’t so fortunate.

Inzunza was sentenced to 21 months for his role in the scheme to exchange money for an effort to repeal the law banning touching between dancers and patrons at strip clubs.

Lobbyist Lance Malone received a 36 month sentence, a considerable improvement on his guideline sentencing range of 51 to 63 months.

by TChris

The president who switched from searching for weapons of mass destruction to searching for weapons of mass destruction-related program activities (suggesting that's what he was looking for all along) is now accusing his critics of attempting to “rewrite the history of how that war began."

Notwithstanding last night's comeback at the Federalist Society dinner, Crooks and Liars points us to Murray Waas' new column indicating otherwise.

Murray always has the best sources. I'll have more to say later this afternoon after I've had a chance to parse it.

Nine senators were absent from Thursday's vote on Sen. Graham's amendment to an appropriations bill that would strip Guantanamo detainees of the right to challenge the legality of their detentions in federal court using a writ of habeas corpus.

On Monday, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico will seek a new vote on Graham's amendment, trying to convince Senators on the Judiciary Committee to gut the part of the Graham amendment that prevents detainees from using the writ.

So it is possible that some lawmakers could have it both ways, backing other provisions in Mr. Graham's measure that try to make the Guantánamo tribunal process more accountable to the Senate, but opposing the more exceptional element of the legislation that limits prerogatives of the judiciary.

Tinkering with habeas corpus is a dangerous thing. Today, Sen. Lindsay Graham and his fellow Senators told you they are only restricting habeas rights of enemy combatants, i.e., foreigners. But on November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a second hearing on S. 1088 (pdf), a bill that would gut habeas corpus rights for Americans.

The legislation, known as the Streamlined Procedures Act, would effectively kill the writ of habeas corpus by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to consider cases in which a prisoner's constitutional rights may have been violated. The legislation would apply to all criminal cases, including capital cases. The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in the Senate and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in the House.

I warned about the bill in July, quoting an LA Times article:

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House. "The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview."

The New York Times reports that White House staffers think Karl Rove is not going to be indicted because he's back to his normal self, down to the spring in his step.

Rove gave his lecture at the Federalist society tonight. Not surpisingly, his theme was the need to stop what he called "judicial imperialism."

Among the decisions he criticized: a Supreme Court ruling that forbade the death penalty for murderers under 18, saying it "ignored the fact that at the time, the peoples' representatives in 20 states had permitted the death penalty for killers under 18."

In a week in which we have seen the Bush Administration pressure Congress to (1) exempt the CIA from an anti-torture amendment, (2) overrule a Supreme Court decision allowing those declared enemy combatents solely on the word of the Executive branch to challenge their detention in court; and (3) increase the power of the FBI to spy on Americans and others without judicial oversight or accountability to Congress, this hardly seems like a recipe for success.

Bump and Update: Unbelievable. The Senate today passed Lindsay Graham's amendment, 49 to 42 barring detainees at Guantanamo and others declared by the Executive Branch to be enemy combatants from seeking judicial review of the legality of their detentions.

Democrats indicated they may try to kill or change the provision before the Senate votes on the overall bill next week. Five Democrats sided with 44 Republicans in voting for the provision.

Who are the five Democrats who voted with Republicans?

Conrad, N.D.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Nelson, Neb.; Wyden, Ore.

As I said below, this is an end-run around the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush which held Guantanamo detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detentions.

**********
Original Post: Nov. 9, 9:52 am

Breaking: Senator Lindsay Graham is introducing an Amendment to the defense appropriations bill pending in the Senate (S. 1042) that would strip those designated by the Administration as enemy combatants of the ability to seek habeas review in federal courts. This is an end-run around the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush which held Guantanamo detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detentions.