Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL) announced Monday on his 81st birthday that he will not seek reelection. Rep. Hyde has served in the House for more than three decades.

Hyde was an unrelenting opponent of abortion. But, he did some good stuff too. He was the driving force behind civil asset forfeiture reform. Here are his congressional remarks from 2000 when CAFRA, the reform bill, passed.

Unfortunately, he will also be remembered for his "youthful indiscretion" that came to light following the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

On a related note, one of the best series of news articles on the law enforcement abuses in the asset forfeiture area is this one, Taking Cash into Custody, from the 1999 Kansas City Star, still available free online.

by TChris

Is it out of bounds to ask a Supreme Court Justice about his private sexual conduct? Is it acceptable to ask the question of a Justice who supports governmental regulation of private, noncommercial, sexual activity between consenting adults? Without repeating the provocative question that NYU law student Eric Berndt posed to Justice Scalia during a Q&A session -- Justice Scalia didn't answer, and NYU turned off Berndt's microphone -- it's worth directing your attention here, to Berndt's explanation for his confrontational question.

Embattled Texas Congressman Tom DeLay has sent out a mass email presenting his side of the ethics controversy. But, Daily DeLay argues that the e-mail is carefully worded to avoid the fact that he's already admitted violating House ethics rules.

For starters, DeLay violated the House rule against accepting contributions to his legal defense fund from lobbyists - and he's already admitted it. On February 1, 2005, Public Citizen released a study of the Tom DeLay Legal Expense Trust which found that the trust had accepted contributions from lobbyists. The trust admitted that the lobbyist contributions violated House ethics rules and returned the contributions.

Breaking....[link via Raw Story ]...Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., has informed the Government that he will plead guilty, over the objections of his lawyers, if the Court finds him competent. He is willing to let a jury determine if he should get life or death.

In recent letters to the government and to Brinkema, Moussaoui said he is willing to accept the possibility of a death sentence, which sources said could resolve a key point of contention: Prosecutors are unlikely to drop their insistence on capital punishment. If Brinkema accepts a plea, she would then probably set a death penalty trial, at which jurors would decide if Moussaoui should be executed.

Previously, the Judge had banned the death penalty as a sanction for the Government not producing some of our hidden detainees for interviews by the defense - like Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - because they might provide favorable testimony for him. She also ruled the Government could not present any 9/11 evidence at all at trial for its refusal. Moussaoui had argued:

by TChris

The State Department seems to have a new philosophy: if you can't do the job right, don't do it at all.

The State Department said on Monday it will stop releasing annual statistics on terrorism deaths after officials botched last year's count, leaving the intelligence community to publish and explain the data.

TalkLeft discussed last year's misleading report here.

The National Counterterrorism Center is now tasked with compiling and releasing the data. When it will do so is unknown.

Critics suggested the State Department might be removing the data from its terrorism report because they could show a rise in attacks and deaths and raise questions about the Bush administration's claims to be winning the war on terrorism.

by TChris

While Human Events characterizes Democratic opposition to John Bolton, President Bush's choice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, as a "smear campaign" -- apparently because Democrats have smeared the truth about Bolton's unsuitability for the job on the public record -- it reports that Republican misgivings about Bolton may doom his nomination.

With the Senate Foreign Relations Committee set to vote on the nomination on Tuesday, Republicans now fear that they might not have the votes to get Bolton out of committee and onto the Senate floor.

Human Events identifies the potential "turncoats" -- that is, the Republican Senators who might not follow the president's command -- as "[l]iberal GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee" and "presidential hopeful Sen. Chuck Hagel." Here's the Human Events warning to Hagel:

Conservatives in Washington believe that, in effect, a vote against Bolton would put an end to any hopes for higher political office that Sen. Hagel may harbor.

Shorter version: resistence is futile.

by TChris

Elizabeth Smart's uncle criticizes the Salt Lake City police in a new book about his niece's kidnapping, arguing that without family intervention, Elizabeth wouldn't have been found.

Tom Smart said the book also shows why focusing on a particular theory or suspect, such as one-time "person of interest" Richard Ricci, can be damaging. Ricci had done work for the Smarts and the investigation centered on him for some time. ... Police focused on Ricci even as Mary Katherine Smart, Elizabeth's younger sister and the only witness to the abduction, said the former Smart handyman was not the man she saw come into the girls' shared room.

by TChris

When the police want to search a residence, a savvy occupant will just say no -- at least when the police have no search warrant. But what if the police keep asking residents until they find someone who says yes?

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether one occupant may give the police consent to search a residence, even though the other occupant already has objected.

Scott Fitz Randolph's wife called the police to report a domestic dispute. She told the arriving officers that Randolph had drugs on the premises. Randolph refused their request to search for the drugs, so the officers asked the wife, who consented.

by TChris

The Bush administration has taken a position that is hostile to the free exercise of religion in a case accepted for review today by the Supreme Court. The case asks whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- a federal statute enacted to protect religious practices that might otherwise transgress the law -- protects members of the New Mexico branch of a Brazilian church who want to ingest hoasca during religious ceremonies. Hoasca contains DMT, a mildly hallucinogenic substance regulated by federal law.

After the Supreme Court ruled that state drug laws trumped the free exercise of Native American religious practices that include the consumption of peyote, Congress enacted the RFRA. The law requires the government to show a compelling interest in criminalizing religious practices. The Court later struck down the Act as it applied to state laws. In the case now before the Court, the Tenth Circuit prohibited the federal government from enforcing its drug laws against individuals who use hoasca in religious ceremonies.

The case poses an interesting conflict for the Bush administration, which refuses to cede ground in its war against drugs even at the risk of alienating its religious supporters.

Religious groups say the Bush administration would trample spiritual freedom in its zeal to enforce federal drug laws. The Christian Legal Society, the National Association of Evangelicals and a top U.S. Presbyterian Church official opposed the government at the lower court level.

Update: More about the case here.

I have court in the mountains today - it's a beautiful day for a 2 hour drive. Here's a space for you to comment on what's making news. I'll be back late this afternoon.

Update: A big thanks to TChris who posted some great stuff today.

The California State Democratic Convention took place this weekend. CVCobb01 live-blogged Wesley Clark's speech and sat next to Clark's media advisor. He reports that Clark all but announced he is running in 2008 - enough so that he feels comfortable presenting it as fact:

I was going to put a question mark in the title after talking with General Clark's media advisor Eric. But I didn't hear the question mark. None of us did. I believe Clark announced his candidacy.

Ezra Klein is very enthusiastic about a Clark 2008 run:

Atrios and Eschaton turn three years old today. Here is Atrios' first day of posting. Who would have thought in that time he would receive more than 50 million visitors. He's now averaging 100,000 visitors a day. Congratulations, A, and many happy returns.

On another blogging note, check out this article today on Markos of the Daily Kos.

Atrios and Daily Kos are the two most widely read liberal bloggers anywhere. All you need to do is read their blogs (and in Daily Kos's case, some of the diaries) and you'll see why. As to the time that goes into it,