Unbelievable. President Bush installed one of his most objectionable federal judicial nominees, Charles Pickering, on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals while Congress is in recess. Pickering will serve until January, 2005--or for life, if the Senate confirms him next year.

In an election-year slap at filibustering Democrats, President Bush sidestepped Congress on Friday and installed Mississippi judge Charles Pickering to the federal appeals court after a two-year battle filled with racial, religious and regional argument.

Bush elevated Pickering by recess appointment, simply putting him in office while Congress was out of session. Such appointments, bypassing confirmation, are valid until the next Congress takes office, in this case in January 2005.

People for the American Way had this to say about Bush's action:

This President is dedicated to packing the courts with right-wing judges who will turn back the clock on equal rights, privacy and reproductive freedom, environmental protection and much of the social justice progress we've made in the past half-century. He has demonstrated arrogant disregard for the constitutional checks and balances that ensure independent and fair courts.

"Announcing this appointment as Americans prepare to celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King is an insult to his memory, and to all Americans who are committed to equal justice under the law."

We have this to say: Boot Bush.

CBS is out of line. It told MoveOn they would not accept an anti-Bush ad for the Super Bowl because they don't allow advocacy advertising--but they are going to air those insidious White House anti-drug ads. How can they say the White House ads aren't advocacy? Media Channel has the details:

The nearly 100 million viewers who tune in next month to the Super Bowl on CBS will be served up ads that include everything from beer and bikinis to credit cards and erectile dysfunction. They will also see two spots from the White House. Are these advocacy ads? And if so, why did CBS opt to include the White House spots while cutting MoveOn.org's "Child's Pay" from the program?

Journalist, author and blogger David Neiwert (Orcinus) writes over at the new group blog American Street that the Florida Bar has sold its mailing list of member's names to a neo-nazi hate group, the National Alliance.

The letter with an eight-page brochure was sent to Florida criminal defense lawyers by the National Alliance, an offshoot of the American Nazi Party, which law enforcement and watchdog groups characterize as a violent, neo-Nazi organization.

The mailing contains anti-Semitic cartoons and an article titled “Building a New White World,” along with a letter calling on attorneys to join their organization. "We need legal talent to augment our technical, musical and writing talent," stated the letter, signed by Tampa unit coordinator Todd Weingart. "That’s why we’re writing to you today."

Attorneys who received the letter last week were doubly shocked to learn that the Bar sold the organization its mailing list and prepared labels for the group for a fee.

Naturally, lawyers are upset. But, it's clear that the Bar can't refuse to sell its list to any group based on ideology. As one esteemed Florida lawyer said in an e-mail earlier today,

The Bar should not take a position that stills the voice of anyone in the absence of the "clear and present danger" which has been adequately defined by the Supreme Court. In the balance, there is a greater threat to us all in pre-publication censorship than in the swill spread by hate mongers.

If the list is publicly available, then there should not be any discrimination practised, even if restraint of our emotions is painful.

We agree.

California's notorious prison guards' union is hammered in a new federal report. California has the largest prison system in the country, with 161,000 inmates doing time in 32 prisons:

California's $5.3-billion penal system is plagued by a pervasive "code of silence" that protects rogue guards, corrupts recruits and is condoned by leaders who "neither understand nor care about the need for fair investigations," a federal report charged Thursday.

At the very top of California's vast Department of Corrections, officials face unrelenting pressure from the powerful prison guards union and are unwilling to discipline officers who attack inmates or engage in other misconduct, says Special Master John Hagar, a prison expert appointed by a federal judge.

Ok, what are we missing? A Virginia man buys an orchid at a Peruvian roadside stand. He brings it back to the U.S., to a botanical gardens in Florida, to be examined. It turns out to be one of the rarest orchids in the world and illegal to import.

The penalty? The Virginia man is facing up to six years in prison for illegally importing and possessing the flower. He has pleaded not guilty.

The owner of the botanical gardens who identified the orchid pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of "accepting and handling the flower" and was fined $5,000.00. A horticulturist also pleaded guilty in a plea deal specifying house arrest for six months, probation for a year and a $2,000 fine.

Why the heavy penalties for one flower? It doesn't even appear that anyone was trying to sell or profit from the orchid. Why not just confiscate the flower and return it to Peru? Was criminal prosecution really necessary? We understand the principle of deterrence but this sure seems like overkill.

Hear the oppression. The Library of Congress has just placed recordings of former U.S. slaves online.

Beginning today people the world over will be able to listen to interviews with ...former slaves through the online presentation "Voices From the Days of Slavery: Former Slaves Tell Their Stories" on the Library of Congress's American Memory web site.

....The newly released digital recordings are raw and fresh, straight from wellspring. The quality is sometimes poor, and here and there words are swallowed or unintelligible. There are transcripts on the site for every recording. The beauty, Taft says, is that the recordings "are the only way you hear how they expressed themselves."

Nearly seven hours of material is available. The recordings were made between 1932 and 1975 in nine Southern states.

The Judge in the Martha Stewart case is banning the media from jury selection.

We think this is wrong. We're not talking about televising proceedings (not allowed in any federal courts) but about having the press present to report on what happens. The Judge says that she thinks jurors will be less than candid if the media is present.

There are so many ways to protect the privacy of potential jurors (e.g., give them a number, don't refer to them by name, prohibit the press from mentioning their names) that we can't agree with the Judge's ruling. We think it is important that the press be able to report on the jury selection process. It's part of the trial and trials are supposed to take place in public.

We hope the media organizations appeal this ruling before the trial starts.

A few days ago we wrote about the improper questions asked by Jeb Bush appointees on the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission when interviewing applicants for judgeships. Friday, a panel of the Florida Bar will hold a hearing on the matter:

A Florida Bar panel will consider this morning whether members of a judicial nominating commission appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush asked judicial candidates in Broward County questions that were sexually discriminatory or were political or religious litmus tests.

An additional incident has been reported that will be investigated:

...the [Miami Daily Business] Review has discovered one additional incident, involving a candidate who was asked during a Broward JNC interview to do a humorous impression of a black Broward judge.

We don't expect much to come of the investigation:

Bar president Miles A. McGrane III said that even if members of the 17th Judicial Circuit JNC behaved improperly, his organization "can do literally nothing about it," and that "the sole remedy is with the governor." McGrane said that even though the Bar conducted its own investigation of alleged misconduct by a JNC member three years ago, it "can't" order an investigation now because JNC members are constitutionally appointed officers.

The U.S. said today it has no plans to release three teenagers, ages 13 to 15, who have been detained at Guantanamo for more than a year. Even though last August, prison camp commander Brig-Gen. Geoffrey Miller said he would recommend they be sent home.

The U.S. describes their living conditions in a way that makes it sound like they are at summer camp:

The military official said the three were being kept separately from older prisoners in a refurbished house. They shared a large bedroom and there was also a dayroom, a kitchen and a facility where the teens received daily lessons.

"They are being tutored in their own language and are learning other skills. They are being taught to read and mathematics." The official said there was a large yard around the house where the teens played soccer, volleyball and other games.

But lest the picture seem too rosy, consider this: the boys have not been allowed any contact with their families. The U.S. doesn't know if their families know where they are. The boys have no idea what the future holds in store for them.

Jo Becker, advocacy director for children's rights at Human Rights Watch, voiced deep concern the children were still being held and called for their release. "They have been in detention since the early part of last year without any direct contact with their families or knowledge about what is going to happen to them," said Becker.

She appealed to the military to free the detainees so they could be re-integrated with their communities and said there was particular worry about them being separated and detained during the vulnerable teen years.

The U.S. won't discuss how many 16 to 18 year olds are at Guantanamo, but Human Rights Watch says there are some and that they are being housed with adult prisoners. To us, that alone is a human rights violation. Children, and 16 to 18 year olds are children, should never be housed with adult prisoners. Here are some stats:

Children housed in adult jails and lock-ups have been found to be eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, two times more likely to be assaulted by staff, and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon than children in juvenile facilities.

Michael Jackson has added another lawyer to his team-- Ben Brafman of New York.

We think we know how this came about--Johnnie Cochran. Geragos acknowledged on Rivera at Large a few weeks ago that Michael had consulted Johnnie. Johnnie no longer takes criminal cases. The last major criminal case Johnnie tried was with Ben Brafman--the defendant was Sean "Puffy" Combs, who was acquitted. Ben was lead counsel. We think it's pretty clear that Johnnie recommended Ben to Michael Jackson.

Mark Geragos says he's happy about Ben's addition to the team.

"Michael and I agreed that expanding the team would best serve his interests as we work toward his acquittal on the false chargesthat have been leveled against him," Geragos said in a prepared statement.

"I felt strongly about working with Ben, someone I have long respected and admired. Ben will join me tomorrow in Santa Maria at Michael's arraignment, where Michael will enter a plea of not guilty," Geragos said.

Brafman is a top notch lawyer. He will be an asset to the team, no question about it.

In a press statement today, the lawyer for former Enron Chairman Ken Lay said Lay felt betrayed by Andrew Fastow who pleaded guilty yesterday.

Ramsey said Lay had no knowledge that any of Enron's "special-purpose entities" that Fastow created had been used to illegally bolster the company's books, or that Fastow and others were siphoning money into their own pockets.

"Absolutely Andy Fastow had the trust of Ken Lay and the board up through at least October of 2001," Ramsey said. "Lay had the right to rely on that person at the very top of the chain," he added.

Lay's lawyer said Lay will be speaking publicly in the near future. We think that will be a mistake. One of the counts in Martha Stewart's indictment is based on statements she made protesting her innocence. No matter what Ken Lay says or doesn't say, he is not going to talk himself out of an Indictment if his former cohorts at Enron tell the Government he knew what was going on and either tacitly or expressly approved it. Once the Government has you in their cross-hairs, your protestations of innocence rarely have any effect. As we've said before, the jails are filled with people who thought if they could only explain things, the cops or prosecutors would see it their way.

Our unsolicited advice to Ken Lay: You have a Fifth Amendment right to stay silent Use it.

A new Associated Press poll has been released in which the public was asked whether they thought the current crop of celebrities facing trial would get a fair trial and whether celebrities face a tougher or more lenient battle in the criminal justice system.

The celebs at issue: Kobe, Michael and Martha.

The answers: More people thought Kobe would get a fair trial. More people thought Martha would be convicted. More blacks than whites thought Kobe and Michael would not get a fair trial. And, not suprisingly, most thought that the rich and famous had a better chance at winning.

How would you have answered?