If you're not out trick or treating tomorrow evening, please tune in and watch thi show. (If you are, we hope you will set your Tivo and watch it when you get back.)

NOW with Bill Moyers
PBS Broadcast: October 31, 2003 at 9pm ET
(check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html)

There's a bitter battle being waged over President Bush's judicial nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Janice Rogers Brown's nomination has been called one of the "most divisive judicial nominees in modern times" by The New York Times and "an extraordinary nominee with a compelling personal story" by The Lawyers Weekly. NOW takes viewers inside the chambers of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation to see American democracy at work and examines what's at stake with this important and controversial nomination.

You'll find out why her record is causing politicans and diverse groups like People for the American Way, NAACP, and the National Bar Association, to name a few, oppose her nomination.

As everyone knows by know (we're a little behind the 8 ball on this since we're out of town), Atrios got a letter from a lawyer named Jeffrey J. Upton in Massachussetts threatening to expose his identity and sue him over some of Atrios' posts and reader comments to those posts about a NRO columnist named Donald Luskin.

Bloggers are not liable for the content of comments posted by readers. The Batzel case referred to in the article is Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). The statute involved is 47 USCS § 230, The Communications Decency Act of 1996 . Since Batzel, the 9th Circuit has reaffirmed this position in Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122-1123 (U.S. App. , 2003). Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin agrees.

Upton charges that Atrios libeled Luskin by calling him a stalker. Professor Balkan responds:

.... read in context, Atrios' post is (a) not an allegation of actual criminal behavior, and (b) is a protected statement of satire and opinion. He is making fun of Luskin's own comparison of himself as someone who stalks Paul Krugman. Luskin's argument that Atrios has libeled him shouldn't survive a motion for summary judgment. Of course, the real problem is that getting to that point will cost Atrios money to defend himself.

Atrios should not have to go through this ordeal. We suspect, however, that just like the Fox suit against Franken lifted Franken's book up the best-seller charts, so too will Atrios ultimately benefit from the mainstream media attention the cease and desist letter will bring.

As everyone knows by know (we're a little behind the 8 ball on this since we're out of town), Atrios got a letter from a lawyer named Jeffrey J. Upton in Massachussetts threatening to expose his identity and sue him over some of Atrios' posts and reader comments to those posts about a NRO columnist named Donald Luskin.

Bloggers are not liable for the content of comments posted by readers. The Batzel case referred to in the article is Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). The statute involved is 47 USCS § 230, The Communications Decency Act of 1996 . Since Batzel, the 9th Circuit has reaffirmed this position in Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122-1123 (U.S. App. , 2003). Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin agrees.

Upton charges that Atrios libeled Luskin by calling him a stalker. Professor Balkan responds:

.... read in context, Atrios' post is (a) not an allegation of actual criminal behavior, and (b) is a protected statement of satire and opinion. He is making fun of Luskin's own comparison of himself as someone who stalks Paul Krugman. Luskin's argument that Atrios has libeled him shouldn't survive a motion for summary judgment. Of course, the real problem is that getting to that point will cost Atrios money to defend himself.

Atrios should not have to go through this ordeal. We suspect, however, that just like the Fox suit against Franken lifted Franken's book up the best-seller charts, so too will Atrios ultimately benefit from the mainstream media attention the cease and desist letter will bring.

The Republicans today failed to overcome the Democrats' filibuster on the nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From People for the American Way:

Washington - People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas today
declared the vote rejecting cloture on the nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals a victory for civil rights, our independent judiciary, and the Senate confirmation process.

"I congratulate the courageous senators who held fast in their opposition to
this nominee in the face of enormous pressure from the White House, Senator
Trent Lott, Representative Chip Pickering and their right-wing allies. These senators are heroes who are willing to stand up for the Constitution, and efforts to paint them as obstructionists are simply outrageous. Judge Pickering's record of hostility to the principles of civil rights and equal access under the law made him the wrong choice for this powerful, lifetime position to the federal appellate bench.

"Today's vote shows again that the filibuster is crucial to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Now that the cloture vote has failed, I urge the White House to start working with the Senate in a bipartisan fashion to select mainstream nominees who will be confirmed, and stop trying to score political points with the far right by pushing extreme nominees."

The Republicans today failed to overcome the Democrats' filibuster on the nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From People for the American Way:

Washington - People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas today
declared the vote rejecting cloture on the nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals a victory for civil rights, our independent judiciary, and the Senate confirmation process.

"I congratulate the courageous senators who held fast in their opposition to
this nominee in the face of enormous pressure from the White House, Senator
Trent Lott, Representative Chip Pickering and their right-wing allies. These senators are heroes who are willing to stand up for the Constitution, and efforts to paint them as obstructionists are simply outrageous. Judge Pickering's record of hostility to the principles of civil rights and equal access under the law made him the wrong choice for this powerful, lifetime position to the federal appellate bench.

"Today's vote shows again that the filibuster is crucial to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Now that the cloture vote has failed, I urge the White House to start working with the Senate in a bipartisan fashion to select mainstream nominees who will be confirmed, and stop trying to score political points with the far right by pushing extreme nominees."

Ashcroft warns of the impact of Senate budget cuts in the federal prison system:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft have raised serious objections to the Senate spending plan for their departments, saying the measure could undermine American counterterrorism efforts and diplomacy. The concerns raised by the two cabinet officials over the $37 billion spending proposal add new complications to the push by Republican Congressional leaders to wrap up the remaining appropriations bills, now almost a month overdue. The House and Senate are preparing this week to pass another temporary spending bill that would keep all federal agencies open past Friday, when the current stopgap measure expires.

In separate letters to House leaders this month, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ashcroft said the spending proposal now awaiting Senate action would hinder the work of their departments, result in layoffs, and, in the case of the federal prison system, lead to the closing of some units and crowding at others.

"We do not directly control the number of inmates that enter into our prison system," wrote Mr. Ashcroft. "An overall reduction of the magnitude included in the Senate bill — approximately $270 million below the request — would have a dramatic adverse impact on the staff and inmate safety at existing facilities." (emphasis supplied by us)

As one of TalkLeft's most astute readers emails us:

Gee, John, do you think that perhaps the Department's history of pushing for increased sentencing guidelines, fighting departures, mandatory minimums, etc., might have something to do with the number of inmates in the prison system? The chickens come home to roost.

Ashcroft warns of the impact of Senate budget cuts in the federal prison system:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft have raised serious objections to the Senate spending plan for their departments, saying the measure could undermine American counterterrorism efforts and diplomacy. The concerns raised by the two cabinet officials over the $37 billion spending proposal add new complications to the push by Republican Congressional leaders to wrap up the remaining appropriations bills, now almost a month overdue. The House and Senate are preparing this week to pass another temporary spending bill that would keep all federal agencies open past Friday, when the current stopgap measure expires.

In separate letters to House leaders this month, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ashcroft said the spending proposal now awaiting Senate action would hinder the work of their departments, result in layoffs, and, in the case of the federal prison system, lead to the closing of some units and crowding at others.

"We do not directly control the number of inmates that enter into our prison system," wrote Mr. Ashcroft. "An overall reduction of the magnitude included in the Senate bill — approximately $270 million below the request — would have a dramatic adverse impact on the staff and inmate safety at existing facilities." (emphasis supplied by us)

As one of TalkLeft's most astute readers emails us:

Gee, John, do you think that perhaps the Department's history of pushing for increased sentencing guidelines, fighting departures, mandatory minimums, etc., might have something to do with the number of inmates in the prison system? The chickens come home to roost.

According to today's Blog Street Index, we are the tenth most influential blog out of the 144,733 blogs tracked by the site. Thanks to all our readers for putting us there. We are proud to be in the same vicinity as Instapundit (#1), Atrios (#3) and Daily Kos (#7).

We'll be hitting the road this afternoon, bound for New Orleans for a meeting of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( NACDL).

We'll be posting again beginning Thursday, on a lighter schedule until we return Saturday. Keep your eyes on Daily Kos, whose baby should be arriving any minute.

Thanks to those of you who have contributed via the PayPal and Amazon links on the left. Blogging and scouring the news multiple times throughout the day and evening does take a lot of our time. So, if you can afford it, your donations are very much appreciated.

According to today's Blog Street Index, we are the tenth most influential blog out of the 144,733 blogs tracked by the site. Thanks to all our readers for putting us there. We are proud to be in the same vicinity as Instapundit (#1), Atrios (#3) and Daily Kos (#7).

We'll be hitting the road this afternoon, bound for New Orleans for a meeting of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( NACDL).

We'll be posting again beginning Thursday, on a lighter schedule until we return Saturday. Keep your eyes on Daily Kos, whose baby should be arriving any minute.

Thanks to those of you who have contributed via the PayPal and Amazon links on the left. Blogging and scouring the news multiple times throughout the day and evening does take a lot of our time. So, if you can afford it, your donations are very much appreciated.

After ten months, the preliminary hearing in the case of Scott Peterson, accused of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and the couple's unborn child, begins today.

Voluminous court filings have provided glimpses of the evidence that defense attorneys will try to prevent prosecutors from presenting: DNA analysis of Mrs. Peterson's hair found on pliers in Mr. Peterson's boat, bloodhounds used to pick up the scent of Mrs. Peterson in the boat or at a storage warehouse that her husband rented, and wiretaps and global-positioning systems used to monitor and track Mr. Peterson.

The prosecution is expected to unveil previously undisclosed evidence today. But, the question is, will it merely relate to Scott Peterson's character or will it link him to the crime?

Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence: He was a bad husband, had a mistress -- which may have given him a motive -- but what evidence do you have that links him to the crime?" asked [Ruth] Jones, the criminal law professor. "What evidence do you have that links him to the date, time and place and perhaps manner of the killing?"

We're not expecting fireworks. Given the relaxed evidentiary rules and resulting prevalence of hearsay at preliminary hearings, as well as the ultra-low burden of proof (probable cause is like "Is there a reason to believe?") the case will be bound over. The defense can be considered successful if it shows some significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and testimony of its star witnesses, and leaves the media and public wondering, "Is that all there is?"

After ten months, the preliminary hearing in the case of Scott Peterson, accused of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and the couple's unborn child, begins today.

Voluminous court filings have provided glimpses of the evidence that defense attorneys will try to prevent prosecutors from presenting: DNA analysis of Mrs. Peterson's hair found on pliers in Mr. Peterson's boat, bloodhounds used to pick up the scent of Mrs. Peterson in the boat or at a storage warehouse that her husband rented, and wiretaps and global-positioning systems used to monitor and track Mr. Peterson.

The prosecution is expected to unveil previously undisclosed evidence today. But, the question is, will it merely relate to Scott Peterson's character or will it link him to the crime?

Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence: He was a bad husband, had a mistress -- which may have given him a motive -- but what evidence do you have that links him to the crime?" asked [Ruth] Jones, the criminal law professor. "What evidence do you have that links him to the date, time and place and perhaps manner of the killing?"

We're not expecting fireworks. Given the relaxed evidentiary rules and resulting prevalence of hearsay at preliminary hearings, as well as the ultra-low burden of proof (probable cause is like "Is there a reason to believe?") the case will be bound over. The defense can be considered successful if it shows some significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and testimony of its star witnesses, and leaves the media and public wondering, "Is that all there is?"

Edwin Wilson, an arms merchant imprisoned in 1982, was vindicated today by an appeals court which found rampant prosecutorial misconduct in his case.

A federal judge Tuesday threw out the 1983 conviction of former CIA operative Edwin Wilson for selling tons of explosives to Libya, finding that prosecutors knowingly used false testimony and hid evidence that supported his defense.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes' opinion, written Monday but made public Tuesday, vacates Wilson's conviction for selling 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to the Libyan government of Col. Muammar Gaddafi.

Wilson has been in prison since 1982, serving 52 years for three convictions including the arm sales to Libya. His lawyer thinks the 75-year-old prisoner could now be released if the government doesn't appeal the decision, which was scathing in its condemnation of prosecutorial methods.

The judge labeled an affidavit from a former top CIA official "nothing but a lie."