President Bush's renomination of Charles Pickering for an appellate judgeship has Democrats steaming:

"Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said today that he was astonished that Mr. Bush had renominated Judge Pickering."

"If they want to force us to filibuster and have that debate on the floor of the United States Senate, so be it," Mr. Schumer said. "We're ready." With Republicans in control of the Senate, 51-48-1, the Democrats do not have enough votes to defeat the nomination, but they do have the 41 votes needed to block any effort to break a filibuster."

Start talking, Senators. We're counting on you.

D'Accord: The New York Times has an editorial today on Pickering's re-nomination titled The Revenge of Trent Lott:

During last month's firestorm over Mr. Lott, Republicans tried to have it both ways on race. They appeased the majority of Americans, who were outraged at Mr. Lott's sympathetic words about segregation, by pressing him to resign as the Senate Republican leader. At the same time they winked at Mr. Lott's supporters by having prominent party members stand by him. More recently, they announced plans to award Mr. Lott a new position of honor by making him chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. Throughout the zigging and zagging it still seemed possible that the party would heed the advice of Bill Frist, the Senate's new G.O.P. leader, who said one of his priorities would be "ensuring that our agenda is inclusive of all Americans." That hope evaporated with the renomination of Judge Pickering and several other jurists with dubious records on racial issues. Senator Charles Schumer of New York, among others, has declared that he will use every weapon at his disposal to defeat Judge Pickering. Other Democrats should join in, as should moderate Republican senators, who insisted last month that Mr. Lott's views had no place in their party.

Former NYC Mayor had to testify in a New York trial today--of a former police officer and two former firefighters suing the City for their improper dismissal after wearing blackface during a Labor Day float and mocking the death of an African-American man in Texas. The issue is whether city employees, including police officers, are entitled, under the First Amendment, to participate in a "spoof of a racist murder, grossly insulting an entire race of people," and later contend "it was all meant in good fun and as fine entertainment."

"At the time, Mr. Giuliani called the float "a disgusting display of racism," and said that if the men were caught, they were "going to be fired immediately." But Guliani did not have the right to fire the men. Police and Fire Commissioners alone have that authority--after due process (i.e., notice and an opportunity to be heard.)

"The New York Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the former police officer, argued that government cannot retaliate for the content of speech. He also charged that Mr. Giuliani acted in self-defense, to rebut charges that he was racially insensitive, especially in regard to the Police Department's handling of the so-called Million Youth March in Harlem just a few days before the float rolled through Broad Channel, Queens."

The presiding jurist, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Sprizzo did not care for Guliani's testimony, and at one poin,"got rather animated."

"They do work for you, they serve at your pleasure, don't they?" he asked. "Knowing how you felt, did you really expect them to disagee with you?"

Yes, Mr. Giuliani said."

"Really?" asked the judge. "You are the boss."

"Mr. Giuliani: "But I wasn't the boss of the disciplinary process."

"The judge: "If that were truly your state of mind, the statements you made were really most improper."

"Mr. Giuliani: "I have a right to my opinion."

"At which point Judge Sprizzo invoked 12th-century England, when Henry II famously flew into a rage and said "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?," in effect directing his followers to murder Thomas à Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury. Which they did."

At one point, "Judge Sprizzo said flat out that the mayor's strong condemnation of the three men "was designed for public consumption."

Guliani kept his cool during his three hour stint on the witness stand, "perhaps mindful of his national reputation." The trial is ongoing.

"The legal community is battling a plan that would require lawyers to alert regulators if a corporate client is about to inflict financial harm, such as inflating profit."

"Under current ethics rules, lawyers would not be obligated to blow the whistle on their business clients. But the Securities and Exchange Commission could change that, under a proposed rule that would require lawyers to tell the SEC about problems that companies refuse to fix."

What's wrong with this? Susan Hackett, general counsel for the Corporate Counsel Association, the trade association for full-time, in-house company attorneys, gets it right: Lawyers are not policemen (or women). "Clients have to feel free to bring dirty laundry or problems or questions to their lawyer," Hackett said. "When a client doesn't know if the lawyer might take something to a regulator, the client is not likely to tell the lawyer anything significant."

There is a sanctity accorded the attorney-client relationship. A lawyer can only represent a client effectively if the client discloses all pertinent facts. What client is going to do this once he knows the lawyer might have to divulge his confidences to the SEC? We think it runs afoul of our Code of Professional Responsibility and our Canons of Ethics. We also think it's bad policy. So do the American Bar Association and many other organizations.

If a company fails to take corrective action, then an attorney should stop representing the company, they say. But they argue that lawyers shouldn't be forced to take two additional steps that the SEC's proposal would require. Those steps would be for lawyers to notify the SEC that they no longer represent the company and to make clear which documents filed with the SEC -- such as an annual report -- they believe are "tainted" or no longer accurate. These two steps amount to what the business community calls a "noisy withdrawal."

Think of "noisy withdrawal" like a red flag. Critics of the proposed rule say "its practical effect would be to turn lawyers into police who, by raising an alert, would be betraying their clients. That's because alerting the SEC to a problem usually leads to an investigation by the agency..."

Critics of the proposed rule argue that "if a lawyer learns that a company's annual report contains misleading statements, the lawyer's obligation is to alert the company, not the SEC."

"Critics also object to a federal agency imposing national conduct codes on states, which traditionally have set professional standards for lawyers based on model codes attorneys write for themselves. Hackett describes it as the "nose under the camel's tent" that could lead to more agencies seeking to turn lawyers into spies."

Our view: The Government's plan to turn lawyers into snitches, having already implemented a system under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in which they apply enormous pressure upon our clients to become snitches, will render our criminal justice system morally bankrupt.

[comments now closed]

"A homeless man who killed himself in a police holding cell hours after he was charged with rape has been cleared of the crime through DNA evidence, police said. Forensic evidence collected after the alleged rape does not genetically match that of Wade Evan Deemer, who hanged himself with his shirt at the West Chester police station in August, investigators said Tuesday."

"It's not his DNA," police Sgt. Thomas Yarnall said. "It appears that he did not do it."

According to ABC News, seven "volunteer" executions in 2002, where death-row prisoners relinquished their remaining appeals and opted to be put to death.

"More death-row inmates have been volunteering for their executions: Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death, compared to the 22 consensual executions between 1977 and 1992.... Some critics argue that this shows that, contrary to popular belief, death is not the ultimate punishment for prisoners. "One could argue that life in prison is the worst kind of punishment and not the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, DPIC's executive director. "So many people wouldn't be volunteering for it if it was so bad."

This was in our email box today:

"Gov. George Ryan is expected to make a major announcement about the death penalty Friday, but it is not clear whether that announcement will include his decision on commuting the sentences of every man and woman on death row. Ryan is scheduled to speak at DePaul University, Chicago. The governor, who leaves office Monday, is contemplating reducing the sentences of more than 150 people."

Meanwhile, the website that was set up to support Gov. Ryan's nomination for the Nobel Prize has registered over 1,100 visitors since Dec. 24.

High praise to Roger Diamond, lawyer for Max Factor heir Andrew Luster who disappeared in the middle of his rape trial. Diamond tried to halt the trial, the judge said no, and Diamond is now trying the case in abstentia.

Diamond said on Wednesday that "he would vigorously defend his missing client in court" while police continued searching for him.

"Attorney Roger John Diamond failed to have Luster's trial halted until the 39-year-old millionaire surfaced so must proceed with an empty chair in the Ventura, California courtroom where his client once sat."

"Ever since Monday I've been doing the best I can to defend the case," Diamond told Reuters in an interview. "It would be helpful to have the defendant's input but I'm still going to do a good job for him. I'm fighting as hard as I can."

Good for you, Roger, and even better for your client.

We got this in an email from an esteemed Miami lawyer today--in fact the same lawyer that we got the phony Ashcroft news article from months ago. So we have strong doubts about its authenticity. But, we'll report, you decide. Here it is:

Ed Koch was the outspoken mayor of New York City for twelve years. He never minced words. The following is his New Year Commentary prepared for Bloomberg Radio (which, coincidentally, is owned by the current mayor).

Koch's 2003 Resolutions are worth heeding -- perhaps even following to the letter ourselves. Read this sobering yet in a way optimistic analysis by one of our own "elder statesmen."
- - - - - - - - - -

We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high.

Only in the United States have we seen a full acceptance of Jews as citizens and the Jewish state treated as a friend and ally by an overwhelming number of fellow citizens. In the U.S., Jews have been permitted to rise and fall based on their individual talents, virtues and faults. In one elite bastion after another, Jews have been selected to head institutions heretofore seen as beyond their reach. Today the presidents of Harvard and Yale Universities are Jews, as are recent former presidents of Columbia and Princeton. Having been elected three times as mayor of the City of New York, I have been the beneficiary of this country's generosity and freedom from bigotry, and I will be eternally grateful.

Americans traditionally make New Years resolutions. Before I list my own resolutions, I want to thank President George W. Bush and his advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for their support of the State of Israel. They could easily have jettisoned Israel as a liability in their efforts to forge an international coalition against worldwide terrorism. I will be forever grateful to them, and I hope that many other supporters of the State of Israel will recognize and appreciate what they have done.

Fortunately for Jews and the State of Israel, American support of the Jewish nation has been bipartisan. Particularly helpful has been the Democratic leadership in both houses including Senator Tom Daschle, outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many others on both sides of the political aisle who deserve similar praise.

In the religious sector, I am grateful to the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have stood up time and again in support and defense of the Jewish nation. Regrettably, there have been many clergy who have unfairly attacked Israel for attempting to defend itself against near-daily terrorist acts against its citizens. We were made privy to the true thoughts of Rev. Billy Graham caught on tape telling President Nixon his real feelings about Jews and Israel. He has since apologized, but what is an apology without contrition and efforts to right the wrong done? Worthless.

Now to my personal New Years resolutions. I will avoid France as a place to vacation. France leads those countries in the Security Council who are the enemies of the State of Israel. So too is Mexico, joining as a consistent supporter of resolutions unfairly denouncing Israel at the U.N. Security Council.

I will not support National Public Radio in any way. NPR¹s reporters and management delight in unfairly attacking Israel.

I will no longer lend financial support to New York¹s Channel Thirteen public television station. That station recently showed a documentary that was blatantly biased against Israel and has refused to acknowledge the bias or to try to correct it.

I will not watch ABC¹s World News Tonight anchored by Peter Jennings. For many years, Jennings has specialized in vicious and unfair portrayals of Israel intended to injure the Jewish state and lionize Palestinians.

BBC News is horrifically anti-Israel and I will shun it completely.

Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel. I will no longer read her works.

Regrettably, there are many others whom I could include on this list, but I will leave that for another day. I must confess I got enormous pleasure from the defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her father in the recent primary elections in Georgia. In my view, both are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. No longer able to feed at the public trough, I doubt that either will make a comparable living in the private sector.

I must close now to get ready for my Chanukah and Christmas shopping. I enjoy celebrating those holidays with Jewish and Christian friends whose goodwill and affection I will always cherish.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The Uncertainty Principle teaches that we can never know the results of our actions on the future of the world. Forward these messages to as many friends of the Jewish Nation as you know with the wish that they do the same. Perhaps, in some small way, it will eventually make a difference. What is certain, however, is that if you do nothing, nothing can happen.

Again, we think it's fake, but we're willing to be corrected.

Update: We may stand corrected immediately, we just came across this and this.

Second Update: Instapundit reports that one of his readers heard the radio show and former Mayor Koch did make the comments.

From the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, which linked to us today, causing our hits to soar.

"When a drug dealer murders a family by burning down its house, who's responsible? According to lawyer Johnnie Cochran of O.J. Simpson fame, it's the city of Baltimore, because, the Baltimore Sun reports, "the anti-drug 'Baltimore Believe' campaign encouraged residents to speak out against dealers."

The case involves alleged retaliation by a drug dealer against someone who ratted. "Part of the claim will focus on the "Believe" campaign, which encourages residents to take back their city from drug dealers in a number of ways, including reporting dealers to police."

And if a citizen listens to the city's campaign on the evils of drugs and burns down the house of a drug dealer, thinking he is being a righteous part of the war on drugs, and the fire kills the drug dealer's family, the city would be equally liable, right?

Either way, our money's on Johnnie.

Thanks to Dan Dodson, Media Director for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) for passing this along:

Couldn't get this on line, but The Reliable Source in this morning's Post reports a coffee shop selling a Trent Lotte, which is "separate but equal parts of coffee and milk," served in separate containers, so intergration is left up to the customer. The report says their call to Lott's office was met by "grim silence."

Update: Another thanks to Jason Rylander for posting in the comments that the column is on line, here. Here's the actual bite:

"THIS JUST IN . . .

Bitter brew? For the past couple of weeks, those wags at Kramerbooks & Afterwords Cafe in Dupont Circle have been marketing a beverage called the "Trent Lotte." The menu describes the $3.25 item as "separate but equal parts of coffee and milk" – a not too veiled reference to Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott's career-damaging 100th-birthday praise of fellow Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential campaign. Yesterday bartender Mark Kutcher told us that the coffee and steamed milk are served in two different containers, and it's up to customers to integrate them. "We think it's really funny," Kutcher said. "That's why we do it." But we seriously doubt if Lott is laughing. Our call to the deposed Senate Republican leader's press office yesterday was greeted by grim silence."

The 4th Circuit ruled American Born Yaser Hamdi is being lawfully held by the Administration as an enemy combatent. 54 page opinion is here. We haven't read it yet, we're at work for several more hours yet, but we understand the Court ruled he had the right to judicial review of his detention and his status as an enemy combatent--but that the Court will give great deference to the Executive branch's decision.

"The court ruled that as an American citizen, Hamdi had the right to a judicial review of his detention and his status as an enemy combatant. But because the Constitution affords the executive branch the responsibility to wage war, the courts must show great deference to the military in making such determinations."

Update: Reader Stan K. astutely comments that "Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson just got himself some extra brownie points with the White House Re: the Supreme Court."

Last week we reported that TalkLeft was being censored--at least at a few law firms that use filtering programs, including the firm of Howard Bashman who writes the excellent law blog How Appealing. He provided us with the name of the company that provides the filtering service to them, we contacted them and they have fixed the problem.

Apparently we were sharing an IP address with another site in the same database, causing an "accidental overblock." The company has moved us to the "news and media" category and modified their database so we are no longer subject to a "sex" block.

We're impressed, they responded quickly and corrected the problem. The company is Websense.

Thanks to Jennifer at Klyjen who has already noted the change and posted it.

If anyone else experiences a block when trying to access TalkLeft, please let us know.