Your turn. All topics welcome.

Investigator Chris Serino will no longer be acting as a homicide investigator starting July 1. He will be on night-time patrol duty. Apparently it's at his own request.

Yesterday, ABC's Matt Gutman responded to a question on Twitter asking if Serino was the leaker by answering yes, Serino was the leaker. But what did Serino leak? I'm not sure that's as clear. The person who asked apparently meant the police station video. [more...]

Update 6/27: The state has just released a voice exemplar of Zimmerman yelling for help. It was taken on March 22, the same date that Zimmerman met with investigators to provide his cell phone and and a consent to search it. You can listen here.

Original Post 6/26/12 below:[More....]

Unsurprisingly, Randy Barnett touts Charles Lane's unconcern that the New Deal jurisprudence will be overturned. Lane writes:

What, then, led the [liberal] academics to misread this [ACA] case [sic]? In a sense, they resemble the conservative leaders of the bar at the dawn of the New Deal. President Franklin Roosevelt’s alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR’s plans.

Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.

Lane seems to believe our Constitutional history began during the Lochner Era. McCulloch v. Maryland? Never heard of it says Lane. Gibbons v. Ogden? What's that says Lane. But forget all that.

Lane (and Barnett) are happy to see the New Deal jurisprudence overturned. This is the conservative project. This is the Constitution in Exile movement. Janice Rogers Brown explained it clearly and forthrightly (PDF):

Kim DotCom is back. He's tweeting up a storm and posting pictures -- and making fun of law enforcement. His kids are adorable. He's gotten more than 32,000+ followers (including me) in the first 6 days. He follows one person: Barack Obama.

He's also picked up a big new supporter for his legal defense: Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. [More...]

Get your Obama SUX jollies out here.

I won't be in this thread.

Open thread.

Update (TL):

107 degrees according to my dashboard. Maybe it's the thin air, or that we're a mile closer to the sun, but whatever it is, it feels surreal to be outside. And very uncomfortable.

Love this from the Great Charles Pierce:

The one thing you can say for PEDs is that, at the very least, they completely blow up the made-for-TV, up-close-and-personal, artificial melodrama that has entombed the Olympic Games ever since Roone Arledge decided that the Olympics were not sport, but a 21-day drama festival, and ever since the late Bud Greenspan awoke one morning and decided he was Homer.

For those who may have missed it, I wrote a number of posts on the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Here are links to some of them:

Bloomberg: 'Obama health law seen valid, scholars expect rejection'

The SCOTUS: Is an extreme constitutional winter coming?

What's at stake: The SCOTUS and undoing The New Deal

Prof. Jack Balkin on 'Living Originalism' and the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

The contorted contours of Congressional power according to the radical Roberts Court

When The Court Said Congress Could Regulate "Inactivity"

Supreme Court: Is the mandate severable from Affordable Care Act? Is Medicaid expansion permitted?

Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act: Is the mandate constitutional?

One perspective regarding the Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court issued its decision on Arizona SB 1070 "papers, please" law. the upshot, most got struck down but Arizona law enforcement officials can report undocumented persons to the feds.

Of particular note is Justice Scalia's bizarre rant in dissent:

Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding [that the national government has supreme jurisdiction over immigration policy]? [...] Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded[. ...] Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Never before in my memory has a justice questioned that ""[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. See Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982)[.]"

Until today.

Open Thread.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, today ruled that juvenile sentences to life without parole violate the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The opinion is here.

The Supreme Court has invalidated three of the four parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, but it left intact for now the "show me your papers" provision, saying that part could take effect, although it may be subject to future challenges. The opinion is here.

The clueless Governor of AZ called the decision a victory. [More...]

Mark O'Mara has filed this motion seeking a new bond for George Zimmerman. The motion will be heard June 29. [More...]