Here's the ruling (PDF):

Based on the limited record before the Court and a review of the federal and state law relied on by the parties, the Court has determined that the petitioners have not clearly demonstrated entitlement to quo warranto, mandamus, or any other relief. Accordingly, the emergency petition is hereby denied.

The reasoning is not explained, but my view is that the Petitioners' failure to explain and argue what Scott needed to do NOW (i.e. - the ministerial act of signing the agreement with the federal DOT as required by Florida law), as opposed to what he might need to do later, was fatal to their Petition. Perhaps a better argument would have yielded the same result, but now we will never know.

Speaking for me only

Krugman:

The economic news has been better lately. New claims for unemployment insurance are down; business and consumer surveys suggest solid growth. We’re still near the bottom of a very deep hole, but at least we’re climbing. It’s too bad that so many people, mainly on the political right, want to send us sliding right back down again.

[. . .] Over the next few weeks, House Republicans will try to blackmail the Obama administration into accepting their proposed spending cuts, using the threat of a government shutdown. They’ll claim that those cuts would be good for America in both the short term and the long term. But the truth is exactly the reverse: Republicans have managed to come up with spending cuts that would do double duty, both undermining America’s future and threatening to abort a nascent economic recovery.

What Krugman does not say - The Deal is at the heart of today's spending cuts battle. By agreeing to slash taxes for the rich in December, the Obama Administration invited the slashing of government spending in March. And this will strangle the chances for recovery. The Deal was a terrible mistake.

Speaking for me only

A good jobs report:

The nation’s employers added 192,000 jobs on net in February, after having added just 63,000 jobs the previous month, the Labor Department reported on Friday. [. . .] The unemployment rate ticked down to 8.9 percent, falling below 9 percent for the first time in nearly two years.

Of course, we've been down this road before, a few good job reports followed by mostly bad reports. And with "austerity" the watchword in Washington and in state capitols, my personal view is this will be remembered as a blip. But today, this is good news.

Speaking for me only

President Obama met with Mexico's President Calderon today. Here's the transcript of the press conference. First, Obama promises continued and increased cooperation in fighting Mexico's drug war.

So we are continuing to speed up the delivery of equipment and training that our Mexican partners need to keep up this fight. As President Calderón cracks down on money laundering in Mexico, we’re putting unprecedented pressure on cartels and their finances here in the United States. And we thank our Mexican partners for their close cooperation following the murder of one of our immigration and customs agents, Special Agent Jaime Zapata.

I reiterated that the United States accepts our shared responsibility for the drug violence. So to combat the southbound flow of guns and money, we are screening all southbound rail cargo, seizing many more guns bound for Mexico and we are putting more gunrunners behind bars. And as part of our new drug control strategy, we are focused on reducing the demand for drugs through education, prevention and treatment.

President Calderon praised the increased information sharing between law enforcement in the two countries and said it will continue. [More...]

You can watch it here.

My personal view is that the main argument that the HSR proponents should have forwarded - that the Governor's acceptance of the federal funds for the HSR project was ministerial in nature(the signing of the agreement with the federal DOT) and that Governor Scott had no discretion to refuse to sign the agreement as Florida law required him to do so - was lost in the mire.

Instead the argument was bogged down on the question of whether subsequent Florida legislative appropriation were subject to the Governor's approval (it is of course, by veto or line time veto, subject to being overridden by the legislature.)

The question the HSR proponents should have focused on was what Governor Scott needs to NOW to accept the federal funding, as opposed to what Governor Scott may choose to do in the future (veto appropriations for the HSR project.)

Not the best oral argument I've seen. As I count the votes for the actual relief the HSR proponents seek, I do not think the votes are there. Chief Justice Cannady and Justice Lewis are votes for denying relief. Perry and Quince are likely to vote for some form of relief. Justice Pariente probably wants to vote for some form of relief, but is struggling to see how she can do it. Justices Polston and LaBarga did not appear to indicate any particular view on the issue.

Speaking for me only

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is decrying the Republican cuts to the Homeland Security Budget. She testified before the House Homeland Security Committee today and said the cuts would add to delays for airline passengers. I'm not buying it. And, I think the cuts are a good thing. Who wants more of this?

The House budget "cuts technology investments and security improvements on the Southwest and Northern borders," Napolitano said.
"It cuts aviation security measures. It cuts funding to sustain the progress that has been made in enforcing the nation's immigration laws. It cuts critical cyber security tools and operations. It cuts intelligence personnel. It cuts Coast Guard funding to support our war efforts abroad. And it cuts grants that support counterterrorism and disaster-response capabilities at the local level," she added.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg joined in the fear-mongering: [More...]

Busy day at work. I'm posting this from my iPad. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

On March 1, 2011, two Florida legislators filed the promised suit challenging Florida Governor Rick Scott's purported rejection of $2.4 billion of federal high speed rail funds. The petition is here (PDF).

The principal arguments are that (1) the Legislature has already appropriated the funds through legislation passed prior to Scott's ascension to the governorship and thus Scott has nothing to say on the matter except in a routine ministerial capacity and (2) Scott's failure to carry out laws duly enacted by the Legislature violate his duty to take care that the laws of the state are faithfully executed.

The Supreme Court immediately order Scott to respond and he has done so. Scott's response is here (PDF). The Petitioners replied to Scott's response. The reply is here (PDF) Argument before the Supreme Court is scheduled for today at 3:00 pm. The hearing may be viewable here (specifically here.) An analysis of the filings is provided below the fold.

Private Bradley Manning's criminal case just got a lot more difficult. The Government has added 22 new charges, including one, aiding the enemy, that provides for a life sentence (Actually, it also could result in a death sentence, but the Government has said it won't seek the death penalty. How gracious of them.)

He was charged in May with 12 counts of illegally downloading and sharing classified material, including a secret video and military and diplomatic documents.

The new charges include allegations he used "unauthorized software on government computers to download classified information and to make intelligence available to "the enemy". [More...]

Look who made the cover of Rolling Stone -- Snooki. The interview is filled with Snookisms. For example, on the cover picture of her sitting on a rocket:

"Vinny definitely compares to the rocket I sat on," Polizzi said of her co-star, with whom she's shared some, er, intimate moments on the show. "I would probably call that rocket Seabiscuit because that's the same size as Vinny's ding-dong."

[More...]

Prosecutors in Philadelphia announced today they will seek the death penalty against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. They asked for an extension of time to decide whether they will also seek the death penalty against his co-defendants.

We are seeking the death penalty” against Gosnell because of two “aggravating factors” — he’s accused of multiple murders and his alleged victims are younger than age 12, Pescatore said.

His lawyer, Jack McMahon, says:

“He’s a 70-year-old man with no previous record. And Pennsylvania hasn’t carried out an execution in years (since 1999). The reality is there will be no death penalty for Mr. Gosnell, so why clog up the court system with a death penalty case that is death penalty in name only?” McMahon said.

The facts of the case, which I reported on at length here, are gruesome. But the death penalty is overkill. And to use it as a bargaining chip against the co-defendants is particularly odious: [More..]

The Supreme Court ruled today, in Pepper v. United States (opinion here) that when a defendant's sentence has been set aside, the court, in resentencing defendant, may consider his post-sentence rehabilitation to impose a lower sentence. It also ruled the court can grant a greater downward departure than it ordered when orginally sentencing defendant.

We hold that when a defendant’s sentence has been set aside on appeal, a district court at resentencing may consider evidence of the defendant’s postsentencing rehabilitation and that such evidence may, in appropriate cases, support a downward variance from the now-advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Separately, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the law of the case doctrine did not require the District Court in this case to apply the same percentage departure from the Guidelines range for substantial assistance that had been applied at petitioner’s prior sentencing.

The only dissenters were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (the latter dissented only in part.)