That didn't take long. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled Rahm Emanuel may run for Chicago Mayor. It wasn't even close, the Supreme Court blasted the appeals court decision:

We wish to emphasize that, until just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been settled in this State for going on 150 years....Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above....Its reasons for departing from over 100 years of settled residency law are hardly compelling and deserve only brief attention.

All of that said, and putting aside the appellate court's conclusion that Smith [settled law] is not binding in this case, the appellate court's residency analysis remains fundamentally flawed. This is because, even under traditional principles of statutory analysis, the inevitable conclusion is that the residency analysis conducted by the hearing officer, the Board, and the circuit court [those who heard Emanuel's case before the appellate court] was proper.

I am not a Rahm supporter, but the Supreme Court got it right, in my opinion.

CNN has a feature up on FBI employees (agents and others) who have been terminated for breaking rules or engaging in criminal conduct. Here's the document showing the instances over the preceding three years.

There are very few drug allegations, most seem to pertain to sexual misconduct and misuse of funds and databases.

At least the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility takes its duties seriously. There are bound to be a few bad apples everywhere and the OPR seems to be good at weeding them out. (Although the report does says these are "examples" which implies there are more instances.)

I'm reading Eric Foner's latest book The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American slavery. In the preface of the book, Foner discusses Lincoln's historical relationship to abolitionist activists:

Lincoln, many recent scholars have argued, acted within the narrow limits of the possible, as established by Northern public opinion. Public opinion however, is never static; the interactions of enlightened political leaders, engaged social movements, and day to day experiences [. . .[ can change the nature of public debate and in so doing the boundaries of what is practical. As the Chicago Tribune noted at the end of the Civil War, in crisis situations beliefs once pronounced "impractical radicalism" suddenly become "practical statesmanship."

(Emphasis supplied.) Foner's point is that Lincoln's actions were not solely shaped by his own perceptions of what was possible, but very much influenced by the spaces created by the public discourse. With regard to our current economic crises regarding joblessness and income inequality, the period where the Obama Administration would welcome the notion that we are in a "crisis situation" has clearly passed. The President's State of the Union address demonstrates that, either for political or policy reasons, the Obama Administration wants to signal an "all clear" on the economic crises and focus on "winning the future. Ezra Klein wrote:

Digby:

[. . .] Bob Shrum says the country is optimistic and inspired and that talk of economic malaise and angry resentment and such are "the politics of 2010." Chris Matthews says that Obama is very much like Vince Lombardi.

At this point, I think Obama ought to be worried that Morning in America has arrived two years too early and that it will be dark again by the time he faces re-election.

Today's unemployment claims report:

In the week ending Jan. 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 454,000, an increase of 51,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 403,000. The 4-week moving average was 428,750, an increase of 15,750 from the previous week's revised average of 413,000.

Speaking for me only

While John Boehner's walkback of his call to raise the retirement age to 70 is properly the headline from his appearance on Eliot Spitzer's show last night, but Boehner's, and part of the Media, obliviousness regarding what the retirement age is already scheduled to be is alos important. Reporting on Boehner's walkback, The Hill writes:

[Boehners's] comments walk back remarks from late June, when he said the retirement age would eventually need to be raised by five years, from 65 to 70.

(Emphasis supplied.) FTR:

Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.

In an unintentionally revealing piece regarding the NYTimes' relationship with Wikileaks, NYTimes editor Bill Keller demonstrates his arrogance and obliviousness. While Keller implies that Julian Assange is an unbalanced paranoid because "Assange was openly contemptuous of the American government and certain that he was a hunted man[,]" Keller writes:

From consultations with our lawyers, we were confident that reporting on the secret documents could be done within the law, but we speculated about what the government — or some other government — might do to impede our work or exact recriminations.

(Emphasis supplied.) Paranoid much Keller? OF course, Keller's fears were not unreasonable. Nor were Assange's fears. Even paranoids have enemies.

What is most striking to me about Keller's article is the condescending superiority he demonstrates. For a newspaper who had a pretty lousy decade, Keller sure has a high opinion of himself and his newspaper. His contempt for Assange and Wikileaks is not hidden. Keller refers to the Times as part of the "establishment media" without irony and with pride. It sums up the viewpoint of the article and of Keller and the NYTimes in this area. Quite revealing.

Speaking for me only

Many states only require the consent of one party to a conversation to legally record it. Some states require the consent of both parties (Think Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky.)

Illinois takes the two party consent rule to a whole new level. For years, it has been a felony to record a conversation unless all parties agree. And, if you record a conversation with a police officer or prosecutor without their consent, it's a class 1 felony punishable by 15 years in prison.

Illinois is charging people who record their conversations with police without their knowledge and consent. The Times article tells the story of one woman who recorded her conversation with an officer when filing a complaint for sexual harassment against another officer. And another of a man who sold art on the sidewalk without a permit and taped his conversation with an officer who arrested him for the violation.

The ACLU has been trying to have the law declared invalid, to no avail so far. Other states with similar laws: Oregon and Massachusetts. Here's a handy state-by-state guide (but check to see that it's up to date on your state.)

Either Bristol Palin think she's a lawyer now(I guess she read some things on the Internets) or she has a lawyer giving her really bad advice in real life.

Bristol has moved to Arizona and loves it there, has a new house and a new boyfriend. So what's her next plan? She's asking Levi to terminate his parental rights to his child.

Bristol admitted she's asked her ex-boyfriend Levi Johnston to sign away his parental rights to their 2-year-old son. "Have I asked him to change Tripp's last name? Of course," she quipped. "I've asked him to do that many times. Just sign over your (parental) rights. He just doesn't want to sign them over because it looks bad on paper."

That's unlikely to be the reason. Levi has complained publicly for months that Bristol restricts his visiting to almost nothing. So when Bristol says he's only seen their son three times in the past several months, did Bristol stop to count how many other times he asked and she said no? Let's count up those times.

Bristol wants to move with the child to AZ, and Levi wants to stay in Alaska, So instead of doing what millions of other people do, retain counsel to work out an agreement where the non-parenting spouse gets a big block of time say, in the summer (when there's no school) and more vacation time, Bristol decides to go the selfish route and ask for a termination of Levi's parental rights. If he agrees, Levi will no longer have a child. [More...]

Here come the Government leaks in the Jared Loughner case. The Washington Post reports:

In the weeks and days before the shooting rampage in Tucson, suspect Jared Lee Loughner surfed the Internet on his computer in what investigators believe was an effort to prepare for his alleged assassination attempt, law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation said.

Loughner pulled up several Web sites about lethal injections and solitary confinement in prison, said the sources, who asked to be anonymous because the investigation is ongoing. He also viewed Internet sites about political assassins, according to an analysis of Loughner's computer that was completed by investigators last week, the sources said. (My emphasis.)

According to the Post: [More...]

A federal judge today ruled financier Allen Stanford is incompetent to stand trial due to his inability to assist his lawyers in his own defense.

Several of the news reports on the ruling highlight the judge's finding that Stanford is addicted to drugs he has been given at the federal detention center and need to withdraw from them. A review of the pleadings and court orders in the case (available on PACER, and which I've been following for a few months) tell a much more complex story.

Stanford didn't take these drugs prior to being detained pending trial. He was viciously assaulted in pre-trial detention and sustained brain injuries. Then he was given the medication. Only by withdrawing from them can doctors now determine whether his cognitive deficits are the result of the drugs or the traumatic brain injury he sustained when assaulted. .[More...]

In reply to everyone who disagreed with me today, in the words of Charles "I am not a role model" Barkley, I may be wrong, but I doubt it:

Open Thread.

As opposed to the other insanities demonstrated by Arizona, this is birther insanity:

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced. The proposal [. . .] was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

I hope it passes and then every GOP Presidential candidate is asked whether President Obama is eligible to be President. That will be fun to watch. The crazy in Arizona is unbelievable.

Speaking for me only