Things I'm reading:

• NY Times: States ratcheting up fear of driving while taking prescription medication, and looking for ways to prosecute more cases. "Drug recognition experts" (cops who go to school to learn what a person who is impaired by pharmaceuticals acts like and then claim to be an expert at trial) are all the rage.

• NY Times: The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts is the most conservative in decades according to an analysis that used four sets of political science data.

• In the Sunday magazine, an article on how the internet doesn't let you forget, or as I usually put it, people need to remember the internet has no eraser.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

As the Judge and attorneys put the final touches on jury instructions this weekend, I thought a summary of the charges against former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert might be helpful for reference during closing arguments and jury deliberations. All of what follows comes from the Government's 123 page proposed jury instructions to the Court, filed July 21 (Rod Blagojevich didn't file written instructions this week, and Robert's lawyer only filed five pages of instructions, which I'll discuss later or in another post. First, the charges:

Rod Blagojevich:

• Racketeering (Count 1),
• Conspiracy to commit racketeering (Count 2),
• Wire fraud (Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
  9, 10, 11, 12, and 13),
• Attempted Extortion (Counts 14, 15, 19, and 22),
• Conspiracy to commit extortion (Counts 17 and 21),
• Bribery (Counts 16 and 20),
• Conspiracy to commit bribery (Counts 18 and 23),
• Making false statements to the government (Count 24).

As to Robert Blagojevich: [More...]

Alberto Contador held off Andy Schleck in a heartstopping final time trial battle this morning to virtually assure he will win the Tour de France. Incredible Tour this year.

Open Thread.

A strange question for a judge to ask generally, but the concept of preemption may not be well understood by her:

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).

Bolton [. . .] also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative. "How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

I am not sure what the judge's goal is with these questions, but they are very uninformed, and if serious (oftentimes judges ask questions socratically), demonstrate that this judge does not understand preemption.

Why can't Arizona "enforce" immigration laws unless the federal government authorizes such enforcement? Simply, the Constitution does not permit it. Immigration policy and enforcement is solely, by express provision of the Constitution (see also the Federalist Papers), the province of the federal government. This is not a close question. It is a slam dunk.

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.

Here is a chuckle to start your morning:

The panelists gave voice to lingering disappointment over Halter's failed bid. Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had particularly harsh words for Bill Clinton, whose full-throated endorsement of Lincoln is credited with helping her win. "It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Harsh words for Bill Clinton from a blogger? Now that's never happened. I wonder if Bill Clinton felt like he was being treated as a "hero" when he was called a racist during the 2008 primaries. Oh by the way, President Obama endorsed Lincoln too.

Of course the real problem is having politician "heroes" in the first place. Pols are pols and do what they do.

Speaking for me only

This is good news:

The Obama administration will allow tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire on schedule, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday, setting up a clash with Republicans and a small but vocal group of Democrats who want to delay the looming tax increases.[Geithner] said the White House would let taxes on top earners increase as part of an effort to cut the deficit.

Geithner [. . .] said the White House plans to extend expiring tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans, and expects to undertake a broader revision of the tax code next year. "We believe it is appropriate to let those tax cuts that go to the most fortunate expire," Mr. Geithner said at a breakfast with reporters.

Good job Obama Administration.

Speaking for me only

It's time for me to stop following other people's cases and concentrate on my own the rest of the day.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Closing arguments in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Rob Blagojevich will begin Monday morning. Both sides said they need 2 1/2 hours, with the Government taking another hour for its rebuttal closing. (Since it has the burden of proof, it gets two bites at the apple.)

Sam Adam, Jr. will do Blago's closing. (Good choice, he's not only a terrific orator, but it's wise to have the same lawyer do both the opening and closing.) Rob Blagojevich's lawyer will take an hour. Assistant U. S. Atty. Christopher Niewoehner will close first for the Government, with the rebuttal by Assistant U. S. Atty. Reid Schar. (A different AUSA gave the opening.) [More...]

The Washington Post has called on the House to pass a watered down crack cocaine reform bill, introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin and drug warrior Sen. Jeff Sessions and negotiated with Sen. Sessions, Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch.

Rather than equalizing crack cocaine and powder cocaine penalties, it would reduce the disparity so that crack is still punished 18 times more severely than powder. The bill also adds sentencing enhancements for some drug crimes. Worst of all, the bill specifically states it is not retroactive, meaning it will not help those already serving unfair draconian sentences.

The bill that the full House (and then the Senate) needs to pass is H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, by Rep. Bobby Scott. The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee in July, 2009 and has seen no action since. [More...]

Two lawsuits seeking to prevent the implementation of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law, will be heard today. In the afternoon, the court will hear argument in the suit filed by the Justice Department. In the morning, it will hear from civil rights groups, including the ACLU. The ACLU's motion for preliminary injunction is available here.

The judge still hasn't ruled on the hearing last week in the lawsuit filed by a police officer. [More...]

It's over. After 22 months, the Justice Department has sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee stating no criminal charges will be brought as a result of the firing of 9 U.S. Attorneys during the Bush Administration.

Special counsel Nora Dannehy, who conducted the DOJ investigation (not to be confused with the earlier Inspector General and OPR investigation) recommended no charges, and Attorney General Eric Holder has accepted it. In the letter (available here, it takes a few minutes to load):

Associate Attorney General Ronald Weich said Gonzales made "inaccurate and misleading" statements about the firings. The report also said Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, also made misleading statements. But the report by Dannehy concluded there was "insufficient evidence to establish that persons knowingly made material false statements" or tried to obstruct justice.

As Committee Chair Rep. John Conyers points out, this is not an exoneration. The investigation found both Gonzales and Kyle Sampson made misleading and inaccurate statements. [More...]