Bump and Update: Bernie Madoff has been sentenced to 150 years in prison. The probation report had recommended 50 years. He is likely to do his time in a medium security prison. Possibilities, according to prison expert Alan Ellis: "FCI Otisville or FCI Ray Brook, both in upstate New York, FCI Fairton in New Jersey or FCI McKean in Pennsylvania."

***

Sentencing Day for Bernie Madoff

Bernard Madoff will be sentenced today. The government is seeking 150 years. The defense is seeking 12 years, arguing that considering his age, it's an effective life sentence. Ruth Madoff has agreed to forfeit around $80 million (including the Park Ave coop, the Montauk home and the Palm Beach home) in exchange for $2.5 million.

Here are the relevant pleadings:

• Bernie's response to Government sentencing position
  
• Government Sentencing Position
• Bernie's Sentencing Position
• Ruth Madoff Forfeiture Agreement

[More....]

Earlier this month, I cited Ian Millheiser on Wards Cove:

In 1989, the Supreme Court in Wards Cove Packing v. Antonio significantly weakened the ban on disparate impact discrimination. Congress responded almost immediately by overturning Wards Cove with the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Right-wing justices tried their best to roll back civil rights law, but they were rebuffed by elected representatives.

In light of the SCOTUS' decision in Ricci, Congress must again act to rebuff the efforts of extreme right wing judicially activist Justices to roll back civil rights law. In dissent in Ricci, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

It was 5-4, as expected. Justice Kennedy and his conservative brethren prove yet again that when it comes to discrimination, their main concern is that white males not "suffer." More after I read the opinion.

The opinions (PDF). Justice Ginsburg in dissent, joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer:

The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract this Court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them. New Haven maintains that it refused to certify the test results because it believed, for good cause, that it would be vulnerable to a Title VII disparate-impact suit if it relied on those results. The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong basis in evidence” for its plea. Ante, at 2. In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.

More as I read on the flip.

I know very little about health care delivery. But one thing I do know -- health care delivery is not a normal market and applying the standard free market platitudes to it is just plain silly. Greg Mankiw does that today and Paul Krugman has the appropriate response:

[E]conomists have known for 45 years — ever since Kenneth Arrow’s seminal paper — that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough. To act all wide-eyed and innocent about these problems at this late date is either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous.

I say disingenuous.

Speaking for me only

Gooooooool! USA! Clint Dempsey! USA 1, Brazil 0. Just 10 minutes in though. Big save by Tim Howard.

Watching this game reminds me of the late Steve Gilliard. Gilly and I "talked" soccer (by e-mail) all the time.

25 minutes, still 1-0 US. But US giving up way too much space. They have stopped going forward. Don't like it. Howard having to make save after save.

GOOOOOL!!! Donovan on a brilliant counter!! US 2, Brazil 0. At the Half - US 2, Brazil 0. Howard has been brilliant in goal.

Brazil scores in the first minute of the 2nd - 2- 1 USA, 30 minutes of regular time left. Brazil threatening to equalize almost constantly. In fact, Us gets a break, ball was across the line but goal for Brazil not signalled. US completely on their heels.

Howard saves the day again at the 70 minute mark. Still 2-1 US. Equalizer. Kaka on a great run. Rebound knocked in.It seemed inevitable. 2-2.

The collapse is complete. Brazil scores off a corner. 3-2 Brazil. FINAL.

Ceci Connolly's silly article boo hooing about Left pressure on Democrats on health care was notable for only one reason (Faux News Ceci predictably churns out this type of silly drivel), this quote from a self proclaimed "Democratic strategist:"

One Democratic strategist who is working full-time on health reform was apoplectic over what he called wasted time, energy and resources by the organizations. The strategist, who asked for anonymity because he was criticizing colleagues, said: "These are friends of ours. I would much rather see a quiet call placed by [Obama chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel saying this isn't helpful. Instead, we try to decimate them?"

(Emphasis supplied.) When an "activist" thinks a pol, ANY pol, is his friend, he proves he has no idea what he is doing. My bet is this is some Third Way shill. Matt Bennett possibly? Sounds like him.

Speaking for me only

I do not watch the Sunday Talk shows anymore. Do any of you?

This is an Open Thread.

In its article today on President Obama's consideration of an executive order authorizing indefinite detention of terror suspects without charges or trial, The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Adminsitration official as saying:

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.

The civil liberties groups I'm familiar with have all issued unequivocal opposition to indefinite detention. [More...]

The 7th Circuit ruled Thursday that a death row inmate has no right to be interviewed by the media. The majority opinion is here (pdf).

The majority opinion in Hammer v. Ashcroft, written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, based its decision heavily upon the concept that the news media has "no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded to the general public," citing Pell v. Procunier. However, in Hammer it was not a reporter, but a prisoner, who asserted a right to interview.

BOP instituted the ban in 2000 after Timothy McVeigh gave an interview to 60 Minutes. Hammer has quite an interesting history.

Since all federal death row inmates are housed at Terre Haute which is in the 7th Circuit, this ruling will apply to all of them.

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

AP:

A closely watched discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters who say they have unfairly been denied promotions is one of three remaining Supreme Court cases awaiting resolution Monday.

That would be Ricci v. DeStefano. I have written numerous posts on Ricci (particularly on existing "disparate impact" jurisprudence and extreme conservative judicial activism) and will write many more I am sure after the SCOTUS announces its decision. The reason is obvious - Judge Sonia Sotomayor's joining of a panel affirmance of a district court's dismissal of a white firefighter's Title VII action. One of the reasons Ricci has become a flash point is the incompetence of American journalism. Consider the AP report I link:

(See also Prof. Darren Hutchinson.) Glenn Greenwald:

When Obama first unveiled his "preventive detention" policy, many defenders praised him (and claimed he was different than Bush) because of his vow that -- as he put it -- "my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime." But now, relying exclusively on three Obama officials speaking behind a veil of anonymity, Peter Finn and Dafner Linza of The Washington Post and ProPublica report that the White House is "crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely."

(Emphasis supplied.) Outside of a theater of war, the President has no such Constitutional authority as the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly in the last decade. This is a settled legal question. Glenn probably thinks of me as a "praiser" of Obama's previous statements on preventive detention. Whatever. My pieces speak for themselves. What I have NEVER praised is the idea that the President has the unilateral power to hold anyone indefinitely outside of a theater of war. Not only must Congress pass enabling legislation - the legislation must pass Constitutional muster (which means judicial review of the Presidential detentions) and must also comply with the Geneva Conventions. What Obama is reported to be contemplating is simply outrageous and unacceptable. It is Bushism on steroids. It would be unconstitutional. It would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It must be rejected and if Obama is even considering it, it is to his great discredit. It would be the most outrageous and offensive action Obama could take short of reimposing Bush's torture policy.

Speaking for me only