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

Whether a baseball player whose exceptional career was tainted by scandal deserves to be in the Hall of Fame is a question that spawns lengthy (preferably beer-fueled) debate. The perceived justice or injustice of Pete Rose's banishment from the game -- hence from Hall of Fame consideration -- for betting on baseball (and then lying about it before admitting it) sparks animated argument between those who believe he deserves recognition for his on-field achievements regardless of his off-field failings and those who view him as undeserving because his gambling jeopardized the game's integrity.

More recent controversies involve players who admittedly or allegedly used performance-enhancing drugs, a rules violation that is more likely than Rose's compulsive betting to affect the outcome of games. Ryne Sandberg recently contributed to the drama by opining that Sammy Sosa, his former teammate, shouldn't join him in the Hall of Fame.

[more ...]

There are great Michael Jackson videos on all the music channels this weekend. I can't believe Comcast doesn't have a live MTV HD channel. Anyway, you can watch online above. MTV is doing a tribute to him this evening, but there are too many interviews. Better to watch online, or one of the other channels.

The autopsy showed no signs of foul play or trauma to his body. Michael's body has been released to his family. Toxicology tests will take 6 to 8 weeks. His doctor, Houston cardiologist Conrad Murray, who was living with Jackson, has agreed to be interviewed. He's not suspected of criminal activity. Jackson's ex-wife and the mother of two of his children, Paris and Michael, will get custody as she never relinquished her parental rights.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Via Corrente, Ari Shapiro files an interesting report on preventive detention and how it might be enacted as an Obama Administration policy:

Attorney General Eric Holder . . . last week . . . testified before a Senate committee that a preventive detention program "would be some kind of review with regard to the initial determination [that the detainee should be held], and then a periodic review with regard to whether or not that person should continue to be detained."

(Emphasis supplied.) The devil is in the details of such a proposal but, as I wrote earlier (in my lonely support for a potential regime for preventive detention):

Chris Bowers celebrates Arlen Specter's "conversion" to support for the public option (Byron Dorgan also now supports it and Jay Rockefeller made a great statement in support of the public option) but then frets:

The concept of making Democrats vote for more progressive legislation through primary challenges is predicted on the notion that we are dealing with people who are fundamentally self-centered, power hungry, and morally flexible. We believe primaries can pressure certain members of Congress into changing their minds on important votes because some members of Congress care more about keeping their job than about the legislation they pass. In other words, we are banking on members of Congress being power-hungry and immoral.

Welcome to the real world Chris. Pols are pols and do what they do. What WE do, in the face of that reality, is what a lot of us have been talking about for a while.

Speaking for me only

Today WaPo gets rid of its best columnist Dan Froomkin. I do not always agree with Froomkin (his column yesterday on Afghanistan for instance, I support President Obama's policies on Afghanistan), but his column was essential reading. Today Froomkin writes:

I started my column in January 2004, and one dominant theme quickly emerged: That George W. Bush was truly the proverbial emperor with no clothes. . . . The ensuing five years and 1,088 columns really just fleshed out that portrait, describing a president who was oblivious, embubbled and untrustworthy.

When I look back on the Bush years, I think of the lies. There were so many. Lies about the war and lies to cover up the lies about the war. Lies about torture and surveillance. Lies about Valerie Plame. Vice President Dick Cheney's lies, criminally prosecutable but for his chief of staff Scooter Libby's lies. I also think about the extraordinary and fundamentally cancerous expansion of executive power that led to violations of our laws and our principles.

(Emphasis supplied.) To his credit (after all, Froomkin is looking for a job now), Froomkin points the finger at the Media:

Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers, wife of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit bribery, a felony, in connection with the Synagro bribery investigation.

Her lawyer, Steve Fishman, says her sentencing guidelines are likely to be 30 to 37 months. Her plea agreement did not refer to cooperation with the Government in exchange for a sentence reduction and states the parties do not agree on the amount of loss or restitution. The maximum sentence possible is 5 years. The Information and Plea Agreement are here (pdf).

Rep. Conyers' office issued this statement: [More...]

The strange idea, that has held for quite a long time, that the Senate must defer to the President on judicial nominee is thankfully dying a slow death. Republican hold ups of President Obama's judicial nominees (including attempts to delay the confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor) are being explained as a "they did it first" maneuver. Simon Lazarus argues that this justification is disingenuous. That may be. But that discussion avoids the central point - the Senate should never be a rubber stamp for the President's judicial nominees.

I wrote a detailed post on why I think so. But whatever I think, it seems clear that going forward, whoever is President, his (or her) political opponents in the Senate will ensure that the Senate carries out its constitutional role of Advice and Consent. Including regarding a nominee's ideology. In my view, that is a good thing. I thought so for as long as I have considered the issue. I expressly said so in 2005. And I say it again now.

Speaking for me only

A federal judge in Houston today rejected the Government's motion for pre-trial detention and ordered financier Allen Stanford released on bond. The order was stayed until Friday so the Government can appeal.

"There are no conditions that will guarantee this defendant's appearance in court," Pelletier said. "This case demands pretrial detention."

That's not the test. The standard is whether there are conditions that will "reasonably assure" not guarantee a defendant's appearance.

Dick DeGuerin, Stanford's lawyer, told the court the feds seized everything from him, including his underwear [More...]:

People continue to gather at the UCLA medical center, at Michael Jackson's rented residence in Bel-Air and at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem.

Janet Jackson's spokesman says she's devastated and flying back to California from a pre-filming location. The autopsy is scheduled for tomorrow.

How terrible has tonight's television coverage been? I recap here. As for some of the better coverage, see below: [More...]

Update: Really sad to watch the helicopter fly Michael Jackson's body to the morgue where the coroner will do the autopsy.

A news conference with the hospital where Michael Jackson died is about to begin. I will live-blog. (Update: There is no hospital news conference. I've changed the title to his brother's press conference and posted the video. ]

Hasn't started yet but a LAPD police detective gave a little interview. A coroner's investigation is underway. The robbery/homicide division was assigned because of high profile nature of the death. He said "Don't read anything into it."

Hospital conference still to come. Stay tuned. I may have to change channels. CNN's pundits can't stop talking about unproven allegations against Jackson and even bringing up Joe Jackson's alleged childhood abuse of Michael. [More...]