The Justice Department filed a brief today (available here) in a federal case in California. Gay rights groups are outraged.

This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a "valid exercise of Congress' power" that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state "shall be required" to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any "right or claim arising from such relationship."

Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and other groups issued a joint statement today blasting the filing: [More...]

Since stories about nudity engage the attention of our loyal readers more than (for instance) stories about DOJ misconduct or the FBI's recruitment of informants to spy on mosques (for shame, people!), let's wrap up the week with a "crimes in the news" story about a man who (according to the AP) "was arrested on suspicion of being naked." Upon further review, it turns out that the man was arrested for loitering on school grounds but is nonetheless suspected of being naked on school property.

According to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, three Whittell High School students reported coming across a naked man behind the school who appeared to be tied to a rock and was lying face down. A student said they asked the man if he was really tied up, which he confirmed. Then they asked if he needed to be untied and the man answered no.

[more ...]

Loose ends:

Letterman and Palin - What Digby Said. Letterman's behavior has been repulsive.

On Obama and DOMA -Aravosis and Sullivan seemd to be engaging in "victimology." (Explanation - I am criticizing Sullivan here. He and Aravosis are right on this issue.) Obama is proving yet again to have feet of clay. For example, where is his proposal to overturn DOMA? Or DADT? Pols are pols my friends. Those who choose to put them on a pedestal will always be disappointed.

Fight for your issues, not for pols.

Speaking for me only and this is an Open Thread.

Adam Bonin writes about Sen. Jim DeMint's reaction to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's conventional statement that the issue of whether the individual Second Amendment rights recognized in Heller should be "incorporated" to apply to the States via the 14th Amendment is a question for the Supreme Court, not circuit courts of appeal.

Leaving aside the issue of whether DeMint was asking what Sotomayor's view would be as a Supreme Court Justice (my views on the propriety of such questions is discussed here (short answer, they are proper imo), I think the more interesting question is the interplay between the extreme conservative view on "federalism" and the incorporation doctrine. I'll consider that question on the flip.

The White House wants you to believe that Judge Sotomayor is tough on crime. Conservatives want you to believe that she is soft on crime. Neither side cares to ask whether she will be a diligent guardian of the constitutional rights of the accused.

Our review of the evidence cited by propagandists to support their respective "she's tough" and "she's soft" positions began (in part 1) with a look at Judge Sotomayor's early career as a prosecutor. Given what we hope is the immense difference between the job duties of a prosecutor and a Supreme Court Justice, that period of her life told us relatively little about the approach she will take to the criminal justice issues that will come before the Court. Let's venture to the next stage of Judge Sotomayor's career to see if the evidence brings her criminal justice philosophy into sharper focus.

[more ...]

At The Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler and Todd Zywicki take the view of the Senate's "advise and consent" role that is consistent with the view they held for judicial nominations during the Bush Presidency. Ilya Somin takes a different view, one which I share. Zywicki writes:

In the news this morning:

• Patrick Kennedy returns to rehab
• Madonna wins her adoption fight in the Malawi Supreme Court
• Chasity Bono is undergoing a sex change operation to become a man. According to TMZ, once her breasts are removed, she can petition the court to legally change her sex. At that point, she is a "he" and can legally marry. How awful, that a person must undergo radical surgery to be able to marry his or her partner of choice.

  At a point during the gender change -- typically when breasts are removed -- the subject can go to court and ask a judge to legally change his/her sex. It's discretionary on the part of the judge in determining when the person switches sex and is entitled to a legal change, but typically it's when the breasts are removed. Judges typically do not require a genitalia switch as a prerequisite to a sex change.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

The "reporting" by the "Respectable Intellectual Center" (yes, I mean Jeff Rosen) "predicted" that Chief Justice John Roberts would prove to be a modest and moderate Justice (in fact, Rosen was sticking to his story on Roberts as late as July 2008 (Rosen wrote "It's still too early to judge Roberts's tenure, but it seems increasingly clear that liberals dodged a bullet when President Bush nominated him to be chief justice.")) In fact, Chief Justice Roberts has proven to be one of the most extreme conservative judicial activsts we have yet seen. Keep that in mind when you read any account on these issues by Rosen and the "Respectable Intellectual Center." Treating them as authoritative on these issues would be the equivalent of making Tom "Suck On This" Friedman your go-to analyst on Iraq. Roberts and his right wing band have proven to be extreme conservative judicial activists with little respect for the text of the Constitution, precedent, and the role of the Legislative Branch.

The latest threat posed by Chief Justice Roberts and his extreme conservative cohorts (Scalia, Thomas and Alito) is to the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution and the Voting Rights Acts enacted and renewed by Congress under their Section 5 powers granted by those Amendments.

The Constitutional Accountability Center, issued this report (PDF) for its "The Shield" series and discuses the pending NAMUDNO case and the extreme judicial activism of the Roberts band:

Republicans have a long and successful history of demonizing Democrats as "soft on crime" -- or at least they did until Bill Clinton taught Democrats to be even tougher on crime than Republicans. Instilling fear of criminals and of the "liberal" politicians and judges who supposedly coddle them was such a successful strategy that conservatives adapted it after 9/11 to promote fear of terrorists while claiming that Democrats lacked the resolve to battle them. With the meek acquiescence (and often the eager support) of Democrats who feared Election Day more than crime or terror, conservative efforts to protect the nation by enacting "tough" legislation and appointing "tough" judges have been tough on the Constitution.

For the moment, the public's fear of criminal violence has been supplanted by fears of job loss and Republican misgovernance. Lacking fresh ideas to add to their thin playbook, conservatives with time on their hands are nonetheless giving the politics of fear another try by attacking Judge Sotomayor as a soft-hearted liberal who will "favor criminals and hinder law enforcement." Instead of responding that the conservative judges appointed by Republicans have too often favored unchecked police and executive power while hindering civil rights, the predictable but disheartening White House response is a public relations campaign (complete with law enforcement endorsements) to convince the public that Sotomayor's record as a crime-fighting prosecutor, a tough sentencing judge, and a police-friendly appellate judge proves that she is no softy liberal. How long will it be before the White House begins to talk up the similar career paths that Judge Sotomayor and Justice Alito have followed? (Shudder.)

[more ...]

What are you doing or thinking about tonight? Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Charles Lynch was sentenced today to a year and a day for possession of pot plants and distribution.

Lynch was convicted last summer of illegally possessing more than 100 marijuana plants and of distributing more than 100 kilograms of the drug from his Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers facility in downtown Morro Bay. He was prosecuted despite having the blessing of the city's mayor, city attorney and other civic leaders.

The Government had asked for five years. As Lynch says,

"The government tried to make me the Pablo Escobar of medical marijuana, and the judge saw past that."

Background here.

Forensic Pathologist Michael Baden has performed an autopsy on actor David Carradine, who was found dead in his Bangkok hotel room last week. His conclusion:

"The autopsy findings and the evidence thus far available demonstrate that Mr. Carradine's death was not the result of suicide. However, to reach a final determination as to the cause and the manner of death we must wait for further information from Thailand as to the scene findings and the completion of the crime laboratory and toxicology studies that are still being performed."

Is he saying it could be a homicide, or that the death was accidental, and therefore not a suicide?

In related news, Spike TV will air a movie marathon of Carradine's films, including 'Kill Bill' and 'Kung Fu Killer,' on Saturday, June 13 from 2 p.m. through 3 a.m. EST/PST time.