Freedom loving people the world over stand with you....get up, stand up, don't give up the fight.

A Maine high school senior says he was denied his diploma because he bowed during graduation and blew a kiss to his mother.

Link

Last night, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a bill that would prevent the release of controversial photos of alleged U.S. abuse of prisoners and detainees. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), was proposed as standalone legislation after it was stripped from a war funding supplemental bill by House Democrats.

I am just sick about this.  Sick and disgusted.

Glenn posts:

One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush and who now, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama -- i.e., someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as "the Left" rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim.  It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post -- at least according to Politico's Patrick Gavin -- just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin.

What makes this firing so bizarre and worthy of inquiry is that, as Calderone notes, Froomkin was easily one of the most linked-to and cited Post columnists.  At a time when newspapers are relying more and more on online traffic, the Post just fired the person who, in 2007, wrote 2 out of the top 10 most-trafficked columns.  In publishing that data, Media Bistro used this headline:  "The Post's Most Popular Opinions (Read: Froomkin)."  Isn't that an odd person to choose to get rid of?

[snip]

All of this underscores a critical and oft-overlooked point:  what one finds virtually nowhere in the establishment press are those who criticize Obama not in order to advance their tawdry right-wing agenda but because the principles that led them to criticize Bush compel similar criticism of Obama.

President Barack Obama's strict ban on lobbyist contributions will limit the haul from Thursday night's fundraising dinner for congressional Democrats, but organizers have found a way around it: a morning-after event at the same hotel where lobbyists -- and their money --will be welcomed with open arms.

Invitations for the $5,000-per-person Issues Conference don't say it's an effort to skirt Obama's lobbying ban, but they walk right up to the edge.

"Please note that the Friday Issues Conference is NOT subject to lobbyist restrictions, though the event is intended for personal contributions only," a finance official from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote in an e-mail sent to lobbyists Tuesday and obtained by POLITICO, bolding the entire sentence to underscore the clarification. "The Issues Conference is separate from the DSCC/DCCC events with President Obama."

One prominent Democratic lobbyist unhappy with the situation described it vividly: "It's almost like the ugly girl that you want to call late at night -- but don't want to be seen with on a date."

Obama refuses to appear at fundraising events where lobbyists are allowed to contribute money, so the Democrats can't collect lobbyists' cash at Thursday night's dinner. But since the president won't be at the morning-after event, congressional Democrats will be free to collect the lobbying dollars then that they couldn't take the night before.

While the label "Republican" is polling about as low as it's ever polled, its part-time synonym -- "conservative" -- is the most popular ideological descriptor in politics.

A Gallup poll this week found that the number of Americans defining themselves as conservative is at its highest point in 20 years, at 40 percent.

That compared to 35 percent saying they are moderate and 21 percent saying they are liberal.

I sure don't, but it is freakin' hysterical to me that we have so many IOU's floating around that 134 billion worth could just show up with no clue where it came from...assuming the paper ain't counterfeit.

Court rejects DNA access claim

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an individual whose criminal conviction has become final does not have a constitutional right to gain access to evidence so that it can be subjected to DNA testing to try to prove innocence.  This was one of four final rulings the Court issued Thursday, leaving ten remaining.  The next release of opinions is expected on Monday.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., writing for the majority in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne (08-6), noted that DNA testing provides "an unparalleled ability" to prove innocence or guilt, but its availability "cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt."

The task of writing rules to control access to DNA evidence "belongs primarily" to the legislature, the Chief Justice wrote.  Pursuing a "freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access" to DNA evidence through a civil rights lawsuit, Roberts wrote, would "short-circuit" efforts now being made by the federal government and many states to develop tools on access to such evidence.  "There is no reason to constitutionalize" access through the courts when elected officials are making "a prompt and considered" response to the DNA phenomenon, the opinion concluded.

While the decision appeared to be focused on whether such a right of access exists after a criminal conviction has become final, when states presumably have more authority to shape their responses to new challenges to earlier convictions, the language used by the Court majority made it appear that the sweep of the decision may turn out to be considerably broader.

Two of the Justices who joined the majority said in a separate opinion that they would have gone further in rejecting the DNA access claim in the case, asserting that such claims should not be pursued in a civil rights lawsuit, but through a habeas plea -- but then only after first trying the challenge in state court. (The Chief Justice's opinion assumed, without deciding, that the case had been properly pursued as a civil rights claim.)

In an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also said that, if a defense lawyer fails to seek DNA testing during trial, and does so for tactical reasons, there is no constitutional right to seek access following conviction.  Justice Clarence Thomas joined them on that second point, but not on the need to pursue the habeas route.

In another major ruling on criminal law, the Court, dividing 6-3, decided that if a jury finds an individual not guilty on some counts, but can't agree on the others, prosecutors may not try that individual again on the "hung" counts if they had a common element with those on which the jury acquitted.  The ruling came in a case growing out of the Enron Corp. scandal -- Yeager v. U.S. (08-67).  Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.  The Court, however, did not overturn the conviction on charges of insider trading and money laundering, but returned the case to the Fifth Circuit Court for further analysis.