VERY interesting CRIMINAL day in SCOTUS

At 10 AM eastern, the Court released opinions in three criminal cases, Smith v. Texas, Abdul-Kabir v. Quaterman, and Brewer v. Quarterman. The opinions are here, (via SCOTUSblog--who else can keep up with that?).

The comments on Prof. Berman's SL&P are most interesting: in essence, the Court has no clue as to what it is doing, and a few justices (the "swingers") are at once principled and totally out in left field depending upon whether the right to abortion or the death penalty is in issue.

ALSO: The AP's Frederic J. Frommer reports here on this morning's oral argument in the campaign finance cases; Kristin Jensen and Greg Stohr have this article at Bloomberg; in the Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports here that a majority of the justices appeared skeptical about a key provision of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance act; and Rick Hasen has this post discussing his initial reactions to today's oral argument in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) and Sen. John McCain, et al., v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970) at the Election Law blog. (Thanks, SCOTUSblog! You may not be the greatest, but you come close).

End of the Year Currents and bubbles

I am breaking my general rule that I do not blog on Sundays, only because it is the last day of the year (one out of 365 is not bad). Bring on 2007. Just before this stuff goes stale (mostly from Washington Post):

Politics of (and) "Free" Speech (George Will)

A three-judge federal court recently tugged a thread that may begin the unraveling of the fabric of murky laws and regulations that traduce the First Amendment by suppressing political speech. Divided 2 to 1, the court held -- unremarkably, you might think -- that issue advocacy ads can run during an election campaign, when they matter most. This decision will strike zealous (there is no other kind) advocates of ever-tighter regulation of political speech (campaign finance "reformers") as ominous. Why? Because it partially emancipates millions of Americans who incorporate thousands of groups to advocate their causes, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.

Classically Innocuous WP: "O'Malley's Gift" (very political and correct--maybe the perfect Christmas gift)

on Nifong (the Duke rape case prosecutor is in trouble now)

more resolutions (Deborah Howell/ombudsman)

Broder on years end

Teggies (Rob Pegoraro/WP)

2006 and the Constitution

2006 was not a good year for the Constitution. It was not remotely a good year for the concept of separation of powers in government or for the idea that our system works best when there are sufficient checks on the excesses of one branch over another. It was not a good year for opponents of an imperial presidency or for supporters of a concerned and compassionate Congress. It was not a year that offers a lot of hope that things will get any better, or even stabilize, in 2007.

So we got out of the law this year what we deserved from it. And hopefully we will come to realize in 2007 and beyond that if we continue to ignore and neglect the most important and weighty issues that confront the Constitution, its power and authority will erode, slowly but surely, until one of the best ideas ever conceived by man is relegated to being just another dusty, historical document.

Andrew Cohen writes Bench Conference and this regular law column for washingtonpost.com. He is also CBS News Chief Legal Analyst. His columns for CBS can be found online here.

Gitmo stuff (get rid of the kangas--better late than never! Staunch the stench!?)

“We have tried again and again to have a say in the process,” said Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer who has coordinated much of the work of the detainees’ lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights. “But we learned pretty early on that these were kangaroo courts.”

(from the New York Times)

SQUEEZED IN THE MIDDLE BY GLOB ALIZATION: THE BUSH WARS, TAKE II

This quote used by E.J. Dionne of WAPO here, might explain as much as does the Iraq question (and indeed the two might be VERY related): "much of the gain from excellent macroeconomic performance has gone to just a small segment of the population -- those already in the upper part of the distribution." From a remarkable speech that Janet Yellen, the president and chief executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, gave the day before voters went to the polls. A related and entertaining read from "The Major" in USAVOICE.ORG is here.

Yellen draws on the essential policy book of the year, Jacob S. Hacker's "The Great Risk Shift." Again, if Democrats get tired of recrimination over an election they won -- imagine if they had lost! -- they might spend time with Hacker, who shows how more and more risk is being offloaded from government and private corporations onto individuals. He makes a powerful case for remodeling our social insurance systems to provide genuine economic security for all working Americans.

LONG LIVE MILTON FRIEDMAN as this clip from Doug Berman at SL&P demonstrates!

PostScript to Elections

Just guessing, but it looks like the 3 Gs -- Guns, Gays, and God -- Groups will need a new angle on the next elections, or maybe just a new candidate. I wonder which? Who will step up and carry that banner? Genius Karl Rove, who may have been behind the strategy, looks gone but the strategy has worked before and is ripe for ... who knows ... a decent burial?

PPS. I just switched to the new beta version and in any event am a neophyte blogger (that means I have no clue what I am doing with the blog except trying to say something that does not sound totally stupid) so bear with me while I figure this out. I know I'm slow but once I catch on look out...feet don't fail me now.