Taking Care of Business

Nan Aron cuts through the slimy lens of Republican (right wing? "conservative"? ) spin to show how that party's philosophy translates into actual practice. More tax cuts anybody? [N.B. Mr. Lee Iacoca says he'll give his tax cut back; well, only that he doesn't need it] :

The Post is wrong. Why are so many unions opposed to Southwick? Because Southwick voted against the interests of injured workers and consumers in divided decisions 89 percent of the time. Why are civil rights groups opposed? Because he also voted overwhelmingly -- 54 of 59 times -- against defendants alleging juror discrimination. That prompted his own colleagues on the Mississippi Court of Appeals to accuse him of "establishing one level of obligation for the State, and a higher one for defendants on an identical issue." Southwick, they charged in a dissent, placed his "stamp of approval on the arbitrary and capricious selection of jurors."

Southwick got achance to explain these decisions. Sen. Richard Durbin asked Southwick whether he could think of one example of an unpopular decision he had made in favor of the powerless, the poor, minorities or the dispossessed. The judge said he could not.

The opposition doesn't stem from anecdote but analysis, analysis that reveals overwhelmingly one-sided patterns. The Post said that opponents of Southwick "haven't made their case." But this argument doesn't reflect the most substantive points that opponents raise.

A nominee's record is the best predictor of what he or she will do on the bench. Southwick's record predicts that those in the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction have much to fear regarding their legal rights and protections. Moreover -- and overlooked by The Post -- the patterns in Southwick's record fit this administration's pattern of behavior. For with the assistance of conservative activists, allies in the Senate and in well-funded interest groups, and the amen chorus of commentators such as Will, George W. Bush has appointed a succession of appellate judges who will serve his administration's ideological agenda long after he has left office.

********
We cannot let this administration pack our courts with judges who share its disrespect for law and lack of compassion for the powerless. These nominees have turned their backs on our most fundamental rights and freedoms. The Senate should turn its collective back on Leslie Southwick and those like him.

WHEW! I LIKE IT. YOU GO, GIRL. Aron is president ofAlliance for Justice, an association of liberal advocacy organizations.

Ode to US (two)

Interesting, just as I was comparing notes, specifically on adjectives to describe the United States now, versus then perhaps, I came upon this:

Harold Nicolson wrote this condescending characterization of the United States (“a giant with the limbs of an undergraduate, the emotions of a spinster, and the brain of a pea-hen”) -- it now reads like postimperial sour grapes.

The United States in 1945 was a giant, all right, but with the wealth of a Harriman, the altruism of a Marshall, and the sheer dedication of men like Clayton, Vandenberg, Hoffman, and Bissell, it was surely a benign colossus.

Source:
Niall Ferguson -- New Yorker Magazine

PS. Do Republicans do more "mortality exercizes"? Or are they just more susceptible to subliminal messages about death? Learn more about "mortality salience" here, from Judis, "Death Grip"at The New Republic.

Where Is "The Center?" (Political Center)

True or False? Source.

By early 2006, so-called centrism had offered up Iraq, a tax regime that puts the burden on the middle class, bankruptcy reform that gave away the farm to irresponsible credit card companies, an outdated physical infrastructure, legalized torture and a crippled disaster-response effort in New Orleans. The American people, infinitely smarter than Washington insiders, had had enough. Unapologetic, muscular Democrats swept into office in dramatic numbers in state and local races nationwide.

A new day is dawning for the progressive movement. The distrust between Net-roots activists and more traditional progressive players in the party establishment and issue groups has given way to respectful cooperation as we all adjust to new technologies and the promise they hold for institutional change.

Last week, at the YearlyKos convention, all these players came together to celebrate our newfound unity and to organize for the coming battles in 2008 and beyond. The DLC was nowhere to be found -- unless you looked in Nashville, where its members continued to preach, in empty halls, about the "vital center." Even the Democratic presidential candidates have figured out where the heart of the party now lies: with the new, unashamedly progressive movement.

The DLC had two decades to make its case, to build an audience and community, to elect leaders the American people wanted. It failed.

Susan Gardner is a contributing editor to and holds a fellowship with the Web site Daily Kos. Markos Moulitsas is founder of Daily Kos.

Taking Stock of SCOTUS

A new poll: source

About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly a third of the public -- 31 percent -- thought the court is too far to the right, a noticeable (12 point) jump since the question was last asked in July 2005. That's when Bush nominated John G. Roberts Jr. to the court and, in the six-month period that followed, the Senate approved Roberts as chief justice and confirmed Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

WONDER OF WONDERS, people are starting to notice and none too soon. In fact, it did not take very long at all. The thirty or so percent who think the Court is now "too conservative" probably overlaps with the fraction who are likely paying attention. Less than half of respondents thought the Court was "generally balanced" (47 % -- a drop of 8 points from before). Really, nobody pays any attention to the Court, or do they?

And there's this, concerning equal pay for women, horror of horrors! ! ! Backed only by Democrats under peril of a mightily under-employed Presidential VETO! Who else would like to know what Laura thinks about that???

WOW!

Prof. Sunstein, Open University:

In short, the conservative refashioning of the Court has radically changed the terms of legal and political discourse. On the Supreme Court, what was once centrist is now left-wing. What was once conservative is now centrist. What was once on the extreme right--so extreme that it was not represented on the Court at all--is now merely conservative (Scalia and Thomas). What was once on the left no longer exists (Brennan and Marshall, often joined by Blackmun).

By drawing attention to these changes, I do not mean to suggest agreement with the liberals of the Court's past. In my view, the Court does best if it proceeds incrementally and with respect for the elected branches of government. But public discussion has been badly distorted by a failure to see exactly how much has happened in the last decades. Indeed, this particular revolution has been so unusual, and so stunningly successful, precisely because so few people have even noticed it.

HAS THIS TRULY ESCAPED OUR ATTENTION? I THINK NOT.

Crow's Nest: Iraq

Whooops! Does anybody see the draft coming?
In nine months, when the surge has totally failed and only made the hornet's nest of the Middle East Region (Iraq) into the eye of a full-blown hurricane
Then, will we see the need for a draft?
Or, ...
When the next POTUS is a Dem,
Will we hang with her as we try to fix something that was not in need of repair until the Rep took control?

In case you were wondering, this is just bananas compared to the next war, in which Iraq is just the opening gambit. Can we stop it now before it gets out of control?

Only the war machine, that we used to call the Military Industrial Complex, and the stockholders therein are, and will be beneficiaries of this ongoing Third World War. So Sorry Charlie, that the Constitution has been shredded.

Crow's Nest:: Sentencing Developments

Though surely authored before Rita, the Fifth Circuit yesterday released US v. Walters, No. 05-51634 (5th Cir. June 21, 2007) (available here) reversing an above-guideline sentence because "the degree of departure in this case is substantial, and there must be more than mere lip service to the § 3553(a) factors to justify such a departure," and "the court did not adequately articulate reasons consistent with the sentencing factors to support the reasonableness of this sentence." (June 22, SL&P)

Actuarial Peril at Court

Moving with great swiftness, by the stately standards of the Court, Roberts, Alito, and their allies have already made progress on that agenda. In Alito’s first major opinion as a justice, earlier this year, he sharply restricted the ability of victims of employment discrimination to file lawsuits. The Court said that plaintiffs in such cases must bring their suits within a hundred and eighty days of, say, an unfair raise. But, because it generally takes employees longer than that to establish that they have been cheated, the effect of the ruling will be to foreclose many lawsuits. In a similar vein, the Court upheld a death sentence in Washington by lessening the scrutiny applied to jury selection in such cases. Last week, the justices rejected an appeal by a prisoner who had filed his case before a deadline set by a federal district judge. Because the judge had misread the law and given the prisoner too much time—three extra days—the Court said that the case had to be thrown out.

Most notoriously, the Court, for the first time in its history, upheld a categorical ban on an abortion procedure. The case dealt with so-called partial-birth abortion—a procedure performed rarely, often when there are extraordinary risks to the mother, the fetus, or both. But more important than the ruling were the implications of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion. The Court all but abandoned the reasoning of Roe v. Wade (and its reaffirmation in the 1992 Casey decision) and adopted instead the assumptions and the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement. To the Court, it was the partial-birth-abortion procedure, not the risks posed to the women who seek it, that was “laden with the power to devalue human life.” In the most startling passage in the opinion, Kennedy wrote, “While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.” Small wonder that Kennedy’s search for such data was unavailing; notwithstanding the claims of the anti-abortion movement, no intellectually respectable support exists for this patronizing notion. The decision to have an abortion is never a simple one, but until this year the Court has said that the women affected, not the state, had the last word.

All these conservative victories were decided by votes of five to four, with Kennedy joining Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas to form the majority. (The last big case outstanding this term is a challenge to school-desegregation plans in Louisville and Seattle. Based on the oral argument, Kennedy appears likely to join the same quartet in striking down the plans.) Kennedy holds the balance of power in the Roberts Court, much the way Sandra Day O’Connor did in the Rehnquist years. Kennedy is more conservative than O’Connor, so the Court is, too. He sided with the liberals in only one important case this year, when the Court ruled that the gases that cause global warming are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, a ruling that repudiated the Bush Administration’s narrow view of the law.

***

At this moment, the liberals face not only jurisprudential but actuarial peril. Stevens is eighty-seven and Ginsburg seventy-four; Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are in their fifties. The Court, no less than the Presidency, will be on the ballot next November, and a wise electorate will vote accordingly. ♦

Jeffrey Toobin

DNA Evidence Was "Massaged"

The final HPD lab report

The final report on the problems with the HPD Crime Lab and what needs to be done about it has been released. (Talk about the letting the Wolf tend to the Sheep: Not speaking of Bromwich of course, but of powers that be in Houston--read on)

Independent investigator Michael Bromwich outlined a series of steps he said officials should take to determine what role blood-typing and DNA evidence played in securing convictions against as many as 600 defendants -- including 14 already executed -- whose cases were processed at the Houston Police Department's crime lab between 1980 and 2002.

Police Chief Harold Hurtt, Mayor Bill White and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal agreed that hundreds of cases will require further scrutiny and possibly new testing, but they rejected Bromwich's suggestion that a "special master" be appointed to oversee the process.

"We are committed to having a crime lab that the public and the criminal justice system can have confidence in," Hurtt said. "But we feel very strongly that ... we can accomplish what needs to be done without a special master."

Bromwich's recommendations were made in the final report on his sweeping $5.3 million investigation of the lab, where bad management, undertrained staff and inaccurate work -- first exposed 4 1/2 years ago -- has cast doubt on thousands of convictions and unsettled the criminal justice system in Houston and beyond.

[...]

Police and prosecutors already have begun their review, Hurtt said, adding that, in the absence of a "special master," the committee of community representatives that oversaw Bromwich's investigation, known as the stakeholder committee, will check on their progress.

The committee's presence, coupled with assistance from nonprofits such as the Innocence Project to represent defendants' interests, eliminates the need for an independent supervisor of the serology review, Hurtt said. Bromwich said the chief's plan could be an acceptable solution.

Barry Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project, said his group will help but that a special master would be more effective.

"There is no other way to get to the heart of it," he said. "Obviously (we) will provide help, but it's just too hard."

Each questionable serology case will get the scrutiny needed, Rosenthal said.

"We are going to start notifying defendants through the courts that there's a possibility that something was done incorrectly in their cases," he said, "and we'll let the courts resolve that."

While the stakeholder committee could work, as Bromwich says, I agree with Scheck: It will be more effective with a special master. The simple fact is that however well motivated HPD and the District Attorney's office may be now, there needs to be someone in charge whose interests are independent of theirs. The Chron editorial puts it well:

Local officials understandably want to put the crime lab scandal behind them now that all the lab's divisions have been certified as satisfactory and are processing evidence. However, hundreds of convicts remain in prison, some more than a decade after trials in which evidence presented might have been erroneously tested. Many no longer are represented by lawyers and will need more assistance than a small advocacy group such as the Innocence Project, with limited resources, can swiftly provide.

Hurtt says the judicial system, including police, prosecutors, judge and jury, can bring justice to the inmates who might have been wrongly convicted. That would leave the matter of representing prisoner interests to the police department that made the case against them, the district attorney's office that prosecuted them or a small private group. That model does not guarantee impartial justice.

Bromwich, a former U.S. Justice Department inspector general, won national attention when he investigated problems at the FBI crime lab. At a news conference after the release of his report on Houston's lab, Bromwich agreed that adequate involvement by the stakeholder group could be a substitute for a special master in finishing up the crime lab investigation.

That will put a heavy responsibility on the volunteer, unpaid members to make sure the remaining cases are thoroughly investigated and not swept under the rug in the interest of saving money or jurisdictional expedience.

It's not that it's impossible for this to work without there being an outsider in charge, as the example of Dallas DA Craig Watkins shows. Of course, Watkins is basically an outsider, just one who has since gotten himself officially embedded. He has a mandate for what he's doing that neither Rosenthal nor Hurtt have. Let's get a special master and get this done. It really is the best way.

Grits has more and more on this. The final report itself is here (PDF).

Source/HT:

Posted by Charles Kuffner to Crime and Punishment | Comments (0)

Justice: Just One Vote Away From!

Here's Doc B:

In this new piece entitled "Low-Profile Supreme Court Case Offers Glimpse of Sharp Divide," Tony Mauro highlights a point that I noticed when reading today's 5-4 decision in Bowles v. Russell: the Justices seem to be deeply divided in nearly all criminal law cases these days. Here's excerpts:

[T]he low-profile case offers as good a glimpse as any into the sharp conservative-liberal divide emerging this term. Convicted Ohio murderer Keith Bowles lost the case on Thursday by a 5-4 vote, because he was two days late in filing a federal habeas appeal back in 2004....

“This court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Joining him were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito Jr.

In dissent, Justice David Souter was blunt and unforgiving. “It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch.” He was joined by the other justices in the moderate-liberal bloc: John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

“This is a doctrinal thing that only lawyer geeks and the Supreme Court care about,” says Kevin Russell of Howe & Russell in D.C., who authored a brief in the case on behalf of Bowles for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “But you also see more frustration from the liberals on the court who are upset that the rules are changing just because the composition of the court has changed.”

Though I've not formally counted, I believe the vast majority of 5-4 splits this term have been in criminal law cases and most (though not all) have been the same 5-4 composition as Bowles.

As regular readers know well, the traditional divides do not hold to true to form in the Sixth Amendment cases. The deepening divide in other areas just makes more that much more eager — and that much more uncertain — about what to expect in Rita.

And a comment from George (HT SL&P/Berman)

federalist, "suspending" the writ is too mild. This flat out revokes it.

Aaron, that makes some sense. But why no outrage over this in FN 4? Not only the SCOTUS, but a freakin' clerk can suspend/revoke the Great Writ and the government gets off on a technicality.

4The dissent minimizes this argument, stating that the Court under-stood §2101(c) as jurisdictional “in the days when we used the term imprecisely.” Post, at 4, n. 4. The dissent’s apathy is surprising be-cause if our treatment of our own jurisdiction is simply a relic of the old days, it is a relic with severe consequences. Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court’s Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petitionfor certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late. In the letter sent to Dickson’s counsel, the Clerk explained that “[w]hen the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorariin a civil case . . . has expired, the Court no longer has the power toreview the petition.” Letter from William K. Suter, Clerk of Court, to Ronald T. Spriggs (Dec. 28, 2006). Dickson was executed on April 26,2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petitionfor certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson’s first in thisCourt, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petitionwould have been a foregone conclusion.

It is near impossible to understand how the government would benefit and the defendant wouldn't if statutes were unable to override the Constitution. United States v. Curry is not a habeas corpus case and no one was imprisoned. No mention of the Great Writ in Scarborough v. Pargoud either. How can those writs equate to the writ of habeas corpus?

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court has this:

"Habeas corpus has certain important characteristics. For one thing, there is no statute of limitations regarding access to it, since the right of personal freedom from illegal restraint never lapses. Neither does one failure to secure the writ forbid later application, which means that the usual doctrine regarding the finality of court judgments (res judicata) does not apply to habeas corpus. In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has expressed it disapproval of multiple applications for the writ. Furthermore, unlike other legal actions, a relative or friend may petition for the writ in behalf of a person unable to apply on his or her own behalf. Called "the most important human right in the Constitution," Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase described it in Ex parte Yerger (1868) as "the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom" (p.95).

What the hell happened? Now even a clerk can write and say you're a day late and a dollar short. No disrespect to any clerks, but there seems to be a great deal of disrespect for the Great Writ.

Free Scooter? Free Everybody? Land of the Free!

No, all Libby did was lie under oath about some details of a campaign to smear opponents of the Iraq war. To such media luminaries as Time's Joe Klein, the whole idea of imprisoning Libby is offensive: "Do we really want to spend our tax dollars keeping Scooter Libby behind bars?" Klein asks.

This question, again, is being asked in a nation that has nearly 2 1/2 million people behind bars - a large proportion of whom committed crimes that were less morally reprehensible, and almost infinitely less damaging to the nation, than Libby's lies.

But to Joe Klein, Libby just doesn't "look" like a criminal. Somebody - perhaps Paris Hilton - should remind Klein that looks aren't everything.

Source: HT Doc Berman

An "inspiring snippet":

In the Petitioner's case, the imposition of the mandatory minimum 10-year prison sentence without parole and sex offender registration for consensual oral sex between teenagers would be viewed by society as "cruel and unusual" in the constitutional sense of disproportionality, especially in light of Petitioner's having never been convicted of a prior crime....

If this Court, or any Court, cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish — Justice being served in a fair and equal manner.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution now has this coverage of the state court ruling reducing the crime and sentence of Genarlow Wilson (basics here).

So then there is also this from the great Doc B:

I am, of course, excited that the Supreme Court has now taken up two new federal sentencing cases, Kimbrough from the Fourth Circuit and Gall from the Eighth Circuit, to deal with post-Booker sentencing issues (basics here). Based on a quick review (and helpful reader comments) and more from SCOTUSblog, it seems that that Gall is a partial replacement for the Claiborne case because it addresses a below-guideline sentence reversed by the Eighth Circuit. But unlike Claiborne, Gall is not a crack case, so Kimbrough was apparently taken to allow the Justices to address directly whether a district court may deviate from the guidelines based on a disaffinity for the harsh crack guidelines.

Perhaps the key and most significant fact in both Gall and Kimbrough is that the district court in both cases imposed a below-guideline sentence that a circuit court thereafter reversed as unreasonable. In sharp contrast, the Rita case still pending before SCOTUS (and still expected to be decided this term?) deals with a within-guideline sentence imposed by the district court and affirmed as presumptively reasonable by the Fourth Circuit. Also significant is that the Supreme Court apparently plans to hear Gall and Kimbrough under a normal schedule next Fall, but likely still will issue a ruling in Rita this month.

So, adding up these pieces, what does this likely mean for the future of federal sentencing law and post-Booker jurisprudence? I am still scratching my head, but let me venture a few ruminations:

Mental Illness Crisis in the System?

From Crime & Consequences, an interesting manipulation of the facts (but what is "clarion call"? Is that, like, a seagull? Obnoxious, or inspiring?)

As discussed here, there's a lot of problems with the clarion call of a mental illness crisis in our jails and prisons. That said, a new article in this month's issue of Psychiatric Services has a notable finding: 92% of jail inmates in the study with diagnosed severe mental illness were non-adherent with treatment before their arrest. Furthermore, of those 92%, 72% had a prior arrest for violent crime. This study adds to a growing body of research suggesting that a subgroup of people with mental illness are more violent when compared to the general population.

Booker Reasonableness Review Strikes Extreme Sentence

Observe for yourself here, how easy it is for even a judge to make unreasonable decisions in cases involving uncharged (sex) offenses. It seems, the very thought of a sex crime drives otherwise rational individuals to extremes of irrationality, if not unreasonableness.

Equally interesting is the interaction between uncharged and unrelated to the offense conduct and sentencing in these opinions and federal guidelines.

Libby's Politics

Here is John Dean, former Presidential counselor, taking exception to the slant Presidential wannabe Fred Thompson and the lineup of Republican heavies angling for a pardon at the "Libby Legal Defense Trust" have taken respecting the conviction and yes, the very prosecution itself. Mr. Dean suggests that far from being over, the truth will never be told because of Libby's efforts. And of course, who else but the VP would know that Libby is "the most capable and talented individual" he has ever known, as he stated here.

Apparently, this was one of those mysterious political prosecutions that never would have happened in any jurisdiction except here.

On June 5, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton will sentence Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who has been convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury, as the result of the Special Counsel investigation arising from the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. I suspect that Judge Walton's actions will create a difficult and delicate problem for the White House.

HT: SL&P

Right On

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) released this statement: (HT Talkleft)

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, today said that the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber case, in which discriminated workers have only a narrow time-frame to file a complaint in the face of ongoing discrimination, was wrong and Congress should work to clarify the Civil Rights Act. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it more difficult for workers to stand up for their basic civil rights in the workplace. A worker undergoing sex, race, or other discrimination in pay is discriminated against with each and every discriminatory paycheck, not just when the company set the worker’s pay. Yet, according to the Supreme Court, if a worker does not file within 180 days of the employer’s decision to set her pay unlawfully, she has to live with that discrimination paycheck after paycheck. This ruling will force Congress to clarify the law’s intention that the ongoing effects of discriminatory decisions are just as unacceptable as the decisions themselves.”

Hyperbole, or One Big Hole: Empirical Reign Crumbling Already?

Here is how a recent review of U.S. foreign policy, appearing here, begins:

One of the few foreign policy achievements of the Bush administration has been the creation of a near consensus among those who study international affairs, a shared view that stretches, however improbably, from Noam Chomsky to Brent Scowcroft, from the antiwar protesters on the streets of San Francisco to the well-upholstered office of former secretary of state James Baker. This new consensus holds that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a calamity, that the presidency of George W. Bush has reduced America's standing in the world and made the United States less, not more, secure, leaving its enemies emboldened and its friends alienated. Paid-up members of the nation's foreign policy establishment, those who have held some of the most senior offices in the land, speak in a language once confined to the T-shirts of placard-wielding demonstrators. They rail against deception and dishonesty, imperialism and corruption. The only dispute between them is over the size and depth of the hole into which Bush has led the country he pledged to serve.
***
Neither Ross, who served as Middle East envoy for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, nor Brzezinski, a conservative Democrat and cold war hawk, could be dismissed as Nation-reading, Howard Dean types. Yet in withering new books they both eviscerate the Bush record, writing in the tone of exasperated elders who handed over the family business to a new generation, only to see their successors drive the firm into bankruptcy. Both books offer rescue plans for a US foreign policy they consider to be in tatters.

Global Warming? Massachussetts v EPA

Personally, I treasure clean air, water, regardless of how hot it gets...it's the pollution, hon.

Here's another "Z" guy, Jonathan Z. Cannon writing in Virginia Law Review:

Last month, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (“Mass. v. EPA”), its first case dealing with climate change. The decision was an enormous, if narrow, victory for environmentalists: it legitimized their concerns about global warming and their claims that the administration was not doing what it should to address it. Whether the decision was a great victory for the environment remains to be seen, but it will affect the policy debate for years to come. I should make clear that I had a dog in this fight. In 1998, as EPA General Counsel in the Clinton administration, I wrote a legal opinion on the question of EPA’s authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”), one of three issues decided in Mass. v. EPA.

Thanks to the guys at SCOTUSblog, who also have this regarding an important new development, if you are thinking about going to the federal courts for relief (what a gas! or should I say, more hot air only?):

Is Twombly the Death-Knell for Notice Pleading?

09:16 AM | Marty Lederman | Comments (1)

In its decision Monday in the antirtust case of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Court expressly (and sua sponte) rejected the half-century-old nostrum from Conley v. Gibson that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id., at 45–46. The complaint in Twombly alleged a Sherman Act conspiracy (that the petitioners “agreed not to compete with one another”), but did not specifically allege any facts that would establish such an agreement -- and the Court therefore held that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (See Mark Botti's helpful summary here.)

The Twombly opinion not surprisingly has caused quite a stir in civil procedure circles. Does it signal the rejection of notice pleading and, if so, how can it be reconciled with the Court's decisions in Swierkiewicz (2002) and Leatherman (1993)? Can its holding somehow be limited to certain sorts of Sherman Act allegations, or does it have much broader implications for pleading practice?

It looks as though these questions will be hotly debated in the academy and lower courts in the near future. Michael Dorf has a very helpful initial take on the alternative readings of Twombly that are already framing that debate. See also Scott Dodson's reading here. By contrast, Einer Elhauge calls the case "quite insignificant," not to mention unhelpful for resolving longstadning questions with respect to antitrust complaints.

In general, keep your eyes on the Civil Procedure Prof Blog, where the issue is sure to continue to receive a lot of attention..

The Cave

Not.

Do not fund the troops for another single solitary day. It's for their own good, our good, and the good of America to bring them home with all deliberate speed. Congress, do not become complicit in this ill-fated war for even one more solitary day.

Fund their safe return, fund their R & R, fully.

Day by day, week by week, this disaster continues to fester, grow, stink, and spread.

Kill it now!

UPDATE: R & R = I'm talking about this--

Some of the "rest-and-recreation" facilities include the armed forces ski center at Garmisch in the Bavarian Alps, over two hundred military golf courses around the world, some seventy-one Learjets and other luxury aircraft to fly admirals and generals to such watering holes, and luxury hotels for our troops and their families in Tokyo, Seoul, on the Italian Riviera, at Florida's Disney World, and many other places.

Thanks, to this.

Impeach Gonzales (Speedily)

Here is Prof. Frank Bowman, in Slate:

Showing that Gonzales knew that the only real reasons for dismissing Iglesias were improper ones is critical to the case for impeaching the attorney general. Remarkably, Gonzales has effectively admitted as much. In his testimony, Gonzales provided three explanations for his decision to fire Iglesias: 1) Iglesias "lost the confidence of Senator Domenici," 2) Karl Rove and President Bush complained, and 3) "the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership."

It's time for him to go.

Oh, and I am wondering what the immunized, took-the-Fifth-Monica (Goodling) had to say...

The rest of Frank's piece is too good to pass, enjoy:

The last explanation is misleading. To the extent it suggests that the "senior leadership" of the Department of Justice initiated the idea of firing Mr. Iglesias, it appears to be false. All of the "senior leadership" to have testified so far—including Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, and Sampson—deny proposing Iglesias for removal. What's more, the only complaints anyone in the Justice Department received about Iglesias were those voiced by Domenici and his fellow New Mexico Republicans, and echoed by Bush and Rove. And all those complaints concerned either voter fraud or public corruption. Thus, when Gonzales said to Congress, "I was not surprised that Mr. Iglesias was recommended to me, because I had heard about concerns about the performance of Mr. Iglesias," he was admitting, however grudgingly, that he knew Iglesias was being fired either for failing to bring voter fraud cases or failing to indict New Mexico Democrats before the 2006 election.

Yet Iglesias' prosecutorial judgment that there were no viable voter-fraud cases to bring has never been challenged by the White House, the attorney general, or any Justice Department official. Indeed, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified in April 2007 that he was not aware of any election-fraud case since 2001 that he thought should have resulted in an indictment, but did not.

Iglesias' firing, therefore, cannot be lumped with others characterized as dismissals for failure to carry out the priorities of the Bush administration. A U.S attorney may certainly be dismissed for failing to prosecute a class of cases the administration has made a priority, so long as there are meritorious cases in his district to prosecute. To knowingly prosecute cases that are without merit, however, would be personally unethical and a gross abuse of prosecutorial power. The punishment is disbarment. If a U.S. attorney, at the command of his political masters, prosecuted a case without merit to suppress voter participation, he would also commit the felony of voter intimidation, as laid out in these federal statutes.

***

Iglesias' sin was not a failure to conduct a successful investigation, but rather his refusal to rush the investigation to affect the outcome of an election. Gonzales' approval of his firing is inexcusable. It was for just such an extraordinary case that the Constitution's framers gave the legislature the power to remove civil officers. Congress should use it.

SCOTUS FOCUS

Yesterday, by a vote of six to three, the Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted the writ of certiorari in No. 06-313, Roper v. Weaver. The Court had granted certiorari to determine whether the Eighth Circuit had exceeded its authority under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in setting aside William Weaver’s death sentence because the prosecutor’s penalty phase closing argument was “unfairly inflammatory.” The dismissal means that the Eighth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief to Weaver, a Missouri prisoner, stands.

Thanks to, guess, click here to see.