It’s Billy Merck again, your favorite
person to shoot spitballs at fill-in for Lat, who’s got a full day away from the blogosphere today.
We start today with some stray Larry Craig news.
First, we certainly don’t mean to imply anything about the deceased chief justice, but there is a creepy resemblance here.
Next, Craig has been forced out of his committee assignments [New York Times], and some of his fellow Republican Senators are calling for his resignation altogether [New York Times].
Finally, we have a couple of takes on the actual criminality, or not, of Craig’s airport restroom activities. The WSJ Law Blog talks with Minnesota law prof Barry Feld about, among other things, whether the sting was entrapment and whether Craig can undo his plea (likely no and no, Feld concludes). And coming to us from LawBeat via the Legal Blog Watch, Mark Obbie wants to know about the kind of evidence usually used to demonstrate criminal intent in these kinds of cases.
Personally, we’re still kind of hung up on the “wide stance” defense. We’ve never heard anyone talk about a wide stance outside of the context of batting in baseball or the line in football. And how wide does a stance have to get before it becomes probable cause? We guess exiting the boundaries of your own stall and making contact with someone else’s foot are good indicators.