Morning Docket: 05.06.08
* Is the Supreme Court ignoring the 24th Amendment? [Slate]
* Yankees fan accused of running over and killing Red Sox fan. [SI.com]
* That sinking feeling you have that patent judges have been appointed unconstitutionally for the past eight years? You’re not alone. [New York Times]
* Speaking of unconstitutionality over the past eight (ok, seven) years, detainees STILL lack jury trials. [Washington Post]
* Ohio Dems taking the lead on impeachment of AG Marc Dann. [Columbus Dispatch]
* The Uma Thurman stalking case: in the hands of the jury now. [WSJ Law Blog]
(13) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Why do liberal douches often have trouble using the English language? Why say that detainees "lack jury trials" as if "jury trials" were a material item that a detainee could be given a pile of to store in the corner of his cell? Another example is saying that poor people lack "health care" when what is really meant is they lack access to free health care.
The 24th Amendment argument is a patehtic stretch to find something, anything, to prevent the ellimination of voter fraud. It is really appalling. Of course SCOTUS did not address it in the recent indiana Voter ID case. IT WAS NEVER RAISED IN THE BRIEFS by either party because it is such a patently specious argument. Unless you are a law professor with a blog.
9:48 way to fixate on grammatical minutia rather than the problem of keeping people in prison for the better part of a decade with no access to meaningful review of the charges against them.
Keep up the good work.
Guys in my high school use to kill students from our rival high school all the time. It was no big deal.
From Reuters:
Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.
A friend of in Iraq informed his family that Abdullah carried out the attack in Mosul.
Here's what happens when they are freed. I will agree to free them all privided all of you left-wingnuts get on the plane with them - clearly these peaceful individuals are going to need you help when they get home, with all the violence and all.
See Adam White's excellent response to this drivel on Slate's blog, Convictions.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/05/questions-not-presented.aspx
I agree with 10:11. Anyone accused of anything should be locked up indefinitely, without access to the justice system, because a cousin of one or two of them might one day tell us that they did something bad following their release. It's just the right thing to do.
Polling indicates widespread support for voter ID across lines of party, ideology, gender and race. This issue is strictly for the bicoastal elites.
"Anyone accused of anything should be locked up indefinitely, without access to the justice system, "
What judicial system?? I understand that you left-wingnuts believed you were in Eden, while BJ Clinton and Reno treated terrorist attacks as a domestic police matter. Sorry, shit's changed - it's a military matter - handled by the military.
Vote for Barack, that way blowing up buildings in the US, will become an accepted form of civil protest.
People like you are the reason hippies should have been neutered.
11:25 - Your mother get picked up for prostitution again and you're in a foul mood? Take a pill. It probaby will have been made by some right wingnut company you own stock in. And if that doesn't work there's still no need to worry. As long as your mother holds out people like you eventually will outnumber liberals.
Fact: H. Rodgin Cohen wears David Lat pajamas.
Fact: Before he goes to bed Jim Sandman checks his closet for Kashmir Hill.
Fact: Fear is not the only emotion David Lat can smell. He can also detect hope, as in "I hope I don't get profiled on Above The Law by David Lat.”
Fact: A study showed the leading causes of death among partners in the AmLaw 100 are: 1. Heart disease, 2. David Lat, 3. Cancer.
As usual, the Brain washed idiots over at Slate have no idea what they are talking about. Voting is a fundamental right. If you are indigent, the state must waive any fees required in order to vote. Hence, the "poll tax" argument is a bunch of crap. If an indigent person wants to get an ID, the STATE MUST waive any fee if the ID is required to vote. That's called an AS APPLIED challenge idiots. The law is facially VALID. The court isn't supposed to throw out a law because some tiny concieveable manner of its application is unconstitutional. If the case comes up, it's just a carve out: The state has to waive any fees required to get an ID for the indigent. STATES BEWARE! You must do this, or else the crazies at the Democraticly owned and operated ACLU files an amicus brief! Anyway, that ISSUE wasn't before the court. I love how the media tries to brainwash people into believeing their political propaganda.
B.S. White kicked the crap of of Ackerman, which is utterly unsurprising given how far Ackerman is detached from reality. The courts cannot and should not answer issues that were never raised.
By the way, Ackerman's theory was weak as hell. If it had been raised, It would have lost below and it would have lost again at SCOTUS.