Here's Antonin Scalia, asshole supreme and total Bush/GOP partisan: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield." This was a statement in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush, the case that decided that Guantanamo detainees have some constitutional rights.

And here is a retort: False, you lying sack of shit and pathetically unqualified Supreme Court hack!

Only a partisan hack like Scalia would play the fear card by announcing, as he did, that the majority's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," and only a partisan hack would cite, as Scalia did, testimony that originated with a party in the case before him, i.e., the administration's false claims, as an authoritative source.

It would seem to me, that if you are a judge, particularly one  appointed in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, and that you are presiding over a notorious obscenity case, that you might want to keep your own house clean.

Well, Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals musta thought the rules didn't apply to him.

"They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend."

From John McCain's CPAC Speech February 07, 2008

A truly interesting and extensive piece appeared over at the MAINstream Coalition's blog today that discussed an upcoming ballot initiative in Johnson County, Kansas that would move county judges from being appointed by a panel to being elected by the public.

The instigate of the ballot initiative is of course another wing-nut who thinks that by making judges become elected he would score a bunch of conservative judges - ignoring the fact that this will definitely not be the case, especially among the members of the Johnson County Bar Association.

The piece links to a 2007 AP story on the Tim Golba as well as info on the specific bill.

"Tim Golba of Lenexa, who led the petition drive, said he wants fair judges but also believes they should be held accountable by the public for their decisions and have to explain their positions on such things as abortion or school finance.

(Cross-posted at Calitics. Although this deals with the upcoming California primary in particular, election of judicial candidates happens in other places. Perhaps you also know someone in California to inform)

Lost in all the presidential primary news is the fact that California has another important primary coming up on June 3rd. Many of us are boning up on Prop 98 and 99 and understanding the importance of our votes on those measures.

But most of us are woefully unprepared for decisions in other contests, especially those for the office of Superior Court judge. And with turnout expected to be light, we could wind up with some very scary judges if people don't pay attention and vote.

Thanks to Robert Alford, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law for his summary of remarks given by Chief Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at a symposium held at that law school on Friday.
Opinio Juris is an excellent blog devoted to International Law and Politics. I copied the bulk of Alford's summary in this diary because its content is highly relevant to the dailykos community and it should be shared as widely as possible. C.J. Kozinski's comments are not available in their entirety in print yet, either,  (unless someone else can find them) but I think they are profound considering their weighty source.

I believe the First Amendment (not just the free speech and press clauses, though) is America's priceless contribution to humanity. So, let's flesh out whether the new arrangement Judge Kozinski describes is better than where we've been.
Who wins in the age of "new media?" Are we giving the First Amendment a non-legal life, self- regulating, and more free?

It's not as sexy as waterboarding, but the decrepit state of our courts is a lot more important to the average Kossack (especially, those of us with FBI files), as it is more likely to hit you where you live. Moreover, as John Dean observed in Broken Government, the judiciary has suffered the greatest and most lasting damage from the neo-conservatives' onslaught.

I have despaired as to what to do about it, because federal judges (a) have lifetime appointments, (b) never seem to resign, and (c) are getting a 29% pay raise over their already-bloated salaries.  But in my research on an unrelated matter, I stumbled upon an innovative solution.

Technically, our judges don't have lifetime sinecures.  What they have is a freehold in office conditioned upon "good Behaviour."  U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1.  We have a Republican-appointed judge in town who has engaged in some spectacularly bad behavior as of late, but judges are never held to account for it.  There is a distinct possibility that that may be about to change.

Last Thursday, AP had a story I found on the 9 News website where Colorado's Senator Ken Salazar was complaining that the Republicans were violating the agreement of the Gang of Fourteen.  He says the agreement was meant to have an agreement over the appointment of federal judges, but that names were being submitted without his acceptance.

Trial judges in New York have long been selected in a way that allows the party in power to coronate whoever it wants.  The system is overrun with corruption and dominated by insiders, and has resulted in judges completely beholding to their political bosses.  Both the federal district court in Brooklyn and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that this system was neither very transparent or democratic.  

In a ruling today, the Supreme Court disagreed .

Justice Scalia and the other members of the high court were not persuaded by arguments that "one-party rule" effectively denied some people "a fair shot" at a judicial nomination.

"The reason one-party rule is entrenched may be (and usually is) that voters approve of the positions and candidates that the party regularly puts forward," Justice Scalia wrote.

"I completely agree," said Mr. Stalin.  Chairman Mao, Kim Jong Il, and others also sent notes in praise of this decision.

"For years, we've been suffering from the lie that you need more than one party to have a democracy," said Pol Pot.  "I'm glad to see the United States Supreme Court put an end to that lie."  

Definitely a timely shot in the arm for free-speech rights in America. Truth is, we blogger-type/activists really need to pay attention to this case and any others coming down the proverbial pike. It could just as easily been one of us here @ Dkos criticizing this bogus malpractice suit.

A Superior Judge in New Jersey struck a blow for First Amendment rights last Friday December 21. The judge ruled in favor of an anonymous blogger known as "daTruthSquad" who writes on a site hosted by Google’s Blogspot.

Today is a very important holiday. The congress did not nearly unanimously pass a resolution recognizing it's importance. But it's pretty damn important in my mind, I am speaking of course of the Bill Of Rights day. How am I celebrating Bill of Rights day? I've already drunk some tea from my disappearing civil liberties cup as shown above and watch our bill of rights disappear (Thanks Patriot Act!) Now I'm mad enough to do something about it. But first I recommend you get a similar cup. Only 11 dollars on Amazon. Now on to the real topic of the diary, why I believe former Professor (He was actually a Senior Lecturer in Law but professor sounds better) Obama will restore our constitution and our Bill of Rights. And a little call to action.

There is a tendency of liberals to take reactionaries at their word. We are engaged in arguing a set of ideas; they must be, as well. So let's see what they say.
This causes all sorts of problems. "Conservatives" say they are for states' rights and against deficits and judicial activism. So we argue about states' rights, deficits, and judicial activism. Then, it turns out, they are for the states' right to segregate but against the states' right to regulate impurities in food or operate courts in which courts can give redress to consumers injured by corporate action. They run the highest deficits since WWII (in history, if you use dollar figures) and appoint judges who are the most activist in decades.
The problem is particularly great in the idea that Bork promulgated and later reactionaries have adopted of the "original intent" of the Constitution.
Analysis after the jump.

The Secret War on Judges
by: Jon Haber

Cross posted at Open Left Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:23:53 AM EST

Across the country, small-time right-wing groups are being smuggled fistfuls of cash to help dismantle our nation's judicial system. Hiding behind innocuous-sounding front groups, these corporate shills are targeting state judge races in a campaign to fundamentally change our judicial system. Where did they find their sudden wealth?  Look no further than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The past 24 hours have been really depressing for me. Sure, it's wonderful that we've passed, with what appears to be a veto-proof majority, and expansion of insurance to an additional 3 million uninsured children. It's about time, and that's precisely what a Democratic majority in congress should be doing.

But you know what a Democratic majority shouldn't be letting happen? We shouldn't have prominent Democrats voting to confirm judges who think children should be taken away from gay couples. This was a nomination that was apparently all but dead without Feinstein's support. Now he has a crack at sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

We shouldn't have Democratic Senators fighting for tax breaks for hedge funds. But that's exactly what Chuck Schumer is doing. You and I, we have to pay 28% for anything we make over 26,000 a year and as much as 35% as our incomes rise higher. But hedge fund billionaires? The poor dears need a break. So they get their personal income taxed at the same rate-- 15%-- as capital gains.

Well, what a shock. Conservatives Judges say you can’t sue for being spied upon unless you can prove that you have been spied on. Hope you never get tortured.

Later the court ruled that witches that float in water must be executed because only witches float.

CINCINNATI -- A divided federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday challenging President Bush's domestic spying program without ruling on the issue of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal.
In a 2-1 decision with Republican-appointed judges in the majority, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because they couldn't prove their communications had been monitored by the government.

Well well well...

So Judge Kessler - the US District Court judge who placed the phone number list held by Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the "DC Madam") under a restraining order, has lifted that restraining order:

"The List in question is the Defendant's personal property," wrote the judge, "and contains only a log of telephone numbers. It was neither seized by the Government when it searched the Defendant's residence in California, nor listed in the Indictment putting the Defendant on notice as to which items of her property were subject to forfeiture."

The judge concluded that the government had not satisfied the requirements of the forfeiture statute that would enable them to make the "extraordinary step of freezing the property of an individual, not yet convicted of any crime, and barring her from giving away that property."

In some of the best news I have read in a very long time, the AP is reporting that Justices are attending a seminar that will demystify science and aid them in evaluating scientific evidence offered for trial.

I have in the past received letters of propaganda, and I suppose fundraising inspiration from the RNC.  On two occasions I got letters from Dumbya himself (complete with dartboard pics of him with Laura).  This newest letter is brought to us by Robert M. Duncan, the new Chairman of the RNC.  This letter screams of desperation and fear-based speculation...His rhetoric boarders on hysteria in my opinion.

This is what we are up against:

(Warning...The letter is long and might make your head explode!)