Yet another attempt is being made to pass a FISA revision bill that will provide immunity for the telecoms against lawsuits for their part in illegal spying on American citizens. The cabal planning this maneuver expects to take their plot to both the House and Senate next week, where coalitions of Republicans and BlueDog Democrats could provide enough votes for passage.

********

Update 3: NYT article and a blogger talks to Hoyer’s office

Update: More on the new FISA deal from The Hill and Glenn Greenwald. Text is down at the bottom.

Update 2: Congressional contact information list

Dadburn it, I can't find the story I was reading the other day about this now. But there's an extra layer here: the guy in this case is a gay man, and had the help of a bunch of gay-rights groups to get this case as far as it did. His argument was that as a gay man, the streets are extra unsafe for him. He was chased by a gang of kids while walking down the street with his partner. He claims if he'd not brandished a gun, they would've severely beaten or killed him. What do you think? Is this a useful argument to make, for anyone gay or str8? Anyway, Here's the story about the SCOTUS decision and its implications.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

Southern Beale beats me to it:

Just to remind everyone about what’s at stake in November, we have these pearls of wisdom from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?" he asked.

“It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that. And once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game."

Oh wow! I saw that episode of “24,” too! Yeah, that was so cool how Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles by smacking that .... oh, wait. That was a TV show.

Never mind.

 Read more…

I wonder if Clarence Thomas owns a gun.

In 2003, Washington resident Dick Heller, who lives in one of the city's tougher districts, lodged a suit against the local authorities saying his constitutional right to bear arms was being violated. Although his case was initially rejected, he won on appeal to a federal appeals court in March.

Washington officials in turn then lodged a case with the Supreme Court in September insisting that it must rule on the extent of access to handguns, the weapon of choice in two-thirds of robberies and assaults.

 Read more…

As opposed to the SCOTUS:

The Supreme Court for Republicans in the United States.

Jesus Christ on a cracker, how did I miss this??? Segregation now and forever indeed.

The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments on school integration, signaled yesterday they are likely to bar the use of race when assigning students to public schools.
Such a ruling could deal a blow to potentially hundreds of school systems across the U.S. that use racial guidelines to maintain a semblance of classroom integration in cities whose neighborhoods are divided along racial lines.

However, it would be a major victory for those who have called for "colorblind" decision-making by public officials.

Yesterday's argument also might mark the emergence of a five-member majority determined to outlaw the official use of race guidelines in schools, colleges and public agencies.

"The purpose of the Equal Protection clause is to ensure that people are treated as individuals rather than based on the color of their skin," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said.

Once again, I must bow to the superior and godlike abilities of the master wordsmith who is Chris:

And the Stevens decision would indeed be a landmark ruling, a return to sanity – if we were still in an era where the institutions of American government and society were actually functional, and office-holders felt bound by law. But if there is no political will in the American establishment to enforce the ruling – to make it mean what it manifestly says – then it will be nothing more than a pretty ornament for the Republic's coffin.

And where does that will exist? Not in Congress, not in the media, not in the streets – and certainly not in the confused, craven Democratic opposition. Yet the true nature of the Regime's wide-ranging war on liberty has been glaringly obvious for years. I've been writing about Bush's power grab in the Moscow Times and elsewhere since November 2001, when I noted that he had given himself the right to order the killing or incarceration of anyone on earth whom he arbitrarily deemed a terrorist – or even a terrorist suspect. This was reported openly at the time, with approval from the gung-ho corporate media and the American political establishment, with record-breaking poll numbers for Bush – and nary a peep from the Democrats. The first press reports of tortured captives quickly followed, again without controversy.

 Read more…

Featured Guests: Senator McCain, coming to you from Aspen, (there to attend the western version of that Renaissance Weekend), and Senator Feinstein, from somewhere.

Plus a roundtable of mighty pundits: Cokie Roberts, Joe Klein, and the former Senator who plays a DA on TV, Fred Thompson.

First subject - "how about that Supreme Court decision." Or as This Week framed it, wasn't this a rebuke to the Bush administration's entire theory of presidential power?

It's important, no matter how painful, to occasionally check out what folks on the other side of the spectrum are saying about the issues of the day. Think of this not so much as a "reality" check, but as a way to test your own logic about why the Hamdi case means what it means to you.

He supports something, I'm just not sure what.

Well, it's at least a partial victory:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out part of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.
The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

 Read more…

John at America blog pointed me to this little blurb about crazy wingnut state supreme court candidates in the highly intellectual land of Alabama. Basically several of them are claiming that they don't think, and won't if elected, that they have to follow SCOTUS rulings they don't like, such as those recognizing my right to have sex with my girlfriend and not be jailed for it.