Judge Henry Hudson owns a piece of the Donatelli firm Campaign Solutions, Inc., a right-wing go-to source for turnkey campaigns and donation collections. I wrote about their ties to the right-wing establishment back in August, when he first agreed to hear the case.

Since August, Campaign Solutions has made millions from Republican campaigns for candidates running on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).

As one of only thirteen investors, I'm certain this year will be a bang-up year for him, dividend-wise. Just have a look at their client list.

I'm not a big fan of playing the judicial activist/judicial bias card. But in this case, it seems clearly warranted. This judge stands to make a bundle of profit via his 1/13th investment in Campaign Solutions. Campaign Solutions profited much from the 2010 midterm elections and candidates who ran on the repeal of the health care law. It's not all that much of a leap to think maybe there's just a teeny, tiny bit of bias there.

He should have recused himself then, and he should be investigated to see if he has any other 'investments' that might have prejudiced his ruling.

Oh, Arizona, how you do disappoint. Or not. Actually, you really just rise to my diminished expectations on a near-daily basis, and today is no exception. While Sheriff Joe's alleged corruption spills onto the front pages, the back page carries news of how Arizona courts fail to protect election integrity.

Recently I wrote about how Jan Brewer permitted Maricopa County -- the most populous county in Arizona and home to the worlds' most evil sheriff -- to break their own election laws in order to rush-report the vote counts to eagerly awaiting media outlets and viewers across the nation.

Continue reading »

There is at least one judge in Louisiana with some sense and respect for the law. NPR reports that U.S. District Judge Ralph Tyson has placed a temporary restraining order on the requirement that any woman seeking an abortion be forced to have an ultrasound first, and view the results of that ultrasound before having an abortion.

This is good news not only for women in Louisiana, but for women in other states where similar laws have been passed. While the key will be finding a judge willing to actually evaluate the facts in light of the Constitution, this is certainly a step forward.

The right wing has spent a lot of time working to get laws passed (mostly in Southern states) that are clearly discriminatory to women, violate their rights, and are just a stalking horse for an excuse to try and overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The assault on women's reproductive rights has been relentless in 2010.

Louisiana (temporary restraining order granted):

One of the new laws would block abortion doctors from participation in a state-run medical malpractice fund. The other would require women about to undergo abortions to first have an ultrasound examination and receive a photograph of the ultrasound image.

Guttmacher Institute Study:

Legislators in eight states introduced measures to require that ultrasound services be offered to a woman seeking an abortion. Missouri was the only state in which a measure was approved, and the governor is widely expected to allow it to go into effect without his signature. Three other states currently require providers to offer ultrasound services to women (see Requirements for Ultrasound).

Measures enacted this year in Utah and West Virginia place requirements on a provider who is performing an ultrasound in preparation for an abortion. The Utah law requires the provider to offer to show and describe the image to the woman. The new law in West Virginia is similar but explicitly allows the woman to choose whether or not to view the image. These two new laws bring to 10 the number of states with such provisions.

Finally, legislatures in three states—Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana—moved to enact or strengthen requirements mandating that women seeking an abortion first obtain an ultrasound. Oklahoma adopted the most stringent measure. It would require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on every woman obtaining an abortion, display the image to her and provide a verbal description; the woman would be entitled to “avert her eyes” if she did not want to view the screen. The measure is identical to one passed in 2008 that was overturned by a state court on procedural grounds. The new law, written to avoid the procedural issues, was nonetheless challenged immediately upon enactment, and enforcement is currently blocked pending the outcome of the litigation.

And of course, let's not forget the assault on the Affordable Care Act:

Meanwhile, legislators in 14 states (including states that already have laws applying to all private plans) introduced measures that would limit coverage of abortion through the insurance exchanges that will be set up under health care reform by 2014. Legislation has been enacted in four states. Arizona’s new law permits coverage only in cases of threats to the woman’s life or health, while Mississippi’s permits coverage only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Laws in Louisiana and Tennessee prohibit all coverage of abortion, with no exceptions. Legislation approved by the legislature in Missouri is awaiting action by the governor, and measures in Florida and Oklahoma have been vetoed.

Just one more reason to keep the wingers out of Congress and by extension, out of women's reproductive systems.

If these veterans courts are anywhere near as effective as the drug courts (which produce much better results than the regular court system), this is good news.

But this progam will have to be balanced with legitimate legal questions. The ACLU has opposed it in Nevada, saying it creates a separate class of people charged with crimes who get different treatment because they're veterans:

Reporting from Tulsa, Okla. -- U.S. military veterans from three decades pass through Judge Sarah Smith's courtroom here, reporting on their battles with drug addiction, alcoholism and despair. Those who find jobs and stabilize their lives are rewarded with candy bars and applause. Those who backslide go to jail.

Smith radiates an air of maternal care from the bench. As the veterans come before her, she softly asks: "How are you doing? Do you need anything?" But if a veteran fails random drug tests, she doesn't flinch at invoking his sentence. She keeps a drill sergeant's cap in her office.

Her court is part of a new approach in the criminal justice system: specialized courts for veterans who have broken the law. Judges have been spurred by a wave of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, battling post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries and stumbling into trouble with the law. But advocates of the courts say they also address a problem as old as combat itself.

"Some families give their sons or daughters to service for their country, and they're perfectly good kids. And they come back from war and just disintegrate before our eyes," said Robert Alvarez, a counselor at Ft. Carson in Colorado who is advocating for a veterans court in the surrounding county. "Is it fair to put these kids in prison because they served and got injured?"

The few veterans courts in the nation are modeled on drug courts that allow defendants to avoid prison in exchange for strict monitoring. Most are only a couple of months old, and it is difficult to track their effectiveness, but the results from the first court, which opened in Buffalo, N.Y., in January 2008, are striking.

Of the more than 100 veterans who have passed through, only two had to be returned to the traditional criminal court system because they could not shake narcotics or criminal behavior, said Judge Robert Russell. That is a far lower rate of recidivism than in drug courts.

They're looking at adding this program in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Nevada and Eau Claire, WI. It's already operating in Tulsa.

Yet another legacy of the law-and-order Republican crowd:

Reporting from Brentwood, N.H. -- Come February, the red-brick Rockingham County Courthouse, one of New Hampshire's busiest, will arraign criminal suspects, process legal motions and otherwise deal with murders, mayhem and contract disputes. What it won't do is hold jury trials.

The economic storm has come to this: Justice is being delayed or disrupted in state courtrooms across the country.

Financially strapped New Hampshire has become a poster child for the problem. Among other cost-cutting measures, state courts will halt for a month all civil and criminal jury trials early next year to save $73,000 in jurors' per diems. Officials warn they may add another four-week suspension.

"It brings our system almost to a screeching halt," said county prosecutor James M. Reams. His aides are scrambling to reschedule 77 criminal trials that were on the February docket.

"All the effort to subpoena witnesses and prepare for those trials is right out the window," Reams said, frustration in his voice. "Internally, it's a monumental waste of time. We'll have to redo everything."

At least 19 other states, including California, have slashed court budgets and other government services as their economies have tanked, said Daniel Hall, vice president of the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit in Williamsburg, Va.

I just don't get it. Conventional political wisdom is that you must move to the center during a general election season. I don't agree with that--in fact, I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do right now when the vast majority of the nation by and large does not approve of how things are being done in Washington (9% Approval rating? Think that has anything to do with your capitulations again and again, Pelosi and Reid?), but it's hard to pierce that Beltway bubble to let through anything but the politics-as-usual stylings. However, it's a far cry from playing to the center and grabbing yourself some right wing frames and running with them. That makes no sense to me...is Obama thinking that he'll be able to get the 'Donald Wildmon vote contingent' this way?

Obama's desire to win these voters may be why, in a recent interview with Relevant magazine, ("Covering God, Life, and Progressive Culture") Obama seemed to be moving rightward on the issue -- rhetorically, at least -- saying:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

The language Obama used in that response seemed to remove "mental distress" as an allowable exception justifying a post-22 week abortion. [..]

Obama continued: "I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

But if Obama is saying that "mental distress" is already not a legal exception for abortion bans, then what was the point of what he told Relevant? He maintains he wasn't discussing any view that runs contrary to current abortion law, so it would seem he was just discussing a personal view -- that a woman, 8 1/2 months pregnant, shouldn't be able to get an abortion just because she's feeling blue.

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but the concept of the woman "feeling blue" and deciding on a whim after 6-7 months of normal, healthy pregnancy that she wants to end it is as much a fantastical creature created by the right as the Welfare Queen living large on government aid. It's insulting to women and their ability to understand what's happening to them.

And this is where I get really angry. Anyone who has paid attention to the relative non-issue of late-term abortions--the stuff that the right wing lives to distract and horrify the electorate with--knows that this framing of women deciding after more than 6 months that she's just not interested in being pregnant was designed as a slippery slope platform to hurt women from getting abortions, at any time. Jesse at GroupNews has more...

Back before I decided to downgrade career-wise to stay at home with my kids, I had to do a lot of traveling for my job, laptop, PDA, etc. in tow. Of course, this was pre-9/11, so I also didn't have to worry about removing my shoes, carrying water bottles or full body x-rays. Even last summer, we brought our laptop with us when we went to Europe so that I could work on my writing projects. I can't begin to express my outrage at the thought that the government would feel they have the right to seize that work without reasonable suspicion. And I have a clearly European surname. What would it be like for honest, law-abiding citizens with a Middle-Eastern name?

Raw Story:

If you enter or leave the United States carrying a laptop, flash drive or cell phone, the government can collect and store a massive amount of personal information without first obtaining a warrant, having probable cause or even suspecting you of anything.

During a subcommittee hearing Wednesday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said the government needs to institute safeguards to protect Americans' privacy rights, and he accused the Department of Homeland Security of ducking from scrutiny of its overreach in searching electronics. DHS refused to send a representative to the hearing and secretary Michael Chertoff did not answer written questions from Feingold.

"Once again, this administration has demonstrated its perverse belief that it is entitled to keep anything and everything secret from the public it serves and their elected representatives, while Americans are not allowed to keep any secrets from their government," he said. "That's exactly backwards."

Fourth Amendment protections are less stringent at points of entry into the US. Courts have ruled that routine searches are permissible because the government's interest in keeping dangerous and illegal materials out of the country makes such searches "reasonable" without additional justification. For more invasive searches, such as strip-searches and x-rays, a customs agent must be able to show the person they are searching is likely a criminal.[..]

The laptop seizures have proved especially worrisome for business travelers, who could be crippled if they were unable to access data on a laptop seized by the government, said Susan Gurley, executive director of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

A survey of business travelers found that 7 percent had their laptops or other electronic device seized by the government, Gurley testified.

The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) defended the administration's random, suspicionless searches of laptop computers. It took him just over a minute during his opening remarks to play the 9/11 card, observing that plotter Zacarias Moussaoui used the same kind of computer favored by scores of business travelers, students and other law-abiding Americans.

"We also know that terrorists take advantage of this kind of technology," Brownback said, referring to laptop computers. "Mr. Moussaoui, for example, kept information on his laptop computer that if discovered might've prevented the Sept. 11 terror attacks. That's a sobering thought."

That's right, when it looks like we've turned into a fascist totalitarian state that laughs at the Fourth Amendment (it's not something critical like the Second Amendment, after all), invoke "maybe we could prevent another 9/11" card.

For a presidential administration overwhelmed by humiliating mistakes, the Khaled el-Masri debacle is one of the most mortifying. Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was taken into custody in 2003 in a case of mistaken identity — he just happens to have a name similar to a terrorist sought by American officials.

Actually, “taken into custody” is the wrong phrase. He was abducted in Macedonia, drugged, beaten, and then flown to Afghanistan, where he faced more abuse. Five months of detention and torture later, the CIA, realizing they took the wrong man, dumped him in Albania. During those five months, Masri’s wife had no idea what had happened to him.

With help from the ACLU, Masri filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration, and the complaint described his treatment as “constituting prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

The Bush administration insisted that the federal courts dismiss the case, not because of the merits, but because, administration lawyers argued, to even respond to the lawsuit would require divulging state secrets. Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Masri’s case.

Kevin has more.

Via YoursDaily.com:

In Alabama, you can sell guns on any street corner but you can't sell sex toys.

That's right. Alabama is a vibrator-free state!

Well, technically you can go across state lines and buy sex toys in Georgia and Tennessee and carry them home. But the Alabama Legislature, in its infinite wisdom and in the spirit of protecting citizens from moral turpitude, a while back banned the sale of sex toys (or "marital aids" as some lawmakers coyly call them).

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a gleam of interest in this controversial state law, which has been challenged in Alabama courts by adult toy retailer Sherri Williams. She has been fighting the law for nearly 10 years.

Williams has been in district court three times on this issue and has won twice. But both times her victories were struck down by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. She filed a petition to the Supremes and has hired well-known First Amendment rights attorney Paul Cambria. Also joining in the appeal petition with Williams are the Free Speech Coalition and the First Amendment Lawyers Association. Read more...

(h/t the Alabama Yankee transplant Blue Gal who refused to write this post on the grounds that to do so may incriminate her. :) )

Via The New York Times:

Though prosecutors have considered the case solved for nearly two decades, a chorus of eyewitnesses say the police arrested the wrong man. Now, on the eve of execution, scheduled for Tuesday, they have joined his family and his lawyers in an effort to get the courts to hear new evidence they say proves he is innocent.

With no physical evidence — the murder weapon was never found — prosecutors relied heavily on the testimony of nine eyewitnesses who took the stand against Mr. Davis.

But since his trial, seven of the nine have recanted or changed their testimony, saying they were harassed and pressed by investigators to lie under oath. Other witnesses have come forward identifying a different man as the shooter.

But because of a 1996 federal law intended to streamline the legal process in death penalty cases, courts have ruled it is too late in the appeals process to introduce new evidence and, so far, have refused to hear it. Read more...

More on this story from The Washington Post and AJC.com.

Call the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, and ask them to grant clemency to Troy Davis: 404-651-6599

(Many thanks to James Rucker from ColorOfChange.org)

UPDATE: Davis has been awarded a 90 day stay of execution.