You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1124)

PLAYS: (1305)

I meant to get to this yesterday, but time flew by. Anyway, Chris Matthews had on Manuel Miranda, disgraced right-wing hack and former hired hand of Bill First, to discuss his provocative letter that attacked the GOP over Sonia Sotomayor. Matthews tried to appear to be very tough on Miranda, but never brought up his criminal background or his over-the-top comments about Mitch McConnell.

Greg Sargent:

The New York Times reports that a coalition of heavyweight conservative groups has signed a letter pressuring Senate Republicans to filibuster Sonia Sotomayor. The organizer of the pressure campaign — which has angered Senate GOP leaders — is identified as one Manuel Miranda, whom the paper only describes as a “former adviser on judicial issues to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.”

There’s a bit more to Manuel Miranda than that, however. Miranda, as longtime Congressional insiders will recall, was the GOP Senate staffer who was nailed in 2004 for hacking into the computers of Senate Dems and downloading thousands of documents relating to the strategies of Dem Senators on judicial nominations.

Miranda’s scheme — widely referred to as “Memogate” — was a big deal. A Senate probe found that many of the swiped files had been systematically downloaded “from folders belonging to Democratic staff,” with some leaked to friendly reporters. Miranda resigned, and a Washington Post editorial denounced his “political spying operation” that indicated “how low the nominations process has sunk.”

Miranda called Mitch McConnell "limp-wristed":

A group of conservative Republicans questioned Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's handling of President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday, with one suggesting Kentucky's senior senator should resign if he is unable to aggressively challenge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

Manuel Miranda, a former aide to McConnell's predecessor Sen. Bill Frist, orchestrated a letter signed by 145 GOP conservatives urging lawmakers to scrutinize Sotomayor. Miranda resigned his position in Frist's office in the wake of a probe into alleged hacking of Democratic computer files.

In an interview with Politico, a Washington based publication, Miranda said McConnell should "consider resigning" as Senate minority leader if he can't take a harder line on President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.

Miranda accused McConnell of being "limp-wristed" and "a little bit tone deaf'" when it comes to judicial nominees.

Asked by McClatchy Newspapers to explain those statements, Miranda said the Senate as an institution hasn't properly vetted previous court nominees and "should do more."

He specifically criticized how McConnell "holds the gun" to judicial nominees. "He doesn't hold it very firmly. He doesn't hold it very well."

Hmmmmm. I wonder why he used the term limp-wristed against Mitch ...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (952)

PLAYS: (1435)

One of the most significant and troubling manifestations of the real extremism of the "Patriot"/militia movement of the 1990s was the sharp spike in threats against local officials from the law-enforcement system -- particularly judges. There was practically a pandemic of threats against judges in the interior West (particularly Montana).

The threats were a direct outgrowth of the Patriot movement's ardent adoption of the concept of "sovereign citizenship" -- the fantasy belief system built around the idea that the federal government was a run by a secret cabal that for decades had usurped public power for their own nefarious purposes, and so by filing the proper kind of "constitutionalist" documents, one could declare oneself a "sovereign" who was not subject to the restraints of federal laws, including paying taxes and observing land-use ordinances.

This belief system originated with the old Posse Comitatus organization, a racist and radical movement that originated in the 1960s and whose followers had a long record of extreme violence. In the 1990s it was promoted most notably by the Montana Freemen -- but after they began to fade earlier this decade, so did the threats against judges.

Now, that trend is rapidly reversing:

According to the U.S. Marshals Service, the number of threats against federal judges and prosecutors has mushroomed from 500 in 2003 to 1,278 in 2008. It is on track to go even higher this year. There are no statistics on the number of threats against state and local judges.

The problem was examined in some detail last week in the Washington Post:

The threats and other harassing communications against federal court personnel have more than doubled in the past six years, from 592 to 1,278, according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Worried federal officials blame disgruntled defendants whose anger is fueled by the Internet; terrorism and gang cases that bring more violent offenders into federal court; frustration at the economic crisis; and the rise of the "sovereign citizen" movement -- a loose collection of tax protesters, white supremacists and others who don't respect federal authority.

... Hundreds of threats cascaded into the chambers of John M. Roll, the chief U.S. district judge in Arizona, in February after he allowed a lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against a rancher to go forward. "They cursed him out, threatened to kill his family, said they'd come and take care of him. They really wanted him dead," said a law enforcement official who heard the calls -- which came from as far as Richmond and Baltimore -- but spoke on condition of anonymity because no one has been charged.

You may recall, in fact, that the man who murdered Dr. George Tiller in Kansas on Sunday was in fact a "Freeman" who had previously filed his own set of "sovereign citizenship" papers. Leonard Zeskind has even more details on this at Huffpo:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1953)

PLAYS: (2291)

Sen. Orrin Hatch on ABC's This Week, discussing President Obama's options for replacing David Souter on the Supreme Court, thinks that if a judge is a person of empathy, that's a code word for an "activist judge". Which is to say, he won't overturn Roe v. Wade. (That's right: the "activists" are the ones siding with the status quo.) Everything has to be about abortion with these people.

Sen. Pat Leahy reminds Hatch that the President doesn't need to use "code words" -- and besides, we've already had an activist court when it comes to discrimination against women in the work place.

Question for Orrin Hatch: Does this mean that Republicans have no empathy?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Gentlemen, welcome to you both. And Senator Hatch, let me begin with you. What did you make of the criteria the president laid out?

HATCH: Well, it's a matter of great concern. If he's saying that he wants to pick people who will take sides -- he's also said that a judge has to be a person of empathy. What does that mean? Usually that's a code word for an activist judge. But he also said that he's going to select judges on the basis of their personal politics, their personal feelings, their personal preferences. Now, you know, those are all code words for an activist judge, who is going to, you know, be partisan on the bench.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, he did also say he wants someone who respects the rule of law and the limits of the judicial role...

HATCH: He did say that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So it sounds like you're saying that you think there's a tension between following the law and following your feelings when you're a judge.

HATCH: Well, I don't think there should be a litmus test or any set of litmus tests when you pick people for the high court, and I suspect that the president understands that. He's a very bright guy, charismatic, intelligent, likable, and I'm hoping that he'll pick somebody of great dimension.

We all know he's going to pick a more liberal justice. Their side will make sure that it's a pro-abortion justice. I don't think anybody has any illusions about that. The question is, are they qualified? Are they going to be people who will be fair to the rich, the poor, the weak, the strong, the sick, the disabled, and yet give justice to those who may not be...

Continue reading »

Back when I was a reporter, I once explained to a (Republican) politician that it was against the state ethics law to use his wife as the township secretary, since the two of them could collude to change the public record. He looked at me, shocked, and said, "If you're not in politics to make money for yourself and your family, why would you bother?" Why, indeed.

Privatizing public facilities gives them one more way to make illegal money:

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) - Two Luzerne County judges are headed for federal prison.

Federal authorities say President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan were involved in a $2.6 million scheme to place juvenile offenders into facilities in which the judges had a financial interest.

Court documents state that in some cases, Ciavarella ordered children into detention even when juvenile probation officers did not recommend it.

The two have agreed to plead guilty to honest services fraud and tax fraud. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years in federal prison. They have agreed to step down from the bench.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Lord, save us from the idiot pundit class. The smackdown the Supreme Court gave the Bush administration is making the GOP very unhappy. I mean, how dare we consider a fundamental building block of justice since the Magna Carta anything less than an unacceptable allowance for activist judges?

And how do we know it's a bad decision? Fear, fear, fear!!!! Newt says it'll cost us a city! A notion not far off from Scalia's remarkably legal citation-free dissent that this decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Oooohhh....be afraid, America. Little obnoxiously liberal notions like the right for people like Maher Arar to know why he was detained and to prove his innocence are things that the Republicans don't think they should have to held to.

Mr. GINGRICH: On the other hand, I will say, the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the president and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history.

REID: In its history.

Mr. GINGRICH: In its history. Worse than Dred Scott, worse than--because--for this following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in--and this morning's newspapers say smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way--and this is something that the Italians will tell you about fighting the mafia.

Worse than Dred Scott? Wasn't that a dog whistle used by GWB for indicating the kind of justices he'd pick for SCOTUS? And the whole "mushroom cloud" fear of smugglers getting nuclear plans? Dude, it's called the Google. It's not hard to get bomb plans online or in the library, for that matter--manufacturing them is another issue. But that has NOTHING to do with the Boumediene case. Boumediene said that habeas corpus still applied at Guantanamo, despite its location in Cuba because the US has sovereign rights over it and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.

But again, facts have a liberal bias, don't they, Newt?

Transcripts below the fold:

Continue reading »