A small step forward towards undoing all the harm done by fearmongering and jingoism in the last decade:

A U.S. judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a recently enacted law's provision that authorizes indefinite military detention for those deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan ruled in favor of a group of civilian activists and journalists who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, which was signed by U.S. President Barack Obama in December 2011.

"In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more," the judge said.

She added that it was in the public interest to reconsider the law so that "ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

By issuing a preliminary injunction, the judge prevents the U.S. government from enforcing section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.

Juan A. Lozano | Houston | April 3

AP - A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

In all the hoopla over the ACA arguments in the Supreme Court last week was lost a tactical blunder that liberals and Democrats could have...should have...been making all along: defining freedom:

Behind the challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) being heard at the Supreme Court this week is the idea that Barack Obama wants to take away your freedoms (as Mitt Romney himself asserted today). I’ve long since stopped counting the number of ridiculous things said about Obama, but this might be the ridiculousest of them all. At least the Kenyan rumors have some basis in reality, however threadbare it is, since his father was indeed Kenyan and he does have a funny name, for an American president. But this "freedom" business is simply paranoid and delusional. I defy anyone to name for me a specific and precise freedom that Obama has taken away from the American people. You can’t.[...]

Today will be an interesting day in the battle over President Obama's healthcare reform bill. Oral arguments are scheduled to be made in front of the Supreme Court of the United States today, with a final decision on the bill not due for about three months.

The administration's argument is grounded in the Commerce Clause-- that the Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, with some expansions that have occured over time:

That's sort of the take-away I get from the 9th Circuit decision on the case against Proposition 8 in California.

The relevant paragraph:

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," states the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court's most liberal judges.

I was nine years old at the time. We were in school one morning when our teacher was called away. This was a very unusual occurrence. We sat quietly waiting, and when teacher returned, she was crying and shaking uncontrollably. All of us were worried and confused – teacher had never acted this way before. In fact we had never seen any emotion from her at all. “What has happened, teacher?”, someone called out. Sobbing, she replied – “Children, Great Teacher has died!”

It was as if you pushed a button in the room. Instantaneously all of us burst into tears, with many of us wailing “What is going to happen to us? Who is going to take care of us? How will we live?” It never occurred to any of us that our parents or some responsible adult would take care of us. From the moment we were aware of the outer world, we understood that all that was good, beautiful and intelligent in the world came from Great Teacher.

From Presente.org

On Tuesday, October 18th, White House official Cecilia Muñoz defended the Obama administration’s failed immigration policies and misrepresented the facts behind dangerous programs like S-COMM.

As the former vice president at the National Council of La Raza, Ms. Muñoz used to be a champion for immigrant rights. Now she is the main defender of failed programs like S-COMM that are responsible for the inhumane incarceration of hundreds of thousands of immigrants.

Can you join us in sending a message that we want our advocate back? Sign our petition asking Ms. Muñoz to set the record straight and denounce S-COMM.

. . . will not block the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia. There were no dissents. A man who is quite possibly innocent will be executed. No one liners from me tonight on this one, just a head hung in shame and disgust.

Just remember one thing when Obama supporters are screaming we have to support him because the composition of the Supreme Court is so important. Not one single justice dissented. Remember that. I sure as fuck will.

This is barbarism. There is no other word for it.

...if the one you get is no good?

We've been saved the shame of at least one more execution. For now.

What's disturbing about this case can be summed up as follows: the guy had shitty legal representation, at least at his appeal but possibly at his criminal trial as well.

State-provided legal representation, I should add. I'm sure there are safeguards for ensuring that the assignment is basically random (subject to whatever personal conflicts might arise,) so I'm sure that this lawyer was probably not chosen specifically so the DA could bump his conviction and execution rates up.

The US mortgage crisis has crept upon the judicial and political scene in bits and pieces. One lawsuit will concentrate on robo-signing by the big banks. Another will look at errors in the securitization process. A third will probe the way mortgages were originated. None of these lawsuits really puts the whole picture together – until now. Catherine Cortez Masto, the Attorney General for the state of Nevada, has filed a complaint against Bank of America that takes you from the origination of mortgages to their foreclosure, showing you exactly how Nevada thinks Bank of America defrauded consumers in that state. It is a well-written legal complaint, but it is not easy reading. It will be hard for you to believe that one bank could be so deceitful and so reckless with the law. It will be even harder for you to understand how Bank of America is still allowed to call itself a bank.

I'll try to keep this brief.

Frankly, IMO, the entire debt ceiling "debate" amounts to being hyper-concerned about a manufactured problem. In short, "there is no spoon".

I know there's no spoon because the 14th Amendment says so.

Unfortunately, the "complementary" Matrix-like quality of this travesty is that we're all "linked in" so that if the mini-minds busy bending themselves and their "reality" reach the breaking point, those of us who recognize the irrelevance of it all will find our financial lives buffeted just as much as those committed to the myth.

The President's behavior on this matter is detestable on every vector. I'll not repeat old critiques here, but I will add this latest insight - a trait common to us slow learners.

I'm sure this won't happen, at least in the US, anytime in the near future, but you have to admit there's an awful lot of sense here:

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.

The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided.

The Global Commission's 24-page report argues that anti-drug policy has failed by fuelling organised crime, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and causing thousands of deaths.

Dan Carden | Indianapolis | May 13

nwitimes.com - Overturning common law dating back to the Magna Carta, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled citizens there have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

Robert Barnes | Washington | April 27

WaPo - Large corporations won a substantial victory at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as ideologically split justices ruled that consumers may not band together in class-action arbitration to pursue their complaints.

The specific case involved cellphones and a familiar contract that requires customers to press claims through arbitration rather than lawsuits. Such ubiquitous contracts, which mandate individual rather than group claims, are becoming standard for companies offering loans, cable service, credit cards and even employment.

New York | April 10

Guardian - Obama professor among 250 experts who have signed letter condemning humiliation of alleged WikiLeaks source.

More than 250 of America's most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting against the treatment in military prison of the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, contesting that his "degrading and inhumane conditions" are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture.

The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America's foremost liberal authority on constitutional law. He taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign.

In a stinging rebuke to Obama, they say "he was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander in chief meets fundamental standards of decency".

David G. Savage | Washington Bureau | March 30

LAT - In a 5-4 ruling, justices overturn a jury verdict awarding $14 million to John Thompson, who had sued then-New Orleans Dist. Atty. Harry Connick Sr. because prosecutors hid a blood test that would have proved his innocence in a murder case.

A bitterly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a jury verdict won by a New Orleans man who spent 14 years on death row and came within weeks of execution because prosecutors had hidden a blood test and other evidence that would have proven his innocence.

The 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas shielded the New Orleans district attorney's office from being held liable for the mistakes of its prosecutors. The evidence of their misconduct did not prove "deliberate indifference" on the part of then-Dist. Atty. Harry Connick Sr., Thomas said.

Photo: John Thompson spent 14 years on death row because prosecutors had hidden a blood test that would have exonerated him. A $14-million judgment against New Orleans prosecutors was overturned by the Supreme Court. (Patrick Semansky, Associated Press)

Yesterday, the SCOTUS made one of the single biggest boneheaded decisions, from a court full of them (Citizens United, anyone?):

The Westboro Baptist church were sued for emotional distress by the family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, after members of the church picketed his funeral with signs that read: "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're Going to Hell".

But the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the family and said that the church was entitled to protest under the Constitution's First Amendment, the right to free speech.

Perhaps you're familiar with Clarence Thomas, the Long-Dong-Silver-loving US Supreme Court Justice. With a new term recenlty beginning on The Court, he passed the five-year mark for not only saying nothing of value while hearing cases, but nothing at all.

Yes, you read that correctly--while no US Supreme Court Justice in over two centuries has gone even a single term without speaking from the bench during arguments, Thomas has managed to do it for five in a row.

To quote Stephen Colbert, "the man is a rock...in that he could be replaced by a rock and I'm not sure anyone would notice."

Adam Liptak | Washington | February 22

NYT - People injured by vaccines that they say were improperly designed must rely solely on a compensation system created by a 1986 law and may not sue vaccine manufacturers, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The vote was 6-to-2, with Justice Elena Kagan recused because of her work on the case as United States solicitor general.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Congress had meant to establish a societal bargain in the 1986 law. “The vaccine manufacturers fund from their sales an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries,” he wrote. “In exchange they avoid costly tort litigation and the occasional disproportionate jury verdict.”

In a vigorous dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of imposing “its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress” depriving “vaccine-injured children of a key remedy that Congress intended them to have.”

David G. Savage | Washington | February 22

LAT - Justice Clarence Thomas hasn't asked a question during the Supreme Court's oral arguments for five years. He has said the sessions are unnecessary and maybe even a sideshow, but other justices do not agree.

Eight justices of the Supreme Court engaged in a fast-paced argument Tuesday morning over whether a female microbiologist who tried to poison her husband's lover with a toxic chemical could be charged under a federal law intended to regulate chemical weapons.

And one justice, as usual, said nothing during the argument. Tuesday marked five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last asked a question during the court's oral arguments.