DRJ reported the basics here, quoting a story that said:

Attorneys for six Washington state prisoners, Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote, “have demonstrated that police practices, searches, arrests, detention practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater burden on minorities that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

Joined by Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion, Tashima found no “race neutral” explanation for the higher incarceration rates and reversed a U.S. District Court decision in favor of the felons.”

There’s a lot to say about this decision; probably more than can be said in a single blog post.

My first reaction is one that I have expressed many times before: how in the hell does Stephen Reinhardt manage to get onto the panel on every hot-button liberal issue the Ninth Circuit ever takes up?

To me, the biggest concern flowing from this decision is the precedent that federal courts can now make sweeping declarations about the discriminatory nature of the criminal justice system based on dubious studies by sociology professors. (More about that in the extended entry below.) The implications are potentially staggering and go far beyond felons’ right to vote. If federal courts can declare the entire system of criminal justice in a state (or the country!) to be racially discriminatory, you could see an invalidation of Three Strikes laws or any other recidivism statute. You could see a sweeping invalidation of laws prohibiting felons the right to possess firearms. And that could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Commenter carlitos points out another potentially disturbing impact of the decision: its potential effect on rural districts with big prisons. Given that the decision explicitly extends to currently incarcerated inmates, you’re potentially looking not just at a huge bump in the number of Democratic voters as a whole, but also very concentrated bumps in districts that otherwise would likely be reliably Republican.

What bothers me more than anything else is the way that the judges rely on dubious methodology that they don’t even seem to understand.

The rest of this post cites some of the source material and gets into a little more detail concerning that methodology. For those of you with less interest in the topic or shorter attention spans, I’m tucking this part in the extended entry.

(more…)

[Editor's note: if you're mortally offended by profanity, you might want to skip this post. However, those who are shocked to see the f-word on a blog should be even more shocked to see 40,000 state prisoners unleashed on our state. Consider being shocked by that which is truly shocking. -- P]

My wife, God bless her, just had us watch the saddest movie I have ever seen. Tears were streaming down my face and I wasn’t ashamed.

The movie is called “Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father.” I don’t want to give away anything about the movie, but it is utterly heartbreaking, and a reminder that government has an obligation to protect its citizens from violence, and to remove violent people from the streets. Enough said about that; I don’t want to spoil it for you.

And hey! what do you know? It just so happens that I see this movie when this comes across my computer screen:

A panel of federal judges, accusing California officials of obstruction, on Thursday denied the state’s request to delay an order to produce a plan for reducing its prison population by 40,000 inmates.

I have a message for this panel of federal judges — which the L.A. Times doesn’t say and will never, ever say are all Democrat appointees:

Honorable Lawrence Karlton: fuck you.

Honorable Thelton Henderson: fuck you.

And you, the right Honorable Stephen Reinhardt: fuck you.

People are going to die because of this decision you have made. Don’t pretend they won’t, because they will. Lily Burk died at the hand of a petty thief, you know. I’m told he did something bad a long, long time ago — but he’s just a petty thief now. He’s non-violent. Just like the 40,000 non-violent people you assholes are about to release.

And why are you doing this? Because convicted felons in California aren’t entitled to luxury five-star accommodations. Why, they’re crammed into their cells in conditions almost as cramped as this:

and this:

and this:

It’s a wonder submarine sailors didn’t kill each other during WWII. You can tell from the grim looks on their faces that they’re about to engage in a bloody race riot.

I’m sorry I’m just a little profane here. But somehow, typing a couple of four-letter words in a blog post doesn’t seem as extreme as writing an order that is going to kill people. So fuck you, dumbass judges. When the first person dies at the hand of one of these criminals you released, I’m going to be here to shove it right up your ass.

And if you’re wondering why I’m angry, go watch the movie I just finished watching, why don’t you, and learn about the real-life consequences of stupid fucking decisions made by stupid liberal judges.

P.S. Once you’ve seen the movie, the phrase “Keystone Cops” will take on a whole new meaning.

UPDATE 9-7-09 11:50 a.m.: A reply to some reactions in the comments.

One commenter says I am threatening the judges. Yes: I am “threatening” to remind the public, after someone dies, that it is these judges’ fault. It should be obvious from the context that I’m not physically threatening them — although it should be obvious that their decision is physically threatening the citizenry of California.

To the commenters who say that the judges are really just doing their job, and that it’s really the legislature’s fault: again, look at the photos of the sailors. Those are the sorts of conditions these judges have declared unconstitutional. The decision by these three liberal hacks was not compelled by the law. It was activism, pure and simple, and it’s going to result in people dying. It’s about time someone got passionate about that — and so, while it’s a little out of character for me to curse, maybe doing so will get people’s attention because it’s out of character.

Finally, one commenter says: “Patrick: As a member of the bar, you should not be cursing judges.” Hey, if they want to bring me up on disciplinary charges for cursing them and their lousy decision, I say: bring it on. That would be a great way to focus a spotlight on what is about to happen to this state. And I would win eventually, because guess what? we still have a First Amendment in this country.

So fuck them.

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

Yesterday, Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu dismissed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department as the case was about to go to the jury for deliberations. The action was brought by Lorena Lopez, mother of 1½-year-old Suzie Pena, who was killed in July 2005 as her father, Raul Pena, exchanged gunfire with police in South Los Angeles. Raul Pena was using his daughter as a human shield when both she and he were killed by police gunfire. I discussed the incident and its immediate aftermath here, at National Review Online.

Judge Treu granted a defense motion for a dismissal, ruling that the jury could only have reached the conclusion that the officers had acted properly. The defense presented a number of expert witnesses while the plaintiffs offered only one, retired LAPD commander Paul Kim, who, judging from his long but otherwise undistinguished police career, isn’t much of an expert on anything.

The below photo, from the L.A. Times website, shows City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and members of his staff reacting to the judge’s decision.

The photo inspired many people to leave comments voicing their displeasure that Trutanich should react so gleefully when, after all, a little girl had been killed. I’m sure Mr. Trutanich would rather his picture not been taken at that moment, but was he wrong to be pleased that the city of Los Angeles and the involved police officers had been spared from a multi-million-dollar judgment? Of course not. His lawyers worked hard, performed well, and achieved a just outcome. Suzie’s tragic death, and the less-than-tragic death of her father, did not produce a pot of gold for her mother and her lawyers.

–Jack Dunphy

[Guest post by DRJ]

The New York Times delves into the story of 40-year-old Lieutenant Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic firefighter plaintiff in Ricci vs DeStefano, and why he did what he did:

“Gesturing toward his three young sons, Lieutenant Vargas explained why he had no regrets. “I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota,” he said. “What a lousy way to live.”

Vargas is of Puerto Rican heritage like Sonia Sotomayor. His parents are from Puerto Rico and his sister lives there now. Here’s how Vargas explains the difference between Sotomayor’s perspective and his:

“She’s from Puerto Rico, and I’m from Puerto Rico,” he said. “She obviously feels differently than I do.”
***
“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

Vargas’ mentor Deputy Chief John Marquez puts it this way:

“It seems that if you’re not the right type of minority, you get hammered.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Chrysler bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez is conducting a hearing today to decide whether Chrysler should be able to terminate 789 of its dealerships. Judge Gonzalez began the hearing by saying that Chrysler has a good case for termination but, nevertheless, he thinks it’s “still important to have this hearing.”

I’m sure that is comforting to the owner of Quality Jeep Chrysler, Inc., of Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose attorney is appearing today to object to the termination of his franchise. Here’s an excerpt from his Opening Statement:

“14. As just one of many examples, Quality Jeep Chrysler, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was designated for rejection. The Dodge dealer down the block was designated for assumption. That was an exceedingly strange decision. The assumed Dodge dealer: i) is insolvent, ii) has been closed for over three months, iii) was publicly accused by the New Mexico Attorney General of conducting an “automotive Ponzi scheme,” and iv) had a contempt order entered against it for fraud and deceptive trade practices. Yet Chrysler seeks to assume that Dodge dealer’s franchise agreement. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.”

The terminated dealers aren’t just complaining, they also offer solutions:

“15. As set forth above, there is a way for the Court to take a hard look at Chrysler’s business judgment without unnecessarily delaying the closing of the Sale Transaction. All the American government, the UAW and Fiat have to do is cause New Chrysler to accept for assignment, those dealer agreements that this Court determines, in an expedited process, were improperly designated for rejection by Chrysler in the first instance. There should be no
objection to that.”

There are other stories of terminated dealerships at the first link. In light of Judge Gonzalez’s statement before the hearing began, I have an idea what will happen to them and Quality Jeep Chrysler, Inc.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Powerline posts on a New Haven CT case, Ricci v. DeStefano, that has been granted review by the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court has decided to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. In that case, New Haven firefighters — one Hispanic and more than a dozen whites — sued the city after they were denied promotion because the city disregarded the results of its own test for determining who would be promoted. The city threw out the test results because not enough black firefighters scored high enough to earn a promotion. It did so even though the test was designed by experts to eliminate the possibility of racial bias.

The link details the unusual history of the case in the trial court and on appeal in the Second Circuit.

This may be the first big case during the Obama Administration that will tackle the issue of racial preferences. It will be interesting to see how the Obama DOJ responds.

– DRJ