Patterico's Pontifications


DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts – Jose Luis Mendoza (Volume X)

Filed under: Crime,General,Immigration — DRJ @ 10:57 pm

Volume X of the transcript begins on Monday morning of the second week of trial. Prior to the start of testimony, the Court considered 3 matters in a bench conference: First, Aldrete-Davila was released from custody and excused as a witness. The second and third matters both involved Rene Sanchez and memos – the Karhoff memo and the Blanchette memo. Of the two, the Blanchette memo seems to be the more explosive but it’s not clear if we will hear about this again during the trial.

The first witness called on Monday morning was Border Patrol agent Jose Mendoza. Unlike the earlier agents, Mendoza did not sign an immunity agreement for his testimony, although he apparently did receive a Garrity letter that conveys immunity from criminal charges but not administrative penalties. Here is the testimony of Jose Mendoza:


The Best Laid Plans

Filed under: General,Humor — Patterico @ 6:31 pm

This was the plan:


This is the result:


Yes, it’s the top result.

(H/t Jeff G.)

Review of “Supreme Conflict” by Jan Crawford Greenburg

Filed under: Books,Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:07 am

This is my promised review of the book “Supreme Conflict” by Jan Crawford Greenburg.

It is an excellent book that I can highly recommend to any Supreme Court junkie like myself.

If you take nothing else away from this review, take this part to heart: Jan Crawford Greenburg understands judicial conservatives, and does not mock them. It is an amazing claim to make about someone who works for a major television network like ABC. But it’s clearly true. Judicial conservatives: you can make your way through all 315 pages of this book and never once get the feeling that the author is trying to belittle your agenda in any way.

That right there is worth the price of the book. But there’s much, much more.

The philosophy of judicial conservatives is well summed up by this quote from Justice Clarence Thomas:

We have stated time and time again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.

To most Americans, this would seem like a fairly straightforward statement — certainly nothing outrageous or provocative. But as Greenburg explains, it was evidently outrageous enough that it provoked the liberals on the Court into revolt, when Justice Thomas dared to insert this radical language into an otherwise uncontroversial court opinion.

This is what is at stake in the confirmation wars: whether we have judges who follow simple precepts like this, or judges who ignore such common-sense principles in favor of whatever they happen to feel at the time is the right result.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0538 secs.