Our old friend the Second Amendment awoke from a long slumber today, making an appearance in a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that states:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I agree, though it’s unusual to hear a modern court saying it so forthrightly.

This may be headed for the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.

I saw Boston once, at the Texxas Jam in Dallas. Delp had an amazingly powerful voice. I always sort of figured I’d see Boston again live some day. But it’s not to be.

Three somewhat unrelated points on the Libby trial:

1) Some say that Libby didn’t have a motive to lie. I’m not sure I buy that, but if you do, you might be interested in this Beldar war story about a witness who lied under oath with no apparent motive to do so.

2) I don’t understand why people fault Fitzgerald for being thorough. Libby was prosecuted in part for lies that he told law enforcement before Fitzgerald was even appointed. According to the partisan Republicans, Fitzgerald should have simply overlooked those lies, and/or not dug deeper. I’m not convinced by this argument.

3) I’ll grant the Libby defenders this: Tom Maguire raises some seemingly valid concerns about Fitzgerald’s conduct here. In an ideal world, some journalist would book Fitzgerald for an interview and ask him the questions raised by Maguire’s piece. Maybe Tim Russert could have him on Meet the Press!

[posted by Justin Levine – who takes full responsibility for dragging Patterico’s site into the gutter this week.] 

Was this obviously bogus story specifically timed by certain celebrity media handlers to try and obscure this far more credible (but still unproven) story in the minds of the public and condition them to ignore it?

Call me crazy, but my cynical nature prevents me from entirely discounting the possibility…

[By the way, O.J. Simpon’s “joke” about Fred Goldman here proves that Simpson is still scum-bag # 1 in civilized society – as if being a murderer wasn’t bad enough.]

[posted by Justin Levine]

The last prosecution witness was Christopher Sanchez who was recalled by the government to conclude its case.

In this section, all references to “Sanchez” mean Christopher Sanchez. The testimony also discusses Rene Sanchez and, in an effort to minimize confusion, I refer to him as “Rene Sanchez.”

There’s an interesting bench conference at pp. 65-71 regarding Rene Sanchez. It appears Rene Sanchez was indicted, possibly on charges related to the subject of the Blanchette memo. Here’s a link to Volume XII of the transcript. Please correct me if I’ve misread this.

Sanchez was a disciplined witness but there were moments where he provided a glimpse of his personality and maybe even his personal opinion. I think one of those moments came at page 115 where he stated, like Ramos, he would have gone across the ditch to help a fellow agent “in a heartbeat.”

(more…)

Parts II and III of Confirm Them’s Q&A with Jan Crawford Greenburg are up.

Part II is here. Quotable:

As incredible as it may seem, Stevens insists he hasn’t changed, that he’s the same “conservative” that President Ford nominated in 1975. I interviewed him for Nightline in January after Ford’s funeral, and he was adamant. “I don’t really think I’ve changed. I think there have been a lot of changes in the Court,” he said. “I can see myself as a conservative, to tell you the truth, a judicial conservative.” And he didn’t laugh. He was sincere. He meant it.

Heh. What a maroon.

Part III is, in my view, more interesting. It is here. Quotable, re the predicted outcome of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban case:

Based on the arguments, I think the Court will uphold the federal partial-birth abortion ban, and I expect it to overturn Stenberg, which split the Court 5-4 in 2000, with O’Connor casting the decisive vote against similar laws in about 30 states. Now I know that Anthony Kennedy can back away from his position in Stenberg. And I know lots of you (ok, probably most of you) think he will. I don’t. He was outraged by Stenberg. He clearly felt had by O’Connor and Souter. He believed they’d walked away from the deal the three struck in Casey. To Kennedy, Casey meant that legislatures still had a voice in the abortion debate. The government could make moral choices. But Stenberg, he believed, said the opposite. When coupled with his powerful dissent in Hill v. Colorado, it’s hard for me to see how Kennedy could view it so differently now.

I know! I know! It’s Justice Kennedy! He can change his mind! And he may. But even if he does, that means we’ll get a narrowly written opinion that still upholds the law. That’s what most seasoned court watchers are predicting—including people with very good track records, like the National Journal’s Stuart Taylor. (I really should know better than betting against Stuart.)

Interesting. I don’t trust Anthony Kennedy further than I could throw Michael Moore. But I’m slightly heartened by this take.

If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I once again recommend Ms. Greenburg’s book. Buy it here.