The Honolulu Weekly is about as pro-Obama as a publication can get without being funding by the campaign itself — then again, with all that campaign cash, maybe they are funded.
The HW is one of those urban “progressive” weekly papers that you can grab for free around town, and is useful for lining the birdcage at home.
But this week’s edition makes quite an interesting choice for the political cartoon that runs on it’s “Letters to the Editor” page.
Here’s a link to the cartoon in the current issue of the most “progressive” newspaper in general circulation in the most pro-Obama city in the most pro-Obama state in the United States.
With friends like these….
It’s at its lowest point since September 2006.
The price of oil is continuing to rise.
The Heller gun rights case has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
As expected, the Court found an individual right to keep and bear arms. The decision was 5-4, and was written by Justice Scalia.
Howard Bashman will post the link to the decision in this How Appealing post when it is available. [UPDATE: Read it here.]
5-4. Let that sink in, folks. Even though it was expected, it’s now official. Ponder it for a moment.
If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.
In 2004, Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt admitted that out of twelve death cases he had heard, he had voted against death in every single one. Although I can’t confirm it, I believe his streak holds to this day. I know of only one decision (not including today’s) since that time, and Reinhardt voted against death there too.
Reinhardt claims that in every such decision, he has simply followed the law. It just so happens that in more than 25 years as a federal appellate judge, he has never seen a single case where the law justifies death.
I believe Rose Bird made similar arguments — before her recall. (Of course, federal judges can’t be recalled.)
Reinhardt continues his streak in a particularly dishonest decision issued today, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by a Los Angeles defense lawyer. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the way the criminal justice system works can easily see through Reinhardt’s ridiculous arguments.
I hope that this case is appealed to the United States Supreme Court. If it is, I have utter confidence that it will be summarily reversed. The only question is whether the High Court finds it worth its while to take a case involving an utter distortion of the law relating to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Details in the extended entry.