The L.A. Times‘s L.A. Now blog reports on the latest tactic used by the anti-Prop. 8 forces:

Lawyers for two gay couples challenging last year’s Proposition 8 initiative banning same-sex marriage in California brought their case to a federal appeals court panel in Pasadena today, arguing that they need access to initiative sponsors’ internal campaign communications to prove the ballot measure was passed with “discriminatory intent.”

It’s amazing to me how Proposition 8 opponents continually use terrorist tactics to wage their battle. There was the campaign to name everyone who contributed to the Prop. 8 campaign — which predictably turned into a campaign of harassment and intimidation. And there was the mob violence.

Now, they’re seeking internal e-mails from the campaign to try to prove that the people in the campaign are bigots. This is as clear an effort to chill speech as I’ve seen in some time — but what do you know? some Clinton-appointed judges don’t see it that way:

The judges, all appointees of President Clinton, expressed skepticism that the opponents of Proposition 8 needed to go beyond what was publicly available from campaign ads and Internet-based statements to show the strategy behind the initiative. But they also openly disputed [the pro-Prop. 8 lawyer’s] contention that much of the communication was entitled to 1st Amendment protection.

I’d bet the farm Reinhardt’s one of them. He magically ends up on the panels for these hot-button issues, every time. Odd, that.

This is a thuggish tactic and it ought not prevail. Unfortunately, it looks like it will.

UPDATE: I misread “Clinton appointees” as “Carter appointees.” Reinhardt’s not one of them. I would have lost the farm.

Also, this post somehow got eaten but I think I have successfully reconstructed it. I think I lost a couple of comments, though. Sorry for the confusion.

A reader passes along an article from the Daily Journal, which reports on the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of certain ethics complaints by Cyrus Sanai against numerous judges, including Alex Kozinski. (Attentive readers will note that I first reported on this before Thanksgiving. Patterico: beating the Daily Journal by almost a week!)

The reader notes that, for all the articles that the L.A. Times has done about Kozinski, it has run absolutely zilch on this order. Indeed, a search of their archives reveals that the last mention of Kozinski was on November 14, on an unrelated matter. (Patterico: reporting the news that the L.A. Times refuses to run!)

The Daily Journal article begins:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a lengthy misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and numerous other jurists filed by Cyrus M. Sanai, a Beverly Hills attorney.

The article notes the investigation launched over the sexually explicit material on Judge Kozinski’s web site, and continues:

While that investigation was under way, Sanai filed a complaint against Kozinski and a dozen other circuit judges and six district judges alleging assorted acts of misconduct related to their handling of Sanai’s own civil cases, appeals and earlier misconduct matters.

That complaint was the subject of a Nov. 25 order by Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, in which he found Sanai’s claims “frivolous,” “not supported by any evidence” or properly dismissed by earlier orders.

In sum, Reinhardt concluded, Sanai filed baseless allegations “and appears to have described his conduct as part of a litigation strategy.” Reinhardt cited that phrase in a 2008 posting by Sanai on a legal affairs blog called Patterico’s Pontifications, run by a deputy district attorney in Long Beach, John Patrick Frey.

Frey also quoted from a Sanai comment to another blog: “Once Kozinski inserted himself into my litigation inappropriately [by writing the op-ed column], it’s my duty and right to undo the negative consequences and turn the situation to my litigation advantage.”

Frey declined to comment on the matter Monday except to note it is unusual for his blog to be mentioned in an official circuit order.

Kozinski, through his attorney, declined to comment.

(Just so it’s clear, I didn’t so much “note” that it was unusual as “agree with the reporter” that it was unusual. He brought it up.)

I spoke to the reporter, John Roemer, just before lunch yesterday (nice guy) and indeed declined to comment on Cyrus Sanai’s argument that the Ninth Circuit had no business meddling in this set of complaints. The reader can make his own judgment.

Well, I guess this answers the question of who that mystery “complainant” was in Reinhardt’s order.

I had a feeling it was Cyrus Sanai! Don’t ask me how I knew . . . it just felt right.

[Guest post by DRJ]

… and it is us:

“UPDATE: Chris Matthews has made a lot of outrageous, is-he-sober comments over the years, but I don’t know if he’s ever uttered something quite so reprehensible as, “he went to the enemy camp, tonight, to make the case.”

From Jim Geraghty at NRO’s The Campaign Spot, quoting Chris Matthews discussing President Obama’s speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

H/T Vivian Louise, who also provided the video.

— DRJ

UPDATE — Here’s the story of a soldier in the West Point “enemy camp” tonight:

“In the audience tonight, a West Point graduate and Army veteran who lost both legs in Afghanistan: First Lt. Dan Berschinski.

Berschinski stepped on an IED on August 19, 2009 while his unit — the Second Platoon of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment – secured a village. Berschinski’s right leg was amputated at the hip; his left leg was amputated above his knee.
***
A former cross country runner and soccer player, Berschinski has spent much of his time since the incident in Ward 57 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

“I feel bad that I’m in here while my platoon is out there fighting,” Berschinski told the News Tribune. “I know there’s not much I can do about it now. There’s really nothing to do. But that doesn’t make it any easier.”

[Guest post by DRJ]

This is an open thread on Obama’s speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point. The UK Guardian is liveblogging Obama’s speech here and Yahoo News is live-streaming it here. The full text is here.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

BigGovernment.com has posted Part II in its series on SEIU, HCAN, the Obama Administration and Kenneth Gladney:

“It is hard to not reach the conclusion that the events of August 6th were a result that could have been expected given the rhetoric from elected officials in the Democratic Party (Speaker Pelosi saying the protesters carries swastikas) and the President’s Advisers (Jim Messina telling Senators “if they hit you, we will punch them back twice as hard”) coupled with the instructions handed down to obedient union members by their union leaders. If you agree that HCAN and OFA were instrumental in creating the climate for violent confrontation that led to Kenneth Gladney’s assault, then it is important to learn about the leadership of HCAN and the SEIU members who are suspects in the assault and learn who they are and what might have motivated their actions.”

Who does BigGovernment identify as those leaders?

Margarida Jorge worked at SEIU in St. Louis. She wrote the HCAN memo on fighting back against the right.

Sara Howard worked at SEIU in St Louis. She also worked for Obama For America. The day before the St. Louis town hall, she was hired by Rep. Russ Carnahan.

Elston McCowan and Perry Molens worked at SEIU in St. Louis. They have been charged with the bloody assault of Kenneth Gladney.

Jorge, Howard, McCowan and Molens were all involved with Buffy Wicks at Obama For America in Missouri.

Buffy Wicks now works for Valerie Jarret in the White House Office of Public Engagement and was involved in the NEA Conference Calls.

Keep this in mind for tomorrow’s edition that reportedly will “show how this small network of insiders in the leftist political power structure of St. Louis are inter-connected with the very people charged with investigating and prosecuting the individuals responsible for beating Kenneth Gladney. And, how those same people were also instrumental in the Obama Campaign in Missouri in 2008.”

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Administration is limiting President Obama’s exposure to the White House press corp:

“After months of what some critics called overexposure, President Obama has of late avoided questions from the White House press corps at large, closing the Oval Office to traditionally informal question-and-answer sessions with reporters and pulling back from the fast pace of news conferences he established when taking office.

The president, whose job-approval ratings have been on a steady slide, hasn’t held a formal news conference in 19 weeks, since July 22. That one ended badly, when Mr. Obama waded into a racial controversy by saying a white police officer “acted stupidly” when he arrested a black Harvard professor.”

Obama reportedly also limited media questions during press conferences on his Asia trip and during the Indian Prime Minister’s recent visit to Washington. Further, there were no press or photographers allowed in yesterday’s White House visit by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Of course, “overexposure” is fine when the polls are good. This is the real problem:

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

I wasn’t that concerned about the impact on safety of jumbo-sized passengers on commercial airplanes — I figured the airlines wouldn’t let passengers travel if it was unsafe for them or others — but then I saw this unconfirmed but reportedly true photo.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

East Anglia CRU Chief Phil Jones announced he will temporarily step down pending an investigation into the leaked/hacked email scandal:

“The university [of East Anglia] said in a statement that Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.”

The University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies and other global warming advocates nevertheless defended Jones from the implications of the scandal:

“Davies defended Jones and his colleagues, saying the publication of their e-mails “is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign” to undermine climate science. The sentiment was echoed by Nicholas Stern, a leading climate change economist, who said the person or people who posted the leaked e-mails had muddled the debate at a critical moment.

“It has created confusion and confusion never helps scientific discussions,” Stern told reporters in London Tuesday. “The degree of skepticism among real scientists is very small.

Governments are in the final days of preparations for Copenhagen conference, which is due to outline a new climate change agreement. Stern said the stakes were very high, explaining that if countries did not manage to reach agreement, world temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, making much of the world uninhabitable.

“We have a moment now when we could get a strategy agreed,” Stern said. “If it were to dissolve in disarray it would not be easy to put this momentum back together again.”

The scientists seem especially concerned with what this scandal will do to the Copenhagen conference.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Senior Administration officials say President Obama will start pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan beginning in 2011:

“The White House is attempting to thread the needle here — setting a timetable to exert pressure on Afghanistan to accelerate troop training and government stability without setting a timetable alerting the enemy as to when US forces will leave.

“If the Taliban think they can wait this out, I think they are misjudging the president’s approach,” another official said. “It may be misinterpreted but the Taliban will do that at their own risk.””

The Obama Administration is proving itself to be the risk averse party here, not the Taliban. Now the Taliban has nothing to lose but time.

— DRJ

SEK updates that post about Captain Ed’s knowing race-baiting:

Update. If you came from over here, you need to note two things: first, that Patrick’s only talking about the title of my post, which is odd, because in the body of the post the sarcasm of the title becomes absolutely clear. So clear, the clarification below is really only for people who only read the title of my original post. Second, Patrick completely ignores the argument of both the original post and this one. Make what you will of his silence as regards anything other than the sarcastic title of the original post.

OK then, I’ll break my highly suspicious silence.

I note that Scott still hasn’t addressed the point of my post, which was that when you write a title like this:

Be nice, now. The English language is not Ed Morrissey’s strong suit, and he at least makes a show of reining in the racist comments he knowingly baits from his audience.

You shouldn’t really profess shock when people read that as a claim that Ed Morrissey is a race-baiter.

SEK can rant and rave all day about how I’m only addressing his title, and the body of his post makes a far different point, and anyone who reads the body of his post can see that he’s not saying Ed Morrissey race-baits, yada yada yada. At the end of the day, you’re still writing a title that reads as follows:

Be nice, now. The English language is not Ed Morrissey’s strong suit, and he at least makes a show of reining in the racist comments he knowingly baits from his audience.

I think it’s interesting that Scott declines to actually quote his title in his post about how he’s not accusing Ed Morrissey of race-baiting. I suspect that’s because when you actually read the title, it becomes very awkward to make the explanation when those inconvenient words (“the racist comments he knowingly baits from his audience”) are staring you right in the face.

If Scott had retracted that title and said that, darn it, he shouldn’t have written it that way because that’s inconsistent with the point he’s trying to make, then I wouldn’t be giving him grief. But instead, he’s standing by the title and at the same time claiming that he’s not accusing Ed Morrissey of race-baiting. I feel a little like the woman in the Eddie Murphy skit who saw her husband run out of another woman’s house, as her husband looks her square in the eye and says: “Wasn’t me.”

Asking for an explanation of the title (and yes, Scott, I’m talking about the title, which I’m happy to read in the context of the post, but which is still your title), I get long-winded explanations about the post — but nothing to explain why the title explicitly accuses Ed Morrissey of race-baiting.

Now, in the update, we get the closest thing to an explanation that Scott will deign to give: Scott declares this to be “sarcasm” — which is evidently so utterly clear that it needn’t be explained.

Sarcasm? So is Scott mocking the notion that someone might call Ed Morrissey a race-baiter? Putting my little detective cap on, I go searching for clews and find this in the original post:

Mr. Morrissey and his ilk care little how any individual ingredient contributes to the flavor, because no matter what anyone tosses in there, the last step of the recipe calls for adding two parts ungranulated racism for every one part of liquid:

Watson, I do believe that might be yet a further suggestion of racism on the part of Morrissey! No doubt this is “sarcasm” as well.

I always have liked Scott from the first time I read his hilarious accounts of his encounters with others as a student, and I don’t intend to write these posts to insult him personally. But I find it impossibly difficult to understand his defense here — and I suspect the problem is that he knows he’s been throwing around the race card a bit irresponsibly and is a touch sheepish about it.

If I’m wrong, Scott, feel free to explain. But don’t act like it’s so freakin’ obvious. If that title wasn’t meant to say Ed Morrissey is a race-baiter, then why the hell did you write it that way?