Who woulda thunk it?

“Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true,” he tells PEOPLE exclusively. “I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.”

. . . .

“So to the Palin family in general and to Sarah Palin in particular, please accept my regrets and forgive my youthful indiscretion,” Johnston says in the statement. “I hope one day to restore your trust.”

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Guest post by DRJ]

A 3-judge Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel has ruled the Obama Administration can’t unilaterally close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository site:

“Unless Congress directs otherwise, DOE may not single-handedly derail the legislated decision-making process by withdrawing the (Yucca repository) application. DOE’s motion must therefore be denied,” the judges wrote, adding that the DOE had weakened its arguments by “conceding that the application is not flawed nor the (Yucca) site unsafe.”

I doubt this will help Senator Harry Reid’s re-election chances unless the appeal lasts past November.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The U.S. Capitol Police are investigating hoax emails sent to area media that claimed Senators Diane Feinstein and Patrick Leahy had died.

I guess some people crave attention but I’m not sure if this is a crime. If it isn’t, it soon will be.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Today the Obama Administration sued the State of Arizona, challenging the constitutionality of a recent law that targets illegal immigrants and arguing Arizona doesn’t have the right to pre-empt the federal government’s authority over immigration:

“The federal government’s legal case turns on the question of pre-emption — the notion that only Washington has the authority to set immigration policy. The Justice Department’s complaint says that Arizona’s statute, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April, “is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Here are links to the Government’s Complaint and Brief. The Complaint sets forth three counts:

Violation of the Supremacy Clause;

Federal pre-emption; and

Violation of the Commerce Clause.

The Obama Administration requests a declaratory judgment that the Arizona law is null and a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the law. It also seeks costs against the State of Arizona.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the federal government must meet each part of a four prong test: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Just as Judge Feldman did in blocking Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling, the Court in this Arizona case will balance the injury on the parties and consider the impact the injunction will have on “the public interest.”

Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says the case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake. Because the Obama Administration is seeking a preliminary injunction, Judge Wake will give us an early view of his stand on this case when he rules on whether there is a “substantial likelihood” the Obama Administration will prevail on the merits.

— DRJ

UPDATE: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has sent out a request for donations to help Arizona defend its law.

David Savage from the L.A. Times:

During her hearing, Kagan found herself in the odd spot of defending judicial restraint before senators who usually worry aloud about sending a “judicial activist” to the court.

“Can you name for me any economic activity that the federal government cannot regulate under the commerce clause?” asked Sen. John Cornyn (R- Texas).

“I wouldn’t try to,” Kagan replied, emphasizing that the court has long said lawmakers have broad powers to regulate economic activity.

Just so we’re clear, defending unrestrained federal regulation of any and all economic activity is known as “judicial restraint” in L.A. Times land. Just as a reminder of where such “restraint” can lead us, here’s Senator Coburn addressing Kagan regarding a hypothetical “eat what we tell you to” law:

Restraint!

Thanks to jimboster.

P.S. The theme of the article is that Obama and the Supreme Court are on a “collision course,” which Savage sets up as John Roberts’s revenge for Obama’s State of the Union slap at the Supremes. Savage does his best to dramatize his theme with such hyperbole, but I still came away yawning.

For what it’s worth, Kennedy isn’t planning to go anywhere soon, and the conservatives show no sign of immediately departing either. Obama hasn’t been able to do anything to shift the Court yet. That comes in the second term!