Okay, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) thinks no antitrust concerns are rasised by allowing the planet to be served by only one satellite radio company, but allowing the merger of two niche, patchouli-oil-scented grocery store chains is just a groovy bridge too far.

A federal district court ruled last August that Austin’s own bohemian bazaar turned corporate giant, Whole Foods, could acquire rival hippie food purveyor, Wild Oats, without hurting competition.

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit ruled it had had enough of all the free grocery love, reversed the district court, and held that the core customers of each store were “worthy of antitrust protection,” despite their appearance (oh ok, I added that last part).

Because the merger has already gone through in the interim, the likely outcome of the remand–if the court sids with the FTC as expected–is that stores in areas that raise antitrust concerns will likely be divested.

Thx to the Austin Business Journal and the WSJ Law Blog

Within weeks of SCOTUS ruling Dick Heller had a II Am right to possess a pistol for self-defense, the District of Columbia informed him the right doesn’t extend to semi-auto pistols after it rejected his permit application for his 1911 .45, because the District considered such firearms to be too similar to machine guns.

Only someone who has shot neither would make such a foolish assumption.

After being denied a right to register his semi-auto handgun, Heller was successful in submitting a .22 revolver for registration. However, if Heller is successful in gaining a permit to keep his .22 revolver in his home, it will have to be disassembled and trigger-locked and/or kept in a safe. This requirement (although it does include an assembly exception while it is being used against an intruder in the home) seems to treat as dicta Justice Scalia’s admonition that the “District’s requirement … that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times … makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” Dist. of Colum. v. Heller, No. 07-290, slip op. at 58 (June 26, 2008) (emphasis added).

Looks like it won’t be long before Heller II is foisted back upon the court system.

* * * UPDATE * * *

Looks like Dick Heller was equally displeased with the District’s new gun permit regulations, seeing as how he sued the District once again yesterday based, in part, on its disallowance of semi-auto handguns and its requirement that all firearms be kept disassembled and trigger-locked.

Thx to DC Dicta, the DCist, WaPo, and HotAir

Covington & Burlington (former) partner David Remes submitted his letter of resignation this past Friday after making worldwide headlines (which generously noted his firm affiliation) for dropping his pants to reveal his stylish tighty-whities in Yemen–of all places.

Remes apparently pulled the disrobing stunt to somehow show mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo (the indefatigable “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense perhaps?), but may have just wound up mistreating every unfortunate soul who can never forget the sight of him in his underpants.

Thx to the WSJ Law Blog

Is that a shovel in your hand or are you just happy to see me?

Earlier this week, it took the Wisconsin Supreme Court 34 pages to explain that a corpse cannot consent to sexual intercourse. Even more amazing is that the High Court’s opinion reversed the decision of two lower Wisconsin courts … and was dissented from on the merits by two of the supreme court justices.

Incredibly, the grave-robbing defendants’ attorney commented that the majority opinion was–I’m not making this up–”dead wrong, as it makes the entire statute superfluous” (emphasis added). Indeed.

Thx to How Appealing and the Telegraph Herald

Austin has a long and tortured history with the perpetually-advertised transportation nirvana that is purported to be commuter/light rail.

Well, I have to admit enjoying a little grin reading in this morning’s Statesman that a cadre of officials from the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration in town to discuss granting waivers to operate commuter and freight trains on the same railroad with Capital Metro experienced a minor mishap.

The commuter railcar in which they were riding (at the blazing commuter speed of 5 mph) derailed briefly. Thankfully, no one was injured in the incident, save for maybe the reputation of Capital MetroRail (whose predictable motto is “All Systems Go”).

Thx to the Austinist and the Statesman

I’ve probably already derived too much jurisprudential pleasure from analyzing the SCOTUS plurality opinion handed down this past April in Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, slip op. (Apr. 16, 2008 ), but the Onion has only just begun to analyze its merits.

* * * WARNING, NSFW LANGUAGE * * *

“I am the Law!”

Thx to Volokh

Not realizing that mutual linking actually drives advertising revenue by boosting web traffic rather than detracts from it, the AP recently came out with a shockingly obtuse pricing scheme that purports to charge blogs up to $12.50 for as little as 5 excerpted words from an AP story.

Apart from the obvious and dubious legal veracity of such a proposition, the AP apparently failed to consider or conceive of the potential reciprocal effects of such a policy.

Prominent blogger Michelle Malkin recently calculated the amount the AP would owe her under its own pricing schedule for its quotation of her content to be $132,125.

She did the same calculation for Patterico and found the AP potentially owes that site $188,750 under the AP policy. Patterico commented on the AP’s use of Patterico’s content, remarking:

So am I going to be an a[$$] and threaten to charge them, or sue them, or demand that they remove the quotes? Of course not. They benefited from my content and I benefited from their link.

Thx to Michelle Malkin and Patterico’s Pontifications

How bad does one’s political blunder have to be to not only force the end of a previously promising gubernatorial bid, but to impact a presidential race almost two decades later? Very, very bad indeed.

Many here in Texas have distant and dusty memories of the West Texas oilcatter and Aggie, Clayton Williams, who ran unsuccessfully for governor against Ann Richards in 1990. His campaign was going fairly well until he started lobbing rape and drinking “jokes” against his opponent who had publicly acknowledged struggles with alcohol.

Perhaps almost as unforgivable as his tasteless broadsides against Governor Richards, Claytie also made headlines when he refused to shake her hand before a debate in Dallas.

Well, John McCain’s army of vetting wizards apparently failed to uncover these obscure political nuggets in Claytie’s past when they scheduled a fundraiser for Senator McCain at Claytie’s house in Midland. Senator Obama’s team was quick to point out Claytie’s unsavory past, and McCain rescheduled the fundraiser, but decided to keep the $300,000 or so already raised with Claytie’s assistance.

Thx to the Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Texas on the Potomac

One might as well treat Justice Scalia’s dissent from last week’s majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, Nos. 06-1195 & 06-1196 (June 12, 2008) as an addendum to his recent legal writing tome with Bryan Garner, largely and frustratingly unavailable here in Austin.

This is because it illustrates how to write a scathing yet persuasive dissent that will likely be viewed by future Justices and Court observers in much the same jurisprudential light as Justice Jackson’s dissent from the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 242 (1944) (Jackson, J. dissenting) is now seen, which famously rebuked the majority’s condoning of the internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during WWII.

Justice Scalia’s dissent is masterful both in its tone and its construction. Part I lays out the policy fallout from the decision (i.e., the practical, real-world implications). Part II excoriates the majority’s attempt to brazenly recast the governing precedent, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). Part III traces the juristic history of the writ of habeas corpus from its codification in 1679 Britain to the present day, and explains why the majority’s decision is such a stunning departure from the entirety of Western common law previously construing and defining the boundaries of the writ.

As far as the text itself, no paraphrasing can do it justice. Below are selected excerpts from the opinon.

The classic first sentence:

Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.

Boumediene, slip op. at 1 (Scalia, J. dissenting, joined by Roberts, C.J., Thomas and Alito, J.J.). And then, the meat of Part I:

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Id. at 2. Talk about “plain language,” you can’t get much plainer than that.

During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the namesof 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the “Blind Sheik’s” defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama Bin Laden within two weeks. In another case, trial testimony revealed to the enemy that the United States had been monitoring their cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue their atrocities.

Id. at 4-5 (citations omitted). After recounting the bromide four of the five-Justice majority in Boumediene previously offered in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 636 (2006) (Breyer, J., concurring in part, joined by Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, J.J.)—namely that “[n]othing prevents the President from returing to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary”—Justice Scalia curtly observes:

Turns out they were just kidding.

Boumediene, slip op. at 5 (Scalia, J. dissenting, joined by Roberts, C.J., Thomas and Alito, J.J.).

What competence does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today’s opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisonersin this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns that the subject entails.

Id. at 6. Ouch.

It is both irrational and arrogant to say that the answer [to the question of "whether the Constitution confers habeas jurisdiction on federal courtsto decide petitioners’ claims"] must be yes, because otherwise we would not be supreme.

Id. at 18. Calling out his colleagues for their juristic arrogance. And from the final paragraph:

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization.

And the most sobering, bold, and blood-chilling line I think I may have ever read in a SCOTUS dissent, the last line cautions:

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.

Let’s hope not.

* * * UPDATE * * *

For a fascinating examination of the Boumediene decision, see Professor John Yoo’s op-ed in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. This article is all the more interesting because Justice Scalia cites in his dissent to a memo Professor Yoo authored while at the Office of Legal Counsel that relied upon the then-accepted interpretation of Eisentrager. See Boumediene, slip op. at 3 (Scalia, J. dissenting, joined by Roberts, C.J., Thomas and Alito, J.J.).

* * * UPDATED UPDATE * * *

It is humorous to note that Justice Scalia “sics” the Justice he has publicly acknowledged as the best writer ever to sit on the Court, Justice Jackson, for the former Justice’s use of the phrase, “cited to [x case],” instead of “cited [x case] to [y court].” Id. at 9. So strong is Justice Scalia’s dislike for this phrasing that he has stated its use makes the author sound “illiterate.”

Thx to Justice Scalia for his incomparable wit and eloquence.

Early Sunday morning, some cowardly soul set fire to the Texas Governor’s Mansion. Completed almost one hundred and fifty-two years ago on June 14, 1856, the Governor’s Mansion is one of Texas’s most historic structures, having housed Sam Houston during his first term as Governor.

In the downstairs parlors:

where Texas’ first presidential visitor, William McKinley, was received in 1901, plaster could be seen cracked and broken. Smoke damage was heavy, and windows were broken and charred.

The dining room—where famed humorist Will Rogers once ate so much chili with Gov. Miriam Ferguson that he had no room for dessert — was blackened and still smoldering.

Because the mansion was currently undergoing an extensive renovation, thankfully “all of the furnishings and official items had been removed” including “the window casements.” Some these irreplaceable items include original and seminal Texas history works of art and Stephen F. Austin’s writing desk.

I’m not a criminal lawyer, so I don’t know what the Penal Code provides as a sentence for arson, but I’m all in favor of upping it to life in prison in this instance—or even worse—permanent banishment from Texas. Whatever misguided and mangled soul set this fire, they’ve forever given up their right to enjoy life in our fair State.

Thx to the Austinist, the Statesman, BurkaBlog, and State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado, who is leading the investigation and has promised that “[w]e’re going to come get the person responsible for causing this damage.” Amen brother.

Today’s SCOTX orders contain a little gem noted by both the Texas Appellate Law Blog and SCOTX Blog.

In In re Roberts (No. 05‑0362) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), the Court (J. Johnson not sitting) dryly observes that:

[T]he only harm involved is a 30-day delay. By contrast, this original proceeding has now delayed the case for four years …. By any measure, the benefits to mandamus review of a 30-day extension are outweighed by the detriments.

Kudos to the authoring Justice of this one: very subtle yet very effective.

Thx to the Texas Appellate Law Blog and SCOTX Blog

This blog’s newfound buddy, Adam “[Gee, maybe I'm not so] Bulletproof” Reposa, is–unfortunately–back in the news.

Tex Parte Blog just came across the ad mentioned here a few months ago and used quite effectively by the prosecution as an exhibit at Reposa’s trial for demonstrating an alternative hand sign for “contempt.”

Reposa has filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals complaining his 90-day contempt sentence is excessive. In his writ, Reposa alleges that he was denied due process and due course of law when “Judge Davis declined to follow criminal procedure in ascertaining applicant’s guilt” by allowing the state to introduce evidence of extraneous conduct, i.e., the ad mentioned above from something called Whoopsy magazine, which is apparently distributed in some Austin clubs.

Of course it is.

In a letter sent by one of Reposa’s attorneys to the State Bar’s Advertising Review Committee responding to the committee’s letter that threatened to report Reposa to the State Bar’s grievance committee, Reposa’s counsel justified the ad (presumably with a straight face) by stating:

If one was acquainted with Mr. Reposa when he was 11 years old, then they might connect this parody with him, but otherwise, no casual reader would regard this parody as an advertisement for a specific lawyer.

No, of course not. Except for the fact that the ad repeatedly mentions it references an Austin DWI attorney who has given himself the moniker, “Bulletproof.” It just so happens that there’s only one Austin DWI attorney–or any attorney in the state for that matter–who [in]famously holds himself out with the nickname “Bulletproof.”

Surely no one could connect those disparate dots?

Thx to Tex Parte Blog, Texas Lawyer, and Awesomeness For Awesome’s Sake

You hear Keith Olbermann go off on one of his unhinged tirades, keep in mind that the insanely-mustachioed Geraldo impersonator pictured above is the man you’re listening to.

Have to admit though, he and Dan Patrick were probably the best sportscasting team ever to hit the airwaves.

Thx to Deadspin and Flash Sports Tonight

I just came across a website that shares my sense of appreciation for at least one castmember of the distaff-tastic HBO show, Sex and the City. Putting taste and decency aside, I couldn’t resist bringing you some of its content.

From www.sarahjessicaparkerlookslikeahorse.com:

Thx to Jossip

Few who read this blog may be old enough to remember Carole Keeton Strayhorn Rylander McClellan’s 1986 run for Congress, but I do.

Back in ‘86, Carole “Keeton McClellan”–as she was then known–made enemies of her Democrat compatriots when she abruptly resigned from the State Board of Insurance with a full three years left on her term, and promptly switched parties so that she could run against the revered and longserving District 10 congressional representative, J.J. Jake Pickle. It wasn’t so much that people begrudged her ambition, but that she would so brazenly and inelegantly attempt to displace an LBJ-era icon in Central Texas politics who was literally beloved by his constituents.

In fact, so deserving of his constitutents’ affection was Congressman Pickle that I remember a tale told at his 2005 funeral that, throughout his years in Congress, he kept his home telephone number listed in the Austin phonebook so he was always—literally—just a phone call away from those who elected him.

Well, the Washington Times reports today that, ‘lo and behold, Mama Carole may have had something to do with her son’s recent partisan about-face with his former boss, 43.

Lil’ Scotty’s on the left.

Thx to the Washington Times and the Austin Chronicle

Ever get the feeling that the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and TxDOT are flat-out lying to you about the supposed nirvana that will be a future Central Texas criss-crossed by toll roads?

Yeah, me too.

Well, here’s the proof. Austin American Statesman reporter Ben Wear cajoled a colleague to drive I-35 during rush hour while he cruised worry-free down the SH 130 toll road and then record who arrived at the toll road’s southern terminus first. According to Wear:

The tollways have been sold as a speedier alternative to the ravages of I-35 rush hour traffic. Toll road proponents have said that truckers, in particular, will flock to Texas 130 (and, eventually, Texas 45 Southeast) because time is money to them. Even with a $24 cash toll for truckers ($6 cash for passenger cars and pickups, $5.40 with a toll tag), the argument goes, it’s worth it to save the time.

So I decided to test that claim. I’d drive the tollway during rush hour and recruit a colleague to drive I-35 at the same time, then compare notes.

* * *

So last Monday morning, after synchronizing our watches on a frontage road just north of Texas 130’s departure from I-35, and agreeing that both of us would drive no faster than 70 mph in unrestricted traffic, we headed off, me to the tollway and Andrea on I-35. Who got to the intersection of FM 1327 and I-35 first?

* * *

Taking the toll road cost me nine minutes. And the toll I paid. But that’s not all it cost.

My total mileage: 54.8 miles, 11.5 miles more than the direct I-35 route. My Taurus tells me that I got 23.7 miles per gallon, so the extra mileage cost me a little less than a half-gallon of gas. That’s another $1.75 or so. I averaged 60.6 mph, Andrea 57.7 mph.

So, at rush hour, I paid almost $6 to get there 20 percent slower.

Fantastic. Small wonder the brain trust at TxDot was recently forced to admit a $1 billion “error” in its budget forecasting.

Thx to the Statesman’s Ben Wear

Because it’s Friday afternoon, I am compelled to bring this “life imitating art” clip to you. Have to give it to Sir Charles, he was a good sport about it.

* * * WARNING: NSFW LANGUAGE * * *

And the art ….

Thx to HotAir and YouTube

Shenanigans points out the colorable differences between yesterday’s Hardball and today’s.

Thx to Shenanigans

SCOTX Blog has a great post today regarding the latest screed from Texas Watch in their ever-vigilant quest to find new ways to sound imbecilic (my description only).

Texas Watch has apparently prepared a new “report” which purports to shine the light of truth on SCOTX’s “penchant for secrecy” by “using per curiam opinions inappropriately to avoid accountability for some of the tough decisions.“

Before I delve into the nonexistent merits of Texas Watch’s revelation, there is something curious going on here. Both the Houston Chronicle and the AP have published news accounts describing a report that Texas Watch has not even yet issued. Does anyone else find it odd that supposedly objective news outlets would be writing articles concerning PR dossiers that haven’t even been released to the public yet?

As to the merits, as any lawyer knows (which perhaps explains Mr. Winslow’s ignorance), per curiam opinions are a remedial tool used by SCOTX (and the courts of appeals for that matter) to more quickly dispose of cases that require only relatively straightforward error correction. See Hon. Robert H. Pemberton, One Year Under the New TRAP: Improvements, Problems and Unresolved Issues in Texas Supreme Court Proceedings, in State Bar of Tex. Prof’l Dev. Program, Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course B, B-18 (1998).

In fact, SCOTX first began to increase its use of per curiam opinions as early as 1925, when–not coincidentally–the Court was suffering from such a severe backlog of cases that a separate judicial body was created to assist in the mass adjudication of pending cases. See David M. Gunn, “Unpublished Opinions Shall Not Be Cited as Authority”: The Emerging Contours of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 90(i), 24 ST. MARY’S L.J. 115, 117 (1992) (describing how, beginning in 1925, the Texas Supreme Court began to increase its issuance of per curiam opinions, “perhaps as a corrective device”); see also Act of Apr. 3, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S., ch. 81, 1918 Tex. Gen. Laws 171 (made effective April 3, 1918, and reestablishing the Texas Commission of Appeals); Tex. S.J. Res. 8, 49th Leg., R.S., 1945 Tex. Gen. Laws 1043 (adopted at election held Aug. 25, 1945 eliminating the Texas Commission of Appeal).

Accordingly, per curiam opinions are used to more efficiently dispose of those cases upon which there is little or no disagreement, and which present fairly straightforward legal issues. In other words, if the Court is issuing more per curiam opinions, it is probably more accurately an indicia of an increased determination to reduce the Court’s backlog (previously bemoaned by Texas Watch) of appropriate cases than it is a Machiavellian attempt to shroud the deciding members from public scrutiny.

To the contrary, the use of such a jurisprudential mechanism actually INCREASES the scrutiny upon the Justices because a per curiam opinion is–by definition–issued by the entire Court. Every Justice is given equal praise/blame for the failings or triumphs of the decision, as compared to an authored opinion which can be attributed only to the majority of Justices who sign it.

Moreover, because the only type of case that is appropriate for per curiam disposition is one in which the legal issues are clear, straightforward, and non-controversial, Winslow’s claim that “[a]ll too often, the Texas Supreme Court uses per curiam opinions as a shield to hide behind when they render decisions that are controversial, leaving them unaccountable to voters” can simply not be taken seriously. Any decision likely to cause controversy or which demands the Court clarify a muddled or disputed area of the law is precisely the type of opinion least likely to be issued per curiam. And, as explained above, a per curiam opinion subjects every single Justice on the Court to elevated scrutiny, not just the authoring few.

Again, any basic analysis of the different types of opinions SCOTX is empowered to issue is a bit dry and legally complicated so I can’t really fault a group of non-lawyers (save for the one four-year lawyer Texas Watch recently hired) for failing to comprehend the finer points of the practice.

Most interesting to me is SCOTX Blog’s noting that the official statistics published annually by the Office of Court Administration track the per curiam opinions written by each Justice (see page four of the .pdf file).

While it is of course obvious that a single Justice must be logistically tasked to author a per curiam opinion, the identity of that Justice should remain anonymous because it is the Court as a whole that is issuing the opinion. The fact that OCA tracks and publishes this data, tying these opinions to the chambers which issue them (by number of opinions only) is more troublesome than any flotsam trotted out by Texas Watch.

Thx to SCOTX Blog

You’d think that law firms–of all places–would be bastions of political correctness and equality, or at the very least, the last professional environment where one could expect to have the following things happen.

First, it was Paul Hastings‘ (known for its employment law practice) extreme lack of tact (or timing) in firing an associate six days after she suffered a miscarriage. Then the firm had the audacity to coerce her into signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for three month’s pay (which she rightly refused).

They are now reaping what they sowed.

Now, a former associate of Bingham McCutchen is suing her former firm for failing to take action after she reported being drugged with tegretol (an anti-seizure medication that causes memory loss when taken with alcohol) at a firm holiday party.

Wouldn’t most folks assume that a LAW FIRM would be proactive if not aggressive in trying to get to the bottom of such criminal and damaging behavior?

Apparently not.

* * * UPDATE * * *

Bingham has responded with its official side of the story.

Thx to Above the Law

How much money does it take to start a record label? A lot I’m sure. But $360 billion?

That was the excuse given by a Fort Worth man who tried to cash a check made out for $360,000,000,000.00. He quickly lowered his monetary sights (by about 96 million times), however, posting bail for $3,750.00.

Thx to Above the Law, the FW Star-Telegram, and MSNBC

I was tempted not to post on Monday’s SCOTUS decision in Crawford v. Marion County, No. 07-21 (Apr. 28, 2008 ), because I’ve never grasped what possible, plausible argument could be made that requiring a voter ID card is unconstitutional.

However, once I saw the following author line, it alone merits some discussion:

JUSTICE STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY join.

The more I read Senior Associate Justice Stevens’ opinion, the more I am convinced that any opposition to this law is–in Justice Scalia’s words–”sheer applesauce.” See Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, No. 05–1508 (April 17, 2007) (Scalia, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., Thomas, J., and Souter, J., as to Part I, dissenting).

First, the voter ID cards the law requires are issued to voters at no cost. Slip. op. at 15 (Stevens, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., and Kennedy, J.). So all the bemoaning you may have read in the press or in the dissent regarding how this decision affirms what amounts to a poll tax is utter gibberish.

Even more amazingly, the law even provides for people who can’t obtain a voter ID (potentially including “elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate;18 persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed”), the ability to vote provisionally and then sign a free affidavit at the county courthouse. See id.

Justice Stevens even manages to get in some benchslappery directed at his colleague in dissent, Justice Souter:

Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional adjudication.

Id. at 18 n.20.

Unsurprisingly, Justice Scalia boils the whole case down to its constitutional core in his concurrence:

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” And the State’s interests, ante, at 7–13, are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter. That the State accommodates some voters by permitting (not requiring) the casting of absentee or provisional ballots, is an indulgence—not a constitutional imperative that falls short of what is required.

Slip. op. at 6 (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas and Alito, J.J., concurring) (citations omitted).

Thx to the Austin Political Report and the NY Times

The sky is the limit for first-term Austin City Councilwoman Jennifer Kim. When it comes to allocating the $260,000 a year with which her office is endowed (nominally to pay for the member’s salary and that of their staff), Councilwoman Kim has appropriated generously.

Oh, not on salaries mind you or other public expenses that wouldn’t raise the eyebrows of Austin’s taxpayers, but on questionable items such as:

$921 for a three-night stay at the W hotel in Manhattan
$700 for a membership to Continental Airlines’ ‘President’s Club’
$550 for a Sharper Image air purifier
$400 for 20 copies of Discover Your Strengths
$232 in Crane and Company brand stationary
$86 in Vera Wang barware
$67 for a Steam Wizard from The Sharper Image
$59 each for “Executive Rollerball” pens from The Sharper Image.

Using taxpayer dollars to buy designer barware, and a stay at a trendy Manhattan hotel? Has she been reading the Pedernales Co-op’s guide to fiscal responsibility?

When asked about these expenditures by a local reporter, Kim defended her acquisitional judgment by saying, “I spend what I need to out of my budget to be able to do the job. And in the beginning, it was a brand new office, a brand new staff, there were a lot of things that we needed.”

Like Vera Wang barware. Riiiiight.

I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on the pens (my Mont Blanc makes those look reasonable), the stationary, the suit steamer, the travel club membership, etc., but–despite being an Aggie–she should know enough not to use public funds to buy any of these items from expensive vendors, if at all.

This is not the first example of Kim’s poor judgment however. In early 2007, she created a furor by indignantly attempting to bypass airport security at ABIA, claiming nonexistent VIP status. When informed her status as a member of the Austin City Council conferred her no special security rights, Kim said “I didn’t know it was a [Transportation Security Administration (TSA)] issue, … I thought since it was our airport and we own it, and if we are pre-cleared, we could get through.”

Uh, ask anyone who has flown since 9/11 if they are aware TSA runs airport security.

As reported elsewhere, Kim’s antics have made her hard to work with, running through at least three executive aides since she took office in 2005.

Her airport shenanigans have even given her electoral opponent a campaign slogan, “I’ll be happy to stand in line with you at the airport anytime.”

Thx to KVUE’s Political Junkie, the Austin Chronicle, News 8 Austin, and PinkDome

In these cyber-pages, we’ve chronicled great feats of benchslappery by U.S. District Court Judges Kent and Sparks, Texas Supreme Court Justice Willett, and even documented the contempt-slapping of one particularly self-loving lawyer.

We have yet to come across a federal appellate benchslapping against a litigant–that is, until now. And, as an added bonus, this rebuke came courtesy of a per curiam opinion by three Fifth Circuit judges.

In the circuit court’s decision last week in Hartz v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, No. 07-30506 slip op. at 13-14 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 2008 ), the unfortunate yet apparently deserving Mr. Roger Phipps received just such a [dis]honor.

The panel devoted an entire subheading to chiding Mr. Phipps for conduct:

E. Roger Phipps’ Conduct

Finally, and completely separate and apart from the issues raised on appeal, we would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful.

Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.

Id. at 13-14. The conduct the circuit court found so objectionable included this exchange between counsel and the panel:

Phipps: . . . so that’s about all I have to say, Your Honor. I don’t have anything other than that. You know, my client lives in Chicago. … She continues to earn a living, and she’s generally unavailable if you call her because she, she’s sort of a traveling doctor.

Judge: That’s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.

Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as whether even Ricks should apply, I don’t think it should.

Judge: What do you do about Morgan?

Phipps: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know Morgan, Your Honor.

Judge: You don’t know Morgan?

Phipps: Nope.

Judge: You haven’t read it?

Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh, Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night. I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t think it applies.

Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?

Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.

Judge: At Tulane, is it?

Phipps: Loyola.

Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all[-]time first.

Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.

Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.

Id. at 14 n. 4.

At least he didn’t attempt any explanatory hand signals.

Thx to the Legal Profession Blog, Above the Law, and SCOTX Blog

For the coward pictured below.

Today, the DPS released the security video of the arsonist who almost succeeded in burning the Governor’s Mansion to the ground.

Anyone with information about the possible identity of the person depicted in the video or picture above is urged to call investigators at:

512-506-2849,
512-506-2861,
512-506-2862, or
Crime at 800-252-8477.

Thx to the Austinist