Today, Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will take up another landmark case with regard to the issue of gun rights.

Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago challenges Chicago’s citywide ban on the possession of handguns.

UPDATE: It appears that the justices are leaning toward really doing the no-kidding landmark thingy with this one. Here’s the LA Times take by David Savage. And here’s Adam Liptak for the NY Times on today’s hearing.

The court has posted a transcript of the hearing here.

Now for background, here’s how the folks at the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial pages explain the core of the case, and how it relates to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision that opened the door to this new case to begin with:

…Must Chicago and other locales drop their ban on handguns just as the justices forced Washington, D.C., to do two years ago?

If the high court decides yes, then state and local gun regulations across the nation could be shot full of holes. That’s why it’s so important for the justices to clarify not only where the “right to keep and bear arms” applies jurisdictionally, but how fundamental a right it is.

Is the Second Amendment right akin to First Amendment rights to free speech and the free practice of religion, which carry few restrictions? Or is it somehow a lesser right, subject to greater regulation?

This question is related to the case at hand – McDonald v. the City of Chicago – but it is not the issue immediately before the justices. What the plaintiff in the Chicago case wants to know is whether people living outside federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C., also have the individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

In the 2008 landmark case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, the justices ruled for the first time that gun ownership is an individual right – not just a right for militias. They overthrew Washington’s handgun ban, which was similar to Chicago’s, and allowed Richard Heller to have a gun in his home for self-defense. But the justices didn’t say whether this right extends beyond federal jurisdictions.

Many Chicago residents fear, including Chicago mayor, Richard Daley, that striking down the decades old ban will simply enable the city’s already healthy illegal gun trade to flourish with less hindrance, thus meaning more deaths from gun violence.

Those who want the ban overturned contend that allowing law-abiding citizens to legally arm themselves will improve safety, not the reverse.

Lawrence Hurley of the Daily Journal, has an excellent explanatory piece on how the new case could impact California—and how, Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Jerry Brown (among others) views the subject.

Since the Daily Journal is hidden behind a paywall, Hurley has kindly allowed me to post the article for you below:

U.S. SUPREME COURT • Mar. 01, 2010
California Attorneys Weigh In on Guns

By Lawrence Hurley,Daily Journal Staff Writer

WASHINGTON – Reflecting strong California interest in a major gun rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers from the state have been heavily involved on both sides as this week’s oral argument approaches.

The court will hear arguments Tuesday as to whether the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms can be applied to state laws and regulations via the 14th Amendment. McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

Of 52 amicus briefs in the closely watched case, California-based lawyers filed 11. Another two were filed by Washington-based lawyers on behalf of clients from California.

Although the latest case before the high court is out of Chicago, it closely mirrors one currently before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerning Alameda County’s gun show ban that prevents such events from being held on county-owned land.

Read the rest of this entry »

Can the Patriot Act make it a crime for an American to advise a group that has been designated a terrorist organization—if that advice pertains only to human rights and ways to seek peace?

It is this question that was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The Americans challenging the restriction are the LA-based Humanitarian Law Project and its president, USC professor, Ralph Fertig, who has advised a Kurdish rebel group in Turkey.

This is from the AP:

The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday to balance the constitutional rights of humanitarian aid groups with the government’s efforts to combat terrorism.

The issue arose in a challenge by aid groups and individuals to parts of a key anti-terror law that bans “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even when that support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

The aid groups involved had trained a group in Turkey on how to bring human rights complaints to the United Nations and assisted them in peace negotiations, but suspended the activities when the U.S. designated the Turkish outfit a terrorist organization in 1997. They also wanted give similar help to a group in Sri Lanka, but it, too, was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1997.

Now keep in mind, we are not talking about groups like Al Quaeda that have been designated as our enemies, and thus are subject to a host of restrictions, Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.

The organization in question is a Kurdish rebel group called the PKK.

NPR’s Nina Totenberg does a good job of teasing out more of the issues.

And the LA Times David Savage has this post-hearing update.

A ruling is expected in June—with Kennedy again the swing vote. (Or maybe Roberts will also have a sensible moment. At least it is comforting to think so.)

PS: AND THE TWISTED LOGIC AWARD FOR TUESDAY’S HEARING GOES TO Antonin Scalia for this dandy quote: “It hasn’t criminalized speech. Most of that aid and assistance that is prohibited is not in the form of speech, but it happens to include speech as well.I think that is quite different from a law that is directed explicitly at speech.”

(Um, Antonin. Dude. That’s like saying if you advise the criminal to turn his or herself in, or if you similarly tell the criminal not to shoot the hostage, we can criminalize that speech as aiding and abetting, and such a statute in no way impinges on the First Amendment. That’s—-what’s the phrase I’m looking for?—oh, yeah: totally whacked.)

JUDGE DENIES DEPUTY UNION REQUEST TO STOP RELEASES FROM OC JAIL

Okay, Superior Court Judge Steven Perk has declined to buckle under to the OC Deputies’ union’s law suit asking for a temporary restraining order to keep the OC sheriff from letting any more inmates out from the jail early in response the the state’s corrections reform law that kicked in Jan 1. But the judge said he would revisit the thoroughly bollixed up issue in mid March. For her part, the OC Sheriff has been applying the law retroactively, even though anybody with a grasp of logic who read the law could see that this was not its intention—as California Attorney General Jerry Brown has stated with admirable succinctness.

As should be evident by now, I’m for the parole revisions and the new provisions that allow prisoners—both in prison and in jails—to earn a few days or weeks off their sentences by engaging in productive and rehabilitative programs. Such programs are statistically likely to decrease inmates likelihood of reoffending,. And, by the way, the amount shaved off their sentences is comparatively minimal.

But I do not see any reason why we have to start dumping people out of jails by the hundreds, freaking everyone out, when the law says to do no such thing. If for no other reason, its a lousy PR move.

Here’s what Jerry wrote on the retroactivity issue.. It’s a little long to paste the best of it here, so you’ll have to click through.

To make matters more bizarre, some of the crafters of the law are saying that they never meant it to apply to jails. (Well, Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, if you didn’t want your law—good ol’ SB 3X 18 —to apply to jails, then it might have been wiser not to have written into it the words, “This bill would also revise the time credits for certain prisoners confined or committed to a county jail or other specified facilities, as provided.”

The Wave has an informative take on the quarrel.

And the LA Times Andrew Blankstein and Richard Winton have more of the details on the judge’s decision:

A judge on Thursday denied a request by the union representing Orange County deputies to end the early release of jail inmates but signaled that the decision would not be the last word on the issue, setting a hearing for further arguments next month.

In turning down the bid to temporarily block the releases, Superior Court Judge Steven Perk noted that Sheriff Sandra Hutchens has the final say in choosing how to address the new state law that went into effect Jan. 25.

The judge set a hearing for March 12 on arguments for a preliminary injunction.

The law reformulated good behavior credits for state prison inmates, accelerating their release. But it also has caused confusion among local law enforcement officials, many of whom have been advised by county counsels to release inmates early, an interpretation that was backed up this week by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown.

SPEAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION: THE SUPREMES WILL HEAR A 2ND AMENDMENT HAND GUN BAN CASE NEXT MONTH

The Wall Street Journal has this in Friday’s paper about the upcomng case the Supreme court will hear regarding the ban on handguns in Chicago and Oark Park, Ills.

The WSJ reports that the case has brought together a surprising mix of allies on the left and the right. Not a bad thing.

(Now if we could just have a similar left/right collaboration in Congress Over something. Anything.)

NATIONAL ENQUIRER OFFICIALLY IN THE RUNNING FOR PULITZER

As well they should be. Yes, there are ethical issues caused by their policy of paying sources. But they should still be in the running for their reporting on John Edwards. Speaking personally, I don’t think they deserve to win. But I do believe they should be shortlisted.

The Huffington Post (which is getting WAY too celebrity driven of late) has the story:

The Pulitzer Prize Board has officially accepted The National Enquirer’s submissions for breaking the John Edwards scandal, according to sources close to the Board. In a historic move, the Pulitzer Board conceded that the self-proclaimed tabloid is qualified to compete with mainstream news outlets for journalism’s most prestigious prize. The Enquirer is in the running for the Pulitzer in two categories: “Investigative Reporting” and “National News Reporting” for The National Enquirer staff.

[SNIP]

Before The Enquirer submitted its nomination, the Pulitzer’s long-time administrator Sig Gissler attempted to pre-empt this campaign by telling reporters that the tabloid is not eligible due to various technicalities. Gissler, however, showed great humility and fairness by reading The Enquirer’s submission and admitting that the paper is eligible to compete. Gissler has given The National Enquirer the legitimacy it long deserved for breaking a political scandal of national significance.

The National Enquirer single-handedly broke the stories about Edwards’ affair with a campaign staffer, their out-of-wedlock child, the expensive cover-up and the federal grand jury investigation of possible misappropriation of campaign funds. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the other reporters covering Edwards’ campaign did little if anything to follow up on the published stories in The Enquirer.

THE CALIFORNIA SURPREMES UPHOLD JESSICA’S LAW

On Monday, the California Supreme Court largely upheld Jessica’s Law dictating where sex offenders are allowed to live—even though, by most accounts, it wreaks havoc with the parolee’s ability find a place to live and to stabilize his life and does little to protect public safety.

Stories on the very disappointing ruling may be found that the Sacramento Bee,the San Jose Murcury News and the LA Times, among others.

REFORMING THE DREADED NCLB

President Obama’s proposed budget includes some serious—and much needed—overhauling of the controversial No Child Left Behind act.

On Monday, KPCC’s Patt Morrison had an informative discussion on what the changes would mean should they take place.

A HIGH SCHOOL FREE OF TAUNTS AND RIDICULE

It shouldn’t be that much to ask. The LA Times has the story about the new school. Here’s how it opens:

Aiden Aizumi almost didn’t graduate from high school.

Aizumi, now 21, is one of many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender young people who say they have suffered through school, enduring homophobic taunts and name-calling.

He completed his final semester of high school from home.

His mother, Marsha Aizumi, didn’t want others to endure the same treatment, so she approached educators about a new school geared for such students.

The school, which serves grades seven through 12, is a collaboration between Opportunities for Learning, a charter school with 34 locations across Los Angeles and Orange counties, and Lifeworks, a mentoring program for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth sponsored by the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center….

By the way, the kind of taunting that kids want attend this school to escape is yet one more reason why Prop 8 is so vile: By its existence it says to such kids that there is something wrong with them, that they are not normal, that their desire to one day marry the person they love is not only not allowable, it an active threat to the well being of others.

Being a teenager is hard enough without this kind of abuse.

Yesterday was the third day of testimony in U.S. Federal Court for the lawsuit that seeks to overturn Prop 8.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Wednesday’s main issue was whether anti-gay sentiment played a part in the drafting and passage of the initiative.

Opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage dueled in federal court Wednesday over the question of whether anti-gay discrimination has largely faded or endures in ballot measures like California’s Proposition 8.

[SNIP]

Prop. 8’s opponents sought to illustrate [the still present] hostility with their pretrial deposition of William Tam, a San Francisco chemical engineer and activist who was one of the ballot measure’s official proponents.

Tam, who organized rallies and raised money for the measure, sent a letter to Prop. 8 supporters during the campaign warning that if same-sex marriage remained legal, “other states would fall into Satan’s hand.”

San Francisco’s government, already “under the rule of homosexuals,” would move next to legalize sex with children and prostitution, Tam said.

Zach Behrens has been doing a great job covering some of the more intense moments of the story for LAist and has more on the Tam deposition. It is….shall we say—colorful. (And not in a good way.

(Photo by Tom Andrews for LAist>)

WHEN DOES RESTRAINING AND SECLUDING KIDS TURNS ABUSIVE AND DANGEROUS

On Wednesday, December 9, Representatives George Miller (D-CA) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) plan to introduce a bill that prevents the misuse of restraint and seclusion on school kids. (Miller is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. McMorris Rodgers is a member of the Committee.)

One would imagine that such a bill as this one would not be necessary in this day and age. But one would be wrong.

It seems that, unlike with hospitals, and like facilities that receive federal funding, there are currently no federal policies that provide guidelines as to how restraint and seclusion can be used in schools, and the state laws are ridiculously uneven.

As a consequence, there have been reports of horrific cases of adults sitting on kids who are face down until they have stopped breathing, adults placing mentally disabled kids in closets for extended periods of time, in certain cases with fatal results, and on and on.

(The video above shows the Congressional testimony of a mother named Toni Price about once such incident. Price’s account is dignified, clear and heartbreaking.)

A look at the report on the matter from the US General Accounting Office is quite sobering.

Anyway, this is a bipartisan bill. Take a look.

The video above is of one mother’s testimony at a Congressional hearing on the issue this past spring.

ROBBER APOLOGIZES TO VICTIM

Evidently on Sunday night, a gun-wielding robber who jacked $70 from a Christmas tree salesman apologized to his victim saying, “Times are tough,” according to the LA Times.

I know several young able bodied men who are about to apply for General Relief because, despite daily searches for any kind of work they can find nothing, and they need some way to put food in the house but do not want to turn to the same desperate strategy as the gunman.

I got a call from one of them last night. He does not want a government hand out, he said. “But what can I do?” he asked me. I had no answer.

CAN A CAMPUS CHRISTIAN GROUP BAN GAYS AS VOTING MEMBERS?

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to take a case which pits issues of religious freedom against a college’s policy of nondiscrimination. Moreover, the case has views of two circuit courts at odds with each other, one of them California’s beloved and sometimes notorious 9th Circuit.

The Christian Science Monitor has a very thorough write up. Here’s a clip:

The Christian Legal Society (CLS) at the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco was stripped of its registered student organization status at the college because it refused to allow gay and lesbian students to become voting members or officers of the group.

Under the Hastings nondiscrimination policy, student organizations must allow fellow students to join and potentially seek leadership positions in any organization without regard to their status or beliefs….

Starting in the 2004-2005 academic year, the CLS required prospective members to sign a statement of Christian faith. The statement includes a pledge that the undersigned student trusts in “Jesus Christ as my savior.”

Prospective members must express belief in several religious tenets, including “one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The statement includes a pledge of belief in the virgin birth, eternal life, Jesus’ resurrection, a divinely created heaven and earth, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

In addition, the national Christian Legal Society developed a policy position stating its view of biblical principles of sexual morality. The position, adopted by the Hastings chapter, said that “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” was inconsistent with the group’s statement of faith and would disqualify an individual from membership.

Great case! Morally complex and legally ambiguous. Go Supremes!

JUSTICE BREYER: “GET ME THE REWRITE GUY!”

And Speaking of the Supreme Court…based on another case that went before the court on Monday, it looks quite possible that the nation’s Miranda warning may get rewritten. The case—Florida v. Powell—concerns one Kevin Dwayne Powell who did not understand, even after the warning was given, that he could have an attorney with him during questioning—as that fact is not really spelled out.

(Although if Mr. Powell had watched a little more episodic television, surely he would have known his rights a bit better.)

As the AP explains the rest.

STILL MISSING DAVID FOSTER WALLACE

This isn’t really a social justice issue at all, it’s a literary issue. But if you care about such things, the new posthumous piece of fiction by David Foster Wallace in the upcoming issue of the New Yorker, is a reminder why so many of us are, more than a year later, so devastated that Wallace could seem to find no way out of his personal psychic pain other than to silence it in the most permanent of manners.

Still and all, no matter how bittersweet, another encounter with DFW’s huge and humane talent is utterly thrilling.

The New Yorker published short story is an excerpt from The Pale King, the unfinished novel he was working on before he committed suicide in September 2008.

I’ll be blogging more later today about local news.

But until then, here are a few snips from Paul Krugman’s column about the screaming protesters who have been showing up at the town hall meetings held across the country to talk about health care. (Like this meeting in Tampa.)

There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.

That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.

Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.

And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.

So this is something new and ugly. What’s behind it?

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has compared the scenes at health care town halls to the “Brooks Brothers riot” in 2000 — the demonstration that disrupted the vote count in Miami and arguably helped send George W. Bush to the White House. Portrayed at the time as local protesters, many of the rioters were actually G.O.P. staffers flown in from Washington.

But Mr. Gibbs is probably only half right….

You can read the rest here..

****************************************************************************************************************

So how about all of you out there? Do you have good health coverage? Is it reasonably priced or too expensive? What does it pay for? Are you confident the insurance will cover you and/or your family in the event of serious illness. What has your experience been? What about your family and friends? And what do you want—or not want—out of the package before Congress?

MAYOR’S OFFICE RE-PROMISES THAT $500K TO HOMEBOY…BY SEPTEMBER

After reading Thursday’s blogpost about the money that the mayor’s office had promised—and not delivered—to money-strapped Homeboy Industries, Tim Rutten called Rev. Jeff Carr about the matter and Carr told him that Father Greg Boyle and Homeboy would have the money by September. Intending to hold Carr and the mayor to the promise, Rutten put it in his Saturday column.

Whether or not Homeboy will be able to keep its doors open until September, remains to be seen.

(In the meantime, don’t forget Homeboy’s virtual car wash.)

*******************************************************************************************************************

SUMMER NIGHT LIGHTS SHOUT OUT FROM NY TIMES

On Sunday, the New York Times had a very nice story about the mayor’s Summer Night Lights program. Here’s a clip:

“I used to stay away and stay at home at night,” he said. “But I’m really not an indoor type. Now we can be here and have support.” Maybe Maximum, he said, “could grow up more free.”

Laura Lomeli, 24, waiting in line for popcorn nearby, agreed. “It’s not just for the kids; parents come and get to know each other,” she said. “We start to know who lives next door.”

After the softball game ended, two women pushed strollers across the empty field under bright lights. A toddler ran ahead into the shadows. Juan Duran, 13, and Joey Martinez, 16, stood near small skateboard ramps on an outdoor stretch of asphalt.

“My school doesn’t have summer school this year,” Juan said. “So it’s pretty cool having this.”

“You meet more friends here” than by “having nothing better to do and getting in trouble,” said Joey, one foot on his board. “I always stay here until midnight.”

******************************************************************************************************************

MORE ON ERIC HOLDER & THE POSSIBLE TORTURE PROBE

As news continued to break about former Vice President Cheney keeping information about…well…a whole lot of things from Congress, over the weekend both the Washington Post and Newsweek reported that Eric Holder may appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s interrogation practices—something that Obama chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel is dead set against.

The Newsweek piece is the one to read if you haven’t already.

(SIDE NOTE: When I was in D.C. last month, I saw Holder speak on an entirely different issue in a small-ish venue, and found him, at least in that instance, to be intelligent, cautious, deliberative to a fault—overly so, if anything—not in the least arrogant, and very thoughtful in his reasoning.

*********************************************************************************************************************

BILL MOYERS TAKES ON THE MEDICAL INSURANCE LOBBY

Friday night on his show, Bill Moyers was as fierce as any time within memory as he spent the hour showing the way that the big medical insurers like CYGNA and Blue Cross Blue Sheild have effectively controlled the discussion—and in some cases the media— when it comes to healthcare reform, while denying more and more Americans more and more coverage.

Moyers most impressive guest was former CYGNA executive-turned-whistle blower, Wendell Potter.

The whole program may be watched online—and I strongly recommend it. Moyers is furious. We all need to be enraged. And do something about it.

No saint, but where’s the harm in a DNA test?

Anyone with a trace of commonsense and compassion would have supported William G. Osborne’s request for a post-conviction DNA test.
That would leave out five empathy-void robes on the U.S. Supreme Court denied him. Ironically, so too the Obama administration, which filed papers opposing Osborne’s request.
Osborne wanted the chance to conduct a more sophisticated DNA test on evidence than was available when he was convicted in a 1994 kidnap, rape and assault of a prostitute in Anchorage, Alaska. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April 2008 that he should be able to test semen found in a condom and two hairs.
Heck, Osborne even offered to pay the $1,000 tab himself. But before you get all weepy about Osborne or jump down my throat for coming to the aid of a possibly guilty rapist, consider a few facts about the case and Osborne’s troubled background. It’s a tough case. If you were either Peter J. Neufeld or Colin Starger, his lawyers at the Innocence Project at New York’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, you probably would have preferred a more sympathetic client. But due process and the Bill of Rights don’t discriminate by zip code or storyline.

The assorted and sordid facts.

—It’s not like Osborne is languishing in prison because he may have been wrongly convicted. He served 14 years and was paroled in 2007. Six months later, he was back in prison as part of a plea deal in a home invasion case. He and a group of masked men stood accused of raiding a home in search of drugs and money and pistol-whipping residents, bound in duct tape.

–Osborne’s own lawyer in the 1994 case sold him out. She told an employee of the Alaska state crime lab that she thought her client was guilty. Here’s the quote as it appears in the writeup by the three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Counsel disbelieved Osborne’s statement that he did not commit the crime.”

–Osborne gave the parole board a written confession of the kidnap/rape. The Ninth Circuit considered that seeming nail-in-the-coffin when it ruled in his favor. The panel wrote:

“Either the confessions will be proven accurate by test results, proving Osborne was in fact the passenger-rapist and his case will proceed no further, or the test results will exclude him as the source of the biological material, in which case serious questions will be raised about the validity of his confession as and whether, as Osborne now claims, he was motivated to confess falsely as the most expeditious means available to obtain release from prison.

–In a jailhouse interview with Anchorage Daily News reporter Lisa Demer, published in February, Osborne talked about what the case meant to him:

Osborne comes across as calm and articulate. He seems resigned to whatever happens. His head is shaved and he has a graying beard. Last year while in prison, he married a woman he knew from long ago. She has young twins and they all visit him in jail.

Asked why he wants the test, he said: “It’s going to resolve this case for once and for all as to whether or not I’ll be able to prove my innocence or my guilt.”

What would the test show? Osborne leaned back to think about it. “Can’t really answer that question,” he finally said.

Osborne was born and raised in South Carolina, graduated high school there. He said he was accepted into The Citadel but it was too expensive, so he joined the Army.

He was just 20 when he was arrested, had his 21st birthday in jail a few days later.

In the years since he’s been gone, his mother, grandmother, aunt and three first cousins all died. A daughter he fathered as a teenager now is a teen herself.

In June 2007, after serving 14 years of a 21-year sentence for rape, kidnapping and assault, he was paroled. Six months later, he was accused of being part of a group of masked men who stormed a home looking for drugs and money, who duct-taped and pistol-whipped hostages.

On Jan. 30, he agreed to a plea bargain that requires him to serve 10 years for the robbery and another six years still hanging over him on the old case.

“Even if I was to be found innocent, I can’t get back the time I’ve already done. It’s time lost,” he said. “So on a certain level, I don’t even care about the case anymore because it’s just gotten to the point where it’s basically something from my past.”

But he recognizes the issue is bigger than he is. He wants to win, he said, “so that the next person doesn’t have to go through this for the next 12 years.”

Daily Journal ‘s Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley explained in his story why the new president came down on the side of the right-leaning justices:

The Obama administration and a number of states, including California, favored reversal because a decision to affirm the 9th Circuit would likely have required the federal government and states to revisit their procedural rules, even if they already allowed inmates access to the evidence.

California Deputy Attorney General Michael Chamberlain described the high court ruling as a “well-reasoned decision” that recognizes how the states have already been active on the issue.

“In California, we have a very comprehensive and effective mechanism,” he said.

Passed in 2000, California’s law, which applies to anyone convicted of a felony, requires the state to maintain DNA evidence for the duration of an inmate’s sentence and allows for retesting regardless of the plea. Indigent inmates can also get legal assistance to pursue such claims.

Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project told the Daily Journal the ruling was “deeply flawed and disappointing.” He said he would try to persuade the three states that don’t allow at least some limited post-conviction access – Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma – to pass laws similar to those in other states.

Kozinski’s questions aren’t going away

The feds’, in their anti-terror fervor after 9/11, whipped up some prying questions for JPL scientists to answer if they wanted to keep their jobs. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is right in siding with the workers and their privacy, but it would be better if they hadn’t short-circuited debate.

Earlier this month, the appeal court’s 27 judges refused to take the issue out of the hands of three judges and grant the Department of Justice’s request for an 11-member panel to review the matter. Expect this case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the blessings of dissenting Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and three of his colleagues. They wanted the broader hearing by the Ninth Circuit.

Big cases with broad implications for the conduct of government should not be made a tiny group, without a full hearing and discussion.

Whatever your views, it’s refreshing to read Kozinski’s dissent. The case began In 2007, when senior scientist Robert W. Nelson and 27 others, including scientists, engineers and administrative support staff, objected to a highly intrusive background check imposed as a condition of their continued employment at JPL. Unless the Obama administration sides with privacy advocates, it’s likely the case will go to the Supremes.

Kozinski would like to see the high court address this question: “Is there a constitutional right to informational privacy?”

“Does being asked to disclose information one would prefer to keep private, in order to keep a government job to which one has no particular entitlement, amount to a constitutional violation? If the answer is yes, then the government commits all manner of constitutional violations on tax returns, government contract bids, loan qualification forms, and thousands of job applications that are routinely filled out every day.”

Kozinski seems unbothered by government investigators canvassing the neighborhood in pursuit of information about an employee’s relationships and sex life.

“Does one really have a free-standing constitutional right to withhold from the government information that others in the community are aware of? I don’t think so. How then can it be constitutionally impermissible for the government to ask a subject’s friends, family and neighbors what they know about him? Surely there’s no constitutional right to have the state be the last one to know?”

So long as the snooping isn’t high-tech, Kozinski doesn’t seem to have much trouble with it.

While I can think of many reasons to worry when the government seeks to uncover private information using the special powers that private entities lack, it’s far less obvious why it should be hamstrung in ensuring the security and integrity of its operations in ways that private employers are not. The delicate knowledge handled by thousands of federal employees seems as worthy of protection as the formula for Coca-Cola.”