Monday, March 17, 2008

Urban camping

The homeless in our nation's capital aren't the only people [intentionally] sleeping on the streets tonight. Individuals hopeful for a seat during tomorrow's District of Columbia v. Heller oral arguments are camped out in front of the Supreme Court. The line started about 40 hours before the event, and it appears that the line is now at capacity. Temperatures will be near freezing again tonight, but an event like this is probably worth the privation, particularly for someone whom is younger than their mid-20s.

I do hope that someone offers to take Angela A., 19-year-old GWU sophomore, shooting. The NRA range isn't far away (City of Fairfax), and is a very nice range. I'll bet she gets at least one offer as a result of this week's line-sitting.

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times : Camp SCOTUS: ""

Monday, March 10, 2008

Mann Act test?

If New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer is, as has been supposed (and reported by the New York Times today), the soon-to-be notorious Client-9, can we expect he will be charged with violation of 18 USC §2421, the venerable Mann Act?

US CODE: Title 18,2421. Transportation generally

Comedy writers across this great land are working overtime to scribble quips about this case.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Washington Post editorial re: Heller

I didn't see this until now -- I'm not a regular reader (meaning: I haven't sought out a Washington Post to read in more than 10 years), so it takes a pointer and a nudge to get me to check something out on

As predicted, District of Columbia v. Heller is causing people to go off the deep end. This editorial is a case in point.

A bipartisan majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress weigh in on the side of Mr Heller in his complaint against the District of Columbia. As our editorial writer observes, the Solicitor General weighs in (sort of) on both sides of the argument: 2A is an individual right (consistent with the plain-language reading of the constitution), but don't use strict scrutiny when applying the law (inexplicable concern that can only have been politically motivated: there's nothing in the facts or the law that would cause the SG's concerns to be valid).

So, when the VP joined in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the congressional majority, the Washington Post cries foul? "...irresponsible, selfish and unnecessary."? What's all this about? "Irresponsible" because the Washington Post editorial staff doesn't agree with the majority in the U.S. Congress? "Selfish"? "Unnecessary"? It's almost too bad these editorials aren't longer, so we can better understand the logic used to justify the language.

Anyway, this is a "drive by" on the VP -- nothing more, nothing less. Another reason to get my news from other sources.

Mr. Cheney's Government -