Honestly, I've been waiting for this to happen.

Best Brains Inc., the company that owns the TV show "Mystery Science Theater 3000," has sued the Mr. Sinus group, alleging that it is infringing on the "Mystery Science" trademark by using its format. Mr. Sinus comedians Jeremy Pollet, Owen Egerton and John Erler, and Alamo South Lamar LP have been named in the lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

I used to really enjoy Mystery Science Theatre 3000, though I haven't seen it in years. It's a good concept, and that's a large part of the reason it was such a successful show.

From what I hear, Mr. Sinus Theatre is pretty funny. I've never actually been, myself. But I always thought it was a little brazen, not to base a live comedy performance on the same concept as MST3K, but to do so while using a name clearly meant to invoke MST3K - a commercial enterprise.

I'm interested to know what exactly Best Brains, Inc. seeks in the suit,and what the arguments are on both sides. I also think they should have some folks sit in the front row of the gallery and make witty comments about the trial.

Today's headline:

Bush: U.S. Can't Win War On Terror

2002 State of the Union Address

Bush: ...we are winning the war on terror.

UPDATE...

President Bush said Tuesday "we will win" the war on terror

Phew!

An update on the Swift Boat Veteran for "Truth" who may well have perjured himself and jeapodized his career in law:

The Oregonian reports that [Clackamas County prosecutor Al French, the Vietnam veteran who called John Kerry a liar in a political ad and then admitted he had never witnessed Kerry in combat,] has been put on a 30-day paid leave because he may have lied about a long-ago extramarital affair with a secretary.

Some guys just can't catch a break, huh?

Arlen answers my earlier question about Alfred French's liability as a potential perjurer.

It's really pathetic that someone would jeapordize their entire career in the course of a political smear campaign. Let this serve as a warning to would be perjurers and slanderers.

This should be news.

On art (aka snootiness)...

A bag of rubbish that was being displayed as a work of art at the Tate Britain gallery has been gathered up by one of the cleaners and thrown out with the trash.

- The Independent

Beautiful. This reminds me of one of my favorite George Will columns:

While repairing the stone floor at Houston's Museum of Fine Arts outdoor sculpture garden, workers put a velvet rope in front of a bronze bas-relief piece to protect it and secured the burlap with duct tape. Wind pulled loose a corner of the burlap, exposing about 30 percent of the piece. An executive of the construction company described what his crew heard some museum visitors say:

"For about half an hour they discussed the deep symbolism and implication of the artist having covered his work in burlap and why he allowed the public only partial access to what was there. They waxed long and hard about the appropriateness of the texture of the burlap in relation to the medium used. And what the use of the velvet rope meant in juxtaposition to the base materials of the burlap and duct tape. And the cosmic significance of using degradable materials to hide the true inner beauty."

- 'Privileging' Postmodernism" Newsweek, February 5, 2001, U.S. Edition

Texas is in the lead!

...of people without health insurance.

"About 24.6 percent of Texans, in a three-year average ending last year, were uninsured, according to 2003 data on health insurance, income and poverty released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau."

- Dallas Morning News

This fall the Texas Lyceum Association is having a public conference on the topic:

Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?

I would absolutely love to attend this conference, but I don't know that I'll be able to come up with the $125 registration fee.

Whether or not health care is a right or a privilege, though, is an interesting, if academic question. That people do not have a right to health care is an arguable position (albeit, in my humble opinion, very wrong). But I think that what are, perhaps, more pressing are the practical policy questions.

Regardless of how some might like to characterize it, we currently have free health care for the all. Most of us choose to have access to a higher quality health care by purchasing private health care insurance (or receiving it from our employer). Everyone, though, still has access to health care at no cost - regardless of ability to pay. Unfortunately, this health care is only reactive (we wait until people are sick), and it is implemented in, quite possibly, the most inefficient and costliest manner.

If a poor or indigent person needs health care, all he must do is show up at an emergency room for treatment. Of course, this means that he has probably waited until his condition is critical and will thus require more expensive and complicated treatment. Furthermore, that these people must show up at an emergency room means that they are overcrowding our already overworked ER staff, and creating longer waits for everyone.

But let's, for a minute, posit that health care is only a privilege and some people - we'll say those who can't afford it, since that's who we're really talking about - will simply be denied all health care. What are the public health ramifications of such a policy? People with communicable diseases are allowed to just get sicker and infect others? How are we to tell who is sick and who is not? Who has health care and who does not? That is, how do we - the privileged and well - know who to avoid in order to prevent ourselves from coming into contact with the great unwashed?

All questions of morality and civilization aside, it seems to me that the question of health care availability is one of public health. The options are limited and, while there may not be a perfect solution, something must be done to provide health care for all - if not out of a basic sense of decency, then out of a base concern for self-preservation.

The Richmond, Texas Lamar All-stars are going to the USA finals after an 8-2 victory over Morganton, NC.

It looks like we'll probably be facing Thousand Oaks, CA for a chance to play the International champion on Sunday.

GO LAMAR!

Like father, like son? George Will wrote the following about George H. W. Bush's 1992 campaign:

Bush operatives constantly whine about the media but Bush is benefiting from the mock sophistication of journalists who, striking a world-weary stance, say of his campaign dishonesty, "It was ever thus in American politics." Even if that were true, it would be no excuse, and it isn't true. This is extraordinary.

...

But serious people flinch from being associated with the intellectual slum that is the Bush campaign, with its riffraff of liars and aspiring ayatollahs.

Bush calls his campaign "a crusade to bring back values." His campaign is powerful evidence of the need for such a crusade.

And how.

via TPM

Your plans for Saturday afternoon:

The Saloon 1502 W. Ben White Blvd.
Saturday August 28, 2004
Noon - 7:00 PM


Please join in for a fun fundraiser for Greg!

Brisket/Sausage Bar B Que Plate!!

Tickets only $5

Please Contact:
Nate Walker at 680-8438 or nate@greghamiltonforsheriff.com

Greg is going to be the next Travis County Sheriff. If you haven't met Greg Hamilton yet, this is as good a time as any to do so. You can find out more about him here: http://www.greghamiltonforsheriff.com, but let me tell you - this guy is going to be a great Sheriff. He's got a lot of important ideas about how to develop much needed community policing reforms in Austin/Travis County. Greg wants to help bring communities and law enforcement together to build a foundation of trust and cooperation - something that will benefit everyone in our community.

So, take some time to come out and have a plate of BBQ with Greg and get to know him. It's for a good cause.

ABC News reports something interesting about one of the veterans appearing in the "Swift Boat Veterans..." ad:

Alfred French of the Clackamas County district attorney's office appears in the ad sponsored by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the spot, French says: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record."

...

In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events.

...

Before recording the ad, French signed an affidavit that said: "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief."

...

District Attorney John Foote released a statement Monday chiding French for bringing unwanted publicity to the suburban county's office, but stood by his employee.

"I do not personally share the opinions expressed by our prosecutor," Foote wrote. "However, all of our employees have the right to their own opinions on these subjects and to express their opinions on their own time."

Okay. Two things strike me about this. First of all, did French perjur himself? I don't know the legal ramifications of signing an affidavit to the effect that something is "within [your] personal knowledge" when your statements are actually derived from reports of other individuals (isn't that hearsay?), but it seems to me that what French did was patently dishonest.

Second, the D.A. is right to afford his employees "the right to their own opinions on these subjects," but why is he equating facts and opinions? This is not a matter of opinion. French has the right to hold the opinion that Kerry is a jerk, but whether or not Kerry lied about historical facts is not a matter of opinion. French was not "expressing [his] opinion," he was making a sworn statement of fact.

via atrios...

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a temporary stay of an order to remove an open bible from the front of the Harris County Civil Court building.

This comes as a bit of a surprise to me since it doesn't seem like there's any compelling reason to issue the stay, but what do I know? (A: not much, sometimes.)

Arlen, as usual, has the skinny.

While reasonable people might find this case interesting, if a bit academic, this case has also apparently caught the attention of some domestic terrorists :

In a brief filed Monday opposing the county's request for a stay, [Plaintiff's attorney Randall] Kallinen wrote that Staley's life was threatened in a letter received Friday.

The letter included a photocopy of a map showing Staley's street, and on the map was written: "We know where you live." On a small piece of paper was written: "We have your address. It should be an easy shot."

via the Houston Chronicle

All kidding aside, I believe that law enforcement should treat this threat very seriously. To threaten and intimidate officers of the court is fundamentally anti-American and counter to the values of liberty and democracy. The fact that it's also fundamentally un-Christian just makes it particularly pathetic in this case.

When I was in high school debate, I learned that the burden of proof falls on the affirmative. Simply put: if you make a claim, you have to provide evidence to prove your claim. The burden does not fall on the negative - one is not required to provide a preponderance of evidence to refute a claim, one must simply produce a reasonable doubt about the affirmative's case.

This doesn't seem like a particularly difficult concept to follow. I imagine it probably works about the same way in law (perhaps someone could fill me in on this) - the prosecutor or plaintiff must prove his claim, the defense need only cast doubt on the prosecutor/plaintiff's case (unless the defense presents an affirmative defense, in which case the burden would shift to them; but that would be because they, then, are making a claim which must be proven).

What I'm having trouble understanding is why this does not seem to be the case in journalism and public discourse. Kerry should not have to prove anything about his military record, and, to be fair, neither should Bush - those who make accusations should have to prove their claims. But what we seem to get, time and time again, are journalists and citizens who believe that an equal burden of proof must be met by both sides of an issue.

I understand that journalists want to be fair to all parties, but since when did objective reporting come to mean "never make an objective appraisal of a claim?" Journalists would better serve the public as well as their profession if they would do a little bit of research and provide a factual assessment of some of these claims. One of the only places that I've found for this kind of journalism is The Annenberg Political Fact Check out of The University of Pennsylvania.

Claims made by anyone - politician, party, corporation, PAC, activist group, etc. - should not be reported if they cannot be backed up with hard evidence. Furthermore, once a claim is shown to be factually incorrect, it should reported as such and dismissed. Only when new and compelling evidence is discovered should the claim be allowed a new hearing in public discourse.

We seem to be at a point where "truth" is subjective and "facts" are whatever most closely aligns with one's pre-conceived notions about the way things should be. It's time to grow up. Sometimes facts are inconvenient, sometimes we are wrong, and sometimes things are not the way we might wish they would be. But we do ourselves a grave disservice by living in a world of make-believe. There are real problems that need real solutions; hiding from the truth will only make things worse.

My hometown little league baseball team made it to the Little League World Series. I don't have a ton of "hometown pride," as it were, but this has me pretty excited. They seem to be doing really well. I hope they take it all the way.

Currently reading:

“Enemy Combatants,”
The Constitution and the Administration’s
“War on Terror”
By Kate Martin and Joseph Onek
August 2004

As distributed by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

It appears there may have been a terrorist attack in East Texas. Luckily, it seems that no one was hurt.

I'm sure Michelle Malkin is already on the case.

The much anticipated (by me) trailer for Wes Anderson's new film, The Life Aquatic, is out. From the looks of it, I don't think the film is going to be groundbreaking, and I fully expect mixed reviews - mostly dependent on whether or not one is already a fan of Anderson's style. As a fan of Anderson's other films, I look forward to the film's release.

Most, if not all, people commit some sort of minor transgression at some point in their lives. If you ever did something stupid when you were young, you will probably (hopefully) look back at your youthful jackassery with a certain sense of embarrassment when you're older. It's not something that you enjoy talking about, and you often wish you could expunge it from history. For most of us, the fact that we did something stupid is embarrassing enough.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has recently sanctioned extending sentences beyond the norm - punitive and rehabilitative - to acts intended to publicly shame the offender. (decision here) I certainly hope that this practice is quickly put to rest. I do believe that there is room for improvement in the way we currently deal with a whole host of crimes. I do not believe that simply shaming someone stands to serve any real benefit - either to society or to the criminal.

Dan Markel has some more detailed thoughts about the matter over at The New Republic.

Charles Kuffner notes the early buying of Becky Klein that is being reported today and registers an understandable distaste.

Recently I noticed this little bit of data over at opensecrets.org:

2004 ELECTION OVERVIEW

Quality of Disclosure
(by % of contributors fully disclosed)

Federal election laws require that all contributions of $200 or more be itemized, with the donor's name, address, occupation and employer fully disclosed. Most members of Congress fully identify the great majority of their donors' occupations and employers — an important point, if voters are to see the economic interests giving to their representative's campaign.

Worst Disclosure

House candidates

Percent Disclosed		Individual Contributions
28.0%	Rebecca Armendariz Klein (R) (Texas District 25 race)	$248,680

My thoughts regarding random drug testing programs in Houston area public schools. Following posts at Dark Art and Texas Law Blog

Houston Chronicle: "Steve London, whose son is a senior in the Katy school district, said the testing will help prevent drug use."

What qualifies Mr. London to make this assertion? Even the school district’s spokesman, Mr. Stanford, offers the claim with no supporting evidence other than the assumptions that fear of getting caught will deter drug use and that those actually caught will cease their use/abuse. But is there empirical evidence of this? Is there any evidence whatsoever? Or do these men rely on so-called “common sense” and wishful thinking as the linch-pin to their case?

Arlen: "Unless there is some good science that I haven't heard of on this issue showing that random drug testing will actually prevent bad things, this is just a political game."

Absolutely. Furthermore, I would take issue with Mr. Stanford's assertion that "If [they] can help one student get off drugs, then that is worth it." Is there a compelling benefit to be derived from this program that would outweigh the resulting harm (loss of liberty by the students)? Does helping one student get off drugs justify the reduced liberty of the countless other students? If not, what is the threshold at which the benefits do outweigh the harms, and can he (or anyone) show that there is a reasonable chance that the program would be this effective?

Texas Law Blog: "If you choose to experiment with drugs, there will be consequences - just like in the "real world."

This is disingenuous - in the "real world" (whatever that means; I assume he means the "adult world" or some other such invented place) there are certainly consequences to drug use. Thanks to the fact that we have a government founded in liberty, however, the invasion of privacy and the absence of due process that is inherent in such random drug testing schemes are not in that array of consequences. Perhaps Mr. Clark agrees with Mr. Stanford’s assertion that helping one student get off drugs is a compelling governmental interest and outweighs the rights of the individual?

I concur with Arlen in that "I don't think random testing is the product of people who are concerned with the health or well-being of their children." After all, what evidence is there that this random drug testing will serve as an effective deterrent? Furthermore, are we so simple a people that the best way we can think of preventing drug use/abuse is threat of punishment? What is the probability that instituting this program will (a) promote a false sense of accomplishment in the area of drug prevention and/or (b) divert resources away from developing more effective programs aimed not at punishment but at prevention?

I'm not an attorney, as are Mark and Arlen, and I'm not a policy wonk, as are some others who read this site. But until some of these questions are answered, I remain unconvinced. At first glance, this program seems to me to be another ploy for school administrators to try to make themselves look good by promoting a false solution for a problem that they do not understand, and a convenient excuse for those who seek to limit our freedoms under the guise of “the public good.”

Every once in a while the tentacles of the Internet reach into places one never expects - places like my hometown. Juanita has an excellent blog dedicated to the "happenin's" in Fort Bend County, Texas.

Need it be said? I think not, but I'll say it anyway:

The Olympics? AWESOME.

Arlen has been following Staley v. Harris County for the past week and has graciously posted a copy of the decision for those of us interested in such matters.

The case involves a First Amendment question - does the display of an open King James Bible in the Harris County Civil Courthouse constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause?

On Tuesday, The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division found that it does. Judge Sim Lake presided over the trial.

The Houston Chronicle makes a good point:

"If the King James Version displayed outside the Harris County Civil Courts building is not to promote religion, its impending absence should engender no religious controversy."

Eric Alterman has an interesting column in The Nation regarding the recent PBS decisions to fund and air conservative talk shows Tucker Carlson Unfiltered and Journal Editorial Report.

Partisan talk shows have their place - Fox News Channel and Democracy Now! serve a particular market. But these shows are ideological platforms, not sources of objective news reporting.

PBS has long been, for me, an oasis of reason in the intellectual void of televised news. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that someone at PBS made the decision - for whatever reason - to enter the arena of info-tainment. I enjoyed the weekly conversations between Shields and Gigot, but I will not subject myself to the misinformation campaign of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. As Alterman points out:

"In a lengthy examination in the Columbia Journalism Review, Trudy Lieberman found six dozen examples of disputed Journal editorials and op-eds. She discovered that "on subjects ranging from lawyers, judges, and product liability suits to campus and social issues, a strong America, and of course, economics, we found a consistent pattern of incorrect facts, ignored or incomplete facts, missing facts, uncorroborated facts." In many of these cases, the editors refused to print a correction, preferring to allow the aggrieved party to write a letter to the editor, which would be printed much later, and then let the reader decide whose version appeared more credible. Almost never does the paper correct the record or admit its errors."

I wrote an e-mail to my local PBS station expressing my disappointment and my intention to withhold financial support until the station returns to some semblance of objectivity in news reporting. I suspect that the decision to include such shows as Tucker Carlson Unfiltered and Journal Editorial Report stem from the bellicose cries of far-right extremists that PBS is "too liberal." These claims are, of course, as silly as they are subjective.

It is imperative that we have somewhere to turn for "just the facts." It is a sad day when PBS yields to the whining of spoiled children and turns from their mission of providing quality programming to the public. PBS is our station - not a tool of political parties and corporations. You should remind them of their purpose, and guide them back to the right path.

As you probably know by now, the California Supreme Court voided the marriages of thousands of homosexual couples yesterday in a 5-2 decision.

I have not yet read the decision, but I'm very interested in this case. I'd like to read it and sit down and talk with someone who has more legal training than I do (that would be any). My curiosity is rooted mainly in the question of review. The US Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison claimed the right of judicial review. But is the right of review limited only to the judiciary? Can an executive deem a law to be unconsitutional? If so, does he have the right to declare that law void?

As I understand it so far, the Mayor of San Francisco was statutorily prohibited from making and acting on such determinations. So, the question might be moot in this case. But, still, I'm interested in the questions in a broader sense and I hope that there is something in the decision that might shed some light on the answer.

Christy Hoppe of The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that Gov. Rick Perry pulled a fast one on Texas legislators and tax payers.

When Perry called for State Agencies to cut their budgets by 7%, he promised to lead the way with a 14% reduction in his own office's budget to show how painlessly state agencies could trim the fat.

So, what did Slick Rick do?

Part of Mr. Perry's cost savings were achieved by transferring the salaries of two maids, a cook and a porter at the Governor's Mansion to the Texas Building and Procurement Commission, according to state records obtained through an open records request by The Dallas Morning News. All remained assigned to the governor.

In addition to those four posts, Mr. Perry's office reassigned the salaries of five other staffers for mail support, purchasing and information systems to the procurement commission. They, too, maintained their duties for the Republican governor.

Press secretary Kathy Walt said the salaries of the transferred personnel – amounting to $300,000 annually – were part of the equation used by the governor in January 2003 to achieve his 14 percent cost savings.

Republican accounting really is an art, isn't it?

The Dallas Morning News has a great editorial today giving praise for a Houston effort to inform families how to keep their CHIP coverage.

This is a much needed effort not only in Houston, but across the state. No child should have to go without health care. None.

More on everyone's favorite retail Goliath. A recent University of California, Berkeley study alleges that while Wal-Mart might be a little bit cheaper at the check-out stand, the social costs are enormous.

You save a few pennies at the checkout, but you drive down wages and standard of living.

Last night I had a great dream. I dreamt that there was a river that ran through my neighborhood and every morning I could get up, have a cup of coffee, and go fishing in the river. When I woke up I realized that where the river should be, there are only railroad tracks.

A couple of hours later I was watching an Inspector Morse mystery when Arlen called to tell me that I should tune in the Outdoor Life channel.

I switched the channel and watched Fishing with Roland Martin featuring a very special guest - President George W. Bush. If you get a chance to see this episode, by all means watch it. The President is relaxed and well spoken, he's knowledgable about the subject and comfortable in his surroundings. He looked really good.

See, I don't have anything personal against W. I think he'd be a fun guy to go fishing and BBQ with. I just don't think he should be President of the United States. It's nothing personal - I don't think I should pitch for the Astros, either, no matter how much I think it would be a cool job.

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe has a great column on partisan re-districting and " gerrymandering" and the consequences for democratic government.

In addition to pointing out some worrisome problems with supermajorities and un-competitive races, Jacoby also gives the etymology for the word "gerrymander."

In 1812, when Republican Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, his allies in the Legislature redrew the state's congressional map to favor their party at the expense of the Federalists. Outraged Federalists denounced the new map's oddly shaped districts, especially one in Essex County that resembled a salamander. One cartoonist drew it with a head, wings, and claws and mockingly dubbed it a Gerry-mander.

If the last re-districting fiasco in Texas taught us anything, it should be that the purposefully drawing heavily partisan districts is undemocratic.

From Today in Literature:

On this day in 1786, twenty-seven-year-old Robert Burns served the last of three public penances for "ante-nuptial fornication" with his eventual wife, Jean Armour. The "fornication police," as Burns called them, allowed the poet to stand in his usual pew, rather than make him sit on the penitential stool -- or, again in Burns parlance, "the Creepie Chair."

The Boston Globe has this article in which the despicable attacks questioning Kerry's military service are, once again, found to be not only utterly lacking in class, but also in fact.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.

...

Elliott, asked about the contradiction between his recommendation and his new questioning of Kerry's third Purple Heart, responded, ''It makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest."

I think it's time we just put this one to rest. It makes me feel dirty just talking about it.

Tonight I spent the evening at former Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro's house hanging out with Barak Obama. I had a great time: Obama gave a great stump speech (literally - Mauro keeps a tree stump in his courtyard for just this purpose), and the beer was the right price.

I was astounded by the turnout. With my amateur crowd estimation powers, I judged the full crowd to be around, oh, 200 people? Maybe 250? Considering the price of admission, I'd say it's pretty obvious that this guy has got a bright future ahead of him.

The event was packed like a sold out KISS concert and Obama got the reception of a rock star. Important notes from his speech:

Everywhere I go people have different opinions about different issues, but most people hold onto a set of core values. Values like: If I go to work and work hard every day, I should be able to live off of my wages; no one should have to go bankrupt just because they get sick; everyone deserves a quality education and a chance to go to college, regardless of their family's income.

After his speech I hung around for a bit and talked to various local candidates who you need to support - people like Lorenzo Sadun and Greg Hamilton. When the crowd cleared out a bit, I fought my way up front and got in a handshake as he was desperately trying to get to his car.

Barak Obama is the real deal, folks. He's smart, charming, and in eight years, don't be surprised to be wearing his t-shirts no matter what state you live in.

Normally I would not justify such slanderous attacks with a response, but I thought this article was worth mentioning :

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

...

The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

"Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they may legitimately be impugned, answer his arguments."

- Sidney Hook

Austin has a new web site where you can find information on the Travis County Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign. The site just launched last night, I think, so check often for updates. Go to www.austinforchange.com to find out more.

Tonight at Sholtz's Beer Garden (1607 San Jacinto) at 7 PM there will be a Democracy for Texas Meet-Up at which Tom Delay's Democratic opponent Richard Morrisson will be speaking. Come on out and hear the man who will unseat a tyrant!

The Baytown Sun has an editorial today that calls for allowing the option of life without parole in certain cases.

I wrote a similar piece a few years ago for The Daily Texan. (For some reason the web based version of this column is not punctuated as it was in print. I really do know how to punctuate. I, promise?)

District 10 Congressional dark horse Lorenzo Sadun has a guest column in today's Austin-American Statesman in which he calls for election reform in order to better reflect the desire of voters.

I picked up a new book the other day, one that I would not have thought that I would read. It's called A Matter of Interpretation and it's listed as being by Justice Antonin Scalia.

In truth, the book is less by Scalia than it is a debate among several great minds. Justice Scalia begins the book with a paper on statutory and Constitutional interpretation arguing for the approach he calls 'textualism.' His paper is followed by comments from Gordon S. Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin.

I was particularly interested to read Justice Scalia's interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to require nothing more than a law on the books and a fair trial while reading the 2nd Amendment, not withstanding the clear textual reference to militias as a means of state security, to contain a more general protection of the right to "self defense."

There has been a lot of talk lately from the right side of the aisle in which great horror is preached about rogue judges inventing new laws and usurping the role of the legislature. How much of that is true? What is the best way for judges to interpret laws and the Constitution? Is there any consistent, comprehensive approach?

If you are at all interested in judicial interpretation or 'judicial lawmaking,' which I, of course, think you should be, I highly recommend this book.

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh has some interesting questions about Rep. Istook's (R - OK) curiously worded National Marriage Law that includes provisions to strip jurisdiction from Federal and State courts and grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. The GOP strategy of jurisdiction stripping has previously been mentioned here and here.