Should Eliot Spitzer be forgiven?

In light of all the recent Republican sexual shenanigans, I think it's time to forgive Eliot Spitzer a little, while reminding him that he should never be like the Republicans again!

The big case of the day was the one overturned by the Supremes. It was big because President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotmayor made the ruling.

But then there's this one. Not insignificant either. And it shows Eliot Spitzer doing what he did best before he screwed his life up.

If Republican Mark Sanford remains Governor of South Carolina after his Aregentian adventures, then perhaps it is incumbent on the rest of us to listen to Eliot Spitzer, a lot.

Cuomo v. Clearing House Association got its start in 2005, when then-New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer discovered that many major banks operating in his state were making a disproportionate number of high-interest loans to minorities. He sent letters to Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, and other big banks seeking information about their lending practices. Rather than respond to the request, the banks sued Spitzer through their trade group, the Clearing House Association, arguing that Spitzer's request violated federal banking rules. source: Mother Jones

The deal is, everybody keep your pants on. That's the deal. Solve the problems. Keep your britches on. I know that's not literally possible, but you know what I'm sayin'.

At least I hope you do.

Your Weekly Radio Address

From The White House Blog:

Friday, May 29th, 2009 at 11:59 pm

Weekly Address: The Experience of Judge Sotomayor

The President discusses the breadth and depth of experience held by his nominee for the Supreme Court. In the course of a life that began in a housing project in the South Bronx and brought her to the pinnacle of her profession, Judge Sonia Sotomayor accumulated more experience on the federal bench than any incoming Supreme Court Justice in the past 100 years, touching nearly every aspect of our legal system.



read transcript

Considering 'Life' when ruling on Supreme Court cases

Here We Go: Not so smart?

It's really kind of funny after listening to it a couple of times. Or maybe it's absurd that I'm thinking of.

Video: The Sotomayer clip that 'may' come to bite her on the judicial hind end

Oh. I'm not worried though. We'll see this clip played over and over and over and over and over again.

Heck. It might be playing already. I haven't turned on the tv today yet.

Video: President Obama introduces supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

May 01, 2009: Bill Maher Opening and New Rules

Yesterday in 100 Seconds

Friday, May Day, High Drama in the Highest Court, Vacancy, Spartan Life Style, This is Kinda Cool, Incredible Service, Speculation Begins, Serious Responsibility, The Name Game, The Nerd Superbowl, I Am So Excited!, Easy E, Sharp Independent Mind, Excellence, Integrity, David Souter's Tie, I'll Smoke On It, There Are Other Names, Give Me Some Names, Quite A Woman, How 'Bout A Hispanic, Quite A Two-For, Wear Your Mask Today, This Is A Lot Of Fun,

Supreme Court: The 'F' word is still banned

From the SCOTUSBLOG.com:

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court upheld the government’s power under existing law to ban the use on radio and TV of even a single four-letter word that is considered indecent — but left open the question of whether the ban might violate the First Amendment, at least in some situations. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Federal Communications Commission’s switch in policy to ban even a fleeting use of such a word was “entirely rational” under the law that governs federal administrative powers.

The opinion referred to the banned words as the “F-word” and the “S-word” but not go on to fill out their actual spelling. Justice Scalia also did not spell them out in his oral announcement of the decision.

I wonder if the justices ever swear. I know I do now and then, but I try not to unless it's a really special occasion where the use of the word will be rendered meaningful.

Supreme Court says no to drug companies

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas joined the more liberal Justices in this decision. The decision basically says that a drug maker does not need the authority of the Food and Drug Administration in order to alter a warning label to make it clearer, more explicit and more safe.

NOW THEREFORE, drug companies are also not immune to lawsuits by relying solely on product labeling established by the FDA.

The dissenting Justices argued that this undermines the FDA's regulatory authority.

Least that's how I read it. I'm not a lawyer though.

From SCOTUS Blog:

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, ruled on Wednesday that federal approval of labels giving warnings about effects of drugs does not bar lawsuits under state law claiming inadequate warnings of a health risk. The ruling came in the case of Wyeth v. Levine (06-1249). This was the only decision of the day.

The history of the federal law on drugs shows, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court, that Congress did not intend to bar failure-to-warn lawsuits that are based on state law. The decision also rejected a claim by the pharmaceutical company, Wyeth, that a 2006 regulation of the Food and Drug Administration expressing concern about the impact of state failure-to-warn lawsuits on federal regulation should mean that such cases are barred. The Court said that, since Congress has not authorized a federal agency directly to preempt state lawsuits, the Court would give less weight to FDA’s views on that issue.

Justice Stevens stressed, however, that the Court was not ruling on the preemptive effect of any official rule that FDA might impose that had the force of law. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who joined the Stevens opinion, made that comment the centerpiece of his separate concurrence.

Also joining the Stevens opinion were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, supporting only the outcome, not the majority’s reasoning.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented. The dissenters said that the majority had turned “a common-law tort suit into a frontal assault on the FDA’s regulatory regime for drug labeling.” read more here

Brian Williams had a report on this on NBC Nightly News this evening.

...drug makers are not imune from lawsuits just because their products have been approved by the federal government.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Guns Case

Justice Ginsburg, fresh off of surgery for pancreatic cancer delivers this opinion.

The Supreme Court upheld Tuesday the spirit of a federal law, making it harder for a domestic violence offender to possess a gun. The question was whether the gun ban imposed on such offenders applied when the state law they were convicted under did not only apply in domestic violence cases. source: All Things Considered - NPR.org

For transcript of the opinion of the court - click here.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. source: FindLaw.com

Remember Bush v Gore? It's making a comeback in Minnesota.

Oh boy, oh boy,oh boy.

I'm double knotting my already crossed fingers that this one turns out differently than it did for George W. Bush.

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The success of Norm Coleman's lawsuit to reclaim his Senate seat could depend on how willing the trial judges are to find a precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from another messy, political charged election battle: Bush v. Gore.

Republican Coleman's greatest hope to overtake Democrat Al Franken's 225-vote lead is his argument that about 11,000 rejected absentee ballots should be given another look by the three judges hearing the case. His lawyers argue that many were rejected while other ballots with similar mistakes were counted, that standards were applied differently from county to county in violation of the constitutional standard of equal protection.

The circumstances are different, but Coleman's effort strikes the same legal notes as the Supreme Court lawsuit that handed George W. Bush a victory in Florida and put him in the White House. In that case, Bush's lawyers got the Supreme Court to agree that Al Gore's push to recount ballots in four Florida counties would have resulted in

"It's a long shot," said Jan Baran, a Washington election attorney and former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "But it worked for Bush v. Gore." source: Yahoo News/AP

The picture is included in the post just because I miss seeing and hearing from Michael Jordon sometimes. He was always good at making long shots. I also hope that he voted for Barack Obama.

Anyway.

Senator Al Franken (D-MN). Senator Al Franken (D-MN). Senator Al Franken (D-MN).

Obama and Biden have a date with 'The Supremes"

The President-elect and the Vice President-elect have accepted a pre-inaugural invitation to visit The Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts extended the invitation which in the more recent history of Presidential inaugurations is becoming tradition.

Tis better to have been elected and invited than appointed and forego the need to be invited.

I just can't get the song 'Baby Love' out of my head. You gotta love The Supremes.

The court said Roberts, who will administer the oath of office to Obama next Tuesday, invited the pair to meet with him and the associate justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room, and maybe take a tour of the place. Reporters and photographers are not invited.

A meeting between the president and the court is something of a modern-day tradition. Ronald Reagan and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, visited with the justices before they took office in 1980, and Bill Clinton and Al Gore made the trip in 1992 (the famously late Clinton kept the justices waiting). In the wake of the court's 5 to 4 decision in Bush v. Gore that settled the 2000 presidential election, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not visit before taking office. source: The Washington Post