In what seems to be an ongoing effort to convince Republican primary voters that he's the most radical Republican in the presidential race, Newt Gingrich decided to go after the "judicial activism"-haters by declaring yesterday that what we need is more witch hunts of judges. In Gingrich's view, when members of Congress -- a group of people well known for being sober and responsible and avoiding grandstanding and demagoguery -- feel like it, they should be able to haul judges in front of them to explain their rulings, and if the judges don't like it, federal marshals should arrest them.

Voters in most states have little recourse to combat the onslaught of restrictive voter-ID laws Republican majorities have passed in 2011. For the most part, they'll have to wait until the 2012 election to replace their legislators and hope that these laws (such as photo-ID requirements and repeals to same-day registration) can be taken off the books. But a number of states will tackle voter suppression directly via ballot referendums.

With only four Democrats voting for the measure, yesterday the House passed H.R. 10, “Rules from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny” (REINS). If it were to become law, this radical piece of legislation would prohibit all federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission from minting any new regulations impacting the economy by more than $100 million unless they passed both the U.S. House and Senate within 70 legislative days.

The Sixth Amendment requires that “the accused … be confronted with the witnesses against him.” While the confrontation clause is a relatively obscure provision of the Bill of Rights—and not as well known as, say, the equal-protection or freedom of assembly clauses—disagreements over what it means have become an important part of the Supreme Court’s civil-liberties docket. Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in another confrontation clause case, which both demonstrates the importance of this protection and reveals important divides among both conservative and liberal factions on the Supreme Court.

Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon put a moratorium on executions in his state last week, and he didn't mince words about why. At a November 22 press conference, he called the death penalty broken, unfair, and a "perversion of justice" and said he will urge legislators to consider reforms during their 2013 session. His move halts the execution of Gary Haugen, a man convicted of two murders and scheduled to die December 6. “I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families, and reflects Oregon values,” Kitzhaber said. “I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer.”

Texas congressional hopefuls will begin filing the paper work for their House campaigns today after an eventful holiday weekend. On Saturday, a federal court in San Antonio court approved a new congressional map that overturned the one drawn up by the state's Republican legislature earlier this year, granting Democrats and the state's burgeoning Hispanic population a significantly better chance of picking up seats next year.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet had the chance to read Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman's new book, but given that Maltzman's previous is probably the strongest example of a new wave of political science modeling of Supreme Court decision-making, I'm certainly looking forward to it.