Scott Lemieux

Adam Liptak has an interesting article about the exclusionary rule and how the American use of the rule differs from other countries. He begins with a comparison to Canada, which requires that evidence obtained in an illegal search be excluded only if admitting the evidence would cause greater harm to the integrity of the justice […]

Hysterical predictions aside, Kevin Drum notes that the initiative to overturn the pro-gay-marriage ruling of the California Courts is trailing by nine points (see Harold‘s take here). I don’t want to be complacent — things can change — but it is very likely that Prop 8 will fail, and California’s same-sex marriages will be entrenched. […]

Who else but Stuart Taylor? His argument seems to be that the best remedy for illegal acts of torture is to assure that (apart from some isolated low-level “bad apple” scapegoats) nobody is held responsible for them: President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face […]

Jesse and David say most of what needs to be said about Bruce Bartlett‘s op-ed, but it’s worth saying more about one specific point. The central problem with Bartlett’s argument is its triviality and irrelevance: It’s indisputable that in the immediate wake of the Civil War and for several decades afterward the Republican Party was […]

Kathy G has an exhaustive roundup on potential running mates for Obama. I bascially agree with the rankings, if not all of the reasoning. A few points: Of Kathy’s top three (Sebelius, Edwards, and Brown), Sebelius is the only one with significant executive experience, and the only woman. Edwards’s greater national experience cuts both ways; […]

Reading Linda Greenhouse‘s valedictory essay, Digby emphasizes this passage: In five days on the witness stand, Judge Bork had a chance to explain himself fully, to describe and defend his view that the Constitution’s text and the intent of its 18th-century framers provided the only legitimate tools for constitutional interpretation. Through televised hearings that engaged […]

There seems to be some debate about whether Clinton‘s laudable vote against the FISA bill was politically motivated or not. Obviously this is unknowable, but I suspect that she would have voted differently had she won the nomination. Josh Patashnik, however, makes the more important point: it doesn’t matter. Trying to figure out whether Clinton’s […]

Dahlia Lithwick has some interesting thoughts about why liberals tend to be much less focused on the courts than conservatives. I think she’s right that the (often nominal) upholding of Warren Court precedents has made liberals more complacent about the direction of the Court than its actual record justifies. This also, I think, helps to […]

I suppose that this line from National Review‘s heartwarming tribute to unreconstructed white supremacist, homophobe, and enthusiastic supporter of brutal authoritarian governments Jessie Helms was inevitable: “Helms’s real offense was a stubborn and victory-making political incorrectness.” I’m not sure if I know of a better example of the current wingnut definition of “politically incorrect,” which […]

Professor B provides some useful data about late-term abortions in light of Obama‘s dumb (and I guess now clumsily partially retracted) comments about abortion policy. Admittedly, the policy consequences of what Obama is proposing would probably be negligible; as long as the decision rests with individual doctors rather than a panel, the precise definition of […]