No matter who wins the next presidential election, the heavy hand of justice needs to be lightened considerably when it comes to federal prosecutions of marijuana providers.

Luke Scarmazzo and Ricardo Ruiz Montes ... were convicted of manufacturing marijuana and distributing the drug, as well as operating a continuing criminal enterprise, a felony that carries a mandatory 20-year minimum prison term, with the possibility of life behind bars.

The "continuing criminal enterprise" was the operation of a marijuana dispensary in California. Whether Scarmazzo and Montes complied with the state's medical marijuana law is in dispute, but there should be no dispute that a 20 year mandatory minimum for selling marijuana is outrageous. Just ask the jury.

Jurors deliberated for two days before delivering their verdict. One juror, Craig Will of Tuolumne County, said after the verdict that he expected the two men to get probation or a few months in prison. "I'm really appalled to discover that there's a 20-year mandatory minimum on the continuing criminal enterprise charge," he said.

If the judicial system really trusted juries to act as the democratic institution that the founders intended, juries would be told of the consequences of a conviction before deciding on a verdict. Selling a plant to people who have a medical need for it (or to anyone, for that matter) just isn't conduct that merits a 20 year sentence. The next president should (and if it's a Democrat, probably will) put an end to federal prosecutions that contravene state laws permitting the sale of medical marijuana.

The NRA is holding its annual meeting in Louisville, KY this weekend. John McCain will be speaking. He has tended to campaign against Obama rather than Hillary. There are Democrats who belong to the NRA. The NRA backs Democrats who support their issue. If McCain attacks Obama on gun rights, will he cost him any primary votes?

Here's who the NRA backed in 2006:

The NRA has returned the favor. In this year's election, the group is backing Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren, Tennessee Rep. John Tanner and West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan, among others. In gubernatorial races, the NRA has endorsed Democrats in Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming, and Bill Richardson, the former Clinton energy secretary and cabinet member, in New Mexico.

"The NRA is not an affiliate of the Republican party," said Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who also is an NRA board member. "They endorse incumbent Democrats who have voted with them on their issue. They understand that the first time they oppose a Democrat who has been supportive of the gun issue, they lose that D vote."

More...

The NRA has an active get out the vote effort. Hillary sent out these mailers in Indiana attacking Obama on gun rights. I wonder if they went out in Kentucky as well.

In April, the NRA wrote: "Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false." To be sure, the NRA doesn't buy that Hillary is now a pro-gun rights candidate. But, with everyone convinced Obama has the nomination, I think he will be the one that the NRA and McCain attack the most in Louisville this weekend.

Bill Clinton was in Louisville yesterday as part of a three day swing through the state. Obama spent one day (Monday) in Kentucky. Hillary will be there tomorrow.

Clinton's visit to Louisville marked the start of a three-day swing through Kentucky. He had appearances last night in Bardstown and Elizabethtown and will make five stops today in Western Kentucky.

According to the Kentucky Secretary of State, here is the breakdown of registered voters as of May 20, 2008:

• Total: 2,857,231
  Democrats 1,629,845
  Republicans 1,040,438
  Indpendents 186,948

• Male 1,344,579
  Female 1,512,503

Absentee ballots were available starting May 2 and have to be received by May 20, the date of the primary. In the 2004 primary (pdf), there were 563, 000 registered voters and a 23% turnout (375,000 voted in the Democratic primary, a 24% turnout.) Women and men voted in roughly equal numbers.

It's a closed primary and party registration changes had to be in by December 31. Registration ended April 22, 2008. Independents cannot vote in the primary.

My earlier post on Kentucky demographics is here.

While some are trying to rehabilitate Zogby, I won't do the same with ARG, which also has done better of late. In my view, these are not good pollsters (heck Zogby is not even a pollster in my view). But the Talk Left readership will enjoy ARG's latest OR and KY results:

KENTUCKY

Clinton 65
Obama 29

OREGON

Clinton 45
Obama 50

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Via Instapundit, here's Jennifer Rubin in Commentary reviewing some of the sexist comments of Barack Obama and his supporters against Hillary. A snippet:

Meanwhile, Obama had to apologize for his “sweetie” crack. But this was not an isolated incident. Remember, this was the candidate who used phrases like “when the claws come out” and “when she’s feeling down periodically she launches attacks” in reference to his opponent. When language like this is part of the vocabulary of a candidate (one who is so exquisitely articulate), it is worth asking if there is something going on here.

The language and tone of the media have become so condescending and disrespectful toward Clinton that, I think, Obama’s camp has picked it up. When “she-devil,” “everyone’s first wife,” and “Fatal Attraction” become acceptable means of description in the mainstream media, why would the candidate hesitate to use them himself ? In short, Obama’s media fan club — those open-minded and inclusive liberals — have systematically removed inhibitions about the use of startlingly sexist language.

This is a telling story:

The Associated Press interviewed a third of the [DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee] members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.

(Emphasis supplied.) The blithe lack of concern for November 2008 is revealing. Who cares about winning Florida and Michigan in the Fall? Apparently not the DNC. Let's hope Barack Obama does care.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

The Pew Research Center has released the results of a poll on the media's insistence that the Democratic primary has ended and Obama is the winner:

Barack Obama may be building an insurmountable lead in the Democratic primary race, but the public is sending a strong message to journalists and pundits: It is too early to declare, as some already have, that the race is over.

Fully 72% of the public - including comparable percentages of Democrats, Republicans and independents - say that journalists should not be anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee at this stage in the race. Just 20% say that journalists should be doing this.

In the continuing rationalization of the malign acceptance of sexism, the latest version is the deflection -- the knocking down of a strawman argument - the unmade argument that Hillary Clinton may lose because of sexism. I have seen no one, I mean no one, make such an argument. Indeed, it is absurd to argue it. Hillary Clinton is winning white men in droves now. That is one of the concerns that smart Dem political thinkers are addressing now. But some people do not want to talk about THAT.

People like Scot Lehigh need this strawman to justify their behavior - his malign acceptance of the sexism seen in this campaign. He writes:

People are right to decry boorish anti-Clinton comments, offensive jokes, and the bilge, bile, and billings-gate of the talk-radio blowhards, as well as occasional over-the-top utterances from cable commentators. But let's not mistake the Bruegelian sideshow for the political mainstream. Even allowing for all that stupidity, the notion that sexism is primarily to blame for Clinton's woes doesn't pass logical muster.

(Emphasis supplied.) In order to justify the fact that people like Scot Lehigh did NOT decry the systemic sexism and misogyny that we have seen in this campaign (that's someone else's job in Lehigh's construct. He is here to tear down Hillary Clinton), Lehigh invents a "notion" that no one has ever forwarded. This is the latest form of the malign acceptance of sexism. It is just as offensive as what we have seen before.

Lehigh's column is ridiculous. He imagines arguments that WOULD be made but never were. He rebuts explanations that were never offered. All in an effort to diminish the very real problem of sexism, and the malign acceptance of it by the likes of Scot Lehigh.

In the end, Scot Lehigh does not want to hear about the sexism, does not want to address it, wants the issue to be forgotten. In order to deflect the issue, he creates a false narrative. It is just the latest form of the malign acceptance of sexism.

Washington Post columnist Libby Copeland exmaines the "Poor Hillary" meme by those who don't care for Hillary Clinton. It's only worth reading for the end:

You see the real Clinton on TV this week after her West Virginia win. Brian Williams tries to lead her into an autopsy of her campaign, and she keeps coming back with that smile. She looks rested. She looks like she knows exactly what she's doing.

"Made of steel," is how John Edwards describes her Wednesday, just before he endorses Barack Obama.

"We'll know a lot more on June 4th," the candidate herself says, placid as a lap cat. "I don't believe in quitting. I don't believe in being pushed out."

As Big Tent wrote earlier ,the California Supreme Court Thursday overturned a law banning gay marriage (opinion here, pdf). Glenn Greenwald has some terrific analysis on what the decision means and doesn't mean. In a nutshell, from the Washington Post,

Marriage is a "basic civil right" guaranteed to all Californians, "whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in a 121-page ruling. He repeatedly said the ruling was based on the California court's first-in-the-nation decision in 1948 to end the state's prohibition on interracial marriage, nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court took the same action.

The ruling becomes effective in 30 days unless a stay is granted.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama issued similar bland statements on today's decision: [More...]

Hillary's statement:

"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."

Obama's statement:

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

The radical right in California is geared for a fight, having already gathered 1 million signatures for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that could be on the ballot in November. You can read it here (pdf.)

The court's decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.

If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today's ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.

The politician with the better response, go figure, was California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor issued a statement today saying, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling." He also reiterated his opposition to the constitutional amendment that is likely to be on the November ballot.

As for the predictable response from John McCain: Sen. John McCain's campaign said the Arizona Republican "supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman." McCain, who last week decried judicial activism, "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions," a spokesman added.

Update: Here's Libertarian candidate Bob Barr: Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).

Twelve Montana prosecutors have endorsed Barack Obama:

These leaders from across Montana cited Senator Obama’s strong record of supporting law enforcement as well as his commitment to protecting individual rights that are important to the lives of all Montanans.

The Mayor of Kalispell, MT endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday:

"Hillary Clinton has been standing up for women and families throughout her long career in public service," Kennedy said. "She is the candidate who best understands the issues facing Montana families."

Previously, Hillary was endorsed by State Sen. Ken Hansen, Harlem; Rep. Norma Bixby, Lame Deer; Rep. Julie French, Scobey; Rep. Veronica Smalls Eastman, Lodge Grass; Julia Doney, Democratic Activist, Fort Belknap; Former Rep. Angela Russell, Lodge Grass; Former Rep. Bob Gervais, Browning; State Senator Vicki Cocchiarella (Missoula) and Rep. Franke Wilmer (Bozeman).

As a defense lawyer, I'm not impressed, and if anything, put off by the prosecutors' endorsement of Obama. It's not the first time Obama has been endorsed by law enforcement groups. When he was running for office in Illinois: [More...]

From the Chicago Tribune, August 20, 2004, available on Lexis.com:

Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama's longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP.

For a full review of Obama's record on crime issues, see my prior post, Obama and Defendants' Rights: Progressive or Not. which asks and answers the question:

Where does Obama stand on criminal justice issues? Is he really a progressive? Will he stand up for the rights of the criminally accused ... or just those of the wrongfully charged or convicted?

And, from Drug War Rant, here's an entry that was on Obama's website in 2004:

During 8 years in the state senate, Senator Obama has repeatedly voted for tougher penalties for drug offenders. [HB 3387, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0546; SB 1793, 3/21/03; P.A. 93-0223; HB 2347, 5/6/99; P.A. 91-0336; HB 3170, 5/7/98; P.A. 90-0674; HB 1278, 5/14/99; P.A. 91-0403; SB 0105, 3/23/99; P.A. 91-0263; HB 2843, 5/20/03; P.A. 93-0596; 93rd GA, SB 2447, 3/25/04; P.A. 93-0884; SB 1578, 3/24/03; P.A. 93-0297; SB1028, 4/2/98; SB 1028, 5/19/98, SC HA1,4; P.A. 90-0775; HB 0070, 5/16/97; P.A. 90-0382; HB 2844, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0340; HB 3073, 4/4/00; P.A. 91-0802; HB 0252, 5/7/99; P.A. 91-0366; HB 5652, 5/9/02; SB 1332, 2/24/00; P.A. 91-0899; HB 4245, 5/7/02; P.A. 92-0698; SB 0014, 5/20/97, SC HA1; P.A. 90-0397; SB 0003, 4/6/01; HB 2015, 5/9/97; P.A. 90-0164; SB 1011, 4/5/01; SB 1224, 3/24/98; HB 2030, 5/15/97; P.A. 90-0557]

(My emphasis)

Obama will be in Oregon Saturday and Sunday. I bet he won't be advocating stricter gun control and drug laws there. What will he do if he gets to the White House? Who knows.

How about a late night open thread?

We've also got some new diaries up:

• Sensible Justice: Why This Election Matters by Scribe

• Your One-Stop Shop for Downticket Race Info! - Senate Edition by Dalton Hoffine [Note: The Washington Post says the Dems need to pick up 9 seats in November to have a filibuster proof Senate.]

• Obama's OTHER Forgotten Demographic : Older Voters by Paul Lukasiak (my post on that is here.)

And only in Texas, an HIV homeless man gets 35 years for spitting on a police officer. Now 42, he must serve half before being eligible for parole.

Have something else you want to talk about? Go right ahead.

Comments now closed.

Do you suppose we'll ever have the pleasure of watching Karl Rove do the perp walk?

Via Politico's The Crypt:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

The bolded option would be a satisfying outcome.

While the degree of moral fault assignable to Lori Drew as the cause of Megan Meier's death is open to debate, it is unquestionable that Megan's suicide is tragic. That sad reality does not justify stretching federal laws against identity theft and computer-aided fraud in an effort to prosecute as a federal crime (in Los Angeles, no less) Drew's use of a fabricated MySpace account to send mean messages to Megan, her neighbor in O'Fallon, a suburb of St. Louis.

With the help of others, Drew allegedly created a MySpace account under the fictitious name of Josh Evans. "Josh" engaged in an email flirtation with 13-year-old Megan before telling her in a final message that the world would be better off without her. Megan hung herself shortly after reading that message and died the next day. More detailed background is available here and here.

The indictment (pdf) charges Drew with using a computer in O'Fallon to access the MySpace server in California, "without authorization and in excess of authorized access," to obtain information from the MySpace computer to further the tortious act of inflicting emotional distress upon Megan. The "without authorization" allegation is grounded in the claim that Drew violated her "Terms of Service" agreement by lying to MySpace when she created an account in a fictitious name.

Think about that one for a minute. (more...)

Any time you tell a fib to MySpace -- any time a little white lie appears on your profile concerning your age or weight -- you are violating your TOS agreement (see indictment paragraph 12(d)). If you then use that account to send a harassing message to someone, you've committed a federal crime ... at least in the view of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.

This charging decision exemplifies the growing federalization of local crime. Drew's conduct may have been reprehensible, but state prosecutors in Missouri could not conclude that it was criminal. Should a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles be entrusted with the power to punish a local incident that occurred in a different state?

We should not applaud the "novel" or "groundbreaking" interpretation of a statute that clearly was not meant to apply to harassing messages sent through bogus MySpace accounts. Columnist Barb Shelley answers the indictment succinctly:

I'm not inclined to expend much sympathy on Lori Drew, but she's clearly being indicted because of the unintended consequences of her actions. There aren't enough lawyers in the world to prosecute everybody who embarrasses and bothers people in Cyberspace.

Nor should that be a federal prosecutor's role. Is the LA office so over-staffed that it can afford to police MySpace pages in suburban St. Louis? Do we want our federal courts clogged with prosecutions for sending harassing messages via social networking sites?

Law Professor Orin Kerr agrees that this charge is "not what the statute is about." He warns:

“It’s a dangerous theory because terms of service are violated so often, and that means there’s a choice courts must face: maybe any violation of any terms of service is a federal crime; maybe no violations are a crime; or maybe some violations are a crime. If a court allows it, then it means that if the government is looking for a criminal charge against someone, they just need to show someone violated a term of service."

This prosecution is an abusive and dangerous misapplication of the law. The indictment should be dismissed and the U.S. Attorney's Office should be given a good scolding.

Via Politico. Senator Clinton said:

President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

Indeed.

This Saturday, the Democratic Convention in Denver will be 100 days away. How big an affair will it be? Check this out, from the DNCC's press release today:

• Nearly 200,000 square feet of media space has been allocated. Initial plans are complete for the media pavilions located outside the Pepsi Center that will provide workspace for many of the nearly 15,000 members of the media expected to attend the Convention.

• Space has been allocated for more than 100 production trucks, media workspace trailers and broadcast transmission vehicles.

• 17,000 hotel rooms in the Denver metro area are reserved....Meeting space reserved at 100+ hotels and the Colorado Convention Center

[More...]

• 250 buses planned for daily transport between official Convention hotels and the Pepsi Center....400 motorpool vehicles provided by General Motors...100% of buses and motorpool vehicles are flex fuel, hybrids or run on biofuel.

• 21,000 volunteers have stepped forward to help ensure a successful Convention

• Live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Convention will be provided in HD at DemConvention.com.

• 900 "Green Team" volunteers from the Host Committee volunteer pool will be on hand during Convention week to assist with our comprehensive recycling, composting and waste minimization program.

The convention is expected to be a big boon to Denver:

The Democratic National Convention, held from August 25-28, 2008, is expected to pump an estimated $160 million into the Denver area's economy and draw up to 50,000 visitors to the region.

Before Denver was selected as the Convention site, there was a lot of talk about whether holding it would be a boon or a nightmare for the city. Given the intense national interest in the presidential nomination race this year and the registration of hundreds of thousands of new Democrats, I think the convention will be a huge benefit to Denver, both financially and image-wise.

[To be cross-posted at 5280.com]

The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved a bill that would create dozens of new federal judgeships.

The effective date of the bill is Jan. 20, 2009, which means we will have a new President. These are lifetime positions and the President makes the nominations.

The independence of our federal judiciary is one of the most important reasons we need a Democrat to be elected President. After 8 years of the appointment of conservative judges, the pendulum needs to swing back.

This is just another reason why when all is said and done with the presidential nomination, Democrats need to quickly come together to ensure that the party's candidate wins in November.

"Private Eye to the Stars" Anthony Pellicano and his co-defendants, including a former LAPD officer, were convicted of multiple counts of racketeering and other crimes related to illegal wiretapping today. (Background on the charges is here.)

The trial lasted 9 weeks. The jury began deliberating May 1. Pellicano, who had recently finished serving time on explosives charges when this case began, represented himself. He refused to provide information about his clients:

Pellicano told the jury he was just a P.I. trying to get information. But he never revealed his secrets.

After publicly toying with testifying, he told the judge he would never discuss his clients. "It's not going to happen ever, no matter what the consequence," he said.

Back in 2003, when the probe started, he said: [More...]

"[My clients] did nothing wrong," Pellicano said, referring to his clients and employers. "The government should leave them alone. And me, I'm going to take this punishment like a man. I will not participate in any way, shape or form with this investigation."

You can read about his closing argument here. It must have been difficult for Pellicano to watch his clients come into court with grants of immunity and testify against him. Here's how the case started.

Pellicano is 64 years old. His sentence won't be light. Hopefully, he'll accept a court-appointed lawyer for his appeal.

In praising John Edwards' excellent speech yesterday endorsing Barack Obama, Paul Rosenberg makes a case for John Edwards as the VP candidate. The case is a pretty good one. With one exception, the blithe disregard for the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. Paul writes:

I know that in terms of unifying the party, putting a woman on the ticket would be an excellent move. But putting Edwards on the ticket would put the election away. Because of the unique dynamics of this race, it would be one of the rare examples of when a Vice Presidential candidate really can sway an important, if not crucial demographic--the very "Regan Democrat" demographic that McCain cannot win without. . . . Most importantly, Edwards on the ticket would be a powerful figure for healing the deep rifts that have divided our party in the past, and that clearly still linger in hearts of many . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

Setting aside the rather, to put it mildly, rosy expectations regarding Edwards' appeal, isn't there something missing from Paul's discussion? Yep, that's right - Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Any woman can unify the Party. Hillary Clinton is viewed as having NO appeal with voters. It is rather funny when you compare it to the high regard that Paul has for Edwards' supposed appeal to voters.

The more I read from Obama bloggers and the Creative Class, the more I become convinced that driving the Clinton wing of the Dem Party out is one of their primary goals. I hold to my view that the Obama Wing of the Democratic Party needs to decide what is more important to them, winning in November, or destroying the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. I doubt they can do both.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed

This condescending dismissal of Marie Cocco's great column on sexism really annoys me. A.Serwer writes:

Like Marie Cocco, I could come up with my own list of Media Matters clips and offensive merchandise that I could use to argue definitively that racism is worse than sexism. But I'm not sure what that would prove, other than that I believe the prejudice I've faced is qualitatively worse than the prejudice I know nothing about.

Is is really impossible to just condemn sexism without comparing it to racism? As for making a list of examples of racism in the Media so that we can address that problem as well, I think that is a very worthy thing to do. I would support it. Serwer's attempt to trivialize Cocco's concerns is frankly, outrageous. When he writes:

I don't understand why for some people the Democratic primary has become a competition over who has it worse.

I think - look in the mirror when asking that question A.Serwer. That is on you. What a terrible, condescending and dismissive post.

Speaking for me only.