Trumpeting the rise of Justice Stevens. Personally, my "block of three" - whom I think of as the three to listen to when it comes to criminal matters - are Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas. The worst of the lot are usually O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Kennedy. SS&T usually have a reliance upon reasoned application of the law, an eye toward simpler, easier to follow bright-line tests and have the ability to tell either side it is wrong. The ORK? Not so much. In particular, the ORK really has neither the inclination nor the stomach to tell law-enforcement that it is wrong. Whenever I see SS&T on one side and the ORK on the other I feel it in my bones that SS&T's side is right (see Apprendi, Blakely, etc.. Actually, sometimes I prefer it when a member or two of SS&T are in the minority because they write the most interesting dissents (this is particularly true when Stevens and Scalia are sniping at each other).
The judge in the Peterson trial let the prosecutors use pictures of a pregnant woman in Peterson's toolbox and boat to demonstrate their speculation as to how he transported his dead wife. I would be bouncing off the walls. The emotional prejudice which that is meant to cause can in no way be overbalanced by the evidentiary weight of the demonstration of a guess. Apparently, the prosecution has shifted from trying to build its case on a foundation of Peterson's contradictory statements and actions to using highly prejudicial, emotional materials to try and overwhelm the jury; I'm not sure why.
Aw c'mon, let the poor Senator have his cut. After all, the guy higher up the food chain always gets his cut. Don't you watch Mafia movies?
$2 million in bad checks and stolen cars (and still uncaught). This guy's good.
You know, I don't really want to go to jail but if I get a free concert out of it . . .