Clarence Thomas is, to use the technical legal term, a sick fuck:

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a death penalty case posing a question so bizarre that its very existence should serve as an indictment for capital punishment: Can courts force a state to execute a possibly innocent prisoner when the state itself doesn’t want to? Richard Glossip, the petitioner, argues that prosecutors concealed key evidence and allowed false testimony at his trial, securing a wrongful conviction. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond agrees, supporting Glossip’s quest for a new trial. But the far-right Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against him, and attempted to insulate its ruling from SCOTUS review by asserting that state law bars any further appeals. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether the lower court successfully thwarted federal reversal—and if not, whether Glossip deserves a new trial that complies with the Constitution.

[…]

One strange feature of Glossip is that everyone agrees Richard Glossip did not personally kill the victim, Barry Van Treese. It was, rather, Justin Sneed who killed Van Treese. Sneed then struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid a death sentence by testifying that Glossip ordered him to carry out the murder. Sneed’s testimony was central to the state’s case against Glossip, and prosecutors sought to prove he could be trusted. At one point, the lead prosecutor, Connie Smothermon, asked Sneed if he took medication; he told the jury he was once prescribed lithium for a “cold” but “never seen no psychiatrist or anything.”

Here’s the problem: Contemporaneous notes, uncovered years later, reflect prosecutors’ knowledge that Sneed was lying. These notes, taken by Smothermon, state that Sneed was “on lithium” and under the care of a “Dr. Trumpet.” The prison psychiatrist who treated Sneed was named “Dr. Trombka.” Glossip’s lawyers think Smothermon was referring to this doctor. They believe these notes show that Smothermon and her co-counsel, Gary Ackley, knew Dr. Trombka treated Sneed with lithium for a psychiatric disorder—but refused to share this information with Glossip.

These omissions are no small matter. The due process clause requires prosecutors to turn over potentially favorable evidence to the defense, and compels them to correct false testimony. Smothermon and Ackley did neither. If they had, Glossip’s attorneys might have undermined Sneed’s credibility by proving that he lied on the stand. They may have more persuasively painted him as the lone killer, too, since Trombka believed Sneed was capable of violent “manic episodes.” Because prosecutors chose to stay silent, Glossip’s attorneys could not make the strongest case for their client.

Yet during Wednesday’s arguments, Thomas sought to recast Smothermon and Ackley as innocent victims of a smear campaign. He immediately asked Seth Waxman, Glossip’s lawyer: “Did you at any point get a statement from either one of the prosecutors?” Waxman told him that he did, in fact, get a sworn statement from Ackley, and that Smothermon was interviewed by an independent counsel appointed by Drummond. So yes: Both prosecutors provided statements. Yet Thomas persisted as if they hadn’t. “It would seem that because not only their reputations are being impugned, but they are central to this case—it would seem that an interview of these two prosecutors would be central.” Waxman protested that, again, both prosecutors were given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. And again, Thomas refused to accept it: “They suggest,” the justice said, “that they were not sought out and given an opportunity to give detailed accounts of what those notes meant.”

In truth, Smothermon and Ackley have had ample opportunity to say their piece. Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond commissioned a thorough probe that included interviews with both prosecutors. Yet when Paul Clement—who represents Drummond—continued defending Glossip, Thomas made the same baseless accusation. “Shouldn’t these two prosecutors—it seems as though their reputations are being impugned,” Thomas told Clement, “and according to them, they did not receive an opportunity to explain in depth.” Clement responded that “that’s hard to square with the record here.” He pointed out that, on top of Drummond’s probe, the Oklahoma Legislature commissioned its own probe of the case, during which Smothermon and Ackley were interviewed.

Thomas then pivoted to minimizing the prosecutors’ misconduct, alternately dismissing the notes as inscrutable and crediting Smothermon’s “explanation” of their irrelevance. Clement explained that “the most plausible inference” is that the notes reveal unconstitutional concealment of evidence. Thomas pivoted back to his false claim that Glossip’s lawyers never spoke to the prosecutors, saying of Smothermon: “Her point is that you didn’t ask her, that you didn’t have an in-depth conversation with her about it. You’re drawing it from the note, which she thinks is inadequate information.”

This back-and-forth dragged on, with the justice refusing to accept reality. “Why wouldn’t they be interviewed?” he asked Clement again. “Why don’t we have materials from them other than in an amicus brief in this case?” Clement could only restate the fact: “Well, with respect, Justice Thomas,” he said, “you do have materials from them.” Thomas just wouldn’t hear it: “What are we to do with the point that they make that they were frozen out of the process?” he asked. An exasperated Clement only continued pointing the justice toward the prosecutors’ own statements.

The line between this and claims that the weather is being controlled by Jewish space lasers is at best a thin one. Thomas, as has long been the case, lives in a dreamworld in which prosecutorial misconduct must by definition be fantastical.

Speaking of sick fucks, Glossip — a case in which the defendant definitely did not kill anyone and the evidence that he was involved comes almost entirely from the self-serving testimony of an extremely unreliable witness prosecutors broke the law to protect — is also the case Sam Alito used to hold that torture was legal if the state cannot figure out a non-torturous way to kill someone. The history of this case is about as good a case study in the utter depravity of the most reactionary wing of the Supreme Court that you can find.

The post Won’t someone think of the poor prosecutors committing Brady violations to railroad people into the death chamber appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

I care about all the things the guy in this cartoon doesn’t.

Tom the Dancing Bug

I do not want to live in the hellscape a Republican victory would produce. I fervently want Harris to win. However…I feel a prophecy coming on.

I prophesy that even if we get the best possible result, a clean sweep by the Democrats capturing the White House, the Senate, and the Representatives, November will be a nightmare. There will be contested elections. There will be false electors. There will be lawsuits. Elections will linger unresolved until Spring. And that’s the gentle stuff.

There will be riots. There will be assassinations. The Capitol will be assaulted. Gangs will roam the streets, attacking anyone not wearing a MAGA hat. Congress will be in chaos, while the Supreme Court looks on in approval, and the NY Times opines on the virtues of fascism.

Mind you, that is the best result to expect.

I don’t own any weapons of war. Maybe I should take some time in early November to sharpen the kitchen knives? Having America wiped clean by a series of climate catastrophes would be a positive outcome.

[The way it was never meant to be heard]

In 1994, Green Day released their seminal album “Dookie”. It brought both the band and punk music in general into the mainstream, selling tens of millions of copies along the way. Now, 30 years later, they’ve demastered the album. Each of the 15 tracks (14 + 1 hidden) have been placed onto a ridiculous format, like a Game Boy cartridge:

Other formats include 8-track, doorbell, Teddy Ruxpin, and even a bone-conduction audio toothbrush.

From the site, where you can listen to all of the tracks, and enter a lottery to purchase any of the very limited number of real objects created for this:

Instead of smoothing out its edges and tweaking its dynamic ranges, this version of Dookie has been meticulously mangled to fit on formats with uncompromisingly low fidelity, from wax cylinders to answering machines to toothbrushes. The listening experience is unparalleled, sacrificing not only sonic quality, but also convenience, and occasionally entire verses.

The result is Dookie Demastered: the album that exploded the format of punk rock, re-exploded onto 15 obscure, obsolete, and otherwise inconvenient formats, the way it was never meant to be heard.

This is incredible work, and it’s incredibly fun. Kudos to Green Day and their collaborators, very serious art studio Brain.

Link: https://www.dookiedemastered.com

Mark Joseph Stern puts Ron DeSantis’s threat to impose criminal penalties on people for accurately criticizing his odious abortion ban in the context of his ongoing war on the First Amendment:

The point here is that even if the statements made in “Caroline” were false, Florida would have no power to punish media companies that air the ad. But the statements are true, so the state is unquestionably prohibited from imposing any punishment. Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and a First Amendment specialist, told me that the DeSantis administration’s threat is “about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as you’ll see.”

Jennifer Safstrom, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School, condemned the administration’s letter as an unconstitutional “weaponization of state law to suppress speech” that’s “designed to have a chilling effect on advocates during a time critical to voter outreach.” Alexander Tsesis, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law, said it seemed “absurd to threaten prosecution,” and pointed out that stations’ own “editorial decisions” are protected by the First Amendment. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson Law, called the incident yet another episode in DeSantis’ “long recent history of violating the First Amendment with abandon.”

Torres-Spelliscy raises an important point: This not-so-subtle threat of prosecution is best understood in the context of the DeSantis administration’s broader war against free speech in Florida. He has committed a head-spinning number of First Amendment violations since assuming office in 2019. A brief, partial sampling: A conservative appeals court struck down one of his signature laws, the STOP Woke Act, to ban speech about diversity in the workplace. A conservative judge invalidated two laws signed by the governor that would censor speech about ballot initiatives (like Amendment 4). A different conservative judge found that he unlawfully retaliated against pro-choice speech.

DeSantis quietly accepted a court settlement curtailing another signature law that had censored LGBTQ+ expression in public schools. He is fighting a separate decision invalidating a different policy that gags LGBTQ+ teachers’ speech. That ruling began with this lament: “Once again, the State of Florida has a First Amendment problem. Of late, it has happened so frequently, some might say you can set your clock by it.”

DeSantis’ approach is simple: The governor attempts to impose his policies by censoring expression, threatening those who disagree with gag orders, civil penalties, and even incarceration. He might lose in court later—but by then, the censorship may have had its intended effect. Amendment 4 needs 60 percent approval to pass; DeSantis and his administration are trying to suppress enough pro-choice speech to hold off supermajority support. Any criminal charges over the “Caroline” campaign ad would, of course, get thrown out in court. But if the governor can doom Amendment 4 by silencing speech now, he is unlikely to care that his intimidation tactics were built on constitutional quicksand.

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has come out to clarify the law and denounce DeSantis’s unconstitutional actions, which hopefully will stiffen the spines of the stations. Here’s the ad he doesn’t want you to see:

The post Chilling Effects appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Offhand, I know about a dozen interracial couples — some of them are in my family. Republican Senator Mike Braun thinks it would be fine to dissolve their marriages.

In a media call on Tuesday, U.S Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind) said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in a ruling that stretches back to Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

According to Braun, the decision should not have been made by the country’s highest court and instead been left to individual states. Even though some states had made interracial marriage illegal prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

They’ve discovered this handy circumlocution. They aren’t going to come right out and say that interracial marriage is wrong…oh no, they’re just going to say that we ought to permit states (that is, Republican lawmakers in some states) the right to destroy marriages, if they want. They’re playing the same game with abortion.

Come on, no one is fooled. Braun is a closet racist who has found a not-so-cunning way to signal to other racists that he’s on their side.

I am continuously astonished by how bad Republicans can be. It’s not just that I disagree with their policies, but that they themselves paint their policies in such a ludicrously stupid manner. Take, for example, this incident at a candidate forum in Idaho.

1. They discuss discrimination in Idaho. The Republican, Dan Foreman, claims there isn’t any. I’ve gotten used to Republican denial, so that doesn’t shock me.

2. The Democratic candidate, a native American woman, politely “highlighted our weak hate crime laws and mentioned the presence of the Aryan Nations in northern Idaho as undeniable evidence of this reality.” Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, we all knew there was a gradient of bigotry that ascended from the coast to the potato brains of Idaho (partly to avoid confronting the reality of racism in Seattle), so this was already making Foreman look foolish.

3. The Republican then tells the Nez Perce woman to “go back where you came from.” Unbelievable. It’s like a bad joke on a bottom-of-the-barrel sitcom.

Trish Carter-Goodheart has written about the incident.

Last night, I entered what should have been a respectful and constructive public candidate forum. Instead, I was met with hateful, racist remarks from State Senator Dan Foreman, who screamed at me to “go back where you came from.” The question on the floor was about a state bill addressing discrimination. One of the candidates responded, claiming that “discrimination doesn’t exist in Idaho.” When it was my turn to speak, I calmly pointed out that just because someone hasn’t personally experienced discrimination doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Racism and discrimination are real issues here in Idaho, as anyone familiar with our state’s history knows. I highlighted our weak hate crime laws and mentioned the presence of the Aryan Nations in northern Idaho as undeniable evidence of this reality. That’s when Sen. Foreman lost all control. His words to me: “I’m so sick and tired of this liberal b*lish*t! Why don’t you go back to where you came from?!” I stayed. I stayed because I wanted to show our community that I can, and will, handle difficult, unpleasant situations. After the forum, several members of the crowd came up to me and offered their support, apologizing for Sen. Foreman’s behavior. But it’s not the people in the crowd who need to apologize. I need to thank the women who stood with me against this hate: Representative Lori McCann, Kathy Dawes, and Moscow City Councilwoman Julia Parker. You had my back when it mattered, and I appreciate your strength and solidarity. What happened last night was a reminder of why this election matters. I am a proud member of the Nez Perce tribe, fighting to represent the land my family has lived on for generations. People like Dan Foreman do not represent our diverse community, and I will continue to stand against the hatred and racism they spread. Our state deserves better. Our community deserves better. We deserve better.

The last time I was in Idaho, my talk was attended by a bunch of people from Doug Wilson’s church (but not Wilson himself). Doug Wilson was an Idaho preacher who got a boost in popularity because Christopher Hitchens toured with him for a while, something I don’t forgive Hitchens for. Doug Wilson co-wrote a notorious pamphlet titled Southern Slavery, where he said

Slavery as it existed in the South … was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence, the excerpts read in part. There has never been a multiracial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. …

Slave life was to them [slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.

But oh no, racism and discrimination don’t exist in Idaho.