What is it about Thursday night college football that makes announcers unable to say anything intelligent?

Q: In what world does the color guy decided to start talking in the middle of a drive about how he swears he saw Jeff Gordon in Manhattan yesterday while he was there with his family?

A: In the same world where Mark May asks, "Wow, did you see that run!" and Lou Holtz replies, "Yes."

While I'm venting, can announcers stop acting like every strategic decision should be decided based on how it's going to make everyone feel? Really, the coach should go for it on 4th and 2 from the 30 because his team needs to feel like they're able to move the ball? They shouldn't, I don't know, look at things like how likely they are to make it versus making the field goal? No? OK, every announcer ever. Thank you for your being really smart and understanding how football works. And by football, I mean facebook.

SWIFT JUSTICE: THE LOGAN SWIFT STORY: Episode 8 "Dial W for WTF"

Episode 8 of Swift Justice, (Season 1 now available on DVD) was a special three-parter, making it the subject of two straight weeks of discussions around America's water coolers. Notes from the Hovel is proud to present the script:

ACT 1:

EXT: A dive bar just of State Street.

(LOGAN enters, stumbling drunk, with his friend KATI. LOGAN proceeds to karaoke to the juke box. A HOT BARTENDER looks on.)

LOGAN: you're pretty...mgmmmhhh... i'll hab a nuvver Jackn'coke.

HOT BARTENDER: For some reason I find your antics charming. Also, my name is LAUREN.

(LOGAN slobbers on himself and returns to the juke box. He sings Lean on Me and leads the bar in clapping along. LOGAN gives LAUREN his number and stumbles along his merry way, in what could accurately be described as the worst attempt to hit on a woman he had engaged in for days.)
---------
EXT: A different bar, happy hour, a week later. LOGAN and LAUREN are having drinks.

LAUREN: I certainly have enjoyed this first date-type experience.

LOGAN: As have I.

LAUREN: I have a BOYFRIEND.

LOGAN: Well, I'm not going to be dating you while you have a BOYFRIEND, I don't do that shit.

LAUREN: Totally. We've been together for like 3 years, but I've been trying to end it.

LOGAN: OK, well, still not going to get involved in that.

LAUREN: Lame.

LOGAN: Well said. Then I propose a compromise: No one can get upset about two friends who happen to want to do each other hanging out in broad daylight, right? So we can hang out, but only while the sun is up. That is in no way morally ambiguous or inviting trouble.

LAUREN: And what about inappropriately flirty text messages?

LOGAN: And inappropriately flirty text messages.
------------

EXT: A parking garage, around midnight, two months later.

LOGAN: So, thanks for calling me and telling me you finally broke up with your BOYFRIEND.

LAUREN: No problem. Thanks for meeting me late at night in this parking garage. Which is a completely unreasonable place to meet for something like this.

(they kiss.)

LAUREN: Well, that certainly resolved itself well. I broke up with BOYFRIEND, and now we are free to start dating.

LOGAN: Yep, looks like a happy ending for all involved. Can't imagine this going horribly wrong in any way whatsoever.

END ACT I
-----------------------------
ACT II

EXT: Yet another bar, late in the evening. LAUREN is bartending.

LAUREN: I've got to close up.

LOGAN: Since I still live with my mom in Goleta, which is terribly pathetic, I will go to my office and pass out. Give me a call when you're off.

LAUREN: I will do that, because there is absolutely nowhere else for me to go at 2:30 in the morning, seeing as you and I are dating.

LOGAN: Super. I look forward to impending nakedness.
------------

EXT: The floor of LOGAN'S office, 5:00 a.m., LOGAN awakes.

LOGAN: Looks like I've got a missed call from LAUREN. It would be a good idea to call her back at 5:00 a.m.

(He does.)

MALE VOICE: Hello.

LOGAN: Who's this?

MALE VOICE: This is OFFICER JOHNSON. Why are you calling LAUREN'S phone? I'm going to sound cranky for no reason.

LOGAN: Well, we're dating, douchebag.

JOHNSON: Well, would it surprise you that she went over to her boyfriend's house tonight and beat him up?

LOGAN: That was unexpected, yes.

JOHNSON: Do you know where she is? She just took off and no one can find her.

LOGAN: No.

(LOGAN hangs up and, fearing LAUREN did something drastic, frantically tries to locate her. he fails. Later that morning, he leaves for a wedding in Cambria, where he has no cell phone reception.)

EXT: A car. LOGAN is returning from Cambria. He answers his phone, it is LAUREN'S SISTER, ALLISON.

ALLISON: LAUREN is in jail. She's charged with domestic violence. She went over to BOYFRIEND'S house and found him in bed with a girl he had been cheating on her with. They got into a fight.

LOGAN: Clearly the logical thing would be for LOGAN SWIFT'S FIRM to represent her in this matter.

(THE FIRM does. The charges are dropped, as is LAUREN.)

END ACT II
---------------------
EPILOGUE:

EXT: State Street. 6 months later. LOGAN lives downtown now and is walking home from the bars. A HOT BLOND CHICK and a SKANKY OLDER WOMAN WITH FAKE TITS walk by. LOGAN and the HOT BLOND CHICK make eye contact.

LOGAN: My you are an attractive young woman.

HOT BLOND CHICK: Yes I am. In fact I there is no reason I should be receptive to your advances because I am sober and guys hit on me all the time. My name is SARAH, by the way.

LOGAN: Well, lets see if I can manage five good minutes of charming conversation, shall we?

(He does. LOGAN and SARAH agree to meet for a drink.)

EXT: A different bar, several days later. LOGAN and SARAH are sitting together.

LOGAN: Wow, you are cool, beautiful and like country music. Pretty much that's all I'm looking for.

SARAH: All those things are true. And inexplicably, I am attracted to you. In fact, I expect during our next interaction, you will likely see me at least partially naked.

LOGAN: Huzzah! Things are looking up.

------

EXT: LOGAN'S apartment. He receives a text from SARAH

SARAH: "Do u know a girl named LAUREN?"

LOGAN: Hmm. Santa Barbara is a small town, and LAUREN is a bartender. There can be any number of reasons these two would know each other. I will text her back "Yes. Why?"

(He does.)

SARAH: "I was the girl in bed with her boyfriend."

(LOGAN immediately calls SARAH.)

LOGAN: Seriously?

SARAH: No. Actually, I'm roommates with her boyfriend and I was over at the house when the whole thing went down. So, I can't really date you because as far as my roommate is concerned you're the guy who was fucking his girlfriend. Sounds impossibly unlucky, doesn't it, that due to this crazy coincidence, though no fault of your own you are now precluded from entertaining yourself with my fabulous breasts?

LOGAN: Wow. God hates me, doesn't he?

SARAH: That would seem to be the case.

END.

Modern Sounds in Country and Western Idiocy

In addition to being troubling, this is just poor work, Mr. Willams, Jr. You can do better:



Also amusing is that the original song is about the Williams family being a bunch of boozers.
----------------------------
I feel I must now defend country music's good name, so here is a song by Emmylou Harris and her band of redneck hippies:



Much better. Thanks, Emmylou.

Go see Cal!

It took all my strength to stop myself from citing Cal Worthington and his dog spot in the appeal I am currently drafting. Read this piece in the NY Times on him and you will understand. He is awesome.

And here's the man in action:

George Lopez is a robot sent from the future to make us groan during NLCS games

OK, so I don't know what to make of this story in the NY Times:

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

In a related story, it is an absolute crime that the show Voyagers! is not available on DVD.
-----------------------
How is it possible that the George Lopez show can be so funny, and the promo for the new George Lopez late night talk show during today's Dodgers/Phillies game was perhaps the least funny joke I have heard this year. It was essentially "Baseball is getting more high tech all the time. The other day I saw the catcher text the pitcher what to throw." Honestly, George.

In a mildly related story, I once had a Reno cocktail waitress/self-described witch sneak me into a Jay Leno performance. Surprisingly vulgar that guy. Epilogue: The witch later confessed she once tried to run her ex-boyfriend over while he was standing on his front lawn. She seemed nice enough to me.

Bush admin. suppressed its own EPA's climate change report

This tells you everything you need to know about how much the Bush administration cared about the country's welfare:

Reporting from Washington - The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.

The report, known as an "endangerment finding," was done in 2007. The Bush White House refused to make it public because it opposed new government efforts to regulate the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming.

Bill Moyers is your cool grampa

and here is your cool grampa calling out Congress for being owned by the health care industry

I may need to implement an "OMG WTF" tag

... because police officers in Tenaha, Texas are just straight up robbing people. Basically, they pull people over and threaten to charge them with money laundering unless they turn over their cash and jewelry:

Texas law allows police to confiscate drug money and other personal property they believe are used in the commission of a crime. If no charges are filed or the person is acquitted, the property has to be returned. But Guillory's lawsuit states that Tenaha and surrounding Shelby County don't bother to return much of what they confiscate.

Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson said they agreed to forfeit their property after Russell threatened to have their children taken away.

Like Daniels, the couple says they were carrying a large amount of cash --- about $6,000 -- to buy a car. When they were stopped in Tenaha in 2007, Boatright said, Russell came to the Tenaha police station to berate her and threaten to separate the family.

"I said, 'If it's the money you want, you can take it, if that's what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,' " she said.

The document Henderson signed, which bears Russell's signature, states that in exchange for forfeiting the cash, "no criminal charges shall be filed ... and our children shall not be turned over" to the state's child protective services agency.

[...]

Guillory, who practices in nearby Nacogdoches, Texas, estimates authorities in Tenaha seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and in about 150 cases -- virtually all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists -- the seizures were improper.

Who Would Jesus Claim is a Kenyan Communist-Nazi Muslim?

Try to fit those initials on a string bracelet you made at camp.

It's been awhile since I've perused Conservapedia. Glad to know they haven't stopped fighting the good fight. Presenting the Conservative Bible Project. A movement to replace the liberal bias from the Bible with the 21st Century right-wing American bias the Good Lord intended.

(To those who believe I've got no sense of propriety, I'd like to point out that I decided against the original title for this post, "Jesus was a Teabagger.")

Guess which one gets sanctioned/bombed?

September 29, 2009 - Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a country currently without nuclear weapons, refuses to discuss its recently revealed nuclear facility at upcoming talks in Geneva, but states it will soon offer a timetable for international inspectors to visit the site. Iran has previously cooperated with IAEA inspectors and is arguably in compliance with its duties under the treaty with regard to the newly-revealed facility.


September 18, 2009 - Israel, one of only four countries who are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with India, Pakistan and North Korea), vows not to cooperate with a U.N. resolution calling on it to allow inspection of of its nuclear capabilities. Israel has never allowed inspections, and refuses to even acknowledge whether it has nuclear weapons, although it is "universally believed to possess a sizable arsenal of such warheads."

Have you ever noticed...

... that you never see Muammar Qaddafi and Zombie Bert in the same place at the same time?



Just saying.

And this is what the Raiders have become...

From the Oakland Tribune, after the Raiders 13-10 win over the Chief's yesterday:

Among the game balls awarded by Cable were to punter Shane Lechler and place-kicker Sebastian Janikowski, who the coach said "put this team on their back and carried us yesterday."

I don't even know what to say about this, other than that I hope coach Cable has a very dry sense of humor.

Side note: it might be a consolation to Raiders management as they lament their absolutely horrid recent draft history, that if the NFL were to have a league-wide punt/pass/kick competition, the combination of Lechler, Russell/Janikowski would be a heavy favorite.

That is the same Jamarcus Russell has completed 35.2 percent of his passes this year and is making 8.7 billion dollars this season.

What I learned on my trip to Las Vegas

Took a rather mellow trip to Vegas with the lady this weekend (after a stop at the Phoenix/Metric show at the Greek Theater in L.A.). Here's what I learned:

• Steve Wilkos - the bouncer/security guy from Jerry Springer, now has his own talk show. On the episode I saw he was lecturing a wayward teen about disrespecting his girlfriend/mother-of-his-children, just prior to revealing the results of a lie detector test about his cheating. Yes, that is the same Steve whose qualifications to lecture wayward teens include have wrestled several of them to the ground in the mid 90's. And this is not the most disturbing thing about the show. The most disturbing thing about the show is that while going to a commercial break, a message came on imploring viewers that if they knew about a child being abused or neglected, THEY SHOULD CALL STEVE." Not the cops. Not Child Protective Services. Steve. If someone knows of a child being abused or neglected, they should call Jerry Springer's former bouncer. Unbelievable.

• Primm, NV - $15 rooms. But no discount for checking in at 3:45 a.m.

• Need a room in Vegas on short notice but have not joined the 21st century? There's an app for that. Call your friend in Seattle who has internet access. Thanks, Matt.

• If you're looking for a good dive bar off the Strip, try the Office Bar. It doubles as a liquor store, which makes it maddening to pay $4 for a beer that comes out of a $10 six pack, but other than that, great place.

• People who live in New Jersey must have terrible lives. Because last weekend hundreds of them were willing to fly four hours to spend three hours standing in line to pay $50 to get into a club serving $12 drinks.

• We now live in a world where persons not associated with the erotic arts believe it is a good idea to get novelty-sized breast implants.
  

California's State-Run Sweatshops

What does the average American consumer want? Quality products at reasonable prices, manufactured by the nearly unpaid labor of California's prisoners.

Here's a catalog of all the wonderful products available for purchase from the California Prison Industry Authority.

According to the PIA, inmates are paid between $.30 to $.95 per hour, before deductions.

By contrast, here are some average wages from around the third world:



Well, they're doing better than the Vietnamese at least.

Rude Jude for California Assembly, District 72

OK, I could care less about Mike Duvall and his sexual antics. I'm of the opinion that a politician's private sex life is his own business. But, this is too great. From Mr. Duvall's website:

"I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs. My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state."

This is what Duvall was caught saying on the Assembly floor when he didn't know his mike was on:

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!

and

So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'

That's about Girl #1. On his other paramour:

And so her birthday was Monday. I was 54 on June 14, so for a month, she was 19 years younger than 
me. I said, 'Now, you're getting old. I am going to have to trade you in.' And she goes, '[I'm] 36.' She is 18 years younger than me. And so I keep
 teasing her, and she goes, 'I know you French men. You divide your age by 
two and add seven, and if you're older than that, you dump us.

Seriously, I've heard better excuses on Jenny Jones. (most notably on that classic episode "They Said Cheating Wasn't Their Game, but the Lie Detector Proved Their Excuses Were Lame!") Which leads me to...

TOP FIVE MIKE DUVALL RELATED JENNY JONES EPISODES:

5. This Budget Crisis Sure Ain't Pleasin', but Neither is your Skeezin'

4. I Don't Care if He's G.O.P., Stay Away from My Man's B.O.D.

3. You Vehemently Opposed Same-Sex Marriage, Who's that Ho in Your Undercarriage?

2. I Thought My Husband Served the Golden State, but Why's He Stayin' Out so Late?

1. Out of Control State Assemblymen Show Off Their Hot Bodies and Don't Care What Anyone Thinks!

"I'm State Assemblyman Mike Duvall. I go out late, I smoke, I drink. I had sex with five guys last week, and can't no one tell me what to do! I hit my mom when she tells me to reach across the aisle! My constituents love my sexy body and I love the attention. Don't hate! You know you want this!"

Party Discipline and Health Care Reform

Well, I'm going to try to start posting regularly again. Not sure why, but I am. Here is my less than exciting return:

So I'm a little confused about why a strong health reform bill with a public option can't pass the Senate, or at least couldn't have passed the Senate while Ted Kennedy was alive and there were 60 senators in the Democratic Caucus. It takes 51 votes to pass a bill, and I can't imagine Democrats couldn't find 51 votes for a relatively strong bill with a public option. The problem seems to be a cloture vote, which of course requires 60 votes. What I don't get is how Democrats who would oppose a strong reform bill can't at least be made to vote for cloture, even if they plan to vote against the actual bill. They can still tell their constituents they voted against the bill, and then make the reasonable case that despite their opposition, the right thing to do was to put the bill to a vote.

And seriously, what kind of party has so little control that it can't get its members to not filibuster their president's most important policy initiative? From the Democratic Party's perspective, if this legislation fails, they are looking at taking a big hit in upcoming elections. It is unbelievable to me that they are not putting more pressure on senators to at least agree to stop being obstructionist on this.

One more reason that failing to investigate the architects of torture is a bad idea

So, let's say Eric Holder does appoint a special prosecutor who is charged only with investigating and prosecuting CIA agents who went beyond the torture guidelines set by OLC and DOJ. And let's he does successfully prosecute some of these agents. What happens next? Consider two near certainties that would come from prosecuting these agents:

• More disturbing details will have come out during the investigations and trial as to the nature and extent of the Bush torture program, further demonizing those who orchestrated it.
• The agents will have had their defense limited by the state secrets privilege. That is, the government will have prevented them from presenting certain evidence in because it would endanger national security.

We will have, then, a situation where the architects of the torture program, the big fish, will be further exposed as the guilty parties they are. At he same time, the most sympathetic figures, the people on the ground trying to follow orders to "protect our country" become the fall guys, and to add insult to injury, are arguably prevented from defending themselves.

What does this add up to? Successful prosecutions of CIA agents would be followed by public outcry, no doubt led by the G.O.P., to pardon "the brave men and women who did what they had to in order to protect our country." And considering the most culpable players in the torture regime would never have to stand trial, the agents would make especially sympathetic figures.

Many are portraying Holder's (read: Obama's) decision to avoid investigations of those in charge of the Bush torture program as a pragmatic one. That it would be too politically damaging. If that is the reason, it is a short-sighted one, as either the prosecutions will fail and appear to have been a partisan witch hunt, or they will succeed and Obama will be faced with either allowing the scapegoats to serve time while their bosses get off scot-free, or pardoning convicted torturers.

Not only, then, is failing to investigate those responsible for the torture program bad precedent, and downright immoral, but it is likely politically self-defeating as well.

A day in the life of a Gitmo detainee

In light of the news that Attorney General Eric Holder is supposedly close to naming a special prosecutor to investigate interrogators who may have gone beyond the torture techniques authorized by the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel, I thought it might be interesting to post an example of what Holder's Justice Department believes a legal interrogation looks like.

From the Bradbury Memo, dated May 10, 2005:

(With the exception of a single citation to Techniques, all citations are to The Background Paper, and have been omitted for ease of reading. Footnotes have also been omitted. This memo can be read in its entirety here. Techniques can be read here.)

A Prototypical Interrogation

In a "prototypical interrogation," the detainee begins his first interrogation session stripped of his clothes, shackled, and hooded, with the walling collar over his head and around his neck.The interrogators remove the hood and explain that the detainee can improve his situation by cooperating and may say that the interrogators "will do what it takes to get important information." As soon as the detainee does anything inconsistent with the interrogators' instructions, the interrogators use an insult slap or abdominal slap. They employ walling [slamming the detainee against a wall, up to 20-30 times consecutively - Ed. note] if it becomes clear that the detainee is not cooperating in the interrogation. This sequence "may continue for several more iterations as the interrogators continue to measure the [detainee's] resistance posture and apply a negative consequence to [his] resistance efforts." The interrogators and security officers then put the detainee into position for standing sleep deprivation [to prevent the detainee from sleeping his hands and feet are shackled; the handcuffs are attached by a chain to the ceiling, the leg shackles are bolted to the floor; thus the detainee is kept standing and unable to move - Ed. note], begin dietary manipulation through a liquid diet, and keep the detainee nude (except for a diaper). The first interrogation session, which could have lasted from 30 minutes to several hours, would then be at an end.

If the interrogation team determines there is a need to continue, and if the medial and psychological personnel advise that there are no contraindications, a second session may begin. The interval between sessions could be as short as an hour or as long as 24 hours. At the start of the second session, the detainee is released from the position for standing sleep deprivation, is hooded, and is positioned against the walling wall, with the walling caller over his head and around his neck. Even before removing the hood, the interrogators use the attention grasp to startle the detainee. The interrogators take off the hood and begin questioning. If the detainee does not give appropriate answers to the first questions, the interrogators use an insult slap or abdominal slap. They employ walling if they determine that the detainee "is intent on maintaining his resistance posture." This sequence "may continue for multiple iterations as the interrogators continue to measure the [detainee's] resistance posture." The interrogators then increase the pressure on the detainee by using a hose to douse the detainee with water for several minutes. They stop and start the dousing as they continue the interrogation. They then end the session by placing the detainee into the same circumstances as at the end of the first session: the detainee is in the standing position for sleep deprivation, is nude (except for a diaper), and is subjected to dietary manipulation. Once again, the session could have lasted from 30 minutes to several hours.

Again, if the interrogation team determines there is a need to continue, and if the medical and psychological personnel find no contraindications, a third session may follow. The session begins with the detainee positioned as at the beginning of the second. If the detainee continues to resist, the interrogators continue to use walling and water dousing. The corrective techniques - the insult slap, the abdominal slap, the facial hold, the attention grasp - "may be used several times during this session based on the responses and actions of the [detainee]." The interrogators integrate stress positions and wall standing into the session. Furthermore, "[i]ntense questioning and walling would be repeated multiple times." Interrogators "use one technique to support another." For example, they threaten the use of walling unless the detainee holds a stress position, thus inducing the detainee to remain in the position longer than he otherwise would. At the end of the session, the interrogators and security personnel place the detainee into the same circumstance as at the end of the first two sessions, with the detainee subject to sleep deprivation, nudity, and dietary manipulation.

In later sessions, the interrogators use those techniques that are proving most effective and drop the others. Sleep deprivation "may continue to the 70 to 120 hour range, or possibly beyond for the hardest resisters, but in no case exceed the 180-hour time limit." If the medical or psychological personnel find contraindications, sleep deprivation will end earlier. While continuing the use of sleep deprivation, nudity, and dietary manipulation, the interrogators may add cramped confinement. As detainee begins to cooperate, the interrogators "begin gradually to decrease the use of interrogation techniques." They may permit the detainee to sit, supply clothes, and provide more appetizing food.

The entire process in this "prototypical interrogation" may last 30 days. If additional time is required and a new approval is obtained from headquarters, interrogation may go longer than 30 days. Nevertheless, "[o]n average, the actual use of interrogation techniques covers a period of three to seven days, but can vary upward to fifteen days based on the resilience of the [detainee]." As in Techniques, our advice here is limited to an interrogation process lasting no more than 30 days.

Nice Interview with Justice Ginsburg

about why we need more women on the Supreme Court.

Another little interesting SCOTUS diversity fun fact: If Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed, 6 of the 9 Justices will be Roman Catholic.

John Roberts is the Angel Hernandez of SCOTUS Justices

For some reason, I've decided to comment on two recent Supreme Court rulings which highlight Justice Roberts' glaring shortcomings:


I have to say that given the facts of the recent Supreme Court decision in Osborne, where the batshit crazy wing was joined by Justice Kennedy in ruling there is no right to post-conviction DNA testing, I don't think it is unreasonable that the particular defendant did not have a right to retesting. (The DNA test used in his case could only narrow the perpetrator down to 5% of the population, and his attorney decided not to have a more discriminating test done because she thought it might implicate him. In concurrence, Kennedy and Alito took this as an additional basis to deny DNA testing.) That being said, given the relatively minor expense of DNA testing, and its near-unique ability to prove innocence, it is unreasonable to deny access to testing for, at a minimum, those defendants who could not have their DNA tested at the time of their convictions. The Court's decision essentially acknowledges, uncaringly, that innocent people will remain behind bars simply because, through no fault of their own, DNA testing was not performed prior to their trials.

This line, in particular from Justice Roberts' majority opinion is classic Roberts stupidity:

The elected governments of the States are actively confronting the challenges DNA technology poses to our criminal justice systems and our traditional notions of finality, as well as the opportunities it affords. To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.

Roberts seems to have a habit of putting what he considers practical implications of a decision ahead of the substantive issue. Here, he worries that finding a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing would throw a wrench into the States' attempts to legislate the issue. True or not, this does nothing to answer the question of whether such a right exists. If it does, inconveniencing the State legislatures cannot justify failing to recognize that fact. Further, Roberts' argument creates a paradox. If States are moving to create a statutory right to DNA testing, that means the Court should not step in to recognize a constitutional right. If, however, the States fail to recognize such a right, this, too suggests the Court should decline to as well. As Roberts put it:

Osborne seeks access to state evidence so that he can apply new DNA-testing technology that might prove him innocent. There is no long history of such a right, and “[t]he mere novelty of such a claim is reason enough to doubt that ‘substantive due process’ sustains it.” (Citing Reno v. Flores)

If the Court should not step in when many (but not all) are addressing an issue dealing with a fundamental liberty interest, and should be reluctant to find an interest when the States do not, when does the Court step in? If the Court's years under Roberts are any guide, almost never.

Another fine example of Roberts' attempt to obfuscate the issue, this time thankfully in dissent, is in Caperton v. Massey. In that case, the Court decided (with the batshit crazy wing all dissenting, of course) that it was unfair for an appeal to be heard by a judge who had benefited from millions of dollars in campaign contributions by one of the litigants, specifically so he could assume the bench on hear the case. The majority called this an "extraordinary case where the Constitution requires reversal," with facts that are "extreme by any measure." Roberts' dissent again exposes his intellectual limitations, as he criticizes the majority:

The Court’s new “rule” provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be.

Because he is unhappy with the allegedly vague nature of the rule articulated by the majority, he would decide that no due process violation occurred in the case. While it is fine to criticize the majority's articulation of the constitutional principle they rely upon, it does not follow, as Roberts suggests, that no violation of the principle occurred.

These are just two of the latest in what is quickly becoming a long line of intellectually lazy and ideologically driven opinions by the self-described umpire jurist. It is of course unsurprising that Roberts, joining Samuel Alito as the last standing members of the Bush administration, would carry on the legacy.