No one comes to a litigator because his life his going perfect. This puts something of a pall upon the relationship between the laity and the gunslingers.

True fact. When I went to Afghanistan, Idries Shah sent me to Karzai's (uncle, I think? Sheikh Abd'ul Ahad)--anyway, the bandits on the Kandahar road, the bedbugs in the Hotel Jami (Herat) and the stomach bug my (then) wife caught intervened.

So, I'm holding out for Wali Karzai--I hear he has the primo dope hookup.

I don't know their names (but they end a lot in Sayed, Khan, and Shah); lots of them went to school either in England or the anglophone schools that go back to the days of the Raj.-

Yessiree, nothing says progress like the price of food pushing an addictive substance...

The shots of Pakistan look like the shots of Havana in Godfather II, when they're carving up the cake inside and Fidel is carving up the Guardia Civilia outside...

Me too, and I can't help but feel that at this stage of the process of supreme court justice nomination we should have a lot firmer feel for our future--the fact that we are unable resolutely to rebut Jade is unnerving.

This is the part that Brother Frog appears to ignore. I'm pretty sure that I referenced the subornation of perjury as among the duties of a modern state prosecutor. The utter lack of sanction in the face of repeated instances where a prosecution witness is caught in a bald faced lie evidently at the behest of the A.D.A. is all the "conduct guidance" that any testilying witness need consult.

No shit. Those assholes posturing on the legislative floor should really be put into the *front ranks of the shock troops next time we storm the next Tora Bora; as if a suicide-ready opponent worries about his one bite of the habeas corpus apple--yeah, I hear they have a seminar on the Great Writ right there in Peshawar...

*(Note to Josh and Andrew--this is not a wish for their execution...just sort of a Uriah moment)

Oh, shit.

Without benefit of having read her opinions in any real measure, I have what they used to call, "a bad feeling" about this...

Three links is one link to far...

Not Yahwists? Boy, you better ask them about that; I think they worship "He whose name may not be spoken...."

totally cool compared(emphasis added...) with the sorts of rules urging that hair be obscured.

Article III, section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Wordnet's definition is irrelevant.

(Not that Repugnants should be otherwise allowed to walk the streets unfettered, putting the people at risk)

Of course I am--how often do you think a court clerk gives out incorrect information? Of that set of events, in what subset does the appellant rely on the incorrect info to his detriment? Of that set, in what subset does the reviewing tribunal construe the reliance as irrelevant, with a resulting miscarriage of justice?

That said, she did it on this occasion, and I believe it betrays a willingness to permit an inequitable outcome where fairness militated the contrary.

Hmmm, looks like a veto-override in potentia, but I still blame Bill for signing this piece-of-shit legislation...

I don't think so. I believe it was within the competence of the appellate court to construe the filing as timely under the strictures of the act, where a court functionary in his official capacity furnished *fatally flawed information.

*in more ways than one, cf. Troy Davis....

ad feminam, and yes, I consider it a personal failing on her part.

solid evidence? She was not on the appelate panel? Didn't sign the decision? What?

Defendants are "inventory" to prosecutors.

Well, that is certainly comforting, given the composition of that Supreme Court...

No one is asking her to ignore the law that said petitions had to be in by a date certain.

The issue is what that certain date was in the case of a litigant who troubled himself to inquire of the official agent of the court, and relied upon the information given by the court

For gutting habeas, I don't.

For refusing to "own" as an official act the provision of deadline information to a litigant('s counsel), thereby repudiating the timeliness of the filing, I do.

She was free to find that the petition was rendered timely by the clerk's mistake.

That is his Ellis Island family name--I believe the name was originally "Scarpia".

"Fundamental fairness" is how we know if due process has been afforded.

I don't find her ruling to be fundamentally fair.

Or, just a Constitutionalist--Maybe Barry Sheck or Peter Neufeld.

(someone in their 30s, please! Not a middle-aged woman with a chronic disease and a fuckin' prosecutor at that!)