Franken

It appears that Al Franken will finally win the election. Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled for him and Governor Pawlenty had indicated that he would declare Franken the winner. About time.

Strip Searching for Advil

The Supreme Court at least recognizes the ridiculousness of searching a girl for Advil in her underwear. For some reason, the intrusiveness of a strip search for over the counter drugs was not sufficiently obvious to allow the individuals involved to be subject to suit. Full decision is here (Warning: PDF).

Update - 12:37 P.M.: I just got to Thomas' dissent, apparently no search is ever unreasonable in his eyes, no matter how intrusive and for what minor purpose. Oh Thomas, will there ever be an authority figure who ass you don't want to kiss?

Does Jose Canseco have a case?

Probably not. I write more on the subject over at New Jersey Newsroom.

Iran

Apparently, Twitter has a purpose, since all the reports on Iran are coming out of there. Search for #iranelection. Otherwise, I have to say that I used to think that maybe Ahmadinejad wasn't quite as crazy and evil as we assumed, but now I see that I am wrong about him.

Avi Frisch's article in today's New Jersey Newsroom

Avi is the “paper”’s legal writer. Please send him any ideas for articles that you may have.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/can-the-port-authority-legally-finance-silversteins-white-elephants

Newjerseynewsroom

I have signed on to be a legal journalist for www.newjerseynewsroom.com. This is an excellent site for New Jersey news, and I am proud to be taking part in this exciting project. Most of the writers and contributors are experienced New Jersey reporters from the Star-Ledger, and I feel lucky to be involved. My first article is not up yet (I need to start writing it), but I hope you will check the site out.

Second Amendment

It comes as no surprise to those who know me that I do not believe in an individual right to bear arms, and that I think the recent Supreme Court decision to the contrary is plain wrong. One thing that is clear to me and still unclear from the Court is whether the 2^nd Amendment applies to the states and localities that impose gun control. This concept, known as incorporation, is that the 14^th Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection incorporate provisions of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states.

In the middle of the 20^th century, there was a major debate on whether the 14^th Amendment incorporated all of the Bill of Rights, some of the Bill of Rights or none. This has largely been settled, and it is now generally acknowledged that the 14^th Amendment applies most but not all of the Bill of Rights to the states. The basic standard that the Supreme Court has applied is to consider whether a Right is "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty" as Justice Cardozo put it in 1937. Among the rights not incorporated are the right to a jury in civil trials (7^th Amendment) and the right to be indicted by a grand jury (5^thAmendment). These rights, while of debatable worth do seem to at least speak to values of due process that this country holds dear. The right to hold a weapon, on the other hand, does not seem to be fundamental in any way, despite the protestations to the contrary by the NRA.

It would seem that the Second Amendment is also a right of the states against the Federal Government, in that it is about guaranteeing a right to a state militia (essentially the equivalent of today's National Guard). So even if the Court is uncomfortable with state gun regulation (though I am not sure why anyone is against gun control), how do they read in a limitation on state gun regulation into an amendment? The states have the right to a well regulated militia, so even if a personal right exists to guns, it is not applicable when a state chooses to limit the right. This seems to be very obvious, so I would appreciate comments that explain why I am wrong.