Duke Lacrosse Redux?

Wow!

According to the NY Times, the criminal case against DSK may be falling apart over "major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May"

"Prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself."

"Mr. Strauss-Kahn could be released on his own recognizance, and freed from house arrest, reflecting the likelihood that the serious charges against him will not be sustained."

If this is true, it's really horrible. Though at least prosecuters in NY are not trying to pull a Nifong.

Some Constitutional Links

10th Amendment Case: what should the feds do? (Nod to Neanderbill)

Miss O'Donnell is powned, by asking what she thinks is a "gotcha" question: "Where is this 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution?" Remember, she was a "Constitutional Scholar" at Claremont. I was open-mouthed watching the video. This debate was at a LAW SCHOOL. That's why the laughter. O'Donnell actually looks around and grins, certain that they are laughing at her clever gotcha question. (Nod to Anonyman)

UPDATE: From the National Review..... And, sorry Ms. Trinko, but that is a fail. There are two parts to the guarantee of the separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment. The first is the restriction on establishment. The second is the restriction on free exercise. BOTH of those together, where the government cannot choose one sect, and ALSO cannot restrict what individuals practice, together constitute the separation of church and state. So, the defense that "free exercise" somehow requires the teaching of intelligent design in schools is just nonsense. It DOES mean that the state cannot prevent it from being taught in church, and that's all. Ms. O'Donnell is an idiot, but at least she is an idiot in the first instance. Ms. Trinko, in defending this nonsense, is a derivative idiot in the second instance.

Federal judge hears case on Obamacare. This has already gone further than I expected.

We are all criminals

From the comments on the Freedom Update post:

"Saying illegal immigrants have less freedom is like saying people in jail have less freedom. Of course they do, they're criminals for cryin' out loud!"

People, we are all criminals! All of us have broken the speed limit or maybe smoked a reefer, or hired a worker that we didn't pay taxes for, or bought something on the internet without forwarding a sales tax payment to our state of residence, or brought Cuban cigars back from Europe, or didn't declare everything we bought abroad on our customs form.

Saying someone is a criminal is kind of meaningless. There is a big difference between being a criminal and actively doing harm to others.

Sorry for this rant, but I get really tired of this selective labeling and at times demonizing of groups that some people don't like. I am not accusing the commenter of demonizing, but many people do, with a label that could just as well be applied to themselves.

So maybe we should all look in the miror and say, "Hi, my name is (state your name), and I am a criminal".

How to make a bad impression

Say that you are ex-NBA player Jayson Williams. Your original murder trial partly cleared you, and now you are just chillin' waiting to be retried for reckless manslaughter. 

You have some time on your hands so.... why not go out, drive drunk and crash your SUV? 

Sure, that's the ticket!

The funniest part of the story is that when police arrived at the scene, Williams was sitting in the passenger seat as if someone else was driving. However witnesses told the cops that he was the only one in the car the whole time. 

I guess he's a fan of Arrested Development.

Who knows, this may work out for him by making jury selection in his retrial impossible.