Sympathy Is Not a Verdict

Matt Walsh posted an instant reaction Friday afternoon to a hung jury in the Massachusetts trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Watch it here: [VIDEO]

The clip is not a tour of five weeks of testimony. Walsh’s argument is narrower. The only reason the case did not end in an acquittal, he says, is one holdout juror — a man, on a panel of nine women and three men — who would not join the others in finding Clancy not criminally responsible. Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, asked the judge to remove him, told a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court the juror was biased against people with mental illness, and invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court said no. Outside, Reddington said the other eleven had been “robbed by one man.”

Walsh puts that next to the Derek Chauvin jury. In Minneapolis, he says, jurors ignored the law and convicted Chauvin of murder because he did not inspire sympathy — even after, in Walsh’s telling, they understood George Floyd had overdosed. Deliberations are treated as closed, so the verdict stood. In Plymouth the pressure ran the other way: eleven ready to excuse the killings, and a public effort to pry out the one who would not. Walsh’s larger claim is the Massachusetts rule itself. The killings are not in dispute. The Commonwealth still has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was criminally responsible. He thinks no one can prove another person’s mind that way. A mistrial, to him, is only a relative win. His close is that the insanity defense should not exist.

The case underneath the clip is simpler than the argument about it.

Supreme Court Lifts Party Spending Caps: What It Means for 2026

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that removes long-standing limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. The decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (No. 24-621) strikes down provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that had capped “coordinated party expenditures.”

How this classic cartoon fits the story (credit: J. Keppler, Puck Magazine — historical/public domain political illustration): The image above is a Gilded Age political cartoon showing wealthy monopolies and big business interests literally overwhelming the U.S. Senate. It perfectly captures the long-running fear that unlimited money from powerful donors can distort democracy and turn elected officials into conduits for special interests. The current U.S. Supreme Court ruling loosens coordinated spending rules between parties and candidates—critics argue this could amplify similar dynamics in 2026 by making it easier for large donors to route influence through party committees, while supporters see it as restoring parties' free speech rights against overly restrictive rules.

Elections Are (Almost) Dead: Fact-Checking Tim Pool on the SCOTUS Mail Ballot Ruling

Tim Pool came in hot on the Supreme Court’s latest move, calling it a serious blow to election integrity on his Timcast IRL podcast last night.

I watched it, leaned in on his points, and did the homework (with the assistance of A.I.). Here’s the ruling, Tim’s main claims, and a clear-eyed fact check.

Watch the Timcast IRL short here: [VIDEO]

FBI raids Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago

 

[VIDEO] Just had to share this with you all. This raid will add more fuel to the fire of the division in this nation. The former President's statement throws around the term "weaponized judiciary" as being alleged as Democrats continue to push the January 6th "Insurrection" narrative.

There isn't much to be said about this on Instapundit, yet at least.

Timcast IRL: SCOTUS Prepares To Possibly OVERTURN Roe V. Wade, Leftists PANIC

 

[VIDEO] This is related to the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization. You can read up a bit more about this over at the SCOTUS blog:

It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion that the court first recognized in Roe v. Wade. Only one justice who participated in Casey is still on the court now: Clarence Thomas, who joined a dissent in Casey arguing that “Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled.” After nearly two hours of oral argument on Wednesday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Thomas and the other members of the court’s six-justice conservative majority seemed poised to uphold a Mississippi law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. That decision would further curtail the right to abortion and undermine a key component of Roe and Casey. But the justices were once again deeply divided over whether to formally overturn those precedents.

Enacted by the Mississippi legislature in 2018, the law – known as the Gestational Age Act – has never gone into effect. Both a federal district court and the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked the law, explaining that Roe and Casey bar states from banning abortions before fetal viability – the point around 24 weeks of pregnancy when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Mississippi asked the justices to weigh in and, after the court agreed to take up the case, the state began urging the court to overturn those landmark decisions.

Arguing for the state on Wednesday, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the justices that Roe and Casey “haunt our country,” have “poisoned the law,” and have “choked off compromise.” “Abortion is a hard issue,” he said, and it is a question that should be left up to the people to decide.

Meanwhile you can check out the almost 30 minute discussion on Tim Pool's recent IRL podcast discussing this pending US Supreme Court case.

Mark Dice discuss the Kyle Rittenhouse trial

 

[VIDEO] I think this is a pretty good video to watch with regards to the trial and the media coverage of it. From when it happened last year to the trial going on now.

Tim Pool: Rittenhouse judge YELLS at prosecutor over grave misconduct

 

[VIDEO] I don't feel as if I can adequately give an update to this case as I'm hardly following this. An 18-year-old man faces life in prison in Wisconsin for his part in a violent confrontation that resulted in two deaths during civil unrest in the small metropolis of Kenosha, Wisconsin.

By my eyes it's a clear cut case of self-defense, however, the prosecution from what I heard has done a great job of embarrasing themselves as how they conducted their prosecution. And I hear there could possibly be a mistrial that would prevent further prosecution of one Kyle Rittenhouse.

This trial seems like a mess, however, any trial involving civil unrest during the previous summer there are a lot of attention on a lot of these cases. I could say the attention to Rittenhouse is almost similar to Derek Chauvin although Chauvin is the officer involved with the demise of one George Floyd.

In the case of Rittenhouse, he was a young man of 17 who was confront by very violent men and was able to handle it with his AR-15 rifle. I've seen footage of him crying this incident took a toll on his young emotions. And seeing enough of the judge in this case even he's tired of this case.

What is originalism?

 Before I get to what I want to share with you we need to establish the term originalism. At a glance, it basically means interpreting the US Constitution ratified in 1789 as written. But let's go a tad deeper:

Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning. But what, exactly, is the Constitution’s “original meaning”?

Some originalists argue it’s the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution in the various state conventions, or the public that elected those ratifiers. Others say it’s the understanding of a reasonable, well-educated reader. Still other scholars claim the Constitution is written in legal language and should be interpreted with its original “legal” meaning. With this approach, for example, the term “ex post facto laws” likely refers only to retroactive criminal laws, and not to all retroactive laws.

Although critics of originalism make much of these intraoriginalist squabbles, the reality is all of the above approaches usually lead to the same answer.

And then we go to a tweet from a man who defeated a Kennedy for a US Senate seat from their home state of Massachusetts who evidently doesn't like originalism:

Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) October 26, 2020

Hmmm Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass), I'm just not sure where to begin to question your tweet. How does he interpret the constitution. Does he think the constitution is racist?

h/t Newsalert

Tucker: The left’s extreme reaction to Ginsburg’s death

 

[VIDEO] You know I can possibly agree that President Trump shouldn't appoint a new justice until after the election, what I think is sad in this situation is how the left isn't really allow the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to rest. They're cursing her for dying while Trump is still President.

Why is everything so political? Why did it have to go there? She dies and people are upset about it.

And it could also be argued President Trump may not have to adhere to Justice Ginsberg's final wish as far as who her replacement will be or when they will be considered. Besides the President whether Trump and hopefully not Biden will make the appointment. They will consider who they want on the bench - well I don't know about Biden he may appoint what the rabid left wants on the bench.

Either way a sad state of affairs in America right now...

BTW, one example of a reaction to Justice Ginsburg's death. Perhaps it's not legit but is it a shame that's it's believable?

ALSO, another thing of note in this monologue by Tucker Carlson. A man killed himself because the mob was successful in forcing a prosecutor in Omaha, Nebraska - of all places - to charge a man who was forced to defend himself with manslaughter. Just remember what happened in St. Louis, Missouri over the course of this past summer a couple was being targeted by authorities because they went outside of their property with their firearms against those who were fighting against racism in America while trespassing...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg R.I.P.

 Strangely enough this was a bit unexpected, although it's known that she was sick for quite a while. She expected to remain a sitting justice on the nation's highest court for sometime. Now we know there will be a fight over who will replace her on the Supreme Court of the U.S.

From NPR:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington, D.C., surrounded by family. She was 87.

"Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tireless and resolute champion of justice."

Architect of the legal fight for women's rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.

Minority jury participation...

I just found out about this story out of Oklahoma, a white cop is accused of several sexual assaults many of his victims were Black. He's about to go on trial where his jury is all white with four white males and four white females. Whoever has been Black to be evaluated for joining this jury has been removed and not even any alternate jurors are Black.

Sharp contrast to this story out of Louisville, Kentucky where a judge down there will dismiss a jury if there are no Blacks present.

A jury that somewhat reflects the accused seems to be fair, but how do we ensure that? Are there no Blacks on the jury for that police officer because there was passion as far as how they could reach a verdict of guilty? At the same time would this all-white jury be able to reach a verdict in spite of the races of this officer's victims?

Texas Judge resigns after being caught texting instructions to prosecutors to help win convictions

As it turns out this was an old story from last October and I just got wind of it this morning, here's the jist:

Texas district Judge Elizabeth E. Coker is stepping down from the bench after being caught engaging in a massive perversion of justice. A whistleblower revealed that Corker was sending text messages to prosecutors with suggestions on questions to ask in court in order to secure a conviction.

How many retrials would we see as a result? Also I wonder how many people when they hear about this believe that SHE should be sent to jail for her improprieties?

Another odd court system related case from Texas and more recent, it involves a man who has paid too much child support to his child. He does what a man should do for his children and gets punished. A bit odd I think.

A portion of landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 struck by US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm sure many who consider themselves Black leaders are upset about this development. Every now and again we hear that this law needs to be extended as it had been since 1996 according to the Tribune article excerpted below.

The question is what's the problem now?

The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, ruling that Southern states may no longer be forced to seek federal approval before making changes in their election laws.

The ruling came on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaking for the court.

Roberts said the 1965 law had been a “resounding success” and has ensured that blacks now register and vote at the same rate as whites.

But he said it was no longer fair or rational to subject these states and municipalities to special scrutiny based on a formula that is more than 40 years old.

“States must beseech the federal government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have a right to enact and execute on their own,” he wrote. This conflicts with the principle that all the states enjoy “equal sovereignty” and cannot be subjected to different federal laws, he said.

Furthermore:

The decision may have an immediate impact. Texas has been fighting federal courts over its voter ID law and plans to redistrict its congressional districts. Those state actions were halted under the part of the law struck down Tuesday.

The decision leaves open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new formula to target states or municipalities for special scrutiny.

The decision leaves intact the rest of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to adopt or enforce laws that have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. But civil rights advocates say the provision struck down Tuesday was still needed because it stopped discriminatory measures before they could take effect.

As we take a breath from this decision as we're going to hear all types of hyperventilation over this ruling. I would encourage you to read this posting at Instapundit which covered this ruling. As a matter of fact it will show the hyperventilation and the legal analysis. That's certainly a good thing since well the blog is authored by a law professor.

Also I would encourage you to check out the SCOTUS blog that covers all US Supreme Court decisions. Instapundit is a very ideological blog geared towards the right wing, SCOTUS Blog on the other hand probably shouldn't be viewed as ideological. There's a special section on the ruling regarding the Civil Rights Act.

For a bonus, local reaction from one Rev. Jesse Jackson. :P

Reporter ordered to give up their notes...

Well it was so ordered by federal district Judge James Zagel who is known for being the presiding judge over Ousted governor Rod Blagojevich's criminal trials for corruption:

During a brief hearing last week, U.S. District Judge James Zagel brought up the idea of compelling the Tribune to turn over its notes from a conversation with the juror before any of the lawyers in the case even raised the issue. The judge identified the juror in Monday's ruling as Candy Chiles.

The defense argues that the Chicago woman compromised the verdict by concealing her criminal history and potential bias during jury selection. In an effort to bolster their position, Cellini's lawyers sought access to notes of Tribune reporter Annie Sweeney from a brief interview with Chiles.

In his ruling issued late Monday, Zagel ordered that Sweeney "produce any and all notes, memoranda, tape recordings, documents, or other records, from Oct. 3, 2011, to present, of any conversations the journalist had with the juror" related to her previous criminal history or answers during jury selection.

Cellini's attorneys could not be reached Monday for comment.

The Tribune filed a motion Monday morning suggesting the subpoenas were a fishing expedition and saying Cellini's lawyers should instead question the juror, other jurors in the case, co-workers, neighbors, friends and family.

"Subpoenas to journalists should be a last resort in exceptional cases — not an automatic first step," the newspaper's lawyers wrote.

Tribune editor Gerould Kern offered his thoughts on this ruling:

Journalists must be free to ask questions and collect information secure in the knowledge that their notes will not be seized by the government or litigants in court and used for other purposes. Unfortunately, that security now is threatened by this ruling.

We believe that these subpoenas are unnecessary and in fact do harm to the independence of the reporting process. We are disappointed by Judge Zagel's ruling, and we now are considering our options.

I know that at times we don't care for the work of the journalists. We may believe them to be bias towards one point of view or another. Sometimes they may be unfair to the other side of a story.

That being said if we complain about journalism in this nation for exactly that, then how do we expect it to ever get better if judges are willing to force reporters to give up their notes. Should they chase down reporters chasing a story without interfering with the judicial process or should they chase down the person whom the story was about?

Hat-tip Capitol Fax!

Ousted governor is guilty...

Watching coverage of this case on TV right now. Former Governor Rod Blagojevich has more guilty verdicts beyond the the one charge he already has over him from the first trial. So it's guilty on 17 counts with one count not guilty and 2 counts where there was no decision:

Blagojevich was convicted on all 11 counts on the sale of the U.S. Senate and all three counts on the shakedowns of Children’s Memorial Hospital and a racetrack executive.

The jury acquitted him on one count and deadlocked on a second count accusing him of shaking down a construction executive. It also deadlocked on the one count alleging Blagojevich shook down then-U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

This marks the second time in less than a year that the 54-year-old Blagojevich, the onlyIllinois chief executive ever impeached and ousted from office, had been convicted of a crime. The jury at his first trial last summer found him guilty of lying to theFBI, though that panel deadlocked on all the other counts. That impasse set the stage for a retrial.

This time the verdict was unequivocal, with the jury of 11 women and one man finding Blagojevich guilty on 17 criminal counts he faced, including charges of wire fraud, attempted extortion, bribery and conspiracy. The marquee charge in the case involved an attempt by Blagojevich in late 2008 to cash in on his power to name a replacement in the U.S. Senate for newly electedPresident Barack Obama.

So Blago really is human?

I'm reading this article from the Sun-Times. Blago took the stand in his own corruption retrial and it comes off showing that he's aware of what he's doing. A long way from my own thoughts of how he views himself:

Rod Blagojevich called himself a “narcissist” and an “effing jerk,” admitted he was on academic probation in college and didn’t learn anything in law school, and acknowledged he flunked the bar exam.

Then, on his first morning on the witness stand at his trial on federal corruption charges, the former governor of Illinois grew emotional when asked to talk about the woman he met when he was in his 20s and struggling with a fledgling legal career.

He looked across the room at the woman, who is now his wife, and pointed to her — but choked up and apparently became too emotional to say her name.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel quickly called a lunch recess.

Across the room, wife Patti Blagojevich burst into tears, lowering her head, her brother passing his hand over her back.

The exchange capped a morning that largely featured a personal history lesson on Rod Blagojevich, who, in intimate detail, described what he believed to be landmark moments in his life.

Blagojevich took a moment to apologize for the profanity on the now infamous secretly recordings of him while in office, saying his teenage daughter told him this morning to watch his language when she wished him good luck on the stand.

“When I hear myself saying that on tape, I’m an effin’ jerk, and I apologize,” he said.

Throughout his narrative, Blagojevich kept to key themes: that he dreamed big, like his father, and often strayed from reality.

That last line is believable for certain. It may have often showed during his time in public life.

This testimony as reported is interesting especially for someone like myself who largely hasn't been paying much attention. Especially since on this blog I went after him because I thought of him as a terrible politician. Hence how he found himself where he is today.

For some reason my own expectations wasn't that he displays this self-awareness on the stand. Never thought he would display that. It could be a good defense ploy who knows.

BTW, yesterday Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was on the stand in his trial and really didn't spend a lot of time as a witness. Indeed he said nothing earth shattering. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. however spent more time on the stand and did mock Blago on the fact that he wouldn't appoint Jackson's wife, a Chicago Alderman, to a position within state government.

Judge Voids Key Part of Health Care Law

Health care reform was Obama's achievement for this year. Just when it didn't look like it will succeed, it did. And out of that brief success, a defeat months later. I just wonder if this has been a good year for the President:

A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.

Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.

In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

The judge wrote that his survey of case law “yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.”

Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits filed against the health care law. The others — in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va. — have upheld the law. Lawyers on both sides said the appellate process could last another two years before the Supreme Court settles the dispute.

OK since we may believe this may be politically motivated, I'm sure this ruling could be blown off for that very reason:

The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it.

That has reinforced the notion — fueled by the White House — that the lawsuits are as much a political assault as a constitutional one. The Richmond case was filed by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican, and all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans. Other lawsuits have been filed by conservative law firms and interest groups.

The two cases previously decided by district courts are already before the midlevel courts of appeal, with the Detroit case in the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati and the Lynchburg case in the Fourth Circuit in Richmond.

Finally the justification for doing this under the commerce clause of the US Constitution:

The case centers on whether Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to compel citizens to buy a commercial product – namely health insurance – in the name of regulating an interstate economic market. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits argue there effectively would be no limits on federal power, and that the government could force people to buy American cars or, as Judge Hudson remarked at one hearing, “to eat asparagus.”


The Supreme Court’s position on the Commerce Clause has evolved through four signature cases over the last 68 years, with three decided since 1995. Two of the opinions established broad powers to regulate even personal commercial decisions that may influence a broader economic scheme. But other cases have limited regulation to “activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
...
Justice Department lawyers have responded that individuals cannot opt out of the medical market, and that the act of not obtaining insurance is an active decision to pay for health care out of pocket. They say that such decisions, taken in the aggregate, shift billions of dollars in uncompensated care costs to governments, hospitals and the privately insured.

So let's go back for a minute what is the administration banking on and what's the plan if any challenges proceed to the SCOTUS:

The officials stressed that the judge’s decision to not enjoin the law would defer any actual impact for years. They noted that the insurance requirement does not even take effect until 2014, when the Supreme Court presumably will have ruled.

The administration has said that if that provision eventually falls, related insurance reforms would necessarily collapse with it, most notably the ban on insurer exclusions of applicants with pre-existing health conditions. But officials said other innovations, including a vast expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the sale of subsidized insurance policies through state-based exchanges, would withstand even a Supreme Court ruling against the insurance mandate.

OK, well this might mean that health care reform needs to go back to the drawing board. That's OK because ultimately we need to come up with a truly beneficial solution. One that might mean that no more ambulances will have to be turned away. In addition to that people will have timely access to a doctor if they need it. And the need to lower costs somehow.

Time for a divorce...

Of marriage from the state. A column from columnist David Harsanyi.

This is how I am with regards to gay marriage. Perhaps it's not the best position almost akin to say stopping black students from attending mostly white public schools by closing the schools. However, we may have to decide whether or not marriage must be a realm of the state. I say no, and I would rather a church (for example) willingly allow a gay couple to marry than for the current legislative and judicial battle to say that same-sex couples should have the same "right" to marry as heterosexual couples.

Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

I certainly don't believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage — we already have that covered — but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn't be the business of the 9th Circuit Court, either.

As the debate stands now, we have two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us. And to enforce it, they have been using the power of the state — one via majority rule and the other using the judiciary (subject to change with the vagaries of public opinion).

If marriage were freed from the state, folks at The New York Times editorial board could avoid having to make the claim that gay marriage is a constitutional right. (Apparently anything can be a constitutional right at The Gray Lady as long as it's not mentioned in the Second, Fifth or 10th amendments.)

Even new Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently wrote that "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." It might be fair and it might be the decent thing to do, but a constitutional "right"?

If marriage was a private concern, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker would not have ruled that California's Proposition 8 violated the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process because Proposition 8 would not have existed.

Read the whole thing!

Via Instapundit!

Judge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

Well I know people who are upset about this law is happy about this outcome!

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.

Hmmmm, the paragraph I placed in bold. Well that shouldn't be unreasonable. We are expected to carry some form of ID with us right. So immigrants should carry some type of documents with them. How is that really a problem?

Via Drudge! 

Capitol Fax: Gun owners, gun dealers file suit against new Chicago ordinance

Rich Miller has a round-up of stories on Chicago's gun ordinance that was passed by the Chicago City Council on Friday. Amongst some points of contention some residents wants to be able to carry their gun outside of their home whether on the porch or in the garage. The only restriction should be a resident can carry a gun not merely in their house but on their property.

Also another point of contention is the limits on a number of guns a city resident can own. A resident can only purchase one gun a month. And at that they can only have one unlocked gun at home as well.

Like I said, some of these restrictions aren't unreasonable, but some of them are worth a challenge!