The continuing abuse of asset forfeiture laws continues. These laws have become the thin end of a rapidly thickening wedge to undermine the whole concept of due process in the judicial system.
Ken at Popehat nails the bloviations and posturing on both sides of the fence over the political slogan that is "judicial activism". Please spare us the pearl-clutching, bloviating GOP leaders. Your side has been equally culpable of screeching about court verdicts you don't like. One of your own Presidential primary candidates, Newt Gingrich, recently mused out loud about setting US Marshals on activist judges. Do you remember that, hypocrites?
Fox News reporter Heather Childers floats the latest conspiracy theory about Obama threatening the Clintons on Twitter, then acts puzzled when a number of people lay into her over the sheer idiocy of even treating the idea seriously, pulls Tweets, makes her account private. The low point is her repetition of the modern day journalistic cop-out of "we present both sides, you decide". This is bullcrap. She starts out by treating a conspiracy theory seriously and pretends to be presenting both sides? Stop insulting our intelligence Heather.
Marine Sgt. Gary Stein, who has been expressing some pointed political views on his own personal Facebook page, is currently appearing before a review board to answer allegations that he violated the UCMJ, which forbids conduct contemptuous of the military chain of command, which goes up to and includes the Commander In Chief, one President Obama.
There is a lot of hot air being spread around about Sgt. Stein's First Amendment rights being violated, but as is normal, this misses the point. Sgt. Stein's First Amendment rights were not violated - the fact that he was able to post what he did on Facebook proves that. However, actions have consequences. The First Amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of speech, not the military, and the UCMJ has not been declared unconstitutional.
Quite why the ACLU is arguing on behalf of Sgt. Stein puzzles me. If they are arguing that the restrictions in the UCMJ are unconstitutional, that I could understand, but this hearing is not the place to do that. The hearing is about whether Sgt. Stein violated the UCMJ, not whether the UCMJ itself is unconstitutional. If Sgt. Stein is found guilty, then is the time to make that argument via an appeals process. I have limited sympathy for Sgt. Stein based on what I have read. He initially stated that he would not obey any orders from the President, only later did he backtrack to the weasel words "illegal orders", which is almost laughable, given that the UCMJ specifically enojoins soldiers from obeying any illegal order. He strikes me as being contemptuous of the President (which is his right) but also showing a lack of understanding of his duties as a military member to obey all lawful orders from his chain of command, and not denigrate the military by showing a lack of respect for his chain of command. At best he has been naive, at worst he has been deliberately cocking a snook at his C-in-C.
The NFL Bounty scandal rumbles on, with various New Orleans Saints coaches trying to talk their way out of long suspensions today (likely to be unsuccessful), more revelations about Gregg Williams' motivational talks to defensive team members, and admissions by New York Giants players that they openly discussed how to knock opponents out of the game by injuring them,specifically targeting players known to have past injuries (e.g. concussions).
None of this is going to end well for the NFL. Talk about injuring opponents on the field of play in the UK would be actionable as a felony named "conspiracy to cause grevious bodily harm". Contrary to what some players believe, the laws of the land governing violent behavior and assault are not suspended on the field of play in professional sports (ask Todd Bertuzzi or Marty McSorley if you don't believe me). In the UK rugby players have been jailed for violent conduct in games. It is all very well for the NFL to come down hard on the New Orleans Saints, but in order to avoid a lot of bad publicity, they are going to have to punish other examples of intent to injure opponents also. If they do not, the NFL and their 32 clubs may become legally culpable for player injuries if a jury in a court case can be persuaded that the intent was to injure an opponent. A jury of "street people" is going to set the bar for proof of intent a lot lower than a jury composed of former football players.