Apologies for the short diary, but this seemed worthwhile, though I don't have much to say about it.  The Nashville Post and Memphis Flyer both report that former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. has finally issued a statement concerning Nikki Tinker's ludicrous attack ads against her primary opponent, Steve Cohen.

"Whenever race, religion or gender is invoked in a political contest, it generally means the candidate has run out of legitimate arguments for why he/she should be elected. Communities and nations are always made weaker when political figures try to divide us for political advantage. It is my strong hope that lessons will be learned."

Up to today, Ford was officially neutral in the primary race, though his wife has given money to Tinker, which some viewed as a tacit endorsement by Ford.  Big praise to Ford this time for doing what's right here.  (Also, the Nashville Post article gives a nice outline of the Tinker-Ford-Cohen mess.)

In all the noise about the gun case (Heller v. District of Columbia), SCOTUS's opinion in Snyder v. Louisanaopinion in Snyder v. Louisana seems to have passed without comment here, though it was issued yesterday.  It's not a big or particularly closely watched case, but I think it's interesting in that it reveals that there are fissures within the more conservative block of the court on criminal justice issues in particular.  The case was 7-2, with Alito writing the majority.  Thomas dissented, joined by Scalia.  So what's the case about?  We'll start there after the break.

Something that comes up about once a week around here are questions about advertising on the Internet, and in particular why ads show up in the "Ads By Google" space that may not seem to mesh with the goals of this site.  Indeed, in recent weeks, I've seen ads for "subscribe to Ann Coulter columns!," "support Huckabee!," and "support McCain" pop up.  For various reasons which I can't get into, I have some some specialized knowledge in this area, and want to explain the principles of keyword advertising, which I'll do after the flip.

As you've probably heard, late night talk show hosts are returning to work on Wednesday night.  Because Leno, Conan, and Kimmel's shows are owned by the networks, they'll be returning without writers.  In contrast, Letterman and Craig Ferguson's shows are owned by Worldwide Pants (Letterman's independent production company), which was able to strike a separate deal with the WGA, will return with new written content.  As a result, SAG president Alan Rosenberg (yes, the kinda weenie guy from the latter days of "L.A. Law") has stated that in an effort to support his union brothers, SAG members are discouraged from appearing on struck shows.

Are you thinking about Ron Paul, but saying "man, I just wish he was a little more overtly racist and sexist?"  Well, then have I got a candidate for you--Chicago native Leo Stoller has proclaimed he will be running as an independent.

What qualifies Stoller to be president?  Apparently, his prolific history chronicled in his Wikipedia entry as a pro se trademark litigant, resulting in sanction orders from both the Chicago federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Basically, Stoller claims to have "ownership" for all purposes of a number of words (including STEALTH, HAVOC, STRADIVARIUS, and, most recently, GOOGLE).  But what are Stoller's policy positions?  What does he stand for?  Let's find out after the flip!

Personally, I find the fact that this diary is, as of this writing, at the top of the RecList at least borderline repugnant.  And in response, I have this to say:

I am an undecided primary voter--lean Clinton or Obama.  But I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee in the general election.  I will vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee in the general election.  I will vote for John Edwards if he is the nominee in the general election.  I will vote for Bill Richardson if he is the nominee in the general election.  I will vote for Chris Dodd if he is the nominee in the general election.  I will vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee in the general election.  Too much hangs in the balance for me not to.

As a follow-up my prior comment on the subject of the appropriate form for diaries dealing with polling, I realize that we need to create a form suitable not just for polling diaries, but for all diaries, and I endeavor to provide after the break a suitable form for a diary about any and all issues.  Please feel free to use this to guide your diary writing in the future.

Last night, I attended what was (according to the campaign staff and Sen. Clinton) the first "open" fundraiser for Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, which featured a Q & A with Sen. Clinton.  A few notes before I proceed to the account:

As you may know, Harold Ford, Jr.'s brother, Jake, is running for the TN-9 Seat previously held by Harold (and before that, by his father Harold) as an "independent Democrat."  After a divisive primary, Steve Cohen is the Democratic nominee.  Cohen's candidacy is controversial in some circles because he is white, and the district is majority-minority.

While most Tennessee politicos have endorsed Cohen (including Memphis Mayor W.W. Herenton and Shelby County Mayor A.C. Wharton, and Governor Phil Bredesen), Ford Jr. has remained silent, and Ford Sr. has endorsed Jake, claiming, inter alia, that Cohen wants "some sex shops running in downtown Memphis on a Sunday," and that "We're from a Christian city here."  (Seriously.)

However, that's not Jake (or Harold's) biggest problem.  That, we'll look at on the flip.

As usual, the campaign finance area generates another messy opinion from the Supreme Court.  By a vote of 6-3, the court struck down the Vermont regulations on donations and spending.  Notably, the opinion came from Justice Breyer, who has normally (including in his book) been a fan of campaign finance reform.

I'll try and update this as I get a chance to review the opinions and such, but am quite busy today.  I'm sure other lawyer-types will chime in.

Also interesting--5 decisions remain for the term (most prominent being the Texas redistricting case). Wednesday will be the next (and possibly last) decision day of the term. Breakdown of opinions on the flip.

Although SCOTUS's opinion in the Anna Nicole Smith case will likely get most of the press attention today (the court unanimously ruled in her favor), more significant for court watchers is the fact that Justice Samuel Alito wrote his first opinion.  Alito writes for a unanimous court in Holmes v. South Carolina, coming to a "liberal" result, reversing a criminal conviction.

The issue in the case was simple--South Carolina has a rule of evidence in criminal trials that bars a defendant from introducing proof of another's guilt for the crime where the prosecution has introduced forensic evidence that "strongly supports" a guilty verdict.  This rule was deemed unacceptable.

Apparently, Mike Gravel will announce his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination on Monday.  This, of course, begs a serious question--"Who the hell is Mike Gravel?"

Wikipedia gives us some answers.  Gravel is 75, and served 3 terms (1969-1981) as a Democratic Senator from Alaska.  He's been out of politics since, but recently has argued for introducing a constitutional amendment for federal "Initative" in which voters could propose and vote on potential legislation.  Wikipedia also suggests that he may be a Holocaust denier.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he's a credible candidate, but he is, apparently, the first official entrant into the nomination sweepstakes.

Many of you have probably read about Citigroup's settlement of the Enron class action, under which it will pay 2 billion dollars.  I want to take this opportunity to briefly explain the four different legal tracks involved in Enron right now, so you can understand what has settled, what has not, and what's still out there.  

Before I begin--a disclaimer--I am an attorney and my firm is involved in defending one of the banks being sued in a couple of these actions.  I am not betraying client confidences, etc., and will avoid letting that color things--this is just the facts as much as possible.

We'll start on the flip.

There's been a lot of anger about SCOTUS's Raich decision today (the medical marijuana case).  Raich is perhaps the biggest bamboozlement the right has pulled on us this year--by picking a "liberal" cause the right disguised their real agenda--getting rid of the Commerce Clause.  More on the flip.

This is a breaking story, and not being in TN, I can't guarantee full coverage.  Apparently, four TN state legislators were arrested this morning in connection with allegations of corruption on a metal recycling bill.  The most recent coverage from the Nashville Tennesseean is here.

The most interesting tidbit is that John Ford, uncle of likely TN Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr., is among those arrested.  This has always been an element of significant baggage for Ford (especially among white voters), and the arrest, depending on how it plays out and is responded to could either doom Ford's candidacy or help him strengthen his potential case to those voters.  I'll explain on the flip.

I diaried yesterday about the first amended complaint in the Schiavo action, and feel obligated to note that there's yet another new complaint out there.

As discussed at length in yesterday's diary, I don't think the new counts in the First Amended Complaint change anything, with the possible exception of Count VIII.  Abstract Appeal, which, as you know, has been all over this story, though, thinks there might be something to the new count (Count X).  I think they're wrong.  

Pursuant to this order, a hearing was held at 6 PM limited to the issue of whether the Schindlers are entitled to a TRO based on Count X.  I think they're highly unlikely to succeed, for reasons I'll explain post-jump.

The Schiavo parents have filed an amended complaint in the Middle District of Florida action.  It's available here, for those who might be interested.

Obviously, the first question that will probably be asked is "how does this change the case?"  The first part of the answer is that it doesn't.  AFAIK, the parents have not renewed their motion for a TRO on the basis of the new complaint.  Even if they did, it wouldn't likely make a difference.

Why?  Because there's no added legitimate legal theory in the complaint.  To borrow from Armando, more on the flip.

To begin--full disclosure--while I do not work for any candidate in the DNC race, I'm ever more strongly leaning toward backing Rosenberg, to the point where I'm debating shelling out $250 worth of turkee to attend one of his campaign's house parties.

I was poking around Simon For Chair and noticed that he's holding house party fundraisers.  I decided to take a look and see what it would cost and who was involved.

John Kerry's name is not there, but a bunch of names that certainly suggest his tacit backing are listed as co-hosts for various events, including Mike McCurry and Chris Heinz.  Also listed as sponsors for various events were Nathan & Jill Daschle and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.  Draw your own conclusions.