"When justice rolls down like water..."

I'm a sucker for great speeches...
Enjoy:

"Courthouse renamed for judge who championed causes for social justice"

More on the renaming of the C. Clyde Atkins courthouse here (by NLJ's Julie Kay).

A Miami federal courthouse will officially be named after a popular deceased judge known for his rulings desegregating Miami schools and championing the rights of homeless people and Cuban and Haitian boat people. The courthouse now known as the "Tower Building" will be officially renamed the C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse at a ceremony Jan. 28 outside the courthouse. It is the last of four Miami federal courthouses to be named after a federal judge. Atkins, who died in 1999, was a judge in the southern district of Florida from 1966 until his death at 84 and served as chief judge from 1977 to 1983. He was nominated to the bench by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Here's what my former boss had to say about him:

Ed Davis, former chief judge of the southern district of Florida and now a partner at Akerman Senterfitt in Miami, said Atkins deserved the honor. "He was very well-liked in the community," Davis said. "He's a wonderful example of what a federal judge should be. He was diligent, he was intelligent, he was hard-working, and he had no agenda except for the interest of justice."

Memo to thugs:

Don't get on YouTube and taunt law enforcement. You end up looking like this.

Money quote --

Alex Acosta: ''He threatened law enforcement, he said come get him, and we granted his wish."

360 to Life

That's the guideline range for Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants as calculated by Judge Cooke. Now the Judge will hear arguments from the lawyers as to what the appropriate sentence is under 3553. In other words, the Judge must determine what sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary. The guideline range is just one of many factors for the Court to consider and the Supreme Court has said that the guideline range is not entitled to any deference. Should be interesting...

Joking at the Supreme Court

The WSJ Blog points out funny exchanges at the Supreme Court. I reprint their fun post here (by the way, our funniest judge -- according to the poll at the right -- is Chief Judge Moreno, by a wide margin...):

The Law Blog’s Laugh-In At the Supreme Court: Wow

Posted by Peter Lattman

The big news out of the Supreme Court yesterday concerned what they didn’t do. The justices declined to hear an appeal of a D.C. Circuit ruling that terminally ill patients who have run out of medical options have a constitutional right to try experimental drugs that have not yet received FDA approval. Here’s the NYT story and prior Law Blog coverage.

On the lighter side, let’s bring back a Law Blog feature in very low demand — The Law Blog’s Laugh-In At the Supreme Court! The decidedly unfunny issue on the docket yesterday: federalism. The question, as stated by the Times: What happens when a state chooses to give criminal suspects more protection than the federal Constitution requires?

Leave it to Justice Scalia to make federalism funny. Yesterday, he asked Stephen McCullough, a lawyer for the state Virginia, about the line between valid and invalid state searches. With that, an avalanche of laughter ensued. Get ready to giggle, Law Blog readers!

Justice Scalia: Mr. McCullough, the proposition that you’re arguing, does it apply at the Federal level as well? Suppose — suppose I think that my neighbor next door is growing marijuana and I have probable cause to believe that, all right? So I go in and search his house; and sure enough, there is marijuana. And I bring it to the police’s attention, and they eventually arrest him. Is that lawful search?

McCullough: If there is State action –

Justice Scalia: I’m a State actor, I guess. You know –
(Laughter.)

McCullough: If you have State actors –

Justice Scalia: You know, a Supreme Court Justice should not be –
(Laughter.)

Justice Scalia: — should not be living next door to somebody growing marijuana. It doesn’t seem right.

McCullough: That’s not a smart neighbor.
(Laughter.)

McCullough: If you have State action and you enter into someone’s home, then the Constitution affords a heightened level of protection. But –

Justice Scalia: Don’t dance around. Is it — is it rendered an unreasonable search by the fact that I’m not a law enforcement officer at all?

McCullough: I don’t think the fact of — no. The fact that –

Justice Scalia: So any Federal employee can go crashing around conducting searches and seizures?

McCullough: So long –

Justice Scalia: So long as he has probable cause?

McCullough: That’s correct.

Justice Scalia: That’s fantastic.
(Laughter.)

Justice Scalia: Do you really think that?

McCullough: I think if there is State action, it doesn’t matter that you’re wearing a badge or that you’ve gone through the police academy.

Justice Scalia: Or that you are an administrative law judge at the, you know, Bureau of Customs? It doesn’t matter?

McCullough: I think that’s right. That if you have — if the State -

Justice Scalia: What about a janitor? You’re a janitor, a federally employed janitor.

McCullough: Your Honor –

Justice Scalia: His neighbor is growing marijuana, and he’s just as offended as a Supreme Court Justice would be. Can he conduct a search?

McCullough: I think if he’s doing it on behalf of the State, the answer is yes.

Justice Scalia: Wow.