I mentioned before that the anti-Alito case would have three legs: Roe/women’s issues, “he’ll say anything to get a job,” and life-long spear-carrier for the imperial presidency.
Now Senator Kennedy sets out the case on the second issue: Alito’s Credibility Problem. And of course links it cleverly to the other two issues as well.
The Miami Herald has a writeup of yesterday’s Padilla hearing; the only part of it new to me was the information that Padilla has family in Broward County, which is the county just north of Miami-Dade, and only a short drive from here. In the ordinary case that would strengthen the argument for bail. But maybe not for someone who the government wants to portray as the most dangerous man in America?
The print edition, but not alas the online version, has a picture of Padilla’s mother, who attended the hearing but sensibly didn’t speak to reporters. Looking for an online version of the photo led me to an interesting MS-NBC article from 2002 that describes Padilla’s uber-dysfunctional family background, although it’s not exactly neutral in tone (it starts out trying to explain “Padillas malevolent streak”).
Meanwhile, if Padilla does not get bail, he’ll presumably be kept in Miami’s “special housing unit”. The visiting rules for this facility are, I think, here and here.
Wire service images included below (since I’m just including not copying these pictures, some may be only temporary).
A reader writes:
Miami Herald reports (only in their Spanish language edition) on 1/4/2006 that Posada Carriles is perhaps soon to be released from detention by US Immigration, with no action taken by the Justice Department on the extradition requests by Venezuela.
There has been no known English-language coverage in the US!
One of the Venezuelan lawyers has commented publicly following the Herald’s quiet report.
This isn’t a case I’ve followed beyond reading the accounts in the local papers, so I’m afraid I don’t feel very well informed about it. But given that there indeed don’t seem to have been many reports about recent developments in the English language press (outside of the Cuban media, which doesn’t really count for these purposes), it seemed worth mentioning.
David Marcus has the account of today’s Padilla hearing. The bottom line is that not much happened, and everyone is coming back on TuesdayThursday morning for best of three, in which Padilla will enter a plea and the Magistrate Judge will presumably rule on bail. (The US asked he be held without bail, no surprise there.)
There was one odd thing, though. As the Magistrate Judge prepared to appoint the Public Defender’s office as lead counsel, with Padilla’s current attorney (who’s not a member of the Florida bar) as co-counsel, the US Attorney’s office objected:
AUSA Stephanie Pell then told the Judge that there was a potential conflict with the Miami office accepting the appointment. [Chief Assistant Federal Defender Michael] Caruso said that his office has reviewed everything and that he could say “without equivocation” that there was no conflict. Garber took the matter up at sidebar and after conferring, he kept the Miami Defenders as lead counsel.
They’re playing hardball alright, but what on earth could they have been talking about?
Writer writes book critical of Bush. Author then finds self on No Fly List.
There is of course no connection between these two facts. None. Nope. Unthinkable. Can’t happen here. Rule of law and all that.
It’s all about trust, right?
Buried well inside the Miami Herald’s local section is a small story headlined, “Herald columnist faces contempt-of-court charge“.
It seems that Herald columnist Ana Veciana-Suarez, who writes a column on the hardships of middle-class family life and childrearing, is accused of lying when she failed to disclose her father’s 1974 conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine. Veciana-Suarez, then a high school student, was the only witness in his defense.
The issue arose when she was called for jury service in a 2003 civil trial and, as is usually the case, the potential jurors were asked about their experiences with the justice system. The failure to disclose is a misdemeanor, albeit one that could theoretically cause a mistrial.
The Herald’s article is surprisingly coy about Veciana-Suarez. There is no sign that the reporter on the story even attempted to interview her, not even a ‘no comment.’ Her lawyer is quoted however, as saying, that Veciana-Suarez plans to admit she erred in failing to disclose the information about her father.
There’s also a quote from Miami Herald Executive Editor Tom Fiedler, ”Ana has kept the newspaper fully apprised about this legal proceeding, which has not yet reached its conclusion,” Fiedler said. “Until then, it is premature for us to take any action affecting her assignment as a columnist and staff writer.”
That’s quite an odd quote. Contrast the treatment of DeFede when he admitted to a possibly illegal recording of a conversation (arguably felonious, arguably a misdemeanor, arguably not illegal at all) with a friend and source (links). The Herald didn’t wait for the conclusion of the legal proceedings then. Heck, it didn’t even wait to see if charges were filed (and ultimately they weren’t).
Contrast what DeFede got, which could charitably be called the bum’s rush, with the treatment of Veciana-Suarez, who apparently now, long after the fact, admits (or plans to admit) to lying to a judge so she could serve on a jury, an offense that I would think is of substantially greater potential public cost (retrials are expensive) and even moral turpitude, which I think was completely absent in DeFede’s case.
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw
