Newspaper correction of the week, from the June 23 Washington Post:

Editor’s Note: Because of a computer error, the story about Saturday’s race at Colonial Downs that appeared in the Sunday, June 22, Sports section referred to last year’s race. The correct story appears below.

Good gravy, will those computers ever get anything right?

Maybe this is guy who’s editing the Post these days…

Also, John McCaslin, Hunk.

Yes, those titles and more for the sensationally wonderful Inside the Beltway columnist for the Washington Times, particularly after he ran this insightfully entrepreneurial item this week:

Thrills and groans

Washington political observer Howard Mortman (ExtremeMortman.com) has just posted another batch of the Top Ten Funniest Political Quotes So Far In 2008.

“Fortunately … a wealth of material to work with,” Mr. Mortman notes. “The challenge was trimming, not scrambling.”

In our opinion it’s difficult to beat No. 2 on the list, figuring MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews actually admitted: “It’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

But former President Bill Clinton did not disappoint, expressing in no uncertain terms: “The country is groaning and moaning and screaming for change to turn this country around and get it working again.”

Best Fishbowl interview ever — with the great Jim Mills of The Hill.  A sample of the brilliance:

Lincoln, Jefferson or Washington Memorial?

Lincoln. Although it really bothers me when Teddy Roosevelt comes in dead last every time during those races at the new ballpark. I am thinking that thing might be fixed. Just had to get that off my chest.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lovingly embrace each other in Unity, New Hampshire today.  Message: All is well.  All has been well.
Last time someone tried to rewrite history this egregiously, and was forced to say certain words to make everyone so happy, this happened:

A footnote in Justice Scalia’s Heller decision says the case is about DC, so it does not decide whether the second amendment applies to the states.

Where did we first hear that perspective?

In the September 6, 2007 Extreme Mortman — from our own senior historian Richard Andrews.

A refresher from back then:

District of Columbia Mayor Fenty and his taxpayer-funded lawyer had an op-ed in the Washington Post Tuesday (followed by a Post editorial Wednesday) whining about D. C.’s forthcoming request to the U. S. Supreme Court to reverse the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit decision killing their 30-year-old pet handgun ban as violative of the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Both pieces, being of the opinion/advocacy genre, pretty much take as givens that the Court will take up their case, and issue a sweeping decision of nationwide import  - on their side.  Their opponents in the case, judging from news reports, seem to be of the same view - other than as to which side will win.

Well, maybe not.

First, the Supremes have been dodging cases about the Second Amendment for over half a century - either not reviewing them at all, or deciding them on other or narrower grounds (such as the 1997 case of Printz v. U.S., decided instead on 10th Amendment grounds, as part of the Court’s 1990s campaign to revive Federalism).  This case contains fine opportunities for either result, leaving the big question still up in the air - everywhere but the District.

The District’s petition, in trying to gain the Court’s attention, contains the usual claim that the decision in question conflicts with similar cases decided in U. S. Courts of Appeal in other Circuits, and that Supreme intervention is need to avoid having rights under Constitution differ from place to place within the nation.  The claim is rather dubious in this instance, because the District of Columbia IS a rather different sort of place, Constitution-wise.

The decisions from OTHER Circuits all involve folks seeking to have their interpretation of the Second Amendment held to apply to the states, via the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” provision, under the Supreme Court’s “incorporation” doctrine - that some, but not all, of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments) are so fundamental that the states must follow them, too - not just the federal government, the Bill of Rights’ original target.

However, D. C. is NOT a state - and the Supreme Court has long held that the Bill of Rights applies directly to it, as merely an arm of the federal government.  For example, when in 1954 the Court outlawed racial segregation in state public schools under the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS), it decided a separate case (Bolling v. Sharpe), in a separate opinion, declaring that the Fifth Amendment in applying to D.C. directly mandated the same result.

Thus, the D. C. Circuit Appeals Court, not having to determine whether the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was a “fundamental” right, could make a decision that would stand very easily beside other Circuit’s presumed choices that it was not sufficiently “fundamental” to deserve protection against the states’ normal exercise of the police power.  This gives the Supreme Court an excellent out to simply not hear the case: there is no “conflict,” because the grounds of the decision are not the same.

(The Court is peculiarly familiar with the use of handguns for self-defense - the late Chief Justice Burger,  answering a knock on the door of his home late one night, prudently brought along a large caliber revolver; rather surprising the unexpected reporter seeking comment on a case!)

Similarly, even if the court should decide to take up the case (only the votes of four Justices are needed to hear the matter), a majority might then still limit the decision (if it goes against the District) to the federal government its districts, Commonwealths and territories - leaving the question of application to the states ‘for another day.’

The very live potential for one of these two scenarios to occur has so far been undiscussed in any the journalistic reports/advocate diatribes.  Neither would make either side completely happy, but the later course could make for a finely honed piece of constitutional decisionmaking - something just up Chief Justice Roberts’ alley - while saving the main public controversy for the future, if only in the cause of lawyer relief.

What’s better than sitting through all the negative ads we’ll soon be seeing?  Sitting through this funny promotional ad for the upcoming movie “Swing Vote”…

Reaction to the Supreme Court striking down the Supreme Court ban on handguns, from Extreme Mortman senior historian Richard Andrews:

1. The anti-gun folk have lost the talking point that ‘there ain’t no such individual right’; but,

2. This decision contains more ‘lawyer relief’; determining HOW FAR an authoritarian jurisdiction can go in ‘resonable regulation’ will take YEARS to fight out in court - the District law was so extreme it virtually had a bullseye painted on it with the words ‘Ready, Aim, Fire’ - it was just a matter of getting someone to pay for lining up a laundry list of plaintiffs (only one of six made it through the procedral hurdles), lucking out with a good panel of Appeals Court judges (in DC, not a foregone conclusion - there is at least one still there from the Carter years!), and making it to the Supreme Court before there was a net increase of liberal Justices.

3. But a host of questions remain about what states and localities CAN do - limitations on numbers of weapons/amounts of ammunition, how high can registration/licensing fees be before they are too burdensome, how much ‘training’ can be required for a license; what about situations not directly related to self-defense?  A number of possible restrictions on gun commerce are expressly outside the holding in this case - onerous zoning, bans on gunshows or gunshops.  Then there’s transportation of firearms in personal vehicles, etc.

Different takes on different parts of the web.
This Washington Post headline:

“On the Web, Supporters of McCain Wage An Uphill Battle: Republican’s Online Presence Lags Far Behind Obama’s”

versus ….
This Financial Times article:

This evening, at Mrs Clinton’s first joint meeting with Mr Obama since the campaign began, the former first lady will renew her call for the party to unify behind Mr Obama - a theme that will be echoed tomorrow when they appear for a rally in the town of Unity in New Hampshire.

But a highly vocal minority of Mrs Clinton’s supporters have chosen to ignore her plea altogether. Under the umbrella group, Just Say No Deal, diehard Clintonites have set up more than 100 anti-Obama websites in the last 20 days, most of them boiling with indignation.

Some, such as I Own My Vote and No Quarter, are self-explanatory. Others, such as Done - Democrats Over Nominating Elitists - and Puma - Party Unity My Ass - choose memorable acronyms. With nicknames such as Barky, Nobama and Oblahblah, none is complimentary towards its party’s nominee.

President Bush meeting today with President Arroyo of the Philippines:

“I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the — of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House.”

From Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell’s Sunday piece on David Broder’s paid speaking gigs:

He received two speech fees — about $7,000 from the Northern Virginia Association of Realtors, and, in 2006, he accepted $12,000 from the Minnesota League of Cities.

What do you get for that kind of money?  Let’s take a peek into one of his speeches…