I just tried to listen to Alan Dershowitz on Kasie DC. He had to resort to name calling and meaningless touting of his civil liberty bona fides. He was coming across badly - just another arrogant law professor who is confident he is always the smartest person in the room. I started to feel embarrassed for the guy.

He used to be a legitimate civil libertarian. Has he really just become a Trump shill? Is he selling his book. Or is he just past his sell-by date?

The bad news is that I think the decision is correct. Hear me out.

Both the majority opinion and dissent went to excruciating length in discussing the US and English history of the right to bear arms. However, the result could have been briefly stated.

SCOTUS decided in Heller that the Second Amendment creates a personal right - it is not connected with the "well-regulated militia." As the Ninth Circuit notes, the Second Amendment confers a right to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means carrying. If the right to bear arms is a personal right per Heller, then there is a Constitutionally protected right to carry weapons. In light of the Heller decision, the Ninth Circuit decision is perfectly reasonable.

I expect an en banc review by the entire Ninth Circuit. No matter how the full Court rules, this will really need consideration by SCOTUS which will either have to seriously limit Heller, or every yahoo in America will be free to walk down Main Street with an AR15 on his shoulder. If SCOTUS finds a Constitutional right for every yahoo to do so, there might - just might - be support for a Constitutional amendment - as difficult as that would be.

The problem is that SCOTUS did not consider the unintended consequences in the Heller decision. Supreme Court justices ought to - but often do not - consider the next case before issuing decisions.

Buckle up. This will be interesting to watch.

Herself and I will be grandparents early in the new year.

Other than yet more unnecessary proof that we're old people, we are thrilled!

It reads like legal mumbo-jumbo but there is an interesting phrase in today's indictment. The indictment repeatedly alleges actions by "the Conspirators." "The Conspirators" is defined as the listed Russian GRU officers and "persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury." That expression is what lawyers call "boiler plate." Boiler plate often doesn't mean anything but sometimes it does.

It's clear to everyone that the reference in Paragraph 44 of the indictment to an e-mail sent to the GRU was sent by Roger Stone. The indictment alleges the e-mail was sent by "the Conspirators." Ergo, Roger Stone is one of "the Conspirators." At this point, Roger Stone is an unindicted co-conspirator.

That makes me wonder which other "persons known . . . to the Grand Jury" are also unindicted co-conspirators. I can think of any number of people who ought to be concerned.

It looks like there was something "fishy" about Justice Kennedy's decision to retire - between the appearance it was done to protect Kennedy's son or that Kennedy was promised the Kavanaugh nomination in exchange for the retirement before the November elections. Nothing criminal - just "fishy."

I think that if I was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'd call for Justice Kennedy to testify about these questions. I cannot recall a case of a SCOTUS justice testifying before a Congressional Committee. I doubt the GOP majority of the Committee would approve a subpoena and if they did, I think there would be a separation of powers argument that a subpoena cannot be enforced.

Nevertheless, the Democratic members of the Committee should demand the appearance. If I lived in a State with a Democratic member of the committee, I'd suggest the attempt.

My mom had one of her periodic "spells" today.

In the ER they were asking the usual questions to check if she is aware of time, place, etc. When the nurse asked "Who is your President," she replied "I don't have a President." I assured the nurse that meant she was thinking OK. The nurse allowed he gets that answer a lot these days. I thought that was interesting in south Arkansas.

There appears to be a real race breaking out for Arkansas-2 in Central Arkansas. The Democrat, Clarke Tucker, is a bright young lawyer - cancer survivor - photogenic - personable. I count Clarke as a friend - he's a really good guy. The Republican, French Hill, is a Trumpster but primarily a NRA supporter - receiving $1 Million from the NRA over his tenure.

Central Arkansas is different from the rest of the State (including my district). There was a Democrat in the seat from 1991 to 2011. Little Rock is Democratic but the surrounding white-flight suburbs are marginally Republican. The District voted from TRump 52/42. The Democrats in Central Arkansas are excited. The "word" is that the internal polling of both campaigns are showing a close race. I have heard no public polling. A lot of out-of-state money (NRA, etc.) is coming into the Hill campaign.

Think how cool it would be for Arkansas to send a Democrat to Congress.

Clarke's website is [link:http://www.clarketucker.com/