Once again, leave it to a liberal to do the wrong thing, even on an issue that is not traditionally viewed in terms of liberal vs. conservative. Via Classical Values, Uncly-Wuncly and San Jose Mercury-News (BugMeNot), we learn that State Sen. Jackie Speier, (TAKEAWILDGUESS-San Mateo), has introduced gutted and amended S.enate Bill 861 to allow breed-specific legislation (BSL) in California. On the one hand, I suppose I should be congratulating Gavin Newsom for finally working with the Legislature to “fix” a state law he doesn’t like rather than simply ignore it as he usually does. On the other, I’m a much bigger fan of the regular Olympics than the Special Olympics, so I’m loathe to give Frisco a medal for following a basic procedure we rightly expect any other city to follow as a matter of course, especially when the bill being pushed is a bad one.

Speier’s Bill would generally allow cities and counties to enact BSL, by amending the anti-BSL clause of Food & Agriculture Code Section Section 31683, which currently says this:

…[N]o [city or county] program shall regulate [potentially dangerous or vicious] dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.

To say this, instead:

Cities and counties may pass breed specific legislation to address public safety and welfare concerns in their communities, provided that no program shall institute a ban specific as to breed.

Lovely. In other words, Frisco won’t be allowed go the way of its PETA adherents or its would-be sister city Denver, but they could come damned close. If this turkey passes, watch for Frisco to pass incredibly onerous “regulations” applicable to pit bull owners only (or maybe applicable to Rottweiler owners, too, but not to owners of presa canarios, as that would make too much sense), followed by inevitable lawsuits over which regulations are permissible, vs. which ones are merely a ban under a different name. Call it the Lawyers Full Employment Act of 2005.

On a more inconsequential note than today’s judicial nullification of half of the takings clause, Uncle asks whether the new flag burning amendment, if ratified, would make the Constitution unconstitutional. The answer is no; Congress is allowed to amend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, provided it does so in the manner set forth in Article 5, and when it does, the later amendment wins every time. Note that Article 5 does, however, contain three interesting limits on what substantive amendments Congress and the states may pass:

…provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The year 1808 has come and gone, so the one thing we’re left with is that no state can lose a Senator without its own consent, even if the amendment passes both houses unanimously and is ratified by the other 49 states. Anything else is fair game, including that cherished First Amendment. Note, however, that unlike the 21st Amendment, the flag burning amendment does not express an intent to repeal anything. Thus, if the amendment passes, courts will not rule that the First Amendment is repealed (aside from the parts the courts have already repealed on their own, but that’s a different matter), only that the newer amendment must prevail where the two amendments conflict. The proposed amendment reads, in full:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

(more…)

The headline says it all:

Hitler Rd. Residents Get Strange Looks

Ya think?

Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head: your home is not your castle anymore; it’s the rightful property of the highest bidder, whoever that may be.

This is even worse than Raich v. Gonzales. This newest turkey of a case, Kelo v. New London, appears^* to have held that cities may take people’s property simply to give the property to someone else who will upgrade it to earn more revenue. Once again, the four liberals did what they always do, and ruled that government can do as it damned well pleases. Once again, one of the “moderates,” Anthony Kennedy, joined them in judicially nullifying a key part of the Bill of Rights.

I don’t blame the Gang of 14 or proudly oblivious “Coalition of the Chillin’” for today’s decision, as they weren’t around the last time a Supreme Court Justice was nominated. I do blame them, however, for the fact this case is unlikely to be reversed anytime soon, as they’ve all but guaranteed any Supreme Court nominee worth nominating will be filibustered away. Chill pill worn off yet? [UPDATE: Yup.]

Orin Kerr and Uncle have more. Uncle apologizes for swearing, but he needn’t. If anything, he should apologize for not swearing more.

UPDATE: Huge roundup here.

UPDATE x2: Heh.

The House has passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit America-hating assholes from publicly identifying themselves. Dumb, dumb, and double-dumb.

The Ass. Press describes as a “prankster” the would-be murderer in Sunnyvale who is doing his damnedest to cause a traffic accident. What’s next, a “where are they now” special on those knee-slapping jokesters who laced Tylenol with cyanide in 1982?

Law professor / blogger / a-hole extraordinaire Brian Leiter has joined the ranks of Metropulse-bully Brian Conley and is attempting to out Juan Non-Volokh in retaliation for having the audacity to disagree publicly with Brian Leiter.

What is it about guys named Brian and their obsession with pseudonymity? Maybe Dick Cabeza should change his name to Brian, too, just to keep things clear.

UPDATE: Leiter has expressed second thoughts about publicly identifying non-Volokh. That’s progress. Now all he needs to do is to apologize for being such a prick over the anonymity non-issue to begin with.

I’ve blogged before about hero dogs, but some cats deserve a mention as well.

Well, I don’t, but if you do you might want to try this.

I know I wasn’t going to blog about Terri Schiavo anymore, but that was because I naively assumed there wasn’t going to be any new news about her or Michael Schiavo. Silly me, I should have known better than that. Apparently, for St. Michael, it’s not enough just to get one’s way; one must seize every opportunity to rub more salt in everyone’s wounds whenever possible, even on her grave:

Isn’t that lovely? Everything, even Terri Schiavo’s grave, is about St. Michael. When his time comes, as inevitably it must for all (and no, strawtards, I’m not recommending that any of you go out and do anything to accelerate that process) I’ve got a headstone lined up for him, too. Just replace the name “John” with “Michael” and we’re good to go:

This story first ran at 10:47 PM EDT, a full two hours ago. Why the silence on the part of so many Michael Schiavo apologists?

UPDATE: I’ve razzed him on this issue in the past, but Joe Gandelman deserves credit where credit’s due. While other Schiavo apologists say nothing, defend the indefensible, or even twist the story around to make the Schindlers into the “disgusting, self-righteous ghouls” in this chapter of l’affaire Schiavo, Joe has the decency to buck his party line, calling a spade a spade and a cheap parting shot a cheap parting shot. Good for him.

UPDATE x2: Welcome, Patterico readers! And an especially hearty welcome to Richard “Cabeza” Bennett readers, assuming there are any. No, Sr. Cabeza, you don’t count.

UPDATE x3: Dean Esmay asks how much more like O.J. Michael Schiavo could possibly act.