"Mysterious Buddhist Retreat in the Desert Ends in a Grisly Death."

NYT reports on a couple who were expelled had been "had been expelled from a nearby Buddhist retreat in which dozens of adherents, living in rustic conditions, had pledged to meditate silently for three years, three months and three days." In a cave in the Arizona desert, Christie McNally was near death from thirst, and her husband, Ian Thorson, was already dead. Their "spiritual leader was a charismatic Princeton-educated monk whom some have accused of running the retreat as a cult." You think?!

The retreat — in which adherents communicate only with pen and paper — was designed to allow participants to employ yoga and deep meditation to try to answer some of life’s most profound questions....

The monk who ran the retreat, Michael Roach... had described Ms. McNally for a time as his “spiritual partner,” living with him in platonic contemplation. What the other participants did not know is that before she married Mr. Thorson, Ms. McNally had been secretly married to Mr. Roach, in stark violation of the Buddhist tradition to which he belongs.

Even the manner in which Ms. McNally and Mr. Thorson left the retreat adds a fresh turn to an already twisty tale. It came days after she made a startling revelation during one of her lectures: she said that Mr. Thorson had been violent toward her, and that she had stabbed him, using a knife they had received as a wedding gift.

The authorities do not suspect foul play in Mr. Thorson’s death....

Oh, no. Why would you?

"No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling?" asked Chief Justice Roberts, and the SG agreed.

The Arizona immigration case is emphatically not about the issue that seems to be all people opposed to the law argue about in the political sphere.

As in the Affordable Care Act case, it was Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli and former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement arguing on opposite sides. Unlike in that case and because the law under attack is a state law, Verrilli is arguing against the choice of the democratic majority, and Clement is arguing to uphold it.

Mr. Clements [sic] said the state was making an effort to address an emergency situation with a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests executive authority over immigration with the national government,” he said.

That is, it's a federalism case, not a constitutional rights case. The question is the allocation of power between the federal and state government. (The Affordable Care Act case is also a federalism, and not a rights case, even though in the political sphere, people opposed to the individual mandate concentrate on the imposition on the individual, not misallocation of power as between the federal and state governments.)

“What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked.

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law merely requires that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and leaves enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally and who’s not,” he said....

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for four of the justices in the majority, said the state law under review “simply seeks to enforce” a federal ban on hiring illegal workers. “Arizona went the extra mile,” he wrote last year, “in ensuring that its law closely tracks” the federal one.

That was from the Adam Liptak article in the NYT. Here's Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog:

In an oral argument that ran 20 minutes beyond the scheduled hour, the Justices focused tightly on the actual operation of the four specific provisions of the law at issue, and most of the Court seemed prepared to accept that Arizona police would act in measured ways as they arrest and detain individuals they think might be in the U.S. illegally.  And most of the Justices seemed somewhat skeptical that the federal government would have to change its own immigration priorities just because states were becoming more active....

The Court’s three more liberal Justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — offered what appeared to be a less than enthusiastic support for the federal government’s challenge....

Kagan has recused herself, by the way. It seems rather obvious that Arizona will win this case. The first quote in Liptak's article is Sotomayor saying to Verrilli: "You can see it’s not selling very well."

Oral argument in the Supreme Court today over Arizona's approach to illegal immigration.

I'll get to the transcript later today. Right now, you can follow the live blog at the Wall Street Journal. Here's the 10:27 update:

Outside, a group of clergy in white robes led opponents of the Arizona law in what they called a Jericho Walk around the Supreme Court.

The procession is reference to the biblical story of Joshua, who led the Israelites around the enemy city of Jericho seven times before blowing trumpets and shouting, bringing down the city’s walls.

What?! Are they asking God to bring down the Supreme Court? I'm just going to assume the wall in question is the "wall" between the U.S. and Mexico, which they'd like to see come down. But the symbolism directs God to the Court as the object of destruction. Good Lord, what is wrong with people? Get your symbols straight.

"He’s not excusing Loughner, just describing what an isolated lifestyle in Arizona can do to people."

"The state ranks 48th among places where 'people trade favors with neighbors' and 45th among places where people eat dinner with their families.... The murders make Arizonans wonder if they’re leading mean, unexamined lives.... Isolation is slowly ruining Arizona, and ruining the rest of the country at a slower pace."

Link.

"The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants."

AP reports:

The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.

The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.

The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation.

Ah! 2012 is shaping up to be quite a fascinating year for law-and-politics blogging.

Amusingly, I was just asking people to remember that Arizona law.

"The best tool is a national identity card, including some biometric evidence, such as a fingerprints."

Writes NYT editor Bill Keller, praising Newt Gingrich for showing "a combination of brains, heart and guts that puts the rest of his party to shame."

Gingrich braves the wrath of libertarians and privacy campaigners to endorse it. In today’s living-online, GPS-tracked world, I think a national identity card would find wide acceptance.

Wait! Since when do liberal columnists love tough ID card policies? I don't know about Keller specifically, but I thought it was an article of faith that requiring a photo ID for voting is about disenfranchising minorities. Suddenly, a card with fingerprints is supposed to be a smart, brave, and compassionate idea?

Keller is talking about immigration policy, but I have to go over to Newt's website to puzzle it out:

There has to be a legal guest worker program....

We can build on the universal system of biometric, tamper-proof visa documents that all visitors must have, and invite a private-sector firm with a proven track record to monitor the guest worker program.

For guest workers, the new tamper-proof, biometric cards will replace the e-verify system, which has some promising elements, but is too error-prone. Employers will be able to swipe prospective employees biometric cards, and immediately be able to confirm that these workers are in the country legally.

Oh, I see. Only the guest workers will need to have these cards in order to work. Not everyone else. Keller doesn't mention that, for some reason. Newt seems to be simply opening a path for some noncitizens to work here legally and to prove that's what they are doing. Obviously, others would continue to work here without the documentation, and then there's the problem of all the Hispanic people who really are citizens who might be hassled over their lack of cards. Why isn't Keller concerned about that? Remember all the fuss about ID-checking back in 2010 when Arizona adopted a new immigration policy?

UPDATE: Wow! Less than an hour after I posted this, the Supreme Court announced it was taking a case about the Arizona immigration law mentioned above! (I'll put up a new post about that.)

Why can't Gabby Giffords run for the Senate? "We’ve had congressmen in Arizona who didn’t even have a brain."

Says Mike McNulty, Giffords’s last campaign chairman.

An entity called “the office of Gabrielle Giffords” (as the steady flow of press releases referred to it) effectively became the representative for the Eighth District of Arizona....

... and it is engaging in some ghoulish political opportunism.

[A]lthough she was completely unaware of it, the wounded Gabby Giffords had become the most potent political force in the state....

While Giffords herself does not even know that she is considered a possible candidate, much less the Democratic frontrunner, her potential opponents are stymied....

What a crushing dysfunction!  Is there no capacity for shame?

U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot, along with at least 11 others, at a political event...

... in Tuscon.

UPDATE: Dead?  That's NPR (linked by Drudge). The NYT, updated 4 minutes ago, says her condition is unknown.

ADDED: Gabrielle Giffords was the member of Congress who had the honor of reading the First Amendment when the Constitution was read on the House floor January 6th. Video. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Peaceably to assemble.

AND: Linking to my post, Instapundit says:

And judging from the comments to this post, people are already trying to score political points. Well, they kind of telegraphed this strategy, didn’t they? Remember Bloomberg making a fool of himself by blaming the Times Square bombing on the Tea Party? How about waiting until we actually know something, this time? That’s likely to be soon enough.

Yes. Please.

If the government gives tax credits for donations that may go to religion, is that essentially the same as government spending on religion?

Lyle Denniston reports on the oral argument today in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. This is a case about tax credits for contributions made to private tuition funds that make grants to students who go to private schools. Many of those schools are religious and some of the qualified funds only make grants to students who go to religious religious schools. Denniston begins his description with a claim that he detected Elena Kagan's purchase on the mind of Tony Kennedy (a subject we were just talking about the other day). Denniston says Kagan and Kennedy — the 2 Ks (sounds like trouble!) — "took crucial, reinforcing roles." I don't see much support for that point.

This case has a substantive Establishment Clause issue — whether government is subsidizing religion — and a threshold issue about standing — whether taxpayers can sue over this. These issues are linked because they both may depend on whether a tax credit turns the privately donated money into money from the state.

The lawyer defending the Arizona program said it was like tax deductions. People take tax deductions for their contributions to religious organizations all the time. What's different about tax credits? The lawyer arguing against the program "said that the money that is involved in the Arizona program is money raised by a tax; without a tax, there would be no tax credit."

If we view the tax credit as coming from the state's money, amassed by taxing, then the taxpayers who brought the suit probably have standing. But does that also answer the Establishment Clause question? Private citizens decide whether to contribute to a fund and pick from the qualified funds, not all of which exclusively fund religious schools, and the children getting the grants are choosing which school they want to go to. So there are 2 levels of private choice. And the definition of the funds is neutral and not religion-based.

Here's the complete transcript of today's argument.

UPDATE, April 4, 2011: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lack standing. 

"You know what the greatest city in the world is?" asked NY Mayor Bloomberg.

"Scottsdale, Arizona. It's clean, it's not too big, it's got a couple streets with shops and restaurants, and the people there aren't fucking insane. This place is fucking insane. And by the way, that's not a reason to like it. Anyone who says that is a delusional dirtbag."

"Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

Asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in the hearing on the lawsuit about the Arizona immigration law:

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler....

Kneedler's response was that Arizona acted "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."

"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does."

I'm not looking at the whole transcript, but I'm puzzling over this idea of preemption that depends on the degree of drama.

Kneedler also cited "very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," which gave Arizona's lawyer, John J. Bouma, the opportunity to zing: "Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted."

The NYT says Democratic governors "voiced deep anxiety" about Obama's lawsuit against Arizona.

When the lawsuit was filed, my main question was whether it would serve the political interests of the Democratic Party:

Assuming it's not legally ridiculous, is it politically wise? To make it work legally, won't [the Obama administration] have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy? Won't they have to be very clear that Arizona must shut up and accept the current situation? Who will get better political leverage out of this lawsuit — those who favor stronger enforcement of immigration law or those who favor leniency?

Now, it seems the Democratic governors are answering my question:

While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.

At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

Did the NYT use the word "anonymously" as some kind of anti-Bredesen joke? He's such a nonentity! Or were there 2 other governors who were ass-cover-y enough to demand anonymity as they breached the privacy understanding, and the NYT mentioned them just before quoting Bredesen to make Bredesen look indiscreet/bold? Or — this is awkward but most likely — were the 2 anonymous governors the ones who revealed that there was a lot of anxiety and simmering at the private meeting, and Bredesen's quote, technically, doesn't refer to the meeting. It's just his direct expression of the anxiety that was also expressed at the meeting.

(The Althouse blog, making reading the New York Times more annoying than it would be if you slogged though it alone. That's how I try to help — by heightening annoyingness. I hope you enjoy the pain.)

Meanwhile:

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around [Arizona Governor Jan] Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

They had to throw in that "raucous protest," didn't they? Was it, like, one guy? Because I notice there isn't a word about the size of the protest. Yet the polls only "suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law." Why "suggest"? The polls I've seen show strong support for the law. Perhaps even raucous support.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

Oh, shut up, Bill. The West... get over yourself. The proper term is "some of those states in the middle."

The White House would not directly respond to reports of complaints from some Democratic governors.

Indirectly, however, the answer is, as noted, shut up.

"[T]he Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities."

According to the Washington Post, that assertion is at the core of the federal government's lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law. So... the federal government has massively failed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but at least the failure is spread fairly equally among the states. Even though Arizona may only want to take responsibility for its its own problem, it can't do that without referring the cases to the federal government and straining and unbalancing federal resources. The courts are supposed to buy the paradox: Because the federal government can't do very much about a problem — or chooses not to do much — an individual state can't act either, no matter how bad things get within that state.

But let's think this through. I'm just trying to grasp what the argument is, so discuss this with me. Brainstorm. Argue. Consider this: The federal government has responsibility for immigration, and it has expressed, through written law and real-world efforts, an extremely lax policy toward illegal immigration. Given that federal policy and the supremacy of federal law, one could argue that it is not within the state's proper power to dictate a different policy and impose it on the federal government (by referring a lot of new cases of individuals violating federal law).

It will be interesting to hear how the lawyers for the federal government make their argument. Assuming it's not legally ridiculous, is it politically wise? To make it work legally, won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy? Won't they have to be very clear that Arizona must shut up and accept the current situation? Who will get better political leverage out of this lawsuit — those who favor stronger enforcement of immigration law or those who favor leniency?

A story about a mural in Prescott resonates with the meme that Arizonans have a race problem.

Here's the story, about a mural that some citizens complained about because it depicted "a black guy" or 2.

I'd like to see a "before" picture, showing the entire mural, because there's some complexity about what it meant for the artist to be told to "lighten" the faces in the painting. The school officials said "to make the kids look like they were 'radiating with happiness,'" so there might be some issue of them conveying the wrong mood. "Lighten" is an ambiguous word — lighten up! — but it's also highly inflammatory to say "lighten" with respect to the skin tone of the faces in the mural.

And then there's City Councilman Steve Blair who had — he's now fired — a local radio talk show, who's been saying things like: "I disagree with the whole perspective that you would have a black guy painted on two sides of that building when the history of Prescott never had a culture issue." You do now.

Speaking of painting, Arizonans are being painted in the media as racists. With the hot national issue about immigration enforcement, any little thing like this will be picked up and used to propagate the meme. You may think you've got a local issue and be willing to engage in loose talk and feel sure you're not really a bad person, but you will look like hell when it's picked up nationally. I've seen a lot of bad murals around town, using big looming faces to convey "progressive" political messages, and I can imagine someone who wasn't a racist at all bitching about them in words that would look quite awful quoted in the national press.

I deplore racism — don't we all? — but can we also talk about the atrocious murals that get slathered onto the walls of our towns? The "diversity" theme is so common in these monstrosities, and I'd hate to see accusations of racism work to silence criticism of artwork that needs to complained about.

IN THE COMMENTS: lemondog links to what I think are pre-alteration photos of the mural, and it's hard to detect a surly, hostile, or aggressive look on the faces. They are already "radiating with happiness." How ecstatic do you want kids to be about going green? I dislike government propaganda murals (and anti-government propaganda murals), but the idea of lightening the faces is bad.

"Police chiefs from about a dozen cities are scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday to talk about concerns they have with Arizona's new immigration law."

"The chiefs will tell Holder that they worry the new law will 'drive a wedge' between the community and police, and damage the trust that officers have worked to build 'over many years'...."

It's political theater, of course. But wouldn't the show work better if the script weren't circulated to the press in advance? Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation? Then afterwards, deliver what seems to be a surprising consensus that the new law will drive a wedge between the community and police and damage the trust that officers have worked to build over many years.

Where's the theatrical magic needed to induce the suspension of disbelief?

Did Obama's speechwriters write Calderon's speech?

That's what I thought when I heard this:

In Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it's against any sense of human rights; and, of course, is provoking very disappointing, uh, things -- or very disappointing opinion -- in Mexico and around the world, even here in America.  So to introduce this kind of elements, especially racial profiling aspect that are attempting against what we consider human rights, it's the principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation.

I thought that before I heard Rush Limbaugh say that's what he thought. Read the whole thing. Don't miss the Wolf Blitzer interview.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law."

"How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

Pew: "Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them."

"Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally."

I wonder what those percentages would be if the President and the political elite had not pressured us to think the Arizona law was outrageously racist.

"Public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people."

So reads the text of the new Arizona law expressing a strong and controversial opinion about what is commonly known as "ethnic studies."

The law prohibits the teaching of any classes that promote “the overthrow of the United States government,” “resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

Is it odd or obvious that this is controversial?

"Hey?! That old man looks like John McCain."

McCain puts a tough-on-illegal-immigration ad on YouTube... and the comments are pretty funny.