AnnotatedOpinions.com

In March 2000, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was interviewed in a federal prison for a segment of CBS’s “60 Minutes.”  . . . A lot of people didn’t like what he had to say. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft was one of them. Calling the segment “an irresponsible glamorization of a culture of violence,” he ordered a blanket ban on interviews with federal death row inmates. . .   

That rule is being challenged by another condemned prisoner who was housed near McVeigh in the Terre Haute, Ind., federal prison. David Paul Hammer was serving a 1,200-year sentence for kidnapping, murder, escape and assorted other crimes . . .  

Hammer’s lawsuit challenging the ban on interviews was rejected by a federal court and by the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals. His appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is being supported by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 23 news organizations, including Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune.  

The reporters’ group argues that prison interviews provide important checks on the system, shining light on how inmates are treated and how tax dollars are spent. . .  

The ban on interviews fails two tests established in earlier cases. First, the government can’t restrict an inmate’s free speech rights unless there’s an alternate avenue for uncensored communication. Second, any such rule must be backed by a legitimate criminal justice objective, such as the need to protect other inmates or prison employees. . .   

[AO: Based on the two tests established in early U.S. Supreme Court cases, it appears that, as described by the Chicago Tribune’s Editorial Board, the rule will be upheld (ruled valid) if the government can show that even if it restricts an inmate’s free speech rights and the inmate has no alternate avenue for uncensored communication, the government has a legitimate criminal justice objective. Let’s assume the government has no legitimate criminal justice objective for the blanket prohibition on interviews with federal death row inmates for our discussion here.  

The Tribune states that “the government can't restrict an inmate's free speech rights unless there's an alternate avenue for uncensored communication.” But what qualifies as an alternative avenue for uncensored communication? Relatedly, what are the purposes of these communications?   

The Tribune mentions inmate treatment and use of tax dollars. But here’s the rub. An inmate’s chief advocate for fair treatment in prison, the individual an inmate should probably first contact regarding the issues the Tribune highlights is the inmate’s lawyer. In other words, federal death row inmates have an alternate avenue for communication as required by the first part of the two element test that the Tribune describes.   

Inmates who would rather not communicate through their lawyer can just as well communicate through any other person who comes to visit. That is because death row inmates, generally, have visitation rights. The only prohibition seems to be that those visitors can’t be reporters carrying interviewing equipment. Indeed, what the rule does is not prohibit speech as much as it prohibits speech that potentially “glamorize[e] [] a culture of violence.”]

. . . we have little sympathy for the scofflaws who complain that all those red-light cameras are the urban equivalent of speed traps. . .  

The cameras are pitched as safety devices, and traffic engineers swear they are effective. The idea is to reduce crashes –especially deadly broadside collisions — by discouraging drivers from blowing through red lights. But local [Illinois] statistics don’t support that theory. In fact, they’re all over the map. . .  

Results are similarly inconsistent elsewhere, perhaps because there’s not a lot of data to work with. In some places, the cameras seem to have had the unintended effect of increasing the number of rear-end collisions, as motorists slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket and get hit from behind. Do red-light cameras make our streets safer? The jury’s still out. . .  

Drivers are particularly incensed that so many tickets are issued — at $100 a pop — for making a right turn on red without coming to a full stop. . . [Illinois] Rep. Angelo “Skip” Saviano, R- Elmwood Park, is pushing a measure that would prohibit using the cameras to issue right-on-red violations. . .  

We don’t think lawmakers ought to be in the business of telling local governments which traffic violations are serious and which ones can be blown off if nobody gets hurt. . . 

[AO: It is against the law to run a red light. Drivers should avoid running red lights or engaging in other driving habits that are dangerous to themselves and other motorists. When drivers engage in illegal driving habits, law enforcement officers and municipalities must take corrective action. However, whatever acion they take must not produce more harm than good.  

The jury is still out on whether red-light cameras cause more rear-end collisions at intersections where they are installed. Yet, the harm sought to be prevented by the red-light cameras, broadside collisions, is so severe that even with conflicting evidence regarding an increase in rear-end collisions, it may be reasonable to use red-light cameras. In general, rear-end collisions are not as dangerous as broadside collisions.  

But what about right-on-red violations? The harm that is being prevented by right-on-red violations come nowhere close to the harm that can result from a broadside collision. Indeed, drivers are allowed to turn right-on-red. The only requirement, and the reason for the fine, is that they don’t come to a complete stop before turning right on read. Such a fine may be appropriate but not when you consider that it may increase rear-end collisions.   

In short, we agree with the Tribune’s argument in favor of red-light cameras to stop drivers who run red lights. We think the potential for increased rear-end collisions is insufficient as a reason to prohibit these safety devices. However, when it comes to right-on-red turns, we think the potential for increased rear-end collisions is reason enough to prohibit use of red-light cameras to ticket drivers for those violations.]

. . . So why is Attorney General Eric Holder [putting Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial in a civilian court]? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.   

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place. . .

[AO: Since Attorney General Eric Holder announced that KSM would be tried in a civilian court, one of the constant attacks on his decision has been, essentially, that we cannot allow a civilian court to try KSM because we know or believe that he is guilty and therefore subjecting him to a civilian trial makes mockery of our judicial process. Ostensibly because we know or expect the outcome and cannot presume him innocent and know/believe the outcome at the same time.   

The first problem is the insinuation that trying guilty people using our civilian court system can make a mockery of our civilian court process but not of military tribunals. In other words, the thinking seems to be that military tribunals are so below our civilian court system that it is acceptable to try guilty people there but not acceptable to try guilty people in our civilian courts. Am I the only
one this thinking seems absurd to? Are Holder’s critics suggesting military courts are but a step above kangaroo courts? Do they really care about the trial part of the military tribunals or simply the conviction? In other words, do they see military tribunals as a means to validating whatever outcome they’ve already decided is appropriate?  

The second problem is somewhat existential. The critics seem to think that there is a problem with Holder trying KSM if Holder and the courts cannot presume KSM’s innocence. Let’s consider an example. Say, during the Super Bowl a spectator-supporter of the loosing team runs onto the field after the end of the game. He pulls out a gun and while being watched by millions of Americans shoots a referee he thinks caused his team to loose. The Attorney General for the state in which the game was played is at the game. He and million of Americans watch this tragedy unfold. The shooter stands there after the shooting, gives himself up and confesses. Can he be tried in a civilian court or would some other tribunal be necessary? 

Here we have a man who the attorney general knows to be guilty. Will trying him in a civilian court, which has to presume him innocent, make a mockery of our judicial system? The answer is obviously a resounding “no.” This is similar to the KSM case. Just because we know/believe he is guilty doesn’t mean that because we expect he’ll be convicted he cannot be tried in a court of law that presumes his innocence. If that was the case, we would be unable to try the shooter in my hypothetical in a civilian court.  

The writer of the opinion excerpted above, Charles Krauthammer, makes numerous other arguments against trying KSM in civilian court. See the link below. However, also see the opinion by Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith, both attorneys in the Bush administration, explaining why Holder made a reasonable decision here.]

Civilian courts can fight terrorists too [Chicago Tribune]

Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial: If the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side. [New York Times]

Toward a federal ’shield law’ for journalists: A Senate bill is flawed but it’s better than the status quo. [LA Times]

Abortion fallacies: I’m opposed to the Stupak amendment, but it’s not worth killing health reform over. [Washington Post]

Health reform’s conservative roots: The health care reform option being considered in Congress bears a striking resemblance to the one created by the conservative 19th century German chancellor Otto von Bismarck. [Boston Globe]

Hunger in the United States: For President Obama to achieve his goal of wiping out child hunger by 2015, Congress needs to make federal nutrition programs a priority. [New York Times]

Sarah Palin’s lack of leadership shows in ‘Going Rogue’: The former Republican vice presidential candidate’s memoir instead illustrates what comes so easily to her: pointing fingers. [LA Times]

Church, state and gay marriage: The Council of the District of Columbia is right to stand firm against the Catholic Church on the issue of same-sex marriage. [LA Times]

That mess with China: Many said a trade pact would end the trade imbalance. The opposite occurred. [Washington Post]

Can we retrain terrorists? Rehabilitating jihadis is controversial and difficult. But we may have to consider it. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Another Round of Regulatory Reform: If senators really want strong financial reform, they must not give into lobbies trying to weaken the plan as it makes its way through the legislative process. [New York Times]

Can we boldly go? Maybe someone should stick a copy of The Right Stuff into the DVD player tomorrow night on President Obama’s long flight back from his mission to Asia. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

The Drug Industry Cashes In: Given the drug industry’s last-minute price increases, the Senate should abandon its deal with the industry and impose tougher demands. [New York Times]

Don’t forget renters – again: Now that the $8,000 federal tax credit for home buyers has been extended, it’s time for Congress and the president to move quickly on another front: providing resources to develop rental housing for low-income Americans. [Philadelphia Inquirer] 

Obama is right to acknowledge China’s might: For better and worse, the U.S. and Chinese economies are intertwined, and that makes America stronger, not weaker. [LA Times]

For Palin, reality goes rogue: The former vice-presidential candidate dwells on the most damaging accusation against her — that she rang up $150,000 in luxury clothing purchases. Too bad that her defense is
preposterous. [Boston Globe]

Studying Palintology: Here’s something useful that George W. Bush can put his money into. [Washington Post]

Our rogue Evita: Sarah Palin follows in the footsteps of Eva Peron. [Washington Post]

Obama’s Judicial Nominations: The White House and the Senate should speed up judicial nominations and confirmations to restore balance to the federal courts. [New York Times]

Time for a ruling on judge: Eight months after President Obama nominated him to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a jurist from Indiana may finally have a chance at confirmation from the Senate. [LA Times]

Madoff: A piece of the (malef)action: The convicted Ponzi schemer’s belongings are being auctioned off. Good news for his victims, but it’s still sad that his infamy lends exorbitant value to mundane objects. [Boston Globe]

Puppets in Congress: It is disturbing that so many members of Congress were willing to repeat a biotechnology company’s talking points in the Congressional Record. [New York Times]

Gitmo, Illinois: Plans for moving some Gitmo prisoners prisons in Illinois is no reason for panic [Chicago Tribune]

Democracy – it’s not for everyone: In the past half century, the record of democracies in some regions of the world has been spotty. [Boston Globe]

Shaming undermines justice: Americans may cheer the idea of retributive punishment, but such judgments threaten the principles of our legal system. [USA Today]

What the Future May Hold: For future generations, we need to remember that infrastructure is linked to the health of the economy, the environment and the viability of the nation as a whole. [New York Times]

Their Future Is Ours: The country is stumbling under the challenge of integrating the children of immigrants, who need more supportive policies and programs. [New York Times]

Pandemic politics: How did we get to a point where H1N1 means something different to everyone? [Washington Post]

President Obama in China: President Obama needs to encourage China to play an even stronger international role — but also curb some of its darker instincts. [New York Times]

Great Firewall of China [USA Today]

Iran issue is key to Obama’s other foreign policy goals: His administration hopes to improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world and achieve global nuclear disarmament. [LA Times]

Study says drug does little, proving need for more testing: Congress should expand programs on effectiveness studies [Boston Globe]

One nation, insured: Some states, such as Arizona, are considering ways to opt out of a national plan. That’s foolish. [LA Times]

Bitter pill to swallow: The health-insurance reform bill passed by the House contains an unnecessary new restriction on abortion that the Senate should eliminate from the legislation. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

The flaws of lethal injection: It’s a preferred method of executing inmates, but so much can — and has — gone wrong that states need to take a hard look at their procedures. [LA Times]

The limits of juvenile sentencing: Locking up young offenders for life without parole is inherently unjust. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Faith is no defense: When a child dies, why do courts give believers a pass? [Washington Post]

Order in the court [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Don’t blame God for terrorism: After the Fort Hood massacre and others, some people — often atheist stalwarts — like to point at the corrosive influence of religion. But a closer look suggests that the most notorious killers usually act on secular motives. [USA Today]

Arlington, Obama, and the Afghan decision: Arlington National Cemetery is a beautiful place, as it should be, but its grandeur can deceive. [Boston Globe]

Minding our manners in increasingly rude U.S. [Chicago Tribune]

Economic lessons from the playground: The basic rules of the playground are sometimes given a more sophisticated, adult name: socialism. [Boston Globe]

Under the chamber’s cyber-skin: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is overreacting to a parody tweaking its stance on global warming. [LA Times]

Treat. Don’t repeat: Help repeat offenders kick their addictions [Houston Chronicle]

ROTC for civilians: Imagine a time when government work was exciting, admired, and sought-after. [Washington Post]

Dr. No and the Wounded Veterans: Senator Tom Coburn should not have obstructed urgently needed legislation that consolidates more than a dozen improvements in veterans’ health care. [New York Times]

The American way: Smile if you’re insecure: We hide our fear of failure with a positive outlook. [LA Times]

Citizen, heal thyself: Get the swine flu vaccine [Boston Globe]

Bypassing the Karzai problem: Avoiding the top leader for local leaders may be a more effective way to face the many problems in Afghanistan. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Hope in Afghanistan: A much better approach to building the Afghan police force. [Washington Post]

Politics of plate: Quit eating meat and dismantle the global food apparatus. [Washington Post]

Texting while driving is . . . a terrible scourge. Despite extreme enforcement difficulties, state legislatures are rushing to ban the practice. But they might want to broaden their focus.   

Driving while toddled should certainly be felonious. Few things are more distracting than a screaming toddler in the back seat, except perhaps two or three. You’re constantly turning around and yelling, or pretending you’re going to stop the car right there and not go to Grandma’s at all. . .  

Cities bristle with distractions: bike messengers, construction workers, pedestrians, traffic signals . . .  

Seat belts are distracting, as are all those lights and buzzers telling you your doors are open . . .  

Now, you might be thinking that the slope down which we’re skidding is awfully slippery, and that we shouldn’t even start. You might think that no one really wants to crash, and if there is good evidence that texting or talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous, people will control their own behavior.   

I find your naivete charming. As George Washington famously said to Congress, or perhaps to his slaves, American patriots understand that real change can only be accomplished by thorough and pervasive coercion.  

[AO: This satirical column, misses an important point. See, the writer argues that legislatures should not ban texting or driving while talking on a cell phone because when people realize the danger, they will control their own behavior. This is because people don’t want to crash since crashing can lead to injury and monetary loss (damaged car, etc.). But, the reason why legislatures are taking these actions, or at least the reason they should take these actions, is not necessarily to protect the driver who is texting or speaking on the phone but instead to protect other drivers and pedestrians who are not. In other words, to protect the innocent victims.  

This is comparable to drunk driving. People know that drinking and driving can lead to serious injury and financial loss. But they do it anyway. Often, those who suffer as the result of someone choosing to drink and drive are innocent pedestrians or another driver. As a result, the state steps in to protect the innocent by giving the police the right to arrest drunk drivers. This is the argument that applies to texting.  

There is another point worth mentioning. These decisions by the legislature are base in part on the extent to which the activity, drunk driving, texting, etc. is necessary. In short, they are unnecessary activities for combination with driving. Many of the examples the writer cite, driving while toddled, existence of cities, using a seatbelt, are necessary in and of themselves or provide sufficient benefit to warrant allowing them while driving. Drunk driving, texting why driving or speaking on a cell phone while driving is not a necessity. ]

Veterans Day

·       A set of dog tags, a clipping, a father revealed: A reflection on Veterans Day of a son trying to reconcile two very different sides of his father. [Boston Globe]

·      On Veterans Day, feeling the cost of war: Afghanistan was abstract, until my friend’s flag-draped coffin came home. [LA Times]

·      Healing our troubled vets: Suicide, homelessness, stress disorders — caring for today’s veterans will be a long-term and costly commitment. [LA Times]

·       Homeless on Veterans Day: Washington and communities across the country should support a national drive to end veteran homelessness. [New York Times] 

·      Recalling ‘Mother of Normandy’: A Frenchwoman dedicated herself to tending the graves of American troops. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

·      Veterans Day [USA Today]

·    Standing tall in harm’s way: Still Army-strong – The image of a traumatized military stemming from Fort Hood doesn’t square with reality. [Washington Post]

·    Taking care of our military: It used to be said that for kids, the military took care of its own. Now help is needed. [Washington Post]

Cruel and unusual: No life without parole for juvenile offenders The Supreme Court should rule against life without parole for juvenile offenders. [Houston Chronicle]

A National Disgrace: A court’s overt disregard for the central role of judges in policing executive branch excesses has frightening implications for safeguarding civil liberties. [New York Times]

Obama’s duty to tamp down anti-Muslim bias [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Dithering heights: Filibustering Republicans and three Democratic enablers bring the Senate to a halt. [Washington Post]

Pawlenty: GOP’s newest ideological enforcer [Boston Globe]

A comprehensive solution to combustible markets: Barney Frank delineates his committee’s approach to preventing another financial collapse. [Boston Globe]

Cruel, Pointless Games: The case of the American hikers is only the latest example of the Iranian government misusing and undermining its judiciary for political ends. [New York Times]

Bodyguard of lies: The House health-reform bill looked better after I heard a GOP blizzard of falsehoods about it. [Washington Post]

No fount of wisdom for GOP: Health care is much too complicated for
Congress [Chicago Tribune]

The W. and Bill no-show: It’s too bad the two former presidents pulled out of two scheduled evenings of policy debates, er, policy discussions. [LA Times]

After the wall, Bush was right: The celebrations of the 20th  anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall this week failed to note that reunification of Germany was once a topic of great contention. [Boston Globe]

East Germans feel nostalgic for the bad old days [Chicago Tribune]

Army must be on guard for extremism: For Maj. Nidal Hasan, religion might just have been the lens through which his inner disquiet focused itself. [LA Times]

Fort Hood tragedy: Terror or typical workplace violence? [USA Today]

China, the U.S. and Taiwan: The U.S. could use arms sales as leverage to ease tensions between mainland China and Taiwan, pave the way for closer Sino-American ties and promote peace and stability in Asia. [LA Times]

‘One child’ horrors: Chinese government policy is leading to forced
abortions. [Washington Post]

Kabul, Taliban are talking: Karzai’s government is reaching out to the
insurgents – with U.S. support. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

A little steel, please: Afghanistan strategy could use a little passion from a professorial president. [Washington Post]

The Trouble With ‘Zero Tolerance’: Schools should not be criminalizing students for what are essentially normal childhood behaviors. [New York Times]

Getting in holiday spirit when out of work [Chicago Tribune]

Trucks, Trains and Trees: Without a new system for economic development in the timber-rich tropics, the only Amazon your grandchildren will ever know ends in dot-com and sells books. [New York Times]

·       ABCs of change: On Sesame Street, ‘E’ was for equality [Houston Chronicle]

·      ‘Sesame Street’ turns 40: The iconic children’s show broke the mold on educational programming. [LA Times]

The Ban on Abortion Coverage: The House health care reform bill passed with a steep price. The Senate should work to preserve a woman’s right to abortion services. [New York Times]

Why preventive care is critical: Congress should not focus on how much preventive health care will cost, but on how much it will earn. [Washington Post]

Historic, but unaffordable: The Democratic-controlled House took a historic step in passing a health-care bill over the weekend, yet the measure – unless it’s modified – could mean the death knell for health reform this year. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

The wall after the wall: Unlike the old militarized geopolitical wall of the Cold War, the new heavily policed wall between rich and poor regions of the world is designed to keep people out rather than in. [Boston Globe]

Sick day, sick pay: Congress is considering a mandate that would require employers to pay five sick days if they send a worker home or advise him to stay home. [Chicago Tribune]

The U.S. needs to teach Hamid Karzai a thing or two: The Afghan leader needs to learn how to act as a wartime leader. [LA Times]

Cutting our losses: Leave Afghanistan to the drones and the Special Forces. [Washington Post]

A Word, Mr. President: Health care reform is important, but President Obama’s priorities should be putting Americans back to work and ending the war in Afghanistan. [New York Times]

Bailing out GMAC: Its health is key to helping U.S. automakers rebound. [LA Times]

Needle exchanges: New law, same bad policy – The federal bill allowing needle exchanges to prevent transmission of HIV was a step forward, but includes a punishing restriction: No exchanges can happen within 1,000 feet of a school or park. [Boston Globe]

Guarding the ranks: Religious tolerance in the military does not trump security concerns. [LA Times]

Ticking bomb at Fort Hood: The Army failed the thousands of Muslims who serve with honor and distinction. [Washington Post]

Don’t let the shooters win: My beloved Virginia Tech again is linked to a mass murder. But Fort Hood, too, can heal by rejecting our torturers’
hate-filled scripts [USA Today]

The Rush to Therapy: The well-intentioned public commentary that followed Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood denied any possibility of evil in his actions. [New York Times]

The ‘closure’ myth: The ‘Beltway sniper’ will be put to death, but will it help the victims move on? [Washington Post]

Counting Forward: The approval of an election law by Iraq’s Parliament is good news, but neither Baghdad nor Washington should be complacent about power-sharing issues. [New York Times]

You Don’t Want to Be Downwind: Now that the House has passed a bill to shore up security at chemical plants, the Senate should pass a parallel bill and the president should sign it. [New York Times]

No medals for hiring vets: Public and private efforts to employ ex-military aren’t what they claim. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

‘Greeters’ give troops the homecoming they deserve [USA Toay]

The lesson from the streets: Big money is not the answer [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Without family planning . . . poverty will spread across the globe, and children will die [USA Today]

·       Op-Classic, 1989: Freedom Danced Before My Eyes [New York Times]

·       The rusting and fall of the Iron Curtain: Today is the 20th anniversary of the event that proved the realists wrong. When joyous citizens breached the Berlin Wall with rock music and dancing instead of guns and tanks, the Cold War was over. [Boston Globe]

·      After the wall fell: Too many of the commemorations treat the past two decades as a foregone conclusion. [Washington Post]

·       Cold War nostalgia: In the former East, there is ostalgie. In the West, we too look back in longing: for the symbol of moral clarity and superiority the wall was to us. [LA Times]  

·       After collapse, jubilation, fear, and uncertainty [Boston Globe]

·     Hungary was the first rip in Iron Curtain: Months before the Berlin Wall fell, Hungarians had marched to demand  democracy. [LA Times]

A 2d chance at freedom for juvenile offenders: The United States stands apart from its European allies in sentencing minors to languish in prison until they die. [Boston Globe]

Imprisoning a Child for Life: Sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole for a nonhomicide violates the Eighth amendment. [New York Times]

Healthcare’s hurdles: Democrats in the House get their way, but what we need is real debate. If only the Republicans would oblige. [LA Times]

Why is reforming health care so hard? Broad satisfaction and deep divides hinder change. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

House-passed health plan mixes good ideas, deep flaws [USA Today]

The next bubble? There’s a thin line between promoting recovery and the next crash. [Washington Post]

Who’s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine? If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety — and the seductive rage — that is the central appeal of all demagogues. [Boston Globe]

Climate change bill is in trouble: Political tactics tie up the Senate version, and efforts to salvage it may be too little too late. [LA Times]

Government-haters lose: Apparently some voters think government is necessary — and good. [Washington Post]

Mickey goes rogue [Chicago Tribune]

Disney: The mouse that bored – In some ways, the effort to revitalize Mickey seems sad and desperate [Boston Globe]

Paranoia Strikes Deep: If the G.O.P. essentially shrinks down to a rump party across America, the country could become ungovernable in the idst of a continuing economic disaster. [New York Times]

Letting big money in: Supreme Court watchers are growing anxious about an imminent legal ruling that could open the floodgates of money in politics like never before. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Red flags at Fort Hood [USA Today]

Voters thinking about jobs, not Obama [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The smell test: Canine witnesses need tighter judicial leashes [Houston Chronicle]

Guinness got it: The company’s 250-year legacy of God-inspired good provides myriad lessons for today. Among them: A benevolent corporate vision is good for business, for its employees and for the world. [USA Today]