I am becoming increasingly disturbed and I?m going to put it right on the record, at some of the decisions apparently made by defense in this case and I?m not going to probe defense?s theories, I don?t know what defense has in mind, but I?m going to tell you right here and now, certain questions are being raised in my mind.

I understand that we have retained counsel. But so far, we have had an opening of the door on the investigation. We have had, although that I could see perhaps it was not anticipated but it happened, and it certainly should have been considered before the opening was made. That?s number one.

Number two, we had a questioning of the complaining witness as to why he didn?t come in which he elicited the answers, as much as I tried to delay it or prevent it, that he was afraid to come in, which was disastrous for the defendant.

Then we had the defense putting into evidence, the warrant and order and the ... supporting affirmation by the D.A., which again did not help the defendant.

Then we had several questions today that are going right into areas that I personally, as a defense lawyer, wouldn?t touch with a fifty foot pole.

I even found it necessary on my own motion, just a few minutes ago, to warn the jury not to draw too many conclusions from the mug book.

I have very serious problems with this case right now. The alarm bells are ringing in my head and I?m going right on the record. And the question concerns the representation of the defendant.

I?m sorry, there is no other way I can put it.

Over the past eight plus years of my medical training, more than seven years since the signing of my contract with the Army, the single unifying theme of all my academic and professional endeavors has been the improvement of individuals? health and wellbeing.

The world and I both have since changed significantly from when I first entered this contractual relationship with the U.S. Army. As a form of retaliation and under the pretense of national security, the United States military has invaded and occupied a foreign country in an unprecedented pre-emptive war and I have become a doctor who now views war as an unacceptable lapse of reason, the ultimate act of futility and an entirely shameful human endeavor.

The tragedy of September 11, 2001 and our subsequent response in Afghanistan and Iraq have been profound catalysts for introspection, and constitute a radical turning point in my life. These ongoing events have led me to reconsider many of my views on life, God, religion, government, politics, and ultimately my role as a human being here and now on this small planet.

We live in a radically different world than we did before September 11, 2001 and our response with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I am a changed person as a result. These ongoing wars, and the mass death and destruction resulting from them, have led me to more fully comprehend the immorality, cruelty and arbitrariness of violence in general, and particularly the futility of violent retaliation. They have led me to detest violence and reject it completely. These events, for me personally and my generation, are comparable to the massive loss of human life inflicted during the Vietnam War and its profound effect on the moral, ethical, and political beliefs of millions of young people at that time.

A significant part of my response to these horrific events was to learn more about violence, the causes of violence, and alternatives to violence. They also caused me to search deeply within myself and to question my beliefs about life, death, warfare, violence and God.

By Bernadette A. Meyler, Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School

When Senator Tom Coburn today asserted -- after asking Judge Sonia Sotomayor whether states have the right to determine the definition of death -- that he did not actually expect her to answer, but simply to pay attention to the question in her deliberations, he seemed to be conceding the likelihood of her confirmation. If this is the case, his interventions can be read as having a purpose apart from determining whether or not Judge Sotomayor should sit on the Supreme Court. Instead, Senator Coburn rehearsed for the American public a set of hot-button issues raised by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, including whether technological advances should affect the understanding of viability in the abortion context, whether there is a constitutional right to self-defense that underpins an individual right to bear arms, and whether American courts should cite foreign law.

The many rounds of debates about the citation of foreign law that have already occurred may render legal scholars somewhat fatigued with the topic, but it remains a point of public controversy. In her remarks, Judge Sotomayor lucidly and succinctly illuminated how much of the discussion consists in people talking past each other. As she emphasized, there is a public misunderstanding of what "using" foreign law means to most judges; rather than relying on foreign legal authority as a precedent or to influence the outcome of a case interpreting the U.S. Constitution or a statute, judges simply "use" foreign legal principles or decisions as helpful aids in thinking through domestic legal problems.

Had she been so inclined, Judge Sotomayor could perhaps have cited Senator Coburn's own opening remarks to illuminate the distinction. Towards the conclusion of his statement, after expressing concern about the justices' invocation of foreign authority, Senator Coburn explained that Aristotle defined law as "reason free from passion," and endorsed that view. Are we to deduce from this remark that Aristotle was an American, or is it more plausible to think that our legal system shares certain general principles with its foreign counterparts, whether ancient or modern?

read more

By Rebecca Latham Brown, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law, USC Gould School of Law

Conservative Senator: Good Morning, Judge, and welcome to this hearing. I want to talk about my views on the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court. Your statements and judicial opinions, and the fact that you were nominated by a Democratic President, make me worry that you do not share my views of the law and the Constitution. In other words, your views are activist and biased and do not reflect mainstream American values. What do you have so say for yourself?

Supreme Court Nominee: Thank you, Senator, for your kind words and insightful comments about the law. I think you might be surprised at the degree to which we do agree on the major issues of constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy. I'm sure as we proceed to more specific questions we will find that we have a tremendous amount of common ground.

Senator: All right, let's get down to the nitty gritty. I believe that the Due Process Clause requires states to protect the fundamental right to own a gun. Therefore, the states cannot regulate the ownership of guns; It's all right there in the Due Process Clause. Anyone who thinks that the Heller decision is limited only to federal law simply does not understand the pivotal role the Due Process Clause plays in identifying the fundamental aspects of liberty that is the deeply rooted tradition of American law. How can you deny that?

read more

By Liz Seaton, Director of Projects and Managing Attorney, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)


On April 22, Allen Ray Andrade was convicted of the murder in the first degree and as a hate crime under state law for killing Angie Zapata, 18, a transgender woman whom he savagely beat to death with a fire extinguisher in her home in Greeley, Colo. in July, 2008. I wrote then about the need for passage of the federal hate crimes bill.

At that time, Weld County Prosecutor Ken Buck, whose office ably prosecuted the case, joined in pressing for passage of a federal hate crimes law. On April 29, the House passed the federal hate crimes bill, which includes both sexual orientation and gender identity, by a vote of 249-175.

Today, July 15, the trial for the murder of Lateisha "Teish" Green, a 22-year-old African American transgender woman, continues in Syracuse, N.Y. Ms. Green was shot and killed on November 14, 2008, and the shooter, Dwight R. DeLee, was allegedly motivated by anti-LGBT bias and his belief that Lateisha was gay. The Onondaga County District Attorney has charged DeLee with second degree murder as a hate crime.

As the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund reports, "That Lateisha was, in fact, transgender highlights the unique nature of this prosecution, as well as the need for reform of New York State and federal hate crime laws. New York State law currently classifies it as a hate crime for an individual to target and attack a victim because of the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation. While Lateisha was a transgender woman, Lateisha's murder is a hate crime because her attacker perceived her to be gay and targeted her for violence because of that perception. Neither New York State nor federal hate crime laws include gender identity or gender expression as protected hate crime categories."

Increased state-level investigations and prosecutions are a welcome development, but they do not replace the need for a federal law prohibiting these heinous crimes in the first place. The nature and frequency of violent acts motivated by anti-LGBT animus are extremely well-documented and this legislation is supported by a strong and diverse coalition.

In June, Attorney General Holder testified strongly in favor of the measure on behalf of the Department of Justice and the president.

With yet another murder trial for the killing of a transgender woman of color underway, Senate action is long overdue, and needed now.

read more

By Bernadette A. Meyler, Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School. See Professor Meyler's previous post on the Senate's Supreme Court Confirmation hearings here.

As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island astutely observed, if confirmed, Judge Sonia Sotomayor will not only be the first Latina on the Supreme Court, but will also be the sole member of that body who has served as a district court judge.

Justice O'Connor, the first woman to be appointed to the Court, similarly brought a somewhat different legal background to her task than her colleagues. She had previously been both a state legislator and a state court judge, and commentators have often suggested that her experience in those state capacities helped shape her views on federalism and her respect for state sovereignty.

What, then, might be the implications of a Supreme Court Justice with district court experience?

One answer might serve to explain the conciseness of the Ricci v. DeStefano summary order that has been the subject of so much controversy, and about which Ricci himself is slated to testify. In that summary order, the three-judge panel affirmed the rationale of what it called the "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the [district] court below." During her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor has emphasized the length and comprehensiveness of that district court opinion, and she has expressed respect for the efforts of the trial court. Judge Sotomayor's experience on the district court may have contributed to a view that, although the determinations of law below are not entitled to the same degree of deference as those of fact, it was not necessary to supplement or supersede the otherwise sufficient reasoning of the district court judge in the Ricci case.

Just as those in favor of a rigorous conception of federalism place significance on local determinations, and members of the founding generation feared fact-finding in the Supreme Court because it might contravene the independence of regional juries, we might see considerable value in granting more weight to the decisions of district courts. It is, after all, the district court judge who assesses all the evidence in person, and who is best positioned to evaluate the entirety of the circumstances of the case. Confirming someone who can appreciate the vantage point of the district court judge would certainly add another welcome element of diversity to the Supreme Court.

read more

By Paul M. Secunda, Associate Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School

During the second day of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, a telling exchange occurred between the Judge and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The exchange concerned the recently decided employment discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano (U.S. June 29, 2009). As some readers of this blog undoubtedly know, the case established a new test for deciding when a municipality could lawfully throw out the results of a job promotion exam because of its disparate impact on a Title VII-protected group of individuals.

In a closely divided 5-4 opinion, which the usual suspects aligned on either side of the ledger, the Court held that the adverse impact of the test results in a New Haven firefighter promotion test that amounted to a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination against black employees was not a defense to a disparate treatment case brought by white employees because the employer did not have a "strong basis in evidence" to believe that it would be liable for disparate impact discrimination. The majority came to this conclusion by importing into Title VII a color-blind standard from constitutional equal protection cases like Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) (plurality opinion).

As Judge Sotomayor pointed out, the state of Title VII employment discrimination law at the time her Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel heard the case did not embrace the Supreme Court's eventual chosen test. Indeed, the law in this area of disparate impact cases was sufficiently established that the Second Circuit panel was able to enter a per curiam decision affirming the factually-oriented, district court decision.

Of course, the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, including Senators Sessions and Hatch, sought to portray Judge Sotomayor as an activist for joining the panel's decision in this case and attacked her on that basis. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In fact, whereas Judge Sotomayor followed established precedent in this area of the law, there is a much better argument that it was the Supreme Court, which relied on case precedent from non-Title VII case law to come to its surprising conclusion, that had engaged in judicial activism to reach a desired outcome in favor of the white firefighters challenging the city's decision to throw out the initial exam test scores.

As my colleague Professor Michael Zimmer has ably demonstrated, Justice Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion in Ricci "takes an enormous leap from the first conclusion - that the City acted because it knew the ?statistical disparity based on race'-to his second - that it rejected the test ?solely because the higher scoring candidates were white . . . . [I]t [now] appears that an employer's conscious knowledge of the race of those affected by its decisions suffices to make out intentional disparate treatment discrimination. This appears to be a tremendous change in the law."

read more

Peggy Cooper Davis, John S.R. Shad Professor of Lawyering and Ethics, New York University School of Law

Many have expressed regret about the fact that prospective Justice Sonia Sotomayor has supported the fiction that judging is or ever could be a neutral and fully objective process. I share their concern and offer a distinction that might be helpful as we attempt to address this question more honestly.

A judge's personal biography and status can affect decisionmaking in two ways: 1) it can sensitize her to familiar perspectives, and 2) it can distance her from perspectives that are unfamiliar. We should embrace the first effect and guard against the second, for, as James Boyd White said most eloquently, our goal in litigation should be to assure that decisionmakers consider all that can fairly be said on each side of a controversy.

Given the make up of our judiciary, it is clear that we should welcome the addition of "wise Latinas." To deny this is to overlook the component of wisdom.

We must never forget the words of the great African American Federal District Judge Constance Baker Motley in response to a motion that she recuse herself in a discrimination case involving, as I recall, a woman of color. They were to this effect: There is no judge in this courthouse who does not have a race and a gender.

By David Danzig, the Deputy Program Director at Human Rights First, is in Cuba to monitor the proceedings and report back on events as they unfold. His previous guest blog post on the proceedings is here.

Guant?namo Bay, July 15, 2009: As the Obama administration and Congress mull reinventing for the third time a legal system to try terrorism suspects, three hearings were held today at Guant?namo Bay in the military commission cases of Omar Khadr, Mohammed Kamin, and Ibrahim al Qosi.

The good news is that changes the Obama administration has asked for may help improve a process that has never operated in a way that folks familiar with the American legal system would recognize as justice. The bad news is that the system is so flawed that these changes cannot salvage it. Meanwhile, our normal federal criminal courts competently go about the business of trying international terrorism cases, to the tune of over one hundred, in the years shortly before and since 9/11. Go figure.

Most of the court time today was spent on motions that the government made seeking a 120-day delay in each of the cases. Doesn't it seem that something is fundamentally wrong with a system in which after six or seven years of holding a man in prison, the government has to ask for another four months to prepare?

Here are some tidbits from the proceedings I observed today.

* * * * * * * * *

"I will take a shower when you guys are ready to send me home," said Mohammed Kamin, a detainee who was captured on May 14, 2003, and has been held at Guant?namo since at least 2004. Kamin declined to attend his hearing today, saying he had no interest in participating in the military commission process and declining an offer for a shower before the hearing. (Kamin's remarks were reported to the court by a representative of the Staff Judge Advocate's office who spoke to the detainee through his "bean hole" - a waist-high slot in his cell that is used to deliver food.)

read more

Following his participation in a panel discussion on judicial elections at the 2009 ACS National Convention, Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, talked with ACSblog about the potential impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey on state judicial elections. In Caperton, the high court ruled that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice should have disqualified himself from hearing a case involving a campaign contributor. Watch Brandenburg's interview below or download a podcast here.

David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University, is the author of Philadelphia Freedom, Memoir of a Civil Rights Lawyer. Kairys' other books include a leading progressive critique of the law, The Politics of Law.

It's hard for me to watch the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, not only because of the Senators' generally unfocused, rambling questions. Conservatives and many of their most cherished values and ideas were just resoundingly defeated in an election. Congress is overwhelmingly Democratic, with 60 Democrats in control of the Senate, which will vote on the nomination. Yet, the hearings and the media coverage of them are dominated by conservatives and conservative ideas about law and justice, and a lack serious criticism of the last three decades of conservative dominance of the courts.

I am aware of and share the priority of getting Sonia Sotomayor seated on the Supreme Court. But there is a big gap of possibility between safely doing that and the surrender we're watching.

The senators of both parties and Judge Sotomayor often seem to be in a debate over who has the most passive vision of judging. Listening to them, one might think judges don't make decisions at all but simply write down legally required results, and have no apparent need for judgment or experience.

read more

By Howard M. Wasserman, Associate Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law?

There is blame all around for the utter inanity of these hearings on the issue of the actual work of judging. An exchange yesterday between Sen. Coburn and Judge Sotomayor on the subject of using foreign and international is a case in point.

At one point, Coburn asked whether anything in the Constitution granted judges permission or power to rely on foreign and international law. Coburn asked the judge to "cite for me the authority either given in your oath or in the Constitution that allows you to utilize laws outside of the country."

The premise underlying these questions is silly. Of course neither the oath nor the Constitution says anything about utilizing laws outside of the country. But the Constitution also does not say anything about Originalism, Textualism, Living Constitutionalism, social science, canons of construction, precedent, interpretive methodology, history and purpose, or any other of the ordinary methods of judicial analysis. Article III vests the "judicial power" in the Courts of United States; enveloped within that term are all the tools by which judges interpret legal sources and find meaning, including resort to persuasive legal sources. The fact that nothing grants judges permission or power to use foreign law is meaningless, since nothing grants judges permission to look to state law (in federal cases) or to look at law review articles or to look at legislative history or to do anything that will help them interpret and determine applicable law. There is a nice question whether Congress could prohibit courts from relying on foreign or international law (Justice Scalia has emphatically said hell no; I argue the answer is different in constitutional and statutory cases). But absent a ban, judges don't need permission to do the ordinary work of judging.

read more

By Walter J. Kendall III, Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School. This is Kendall's second blog on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. His first is here.

Georgetown University Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman comments in today's New York Times that Judge Sonia Sotomayor adopted, during her confirmation hearings, the "official ideology" about judging. James R. Copland, of the Manhattan Institute, more or less says the same thing when he describes her remarks as "traditionalist."

I wonder if they are both mistaken.

I heard Judge Sotomayor say repeatedly that the policies and values underlying and supporting the legal text before the Court were key to understanding its meaning and reach. Coupled with her insistence on fully understanding the facts, especially so she could explain to the parties the why-and-how of her analysis and holding, suggests to me an approach that could be most like that of Justice Thurgood Marshall. As I wrote in a brief essay in the John Marshall Law Review, Justice Marshall "considered the gory details of trial records in the light of his own experience and saw things other Justices would overlook, misunderstand, or undervalue."

It sounded to me that Judge Sotomayor approached the facts in the same way with the same concern (dare I say empathy).

read more

The rumors were true- SSG James Henderson with the Army Marksmanship Unit took top honors in the NRA .22 Caliber Championship today at Camp Perry. Here are your preliminary results:

NRA.22 Caliber Championship

.22 Slow Fire Match Winner: SPC Christopher Jones - 196-8x

.22 Timed Fire Match Winner: Jerry Chaney- 200-17x

.22 Rapid Fire Match Winner: Brian Zins- 200-15x

.22 National Match Course Winner: SSG James Henderson- 298-20x

.22 Caliber Team Championship: Ultra Dot - 1132-35x

.22 Caliber Two Member Team Championship: USAR Black- 558-10x

To view a complete listing of preliminary results, visit the NRA's website.

2009 National Pistol Championship volunteers and sponsors on the shore of Lake Erie

Many volunteers from the Pistol phase of the National Matches were honored at tonight's Volunteer Banquet. Nearly 110 volunteers provide essential support during the National Pistol Championships, but here is a list of volunteers that were recognized tonight according to their years of service:

5 years of service:

10 years of service:

With the .22 Caliber Championship in the past, competitors are now focused on today's event: the Center Fire Championship. The set up is the same as the other National Pistol Championships, with three relays firing four matches. The aggregate score of these matches (slow fire, timed fire, rapid fire, and the National Match course) will determine the ranking of the competitors.

Today is the final day of the NRA Junior Pistol Camp, wrapping up with an air pistol match. Over on Petraca Range, members of the United States Team will complete a course of fire for the Mayleigh Cup, an International Postal Match.

Other events for this evening include the Swap Meet, scheduled to begin at 6:30 on the tennis courts. This event allows competitors and others to exchange patches, pins, gear, and other memorabilia. At 7:00 p.m. in Building 5, the Pistol Committee will meet to discuss NRA competition programs and rules. All NRA members are encouraged to attend and contribute to the meeting.

NRAblog will have more coverage for you as the day progresses, so bookmark NRAblog for quick access to the latest news and results from Camp Perry!

Bill Boros has been bringing his Gypsy Distributing business to Commercial Row at Camp Perry for over 20 years.

Gypsy Distributing has a wide range of products from gun holsters and bullets to gun cleaning and reloading supplies. However, Boros stated that his best selling products are his steel targets. Boros already sold out of his cat shaped steel targets and is starting to make new ones to sell soon.

When asked what keeps him coming back to Camp Perry, Boros stated: ?I enjoy seeing familiar faces and people from over the years. I also get to see people who live all over the country, from California to New York.?

Boros goes home every night since he lives nearby in Oregon, Ohio. Boros will only have Gypsy Distributing open until Sunday and then he will reopen when High Power Matches begin. Hurry and stop by Gypsy Distributing before Sunday if you will not be around during the High Power Matches!

This morning on Petraca Range, the top 10 slow fire shooters from yesterday took to the firing line to compete in the Mayleigh Cup, an international postal match. At 50 meters, team members shot three stages of ten slow fire shots with .22 caliber pistols. The shooters scores were combined to determine the team score of 2662, a one point increase over the 2008 score of 2661.

After the team had finished shooting and scores were totaled, Team Captain Frank Wukovits addressed the group. "Congratulations for giving us your best, and you did give us your best, as the score indicates," said Wukovits.

The United States Team has won the Mayleigh Cup for the past six years, but the results for this year won't be ready for a few months as the competition is a postal match and all teams must submit their fired targets and scores. Team members for 2009 are:

By Howard M. Wasserman, Associate Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law?

In no particular order, some final thoughts on the Sotomayor hearings. Start with the obvious: There will not be a filibuster and she will be confirmed handily (65-67 votes).

First, what are the chances that some GOP House member (likely a far-right backbencher looking to make a name for himself) argues that the House should impeach Justice Sotomayor? Might it happen just after she writes an opinion (probably within the next two years) that cites to foreign or international law or that supports an affirmative action program or that refuses to recuse from the non-Maloney Second Amendment incorporation case? This seems like the next step in the evolution of nasty confirmation politics. The hearings no longer provide any check on the President?s appointment authority; after Bork (and to a lesser extent Thomas), no nominee ever says anything beyond the sorts of bland platitudes we heard from Roberts and now Sotomayor; no one will say anything controversial (or meaningful) enough to give a critical mass of Senators (including Senators from the nominating President?s party) grounds to vote against her. And getting "tough" (or nasty) in questioning has become popularly counter-productive--as Republicans saw this week and as Democrats saw in 2005.

read more

Jil Zurvalec (pictured above) is enjoying her first year working at Camp Perry. She is the NRA Headquarters Secretary and is in charge of numerous responsibilities. Zurvalec answers phones, types memos, keeps a list of lost and found items, issues range access passes, issues golf carts, and updates Match Director bulletins for each phase.

Zurvalec decided to become a first year employee at the National Matches because of the great things she heard from her two daughters, who work in Range Operations at Camp Perry. Zurvalec thought the job would be very interesting and she has found it to be so far.

?I am really enjoying my job and the people I have met from all over,? Zurvalec said.

Zurvalec is a local resident, so she goes home every day to her family of five who keep her constantly busy. When not at Camp Perry, Zurvalec is a Teacher's Assistant for special education students at R.C. Waters Elementary School in Oak Harbor, Ohio.

By Richard C. Schragger, Class of 1948 Professor of Scholarly Research in Law, University of Virginia School of Law

A number of commentators have wondered why Judge Sotomayor has adopted what appears to be a conservative notion of judging. She seems to have embraced the idea (at least in these hearings) that personal experience should not affect a judge's decision, that "law" writ large controls all cases, and that judges simply call "balls and strikes" but do not make policy.?

These ideas are not conservative, I submit; they are driven instead by the notion that it would be intolerable for unelected judges to act as legislators. The idea that the judge, acting properly, will arrive at a legal answer to a dispute (i.e., one dictated by law) is at the core of some prominent conceptions of the role of judges in a constitutional democracy. Thus, on the right we have Justice Scalia's constitution of rules, which always tells him the right answer. And on the left we have Ronald Dworkin's view that a judge of Herculean ability will arrive at the correct outcome even in hard cases. In neither account do judges exercise strong discretion -- they aren't making policy, they are "doing law." And that is important because both views are driven by a theory of democracy that requires judges to adhere to laws made by folks other than themselves.

read more

Caspian Arms is one of the Silver Sponsors for the 2009 National Pistol Championships, but sponsoring the National Matches isn't new to this company. For the past 20 years, Caspian Arms has been providing sponsorship and attending Camp Perry each summer. For the 2009 Awards Ceremony, Caspian Arms generously gave 35 pistol slides to be awarded to this year's winners.

We've been coming to Camp Perry for over 20 years and sponsoring the matches at some level since that time," said Sales Manager Gary Smith. "We're all in this together. The National Matches have been good to us and the shooters have been good to us."

In addition to their sponsorship, Caspian Arms also has a retail store open on Commercial Row. The store sells apparel such as shirts and caps, along with components for building custom 1911 pistols. If you're at Camp Perry, please stop in to thank Caspian Arms for their continued support of the National Matches at Camp Perry!

The last relay of shooters are currently completing their courses of fire for the NRA Center Fire Championship. In 2008, Philip Hemphill dominated the center fire category, winning the the Slow Fire, Timed Fire, Rapid Fire, and National Match Course events to become the 2008 Center Fire Champion. Can Hemphill hold on to his first place finish from 2008? James Henderson, Robert Park, Brian Zins and John Zurek are all shooting well today as evidenced by the Mayleigh Cup results, so Hemphill has some serious competition to contend with in order to defend his title.

There's no word yet on who might be clinching the Championship this year, but check back with NRAblog later this afternoon for preliminary results from the NRA Center Fire Championship at Camp Perry.

Here is another report by Vanessa Warner from the 2009 NVWG: 

Sleep is a premium around here. Everyone is tired but nobody really seems to care. We are all exhausted because we are working hard and having fun. Some might say too much fun but I have never found an acceptable definition, which leads me to believe the expression was made up by people who are just jealous. 

Trapshooting at the Spokane Gun Club was on the schedule for today. The first match wasn’t scheduled to start until 1pm but we were able to send the first squad to the line at 11:30, which put us well ahead of schedule. 

Shooters were divided between master, novice and open classes but shot in mixed squads. The difference between open and novice was that the open class had competed last year and novice had never competed. Masters were experienced trap shooters. 

As they arrived, competitors were paired with a volunteer who would stay with them for the rest of the day. Stasia and I did the squadding together and made sure that each five-person squad had at least one master to act as squad leader.

After receiving their squadding the competitors and volunteers would proceed to the equipment area to receive their shotgun, ammunition, safety glasses and ear protection. Each shooter was also give a hat that was donated by Winchester Ammunition. Since most of the shooters showed up without a hat just about everyone one of them put it on immediately. Equipment distribution was followed by a safety briefing and basic instruction of trapshooting and then the competitors were sent to the line.

Each competitor shot 50 clays, or at least tried to. Some did better than others. There were a number of novice shooters who put on an incredible display of either beginner’s luck or untapped talent and others who can at least say that they tried it. Some of the master shooters had better than average performances while others struggled for reasons unknown but can most likely be attributed to the fact that they were using PVA Shotguns and not their own.

Any competitor who hit 25 or more clays was automatically eligible to shoot again. We gave them ample time to cool down before sending them back out to the line. The weather was perfect today, which was almost detrimental for the shooters. There was not a cloud in the sky, it was 92 degrees and there was a gentle breeze. The problem with this is that people in wheelchairs have a tendency to overheat more easily. This is a result of the fact that they are seated in chairs that tend to cover much of their backs and legs preventing the release of body heat. As a result they need a little extra time to cool down.

Match Director and Associate Director of Sports and Recreation for PVA, Andy MacDonald was prepared for this. Water, ice and cool wet towels were on hand for anyone who needed or wanted them. In addition to some wonderful shade that was provided by both the clubhouse and the trees, there were also tents available for the competitors and volunteers to rest.

Instead of being a range officer I was more like a range mom marching around making the shooters move to the shade so that they didn’t overheat while they waited to for their squad to be called to the line. I, like the rest of the volunteers, also stayed busy fetching bottles of water and cool towels or anything else that was needed.

While we were waiting for the final squad to finish shooting we packed up the equipment, tents, coolers etc. and by the time they came off the line at 6:00 p.m. all we had to do was enter scores and hit the road. Andy runs a tight ship. The trapshoot was very well run and a pleasure to be involved with. I look forward to the day when PVA and the NRA can work together again.

By David Danzig, the Deputy Program Director at Human Rights First, is in Cuba to monitor the proceedings and report back on events as they unfold. His previous guest blog posts on the proceedings are here and here.

Guant?namo Bay, July 16, 2009: At 1:40 PM the court room was prepared for motions to be heard against five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks, except that one of the detainees was talking with his attorney in such a loud tone that it was difficult for the proceedings to begin.

Mustafa al Hawsawi, one of the five so-called "9/11" defendants, claimed that he had been misled about his role in the day's proceedings and said that he wished to leave before motions even began.

Al Hawsawi's abrupt departure followed more than three hours of legal wrangling. At issue were questions regarding the detainees themselves. Did they have to attend their own hearings? If they refused, should the staff judge advocate use force to compel them to be in the court room?

Like so many things at Guant?namo related to military commissions, this was unchartered territory where the officials in charge seemed, at times, to be unsure of the rules.There is no legal precedent to fall back on. This is the first time that the military commissions were dealing with these issues in a conspiracy case involving multiple defendants.

read more

ACS hosted a panel discussion Tuesday at the National Press Club that focused on The Constitution In 2020, a new book released by Oxford University Press and edited by Yale Law School Professors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel. The volume contains 27 essays about the future of the U.S. Constitution by leading scholars in the fields of constitutional and civil rights law. The ACS panel discussion took place as the Senate considered President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The panel featured Balkin, Siegel, Walter E. Dellinger III, and Mark Tushnet, and was introduced by ACS Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson. Click here to view video of the event. Individual interviews with Balkin and Siegel, also available as podcasts, are available here.

By Kat Sanders, a regular blogger on court reporter training at Court Reporter Schools. She welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

It's not well known as a profession, but court reporting does have its share of takers. If you have come across people in this industry and are considering giving it a go, you need to know if you are suited to the work that's involved, if you have what it takes to make a success of it. Court reporting is a good career choice if you:

? Are dedicated, hardworking and willing to practice long and hard in order to be the best in the business.
? Are prepared to take a training program from either a regular or an online school.
? Are willing to put in long hours of practice before you become perfect and are able to take down transcripts without carrying or dropping words.
? Are willing to work long and odd hours in order to meet with deadlines and schedules.
? Are able to learn a few tricks and tips of the trade to help you improve your speed and accuracy
? Have a good head for names and exceptional memory power.

read more

Elizabeth Warren, the administrator overseeing distribution of TARP funds, echoed parts of a speech she gave at the 2009 ACS National Convention on Rachel Maddow's show recently. Warren, the brain behind the Obama administration's proposal to create a Financial Consumer Protection Agency, spoke to Maddow about the plan in the brief clip below.

"If you can't explain it so the person on the other side can understand it, you shouldn't sell it to them,"? Warren said. "The bottom line is you need to explain your products in a way that's clear to the customer ... so that the customer can compare one product to another. Now the reality is that's going to push down profits in that industry and leave more money in the hands of middle class families."?

read more

By Neil Siegel, Professor of Law & Political Science, Duke University

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's conduct during her Senate confirmation hearing last week surprised and disappointed a number of progressive constitutionalists. I certainly did not expect her to channel Chief Justice John Roberts to the extent that she did. Nor did I expect Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to be the one to suggest that there is no "legal cookbook" in momentous cases and that justices decide them in part based on their broad vision of who we are as Americans. But before we judge the judge harshly (as I was at first tempted to do), we might pause to consider how we would have advised her had we been responsible for getting her through the process.

I am probably not alone in wanting to imagine Supreme Court confirmation hearings as embodying a democratic moment in which intelligent adults who often disagree reasonably but irreconcilably debate the future course of constitutional law-as in part an educational moment in which the attentive portion of the public learns about the dynamic nature of constitutional law and the role of a justice in American society. But how I want to imagine the hearings has little to do with what the hearings are in fact about these days. Moreover, one treats others as adults at one's peril when one has little reason to believe that they will behave like adults.

read more

The 2009 Youth Education Summit is over, but participants will remember their experiences in Washington DC for a lifetime. Seven participants have another keepsake from the week-long event: a scholarship check to offset the cost of college tuition.

Scholarship recipients are listed below:

$2,500

$1,500

$750

Things are on the move here at Camp Perry. That's because we're in the middle of a Range Change. They are changing everything from target stations, to fields of fire, to platforms to vendors. Quite the job when you think about it.

Tearing down the old and putting in the new might sound like a quick and easy task, but easy is one thing it is not. Joe and the gang have to move stations by hand, targets are moved by tractor, and firing lines are set anew. Moving from Pistol to Smallbore also mandates the removal of shooting benches and the establishing of new ready lines.

The entire process takes two days -- so no scoring updates tomorrow. Instead, we'll introduce you to some of the new shooters, staff and what goes on behind the scenes here at Camp Perry.

Gary S. Feinerman, a partner at Chicago's Sidley, Austin LLP, one of the nation's leading appellate attorneys, and a member of the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors, was recently selected as the new president of the Illinois Appellate Lawyers Association.

Outgoing ALA President Michael I. Rothstein told the Chicago Daily Law Journal, "Gary is one of the finest and most talented appellate lawyers in the country. He's accomplished at a relatively young age more than most appellate lawyers accomplish in an entire career." Feinerman, who has argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, told the legal newspaper that beyond increasing ALA members, he would like to bolster the services provided to members, such as adding more Web seminars and making it easier to attend continuing legal education seminars. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan also lauded Feinerman's appellate work saying, "Gary gets it. He sees the big picture as well as seeing all the details."

read more

We don't usually interrupt our serious discussion of constitutional law on ACSblog, but today, we're asking for your assistance. ACS's Spring Appeal is critical to helping fund many ACS resources, including ACSblog and we need your help to reach our $100,000 goal. We're very close - only $3,000 away - and your gift today can help put us over the top. As we hope you have noticed, ACSblog has made a number of design changes that allow us to offer more content and to greatly expand our network of writers and readers. Your generous support has made this possible, and we want to keep enhancing this product and building our network.

Especially during difficult economic times, ACS relies on the generosity of individual members like you, and for your support we are truly grateful. To donate, please visit www.acslaw.org/donate or click here.

For over a hundred years, Camp Perry has played host to the National Shooting Championships. And according to one local historian, one of the more popular event is the Junior Shooting Camp.

Though their history doesn't go back as far as the National Championships, it does go back as far as our Smallbore Match Director HQ Moody.

"It’s a great thing to see," said Moody. "Seventy-two kids, all lined up and ready to go. We teach them safety, we give them instructions, then open the doors and see what they've got."

"It’s all about development," Moody explained. "With one instructor for every five kids, our Juniors will learn more about proper safety, discipline, and shooting techniques than probably anywhere else in the world. If they are serious about shooting, this is a great place to start."

The safety of every competitive shooter depends on the shooter standing next to him. And, of course, the Range Safety Officers, or RSOs.

While here at Camp Perry, the National Rifle Association does more than run the competition. There are demonstrations, award ceremonies, and certification seminars. That's where the Range Safety Officer comes into play.

Today's RSO seminar started at daybreak and promises to end after sundown. During this time, they'll cover fragmentable ammunition, differences between indoor vs. outdoor ranges, perform a few hands on exercises, powder restrictions, and more.

There's nothing we take more seriously then the safety of our shooters and our ranges. And that's why we send people like Steve (pictured above) into the field to hold seminars like this one.

By Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel

This afternoon, the Senate passed Senator Jeff Sessions' (R-Ala.) amendment to the hate crimes provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). His dangerous, misguided, and unconstitutional amendment seeks to expand the scope of the federal death penalty, as well as extend it to include non-homicide crimes.

The ACLU has several concerns with Sen. Sessions' amendment. First, capital punishment is an unreliable form of punishment that has the disturbingly frequent result of being imposed on the innocent. Second, expansion of the death penalty under the Sessions amendment would directly defy the precedent of the Supreme Court that has held repeatedly that the death penalty cannot be used in anything less than homicide cases. Third, the amendment seriously obstructs Americans' civil rights. The death penalty is always wrong.

read more

NRA Range Services Specialist John Joines along with NRA Southern Regional Director Al Hammond, NRA Georgia Field Representative Mike Cockerham, Georgia DNR Game Management Assistant Supervisor Rusty Garrison and USFS Wildlife Biologist Elizabeth Caldwell evaluated the range site and found an excellent opportunity to provide a public shooting facility on the National Forest. The NRA funds, along with matching Pittman-Robertson funds, will be used to complete the project.

The Cedar Creek WMA range site has a large part of the earthwork completed and should only need erosion prevention along with the planting of grass and the construction of covered firing points with permanent shooting benches. The construction will also include restroom facilities and a parking area.

The USFS applied for a grant and was approved by a special NRA Public Range Grant selection committee for the Cedar Creek WMA range project. According to the USFS the bidding process will start in October and the construction should begin soon after. The NRA applauds the efforts by the USFS and the Georgia DNR for the dedication to completing this project. This new range will provide opportunity for the public to enjoy a safe and secure location for the shooting sports in the middle Georgia area. The NRA looks forward to working with the USFS and Georgia DNR on future range projects.

This is our eighth and final feature on the events of the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC). This weekend, NRABlog will head to the NRA Whittington Center in Raton, New Mexico, to bring you all the action from the 2009 International YHEC, July 27-31. Read on about the Hunting Wildlife Identification Challenge!

During this event, participants walk through a multiple-station field and/or woodland course designed to simulate actual wildlife and sign encounters.

Participants will observe North American game animal tracks and mounted animals and must read and identify wildlife signs at various stations. Wildlife may be mounted or tanned hides, and tracks may be original or molds. Other wildlife signs may be real or reproduced.

Thirty animals, tracks, or wildlife signs must be identified. Correct answers are worth 10 points; incorrect answers are worth zero for a maximum total of 300 points. Participants are allowed 90 seconds per station, and stations may not be revisited.

Four achievement levels are possible based on the following scores:

Karen completed the Distinguished Expert Rifle course of fire in May 2009 on a bench rest using a Thompson Center .22 rifle. She completed this course of fire at Open Range located in Crestwood, Kentucky. Karen previously obtained the honor of the first woman in the country to obtain Distinguished Expert in the pistol course of fire. Once again Karen is holding top honors as the first to obtain the “Double Distinguished Expert Rank.”  

“I really enjoyed completing the courses of fire and improving my skills while obtaining the Distinguished Expert rank in both pistol and rifle," she said. "I hope to continue to improve my shooting skills competing in the Women On Target® Postal Match and promote the Woman On Target program wherever I can.

The Ben Avery Shooting Facility is beginning to gear up for this year's exciting Fall Air Gun League.

Starting on September 8, the league will meet every Thursday for eight weeks. Loaner guns will be available on a first come first serve basis to those that have pre-registered.

Within the league there are seperate classes for Rifle and Pistol, which then split into awards for Male, Female, Junior, and Highest Over All.

Each match will consist of three relays totaling 300 points with each relay consisting of 10 shots at 10 meters in 20 minute increments

If you aren't too familiar with Air Guns but would still like to participate in the league, there will be an optional safety and introductory session on September 3rd in the Air Gun Range.

To get more information on the Fall league or register, e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it with the subject line “League Registration” or call (623) 236-7076.

Camp Perry has more to offer than just a top-notch shooting facility. There's wildlife, a number of different fighting forces, and history.

History comes to life as you head down the main entrance. As you make your way down to the firing range, you'll see several pieces of military hardware that played a significant role in the defense of America. One is the M42 Duster.

Pictured above, the M42 Duster is a self propelled anti-aircraft gun from the 1950s. Weighing in a svelte 15 tons, this baby held five crewmen and traveled at speeds of up to 35 miles an hour. Combine that with the ability to fire 240 rounds from it's 40mm BOFORS AA guns a minute and you're talking about one scary example of mobile armaments.

One of the high court's "most consequential," but little noticed decisions from its latest term involved a lawsuit lodged against Bush administration officials over their treatment of Muslims detained following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But, The New York Times' Adam Liptak reports that Ashcroft v. Iqbal was so consequential because it changes the way lawsuits can be filed, noting that the decision, "makes it easier for judges to dismiss civil lawsuits right after they are filed," and has already been cited "more than 500 times" since it was issued in mid-May. Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog, told Liptak that "Iqbal is the most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade for day-to-day litigation in federal courts."

Liptak writes that for decades all a plaintiff had to do to lodge a lawsuit was file a complaint outlining a claim. But the high court in Iqbal, Liptak writes, "now requires plaintiffs to come forward with concrete facts at the outset, and it instructs lower court judges to dismiss lawsuits that strike them as implausible."

Stephen B. Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor, told the newspaper that "It obviously licenses highly subjective judgments. This is a blank check for federal judges to get rid of cases they disfavor."

In a guest post for ACSblog, Vermont Law School Professor Anthony F. Renzo wrote that "The most ominous import of the Iqbal decision, however, is that it provides a blueprint for like-minded lower federal court judges to justify denying access to the courts to future victims of constitutional torts seeking redress for injuries caused by high-ranking federal officials." Renzo's blog post analyzing Iqbal is here.

Earlier this month, a panel of constitutional law experts, including Goldstein, explored a number of decisions from the high court's latest term at a national ACS event. Video of the discussion is here. Following the event, Goldstein talked with ACSblog about the high court's term, and the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. His interview is available here.

read more

Here are this week's upcoming Friends of NRA events, brought to us by event services coordinator Nicole McMahon:

07/23/09
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Costa Mesa, California
Hernando, Florida

07/24/09
Canton, Texas

07/25/09
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ardmore, Oklahoma
Dawson, Georgia
Elizabeth, Illinois
Newport, Oregon
Pinetop, Arizona
Redding, California
Steeleville, Illinois

The Constitution In 2020, edited by leading constitutional scholars Jack M. Balkin and Reva. B. Siegel, was born partly in response to sustained efforts to narrowly define the Constitution's reach. Yale Law School Professor Siegel, during a recent ACS panel discussion on the book, said documents from the Reagan administration's Justice Department called "The Constitution in 2000," were "a blueprint for change in constitutional law, but presenting this as a process of working the Constitution pure or clean." Siegel added that The Constitution In 2020 was intended to "engage in a grounded effort to state what our best understanding of the Constitution might be in a range of areas of law." Watch a YouTube clip of Seigel's comments below and view the entire panel discussion here.

read more

In his opening remarks during a recent ACS panel discussion of the book, The Constitution in 2020, Yale Law School Professor Jack M. Balkin explained one of its themes, "democratic constitutionalism." Balkin said the concept encompasses two ideas. "The first idea is that all three branches of government ... all play a role in enforcing our Constitution," Balkin said. "And the second idea is that when you focus just on the courts, you tend to miss this feature. And you also tend to miss the way in which court decisions actually emerge from interactions between social movements and political movements; political branches, public opinion and the judiciary. That is, if you obsessively focus on the courts you actually miss most of what is actually going on when you understand how constitutional law is made." Watch a YouTube clip of Balkin's introduction below. Video of the entire event is here. Balkin edited The Constitution in 2020 with Yale Law School Professor Reva B. Siegel. Visit The Constitution in 2020 blog for more discussion on the book and constitutional interpretation.

When word of the posting finally got out, competitors suddenly swarmed the outer office, as pictured above. “This is a really popular spot today,” Stat Director Dot Priesman told NRAblog. “It’s like a beehive!” The big deal about squadding is the waiting period: You don’t just step up to the line, shoot, and go home. You shoot, you wait, another competitor shoots, you wait, you shoot again, and onward into the afternoon. The trick is getting your tent as close to your station as possible. Then the wait is spent relaxing in the shade with a cool drink and your favorite chair. If your tent is not near your station, then you’re always worried about missing your turn. Which, at a national championship, can be a very bad thing.

Early birds can pick up their packets in front of Building 950 at 9:00am on Wednesday. If you’re near by on Thursday, come on out to Camp Perry!

This year at Camp Perry there will be two informational NRA College Nights held during the Smallbore Matches for those interested in continuing their shooting development while in college.

These events are designed for high school and junior high shooters as well as their families to learn about what the NRA can provide for in the world of collegiate shooting. NRA Collegiate & Schools Program National Manager, Victoria Croft, as well as various college and university rifle coaches will be on hand to speak about collegiate shooting programs and answer any questions shooters and their parents may have.

Additionally, plenty of informational pamphlets and brochures will be available to take home and look through afterward.

Both events will be held in the Hough Theater and are:

NRA's Match Director H.Q. Moody gives NRAblog a quick tour of the firing line at Camp Perry. Don't forget to check back later as the Smallbore competition begins.

As the clock ticked closer to the nine a.m. hour, a line instantly encircled Building 950. Competitors preparing for their 2009 Camp Perry smallbore experience gathered for a welcome bag filled with vital match information and a handful of swag.

As a Platinum Sponsor for the 2009 National Matches, Springfield Armory continues their tradition of supporting the shooting sports. Springfield has generously provided two 1911 GI .45 pistols as awards for the National Pistol Championships as well as cash and medallions for the NRA/Springfield M1A Match awards schedule.

Mike Doy with Springfield Armory understands how providing sponsorship helps not only competitive shooting, but the firearms industry as a whole. "Sponsorship of the shooting sports is the future of our business. The more the shooting sports grow, the more that the business grows," Doy told NRAblog.

In addition to their sponsorship, Springfield has a retail store on Commercial Row (pictured) where shooters can purchase items or simply relax. Springfield's building includes complimentary access to the internet, long distance calling, refreshments, and comfortable seating. Apparel, magazines, parts, signs, and memorabilia are all available for purchase as well.

Stop by Springfield Armory to thank them for their support as a Platinum Sponsor for the 2009 National Matches at Camp Perry.

During the ACS panel discussion of The Constitution in 2020, Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet noted policy discussions outside of courts as highly important to creating constitutional law. "Design of a national health care policy is a matter of constitutional significance, even if the courts have nothing to say about it," Tushnet said. "The discussions we have as citizens and our representatives have about what we're going to do about healthcare are ... of constitutional significance. They communicate something fundamental about our self-understanding as a nation and they can be as deeply embedded as anything in the written and judicially enforced Constitution." Watch a YouTube clip of Tushnet's comments below.

read more

At the ACS panel discussion on The Constitution in 2020, former Acting Solicitor General Walter E. Dellinger III addressed the ongoing debate over "originalism" as a sound method of constitutional interpretation. Watch a YouTube clip of Dellinger's comments below. Video of the entire panel discussion is here.

read more

At 1:30 p.m. today, practice for those shooting Smallbore 3-Position is scheduled to begin. But as the weather turns, some fear a delay or outright cancellation. We'll keep you apprised as things progress.

Camp Perry Match Director H.Q. Moody continues his tour of the Smallbore firing line.

By David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress (i)

Editor's Note: This substantial piece is a response to The Google Book Search Settlement: Ends, Means, and the Future of Books, an ACS Issue Brief by Professor James Grimmelmann. The complete reply is available below the fold.?

In 2004, Google began working with large research libraries to digitize their book collections and to make the content searchable online. Not long after the project was announced, a collection of authors and publishers sued Google for copyright infringement. After almost three years of negotiations, Google and the plaintiffs announced in October 2008 that they had agreed to a proposed settlement.

While some commentators have lauded the settlement, others have vociferously claimed that it poses competitive concerns and does not promote the public interest. As an advocate for consumer interests and a former antitrust enforcer, I took great interest in this debate early on and started to study the settlement. Over the last few months, I have learned much about Google Book Search, the ensuing litigation, the settlement, and the settlement's competitive implications. In doing so, I have come to the firm conclusion that the competition criticisms of the settlement are unfounded. The settlement is good for consumers and should be approved.

read more

Unless there's lightening in the air, rain does little to stop things here at Camp Perry. Watch as Smallbore practice commences.

In a recent letter to the editors of the Washington Post, Reva Siegel of Yale and Duke's Neil Siegel defended Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg against a recently published op-ed allegedly mischaracterizing her beliefs:

Michael Gerson's op-ed suggest[ed] that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or her associates believe Medicaid should cover abortion services to control the population of "social undesirables," to use Mr. Gerson's term ["Justice Ginsburg in Context," July 17]. We find the claim incredible, as would anyone acquainted with Justice Ginsburg's work who is not out to damage her reputation.?

Ms. Siegel is the co-editor of the recently released The Constitution in 2020. Mr. Siegel, who clerked for Justice Ginsburg, offered his insights in the latest ACSblog symposium "Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings."

Cambridge police have dropped disorderly conduct charges against the preeminent Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates Jr., but plenty of discussion has emanated over the controversial arrest. Professor Gates, Harvard's leading scholar on African American history, told The Washington Post that he'd like a "one-on-one" with the officer who arrested him at his home in the early afternoon last week, after a neighbor called 911 to report that two black men appeared to be trying to forcibly enter the home. Gates, with the help of his driver was trying to open the front door, which was jammed. Gates also told The Post that he wanted an apology from the officer and that the incident would propel him to study racism in the criminal justice system. He concluded by telling The Post that he had no ill will toward the neighbor who called the police. "If she saw someone tomorrow that looked like they were breaking in, I would want her to call 911. I would want the police to come. What I would not want is to be presumed to be guilty. That's what the deal was. It didn't matter how I was dressed. It didn't matter how I talked. It didn't matter how I comported myself. That man was convinced that I was guilty."

A statement issued by Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree, who is representing Gates, is available here. Gates also talked with the Root here.

read more

During the National Matches, Camp Perry's Hough Theatre is used for awards ceremonies and special events. Built in 1937, Hough Theatre seats nearly 850 people and still contains many of its original elements including artwork, curtain pulleys, and rows of seating. It may be home to awards ceremonies today, but during World War II, Hough Theatre was the place to be at Camp Perry.

Soldiers stationed at Camp Perry during World War II would flock to the Hough Theatre during their free time for special shows and performances from some of the top entertainers of that time. The United Service Organization (USO) would bring shows and performers including Bing Crosby, Loretta Young, and Marsha Hunt. In June of 1943, Bob Hope and his entourage broadcast live from Hough Theatre in front of hundreds of troops.

In addition to hosting celebrities, Hough Theatre was also a place for soldiers to enjoy movies, concerts, and shows from local performers. Today the Hough Theatre is used to honor some of the top competitive shooters in the world, but over 70 years ago, it was used to honor and entertain the men and women supporting the war effort.