Readers may recall that I wrote a pretty good story about how sex toys are now legal in the Fifth Federal Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, though the latter two for the most part made them legal some time ago), and since at that time I was the only one who'd written a story on that, and since religious fundamentalists like the lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund are commonly interested in anything that promotes sexual freedom ('cause they're against it), they felt the need to link to a story about that subject ... but mine was the only one. This apparently created a problem, because good fundies that they are, how could they link to a news story on a pornographic site like AVN.com?
However, one of my favorite legal blogs, HowAppealing.com, linked to my story, so problem solved !
And then there was the Ira Isaacs case which, being about shit eating and horsie sex, the fundies have also been following ... but what they probably don't know, even after linking to this from HowAppealing ...
Access online the document by means of which "Porn Prosecutors Seek Recusal of Entire 9th Circuit": In the November 7, 2008 issue of The Daily Journal of California, John Roemer had an article that begins, "Federal prosecutors have written to all 50 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking them to consider recusing themselves from hearing accused pornographer Ira Isaacs' appeal. The rare move is further fallout from the disclosure in June that Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's Web site contained sexually explicit images."
When I had this post noting the existence of that article on November 7, 2008, I wrote: "If I can obtain electronic copies of the parties' Ninth Circuit filings on the recusal issue, I will post them online."
Although counsel for the parties in the United States v. Isaacs appeal have been particularly unhelpful in supplying me with these documents, I have managed to obtain two of the three relevant documents via other means.
... is that I'm the guy who supplied site owner Bashman with those documents, which Isaacs' attorney Roger Jon Diamond was kind enough to send to me
But the REALLY BIG NEWS here involves this article of mine from last Friday morning (11/21) about the Janet Jackson tit-exposure case, from which this is the salient paragraph:
The FCC no doubt has its eye on the fact that as of Jan. 20, the man in the White House will no longer be a fundamentalist Republican, and that incoming President Barack Obama has already dispatched a transition team to examine the current philosophy and internal workings of the Commission, which currently has three conservative Republicans and two moderate Democrats. So even though the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument less than three weeks ago regarding a similar FCC obsession in the FCC v. Fox Broadcasting case, the Commission is trying for what attorneys call a "second bite of the apple" by petitioning the high court to hear what is, on its merits, a nearly identical case, though admittedly involving imagery rather than words. Indeed, in what appears to be an attempt to balance its fear of a philosophical change in the White House with what it sees as its religio-conservative mandate, Commission chairman Kevin Martin has asked the high court to take no action on the petition until after an opinion is rendered in the Fox case. [Emphasis added]
Now, here's a transcription of a portion of last Friday night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, guest-hosted by CBS news reporter David Shuster, from the segment called "Bushed":
"Number 3, Trickle-Down Economics-Gate: After a federal court tossed out the FCC's half a million dollar fine against CBS for airing a few seconds of Janet Jackson's breasts during the Super Bowl, you might have felt the Bush administration would have more important things to focus on, like not doing more damage to the global economy or ensuring the transition doesn't jeopardize anti-terror efforts. But no, Mr. Bush isn't ready to let go of Jackson's breasts just yet. In a filing with the Supreme Court this week, the FCC and the Justice Department said they want a second bite of the apple. The high court won't likely announce until spring whether it will even hear the case of Boobs v. Boob." [Emphasis added]
Notice any similarity? None of the other news stories I've seen on this subject has used the phrase "second bite of the apple," and while it's a common enough phrase, one has to be pretty on top of the various broadcasters' suits against the FCC to connect this filing to the Fox Broadcasting case the Supreme Court heard on Nov. 4. So frankly, the only conclusion I can come to is that somebody at Countdown reads my stuff!
* It's a movie reference, but damned if I can remember what movie it's from.