The Arbitrary Aardvark endorses sometime co-blogger Heidi Bond for Chief Justice. Meanwhile, Heidi Bond endorses Will Baude for president. I'd rather have her job, even after watching 35 episodes of the West Wing

Writes Dahlia Lithwick:

(S)hould the court's staunchest conservatives get away with being for states' rights only when the state in question isn't California? No. Will they? Oh, you can bet your bong on it.

The AP and Bloomberg have initial reports on Raich v. Ashcroft. The AP suggests justices were skeptical to Barnett's argument but mentions only some (truly unshocking) skepticism from Breyer, the Justice least likely to strike down the CSA, and Bloomberg gives some questions from Souter and Scalia that demonstrate little. Westlaw doesn't yet have the transcript, so we will have to wait for more complete accounts.

UPDATE: Howard Bashman thinks that veteran observation deserves weight. Lawrence Solum provides a wonderful servious-- his own first-hand account of the proceedings. [Note that Professor Solum also blogged a first-hand account of the lower court proceedings, which were also argued by Professor Barnett.

Second UPDATE:

Lyle Denniston has more.

In Ted Cohen's class last spring we devoted quite a bit of time to arguing about whether Wagner's music was "tainted" by its association with the Third Reich. There were many stances, and Ted Cohen endorsed them all. (Yes, it's tainted and we shouldn't listen to it; No, it's just good music, and we should listen to it; Yes, it's tainted, but we should listen to it in order to rehabilitate it; Its popularity to the Reich demonstrates what was evil about it to begin with; It's tainted to some, but not to all, etc.)

But via telephone conversation and email from Amber Taylor I have now begun arguing about whether The Third Reich's art is tainted by its association with the Reich.

Example: Adolf Hitler was a painter. Maybe not a very good one, I don't know, since I haven't seen any of his work. But the aesthetic/philosophical question is, should museums refuse to show his work (if it is good) since it was created by one of the most evil men in history? Or, contrariwise, should they agree to show his work (even if it is bad) since it might provide data about the mind behind the madness? What should art museums do? What should history museums do?

My own (tentative!) view is that art museums should display good/interesting art (qua art), regardless of the grave evils or good deeds of those who created it. If Hitler was a lousy painter, his painting does not belong in the National Gallery. But I do think that history museums ought to be willing to display the work of evil hands, just as they sometimes display Nazi weaponry. Some people will not want to see it, but they do not have to go. The point seems moot for now, since from what I can tell the Army is refusing to let the art out of its hands.

As I write this, Professor Randy Barnett and Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement are attempting to convince the Supreme Court (if the briefs have not done it already) of their positions about whether the federal government has the power to regulate intrastate medical marijuana under the commerce clause. I would wish Barnett luck, but I have a little too much faith in our legal system (naive 1-L that I am) to think that luck has much to do with it at this point. It's not a sports game. Still, I hope we win.

More from Carina, Belle Waring, Jim Lindgren, Tim Sandefur, Steven Wu, Pejman Yousefzadeh.

UPDATE: Pejman Yousefzadeh reports Charles Fried as wondering, "whether Congress would have as much right under the interstate commerce clause to regulate the growing of geraniums in one's backyard...." The Solicitor General seems to think so, in similar circumstances anyway. This is from his reply brief:

Congress could, of course, subject other substances -- even hallucinogenic roses -- to similar restrictions to enforce a ban on interstate commerce in the commodity. Such bans are rare, however, presumably because the circumstances calling for them are rare and because such comprehensive bans are particularly susceptible to political checks.

There is a peril in attempting to glean too much personal information out of a series of blog posts. Here is my favorite email from a reader this evening, glossing over the past blog posts:

It's easy to read a melancholy story into such a succession of posts. Like this:

2:54: "La de dah . . ." *arrange handkerchiefs*

5:22: fiddle on internet . . .

6:38: open refrigerator and stare at one lemon. ponder. have sudden urge to
drink. make drinks and, before too drunk to use fire, dinner.

7:15: read internet message boards while drinking. reminisce. begin watching
a Bogart movie.

8:26: call out to the vast emptiness of the net in search of someone for
drunken board games.