There we see the full story arc of David Souter in the District. When he arrived, he moved into the building because a Respected Insider lived there. By the time he left, his presence there showed what a big kook he is.

Your "press corps" dreams up novels--and "quotes." This is the way their tiny minds work.

Detained for asking a question...a blind man no less.

No mention of Prejean's lies about the pictures, but the miscommunication problem between Miss CA and Prejean is totally solved.  The "miscommunication" must refer to the contract Prejean signed saying she had never taken any of nude or semi-nude pictures, and after that was revealed as a lie, she said she had only taken one picture, and then when more surfaced, she said something else...) What a farce.

The case comes out of Wisconsin (so sad to see my home state doing this, albeit the police did get a warrant to track the suspect) and was upheld on appeal by the 4th Circuit.

The Chicago Tribune reports last Thursday's ruling:

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.

One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior.

Now some entrpreneur is going to have to develop a tracker detectomg device. While this particular case involved an alleged stalker, it is now legal for police to plant one of these trackers on anyone's vehicle, with or without a warrant.

How long before politicians, activists, "inconvenient" persons are being tracked? I'm sure the government would have loved to have this when "surveiling" all those dangerous peace groups. Well, they probably did, right?

The court's reasoning was "the tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance."

Of course, it now becomes much easier to track people, since no human is involved except for placing and removing the tracking GPS device. The only limitation is the money to purchase the tracking devices.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

By "private individuals"? Is the court saying private persons may also use these tracking devices? Whoa. A stalker initiated this case; now stalkers have an easier and legal way to track their prey?

Having said that, I must agree with his observation concerning Wanda Sykes' performance while taking exception to his personal characterization of her.

Obama should have been squirming, not laughing.
There is a lot to skewer him about.
His "looking forward" b.s. with regard to torture, for one.