Waiting for Vu in Ann Arbor with the South Lyon blues again.

* The end of fish. Via MeFi.

* I must be getting old—it's the second day in a row I've agreed with a conservative on the Supreme Court. And this time it was Antonin Scalia!

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of ... of ... of the resting place of the dead."

I think he's right about this; it seems to me to be a pretty clear (and frankly inoffensive) case of civil religion, which is historically acceptable in our legal tradition. Dissenting views from Steve Benen and Pharyngula.

* Also via MeFi: results from OKCupid data that suggests race's impact on online dating behavior.

* George Saunders lives in a tent city for GQ.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Great moments in American jurisprudence: Antonin Scalia says that convincing a court you're innocent doesn't mean the state can't still execute you.

The Plank climbs aboard the anti-Scalia train, though it doesn't use that terminology.

What I suspect many liberals really long for--and this is reflected in the Dahlia Lithwick piece Adler links to--is not so much someone to push the Court in a substantially more liberal direction (at least in the short term), but someone to unabashedly play culture warrior in the way that Scalia has sometimes done. Someone to "speak with a roar" and exercise "dramatic flair"--"some cross between Rachel Maddow and Emma Goldman." What they're unhappy with is not primarily the Court's decisions, but the absence of a liberal on the Court with the ability to capture the imagination of the public (and perhaps legal academia) in the way that Scalia has. To be a Supreme Court justice is to have access to a sort of intellectual bully pulpit that few other jobs come with, and it's in this capacity, rather than the doctrinal one, that liberals have been disappointed.

I'm not sure many liberals have given much consideration to the notion that there might, in fact, be a direct trade-off between public dynamism and behind-the-scenes effectiveness. But it's a question they'll now have to grapple with sooner rather than later.

I twittered last night about whether the buzzword for Obama's upcoming Supreme Court vacancy should be "liberal Scalia" or "anti-Scalia." "Liberal Scalia" looks to be off to an early lead, but thinking more and more about it I think we really want an anti-Scalia: a jurist whose thoughtfulness and equanimity informs her decisions.

Not claiming to know the answer to every question in advance is, after all, arguably the key progressive value.

The liberal Scalia is another hack, just "our" hack. We want Scalia's opposite number, not his non-evil twin.

In a too-close 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Guantánamo detainees can appeal their imprisonment in civilian courts.

Justice Kennedy declared: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

The decision, left some important questions unanswered. These include “the extent of the showing required of the government” at a habeas corpus hearing in order to justify a prisoner’s continued detention, as Justice Kennedy put it, as well as the handling of classified evidence and the degree of due process to which the detainees are entitled.

Months or years of continued litigation may lie ahead, unless the Bush administration, or the administration that follows it, reverses course and closes the prison at Guantánamo Bay, which now holds 270 detainees. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court here said the court’s judges would meet in the next few days with lawyers for both sides to decide “how we can approach our task most effectively and efficiently.”

More links and discussion at MeFi, including this look at the realities of Guantánamo six years in:

More than half of the 270 detainees currently at Guantánamo – including many who are slated for release or transfer – are housed in high-security facilities akin to U.S. "supermax" prisons. They spend all but two hours a day in small cells with no natural light or fresh air. Their meals are slipped through a slot in the door, and they are given little more than a single book and the Koran to occupy their time. Even their limited "recreation" time – which is sometimes provided in the middle of the night – generally takes place in single cell cages so that detainees can't physically interact with one another. None of these detainees have been allowed visits by family members, and very few have been able to make phone calls home.

As a result, many detainee lawyers say, their clients are suffering from serious and even dangerous mental health problems. Several have tried to commit suicide, some of them multiple times. Others have reported having visions and hearing voices. Some show strong signs of depression and anxiety disorder.

In other Supreme Court news, our old friend Antonin Scalia continues to embarrass himself. You're a Supreme Court justice, not the substitute host for Sean Hannity's radio show. Have some decorum.

Blogging's been slow today, which is odd because I have a ton of tabs open. Here are a few:

* The Daily Show does the Lord's work mocking Scalia's 60 Minutes interview, while Colbert enters the strange, strange world of John McCain's superstitions.

* Ze rightly calls out CNN's attempt to monetize their own shitty journalism. Also re: Ze: 'Ze Frank and the Poetics of Web Video'.

* What American politicians might learn from The Godfather. It's just too bad we keep electing Fredo.

* And Matt Yglesias warns us, once more, of the rise of the humanzee. Will no one heed this dire warning?

It looks like Antonin Scalia just figured out there's only one thing he'll be remembered for:

"I say nonsense," Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. "Get over it. It’s so old by now.

Sure, whatever, my illegal coup completely trashed American democracy—that's so 2000. Via MeFi.

History wept: Antonin Scalia is a moron.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

Knowing the difference between escapist TV fantasy and real life ought to be a litmus test for being under 24-hour psychiatric care, much less being a supreme court justice.