You can't read Jeffrey Toobin's book "The Nine" and not come away with two strong impression about the current Supreme Court:

1) That abortion is the pivotal issue surrounding the politics of who gets nominated to the court and the prevailing issue that flavors most all other issues

and

2) That Justice David Souter, while loving his position on the court, hates Washington D.C. with such an unbridled passion that he'd rather resign his post and leave than endure the city one more day.

After announcing his no-surprise resignation last month, the issue of abortion became top news again, after almost no mention during the last election campaign. Ultra-conservatives used the issue as a line-in-the-sand challenge to President Obama, putting him on notice that they would oppose -- even filibuster, if Arizona Republican John Kyle gets his way -- any nominee they think might sustain abortion rights.

After laying down marker after marker, conservatives were probably feeling a bit cocky, especially since Senate leadership -- most notably under the spineless weasel Harry Reid -- didn't rise to that challenge and make it clear that Obama's nominees would have the full faith and backing of Senate Democrats.

Obama didn't appear to show signs of stress, after having been backed into a judicial-nominee-corner by the likes of Kyle when he announced the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor this morning, but the fact is that he picked her specifically in response to the Right Wing.

Sonya, for all her credentials, is really not the most forceful or intelligent candidate he could have selected -- her opinions, in fact, are lackluster and rather weak in judicial power, something badly needed on a court filled with strong-headed neocons like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.

Instead of selecting a candidate with the best judicial temperament, he picked one that is going to make Sen. Kyle squirm, if he does go ahead with filibuster plans. As a woman and a latina, Sotomayor has two elements in her favor that John Kyle dare not speak out loudly against.

If you add all the voters in Arizona and divide out the hispanic and female vote, you're left with a clear minority. John Kyle may have a few safe years left in his term, but those will be all he could hope for if he actively opposed the Sotomayor nomination.

Having been backed into a corner, Obama selected a candidate that Republicans -- xenophobes and all -- dare not oppose. They do so at their own peril.

The downside is that we're now left with Sonya who, despite being a justice with a somewhat liberal pedigree, isn't the most tenacious person we could have hoped for. David Souter may not have been the most liberal justice (he was a 'conservative' appointed by a Bush, after all... which just goes to show how far right the court has evolved, since someone like Souter is now considered a 'liberal' member of the court) but at least he could make a compelling argument and influence his fellow justices on important issues.

Sonya probably can't.

Meanwhile, in California, we were all awaiting that State's high court verdict in the Proposition 8 saga.

Prior to today's announcement, speculation was running high that the justices would try to strike some kind of middle ground: something like upholding the vote and amendment but still allowing those gay couples who married to stay married.

That's exactly what the court decided.

Gay rights supporters and activitists reportedly went mad when the decision was announced and it IS a disappointment, but it's not the court or the decision that should be the focus of our anger. California voters and those who supported Proposition 8 should be the ones who suffer our wrath.

The court can only render so many decisions in so many ways. Ultimately, it's a court's job to render the law, not manipulate it -- a point that many conservatives accuse the left of doing, but in fact is a largely the purview of right-leaning judges.

So, two judicial matters dominate today's news and both, given the facts on the ground, were entirely predictable.

In both cases, I'm disappointed but in both cases, I understand the "how we got here" landscape completely, like it or not.

And I don't.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices ... but have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

You blind guides! You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. (Mt 23:24)

(I plan on posting a collection of Nirvana cuts in a music album later today.)

When I was 25, I was driving my brand new Ford F-150 truck on Fairbanks Street in downtown Anchorage and pulled-up to a stop sign before crossing East 6th Avenue. A woman, appearing slightly inebriated, was staggering across the street ahead of me, so I stopped short, waited until she was safely gone, pulled up to the stop sign, looked for oncoming traffic (which wasn't heavy or that far away) and darted quickly across to my intended turn on East 5th Avenue.

Almost immediately after crossing, I was assaulted by a set of red and blue lights, accosted by an unfriendly and determined Anchorage Police officer and issued a ticket for "failure to stop" and "unsafe crossing" at an intersection.

When I asked the policeman why he thought my crossing was unsafe or why he thought I hadn't stopped, he said he saw me move through the intersection in an unsafe manner..

That was a lie, of course, and I contested the ticket.

When my court date arrived, I testified as to my stop and proximity and the situation, and then the officer was questioned by the presiding magistrate as to his field of view of my position. He said he was in the left lane on the one-way street and had a clear view of my actions.

Every word out of his mouth was a flat-out lie. Not one word of his testimony was true.

It was then that I learned an important life lesson: police officers won't hesitate to lie to protect their actions, no matter the truth or how it may affect the disposition of justice.

A few years later, in law school, I learned to my horror that the Supreme Court agreed with that policy and stated unequivocably that not only can police lie, but do so with impugnity.

Flash forward to yesterday and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the case of Robert Dziekanski. (pronounced: ja KAN ski)

Dziekanski was a Polish immigrant, fresh off a grueling 10-hour flight arriving in Vancouver International (YVR) and completely new to the new world he was entering and unfamiliar with the English language spoken here.

He was tired, confused and disoriented and after an hour of getting told he was in the wrong area and run-around -- and not understanding what the people pushing him around were saying -- he got distressed and unruly.

He had been wandering the airport for hours and became agitated after a series of communications breakdowns kept him in a controlled area. CBC News, 23 Feb 2009

RCMP "Mounties" stationed at YVR were called and when they confronted Dziekanski, they assessed him as a threat, "tasered" him FIVE TIMES and he died.

Dziekanski died Oct. 14, 2007 after getting hit five times with shots from the Taser gun. He fell screaming in anguish to the ground and the officers piled on top of him. Within seconds, he had stopped breathing.

The inquiry had heard earlier testimony from firefighters who later attended the scene that the RCMP officers appeared to do nothing to help the man. Toronto Star, 23 Feb 2009

The case of tasering deaths has gotten plenty of attention in Canada since then and Robert's family has been seeking justice in what they consider his cruel and unnecessary death.

The RCMP, not surprisingly, has been defensive and unwilling to talk about the incident . . . . . . until now. Yesterday, the world heard testimony from the first of the four officers involved in the tasering incident as he spoke at a public inquiry. Constable Gerry Rundel didn't do any of the tasering but was there at the time and spoke about what he saw.

He probably wishes, now, he hadn't. It didn't go well for him.

Speaking under oath, Rundel said that when he first saw the victim, Robert

Dziekanski was unkempt, agitated and sweating.

Rundel said from experience he had seen that kind of condition before.

"He appeared to not be behaving like a normal person would behave. It was all part of my observation formed by opinion."

Rundel said the initial call stated that there was an intoxicated male in the international arrivals area and a follow-up dispatch stated that the man was throwing luggage around. Toronto Star, 23 Feb 2009

That, as countless viewers of video footage of the incident have seen, was not the case. Dziekanski had picked up a suitcase and small folding table, but he wasn't throwing furniture and he wasn't combative; he was, quite simply, trying to get away from, and avoid an incident with, the four policemen.

That alone would begin to plant seeds of doubt as to Rundel's testimony... but then what the Constable said next was truly astounding.

He said he became "fearful for his safety" because Dziekanski put his hands in the air and moved away.

Imagine! Throwing up his hands and moving away!
The threat that might have posed is just unimaginable!
Moving away with his HANDS RAISED!
A threat!

Seriously, I'm not making this up!

When Dziekanski bent down and pointed toward his luggage, Rundel said, the officer in charge, Cpl. Monty Robinson, yelled a stern "No" and motioned for Dziekanski to stop. Dziekanski complied with the order, Rundel said.

He said Dziekanski then turned around, lifted his hands in the air and started to walk away.

Referring frequently to his training, Rundel testified that the Taser is a legitimate response to someone who's resistant. But inquiry lawyer Patrick McGowan had trouble understanding how Dziekanski had been resistant.

"What is the command that he disobeyed?" McGowan asked.

Rundel sat in silence for more than 20 seconds before telling the inquiry that Dziekanski disobeyed a command in English in an indirect way.

"He disobeyed a direction from Cpl. Robinson by flipping up his hands, turning around and leaving — that became resistant behaviour," Rundel said.

"My observation of that is saying, 'To hell with you guys, I'm out of here.' That's non-compliant, and his behaviour then became resistant." CBC News 23 Feb 2009 (*Note: Dziekanski didn't KNOW English!)

The Constable then went on to describe this behavior as "combative."

Combative! I'm serious!
Peacefully walking away with your hands raised is "combative!"
Who knew!?!

But, as those late-night television commercials say: wait, there's more!

When those videos of the incident are viewed in detail, it appears Dziekanski didn't raise his hands in a "combative" stance until AFTER he had been tasered for the first of five times, reports CBC Television reports of the inquiry.

Even Gerry Rundel had to pause and reconsider his earlier testimony.
He then modified his testimony a bit to fit the evidence.
He left the hearing room under a cloud.

Meanwhile, all this viewing and reviewing of the death of her son caused Robert's mother to flee the hearing room in tears.... and it only reconfirms my suspicion that police rarely tell the truth.

The evasive testimony and conflicts with what evidence exists on videos (which, by the way, the RCMP refused to return to the original owners for months!) throws serious doubt on the innocence of the officers involved.

The Crown has declined any prosecution of the four, however. They're gonna walk. Police, as I see it, are simply criminals in uniform and it's worse -- much, much worse -- if you arrive in North America and don't speak English.

Let this be a lesson to you. You cannot legally lie to an officer of the law up here, but they can -- and will -- kill you and lie through their teeth to cover it up and it's all quite legal for them.

Even in Canada.

Although I'm unable to post YouTube embedded videoclips here, I can still provide links to the same videos I posted on my Multipy.com version of this blog.

The first video (CLICK HERE) is one of the earliest television news reports of the Tasering incident. Note that reports of Dziekanski was tasered twice (claimed by the RCMP) or four times (by the witness) were both wrong. An autopsy showed five separate tasering locations on his body.

The second is the latest CBC News report (CLICK HERE) covering Rundel's testimony. (Sorry about the crappy audio quality, but I recorded the clip using my videocamera off the computer monitor and the speakers on my notebook computer are lousy.)