The two cases giving rise to the Supreme Court's current review of California's "Three Strikes" law involves one guy who was convicted of stealing over $1,000 worth of golf clubs and another guy who stole about $150 worth of videotapes. The latter fellow was given 50 years in prison without possibility of parole, while the former was subject to a sentence of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole. The big question I struggle with "Three Strikes" sentencing is the propriety of factoring in past convictions for which a person has technically paid his debt to society for. Such a scenario almost seems like a person is being subjected to double jeopardy for a single crime, which is patently unconstitutional. Yet, there is little question that "Three Strikes" is largely responsible for the dramatic drop in crime in California, and has probably saved many lives. This is really one of those times that I'm glad I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

California Attorney General's office says abortion "doktors" must report suspected sex abuse. There are, however, some apparent loopholes. If so, and I will try to find out if there really are any, they need to be closed.

So now that there is a Republican majority in the Senate, dare we start thinking Chief Justice Scalia? Hmm...

Supreme Court hears arguments over the constitutionality of California's "Three Strikes" law. In case you don't know what this is, it's a law that automatically imposes a minimum 25 year sentence on any person convicted of a crime who has had two prior felony convictions. One of the problems many people see with California's three-strikes law is that it is possible for a person to get anywhere from 25 years to life for stealing a pizza (which actually happened). I'm a little conflicted myself on it, but I think the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this law.

As much as I'm disappointed with how the election results here in Crazy California went (please pray for all the unborn babies), at least the rest of the country appears to have shifted more towards sanity.

I'm starting to brace myself for the wave of phone calls I'm going to start getting if "Gumber" Gray Davis wins reelection here in California. Believe you me, the "homo floodgates" are about ready to burst out here, and it will take nothing short of a miracle to contain it to a mild drip.

Berkeley to America: Forget the gangs and drug dealers, we need to incarcerate the non-organic coffee sellers. Morons.

There is no sense in talking about any other right if there is no right to life. As such, if a candidate is "pro-choice" he/she will not be getting my vote even if he/she is in the same party as me.

Dan Quayle's alma mater, DePauw University, is sued for religious discrimination. Just from the article, I can see how the plaintiff in this case can allege a violation of her federal statutory rights. As to whether her constitutional rights have been violated, the plaintiff won't have any standing to make these allegations unless she can show that the university, which is private, acted under the color of state or federal law.

The enigmatic paradox of Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney:

"Two weeks ago, the Boston Globe asked how, as a graduate of Brigham Young University, he could reconcile his financial support of his alma mater with his statements opposing discrimination against homosexuals. BYU bans homosexual behavior by its students and faculty.

Mr. Romney replied: 'BYU is a religiously oriented university. I just don't think religion should be part of a campaign.' Not exactly a forceful response."