Family Ties

This is going to get worse before it gets better. So the Sun Herald scored an exclusive interview Monday with Mississippi Senator and local boy dun good Trent Lott about his involvement in the federal bribery case against his brother-in-law, Richard "Dickie" Scruggs. Turns out Trent recently got grilled by the G-Men, but swears he is only a potential witness, not a potential target, of the investigation.

Insert "Trent likes to watch" joke here.

From SunHerald.com

The Justice Department is investigating whether Scruggs tried to land a lifetime appointment to the federal bench for Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Scruggs recommended to Lott that he appoint DeLaughter as a U.S. District Court judge, according to an attorney who has pleaded guilty in the case. In exchange, New Albany attorney Joey Langston said, DeLaughter was expected to rule in Scruggs' favor in a Hinds County lawsuit filed against him by another attorney over legal fees.

"I may be called as a witness," Lott said, "but I've been assured that I'm not under investigation, and rightly so because nothing was done to justify that."

Lott said he did talk to DeLaughter about the opening on the bench in early 2006. Because he is a potential government witness, Lott said, he could not offer details about what prompted him to call DeLaughter. But he said that, as a senator, he did receive numerous recommendations for judicial appointments and more than one person suggested DeLaughter, who has denied any wrongdoing in the judicial bribery case.

More is promised in tomorrow's edition.

I'm still trying to figure out who to root for. Or against.

h/t Atrios

Excellent Analysis On The DeLaughter Opinion and Why It May Hold Up At The Supreme Court

WIll Bardwell offers his analysis HERE
Will Bardwell:

"[I]t bears mention that [the principles upon which the court relies] are widely recognized. Eight of the nine current justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court authored opinions upon which this Court relies," Judge DeLaughter wrote. "Also cited herein are two opinions of the Mississippi Court of Appeals, written by Judge Leslie Southwick, who now serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."

Judge DeLaughter also acknowledged the partisan "political implications" of the conflict before him. "[T]his Court is well aware that its interpretation of the subject statute will not be afforded any deference on appeal," the judge wrote. "To be sure ... this is not a decision that any sane circuit judge would wish to make."

Bardwell also dissects the opinion to reveal that instead of a simple win/lose this decision includes three seperate opinions. One agrees with Governor Haley Barbour. On the other two DeLaughter sides with Attorney General Jim Hood.

Judge DeLaughter split his decision, essentially handing one win to Gov. Haley Barbour and two to Attorney General Jim Hood. He agreed with Barbour's argument that the judicial branch could not issue a writ of mandamus against the chief executive -- "Even if Mississippi case authorities did not bar writs of mandamus and other injunctive relief against the Governor, this Court would nevertheless be disinclined to issue such a writ under the circumstances of this case," he wrote -- but refused to accept the governor's suggestion that the court lacked any authority to act. Citing a 1906 case in which the state Supreme Court noted that judicial interference in any election is proper only to prevent a constitutional or statutory violation, DeLaughter concluded that "[t]he declaratory relief subsequently addressed and awarded herein is sufficient, in the Court's opinion, in affording an adequate remedy for the subject wrong..."

But with regard to interpreting Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-855, Judge DeLaugher sided emphatically with the attorney general. "The term 'the general election day,' 'as the time for electing a senator,' may not logically be be construed to refer to any general election day other than the one that will be held in the same calendar year as the vacancy," Judge DeLaughter wrote. "If the Legislature had intended any other general election day, it could easily have written 'the next general election day' without affixing it to the calendar year of the vacancy..."

Check out the entire opinion at Will Bardwell's site.