By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
In our criminal justice system, appellants tend to fall into three categories: Those who ultimately prevail in their arguments; those who are unable to convince justices of their case’s merits; and those who fall off a cliff and strike every sharp rock on their way to the bottom. Steven Canha apparently suffered the fate of the last category.
After extensive appeals, one of which was to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Canha lost what could be his final personal restraint petition before Washington’s courts of appeals and now the state’s Supreme Court halted the years long contention for his release from prison.
Mr. Canha argues, in short, for a resentencing based on Washington’s determinate sentencing grid by reason of incompatibility of foreign laws to Washington’s and argues for removal of prior convictions to reduce his prison term. But being probably the most unfortunate man in recent memory, a unanimous Court determined applicability of prior violations based largely upon obsolete laws (effective at the time) and time/date dictated ultimately how long his imprisonment occurred.
I have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the long-standing avoidance of justices of political discussions. Indeed, justices previously avoided most public speeches where Ginsburg has readily embraced her public persona. Her latest comments occur on the eve of the start of the new term, a term with an array of major cases that arose from highly charged political conflicts over immigration, discrimination, and gun rights. 
As I discussed in 
I am still basking in the glory of my Chicago Cubs clinching the Central Division title this week (a division title by a returning World Series champion that has not happened in over a decade). I have been invited by a friend to attend the first game against the Nationals next Friday in Washington. I will be sitting near home plate in the seats of my friend (who I have promised one of my kidneys in return). It appears however that I will have to refrain from advising the Cubs on throws. I was surprised to read this week that a Yankees fan was ejected for 
This afternoon I have the honor of speaking to the District conference in Washington state. The program in Spokane will feature speakers like the Honorable Chief Judge Thomas Rice of the Eastern District of Washington and the Honorable Judge Richard Tallman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as well as Washington Attorney General Robert Fergusan. I will be speaking on Executive Privilege and the new controversies raised by the Trump Administration from immigration to sanctuary cities to war powers.
We have
We have 
Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the termination of the second travel ban and issuance of the new order by the Trump Administration. As discussed in the column, the Supreme Court went ahead and removed the immigration cases from the schedule for oral argument while agreeing with the Administration to order briefings on whether the cases are now moot. It is hard to see how the cases are not moot in whole or substantial part. The Court tends to take off ramps to avoid constitutional decisions, particularly in the area of the separation of powers. It will hard not to take this obvious off ramp.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered another stinging rebuke of universities and their denial of basic due process protections to students in sexual assault cases. I have been a 
We have long discussed the crushing sexism faced by women in Saudi Arabia under its medieval Sharia legal system. One of the most glaring inequalities was the ban on women driving — a rule that 
I just returned from a terrific event at 
I have been
We have