The Supreme Court reminded us in Crawford of the importance of cross-examination as an engine for the discovery of the truth. No, I'm not referring to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) but to today's decision in the voter ID case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., No 07-21. Footnote 20 on page 19 of the lead opinion says, "Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional adjudication." So take that, all you Google-infatuated clerks.

In a fractured opinion, by the way, the Court rejected a facial attack on Indiana's voter ID law. Such laws have a disparate impact on persons of decomposition and are vehemently opposed by the Democratic Party, which apparently believes this demographic will skew their way. I guess they would know.

Other than that, it's pretty quiet at 1 First Street, NE. No Boumediene. No new cert. grants. Bell v. Kelly, No. 07-1223, the only criminal case on SCOTUSblog's petition to watch list for Friday's conference, has apparently been relisted.

Update: Rick Hasen, who doesn't like the Crawford decision at all, has this guest post at SCOTUSblog. "In a nutshell ... a state needs to come forward with merely plausible non-discriminatory interests to justify an election law. The evidence need not be strong." Sounds like Batson.