On the surface, it’s a slow news week. But behind-the-scenes key preparations are already underway for the 2009 budget debate. Here are the key things to look for in the debate:

The best way to answer that question is to compare the Legislative Budget Board’s budget (also known as the base budget) with the Comptroller’s Biennial Revenue Estimate, which is usually released in January.

Judge Learned Hand, one of the greatest figures in American jurisprudence, once lamented, "A judge’s life, like every other, has in it much of drudgery, senseless bickerings, stupid obstinacies, captious pettifogging, all disguising and obstructing the only sane purpose which can justify the whole endeavor. These take an inordinate part of his time; they harass and befog the unhappy wretch, and all times almost drive him from that bench where like any other workman he must do his work." So how do judges relieve this boredom? They liven up their opinions and orders with everything from poetry and movie references to song lyrics. While we’ll be taking a look at this phenomenon in greater detail in future articles, this week’s column gives center stage to those judges who let the music move them.

Not to be outdone, in July U.S. District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown (a conservative whose name has been mentioned as a potential Supreme court nominee) spiced up an opinion on a False Claims Act case by referencing Jimi Hendrix. Writing about a mortgage subsidy program rife with allegations of fraud, Justice Brown observed, "Forty years ago, Jimi Hendrix trilled his plaintive query: ‘Is this love, baby, or is it…[just] confusion?’ Jimi Hendrix, Love or Confusion, on Are You Experienced (Reprise Records, 1967). In this…case, we face a similar question….Is this fraud, or is it…just confusion?"

Montana Judge Gregory R. Todd might deservedly be called a Beatlemaniac. How else would you explain his 2007 reaction to a burglary defendant who filled out a pre-sentence investigation report with a request for leniency, asking that the court, like "the Beetles," just "Let it Be." Judge Todd took issue with both the misspelling and the plea for leniency, and wrote a sentencing memorandum that managed to work in the titles to 39 Beatles songs, including "Come Together," "Day in the Life," "Hard Day’s Night," "Help," "Hey Jude," "Long and Winding Road," and "Nowhere Man." Here’s a sample of Judge Todd’s Fab Four inspired wisdom:

"Later, when you thought about what you did you may have said, I’ll Cry Instead. Now you’re Let It Be instead of I’m A Loser. As a result of your Hard Day’s Night, you are looking at a Ticket to Ride that Long and Winding Road to Deer Lodge. Hopefully you can say both now and When I’m 64 that I Should Have Known Better."

Moving from Beatlemaniacs to Parrotheads, we have federal judge James M. Burns. In a 1990 federal bribery case, U.S. vs. McDonald, Judge Burns granted a motion to change venue for the trial from Fairbanks, Alaska to Tacoma, Washington. The reason? There were concerns that the unpredictable Alaskan volcano, Mt. Redoubt, might erupt and disrupt the trial. Judge Burns didn’t hesitate to send the parties to Tacoma, quoting the Jimmy Buffett song "Volcano" and its line " I don’t know I don’t know where I’m a-gonna go when the volcano blow." I guess Judge Burns knew.

In the 2003 case of U.S. v. McPhee, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals took up a drug smuggling case that revolved around the question of whether the Coast Guard’s interception of the boat took place on the open seas or in the territorial waters of the Bahamas - by an outcropping that was either a rock, or an actual island. The court quoted extensively from the Simon & Garfunkel song "I Am a Rock"(from the 1966 album Sounds of Silence), with its refrain "I am a rock, I am an island." However, after devoting considerable space to the song, the court conceded, "Of course, neither Simon nor Garfunkel has been identified as a nautical expert."

In fact, it’s not uncommon for the lyrics quoted by judges to be less than enlightening or a decent substitute for judicial precedent. It’s a subject bemoaned by University of Tennessee law professor Alex Long, author of a 2007 article in the Washington & Lee Law Review "[Insert Song Lyrics Here] The Uses and Misuses of Popular Music Lyrics in Legal Writing." (Yes, that’s right- when I write a topic like this, it’s "amusing journalism." Tack on a hundred or so footnotes and publish it in a law review, and it becomes a "contribution to academia.") Professor Long’s survey of the most-cited artists in judicial opinions reveals that judges rely heavily on a baby boomer-influenced playlist. Bob Dylan has been cited in 26 opinions, while other frequently-quoted songwriters include the Beatles, Paul Simon (both individually and with Art Garfunkel), and Bruce Springsteen. Of course, occasionally the song references are not just misplaced- they’re actually unintended by the judge. In U.S. v. Abner, a 1987 case, unbeknownst to the 5^th Circuit Justice Reynaldo Garza, a law clerk who had drafted the opinion managed to work in 25 references to the names of albums and songs by the Talking Heads. Supposedly, the David Byrne-obsessed judicial clerk was trying to win concert tickets. While he may have lost the contest, he did make it into the law books for posterity.

Sometimes, the musical homage is not only appropriate for the facts of the case, but is entertaining as well. In 2003, Michigan Circuit Judge Deborah Servitto handed down a decision in a defamation case brought against rapper Eminem (real name: Marshall Mathers) by a former classmate, DeAngelo Bailey, who said that Eminem had unfairly portrayed him in a song as a school bully. Judge Servitto decided to rap her ruling in the case, saying in part:

"Mr. Bailey complains that his rap is trash

So he’s seeking compensation in the form of cash.

Bailey thinks he’s entitled to some monetary gain

Because Eminem used his name in vain…

Eminem says Bailey used to throw him around

Beat him up in the john, shoved his face in the ground.

Eminem contends that his rap is protected

By the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment…

So highly objectionable it could not be-

Bailey was happy to hear his name on a CD.

Bailey also admitted he was a bully in youth

Which makes what Marshall said substantial truth.

This doctrine is a defense well known

And renders Bailey’s case substantially blown…"

Way to keep it real, Judge Servitto. Peace out.

The Founding Fathers were concerned about our nation being involved in long-term alliances with foreign powers. The founders of our republic were in favor of trade, so they were not, as some state, isolationists. They were, however, generally opposed to military alliances overseas. They simply did not wish to be drawn into military conflicts based on any treaty requirements.

The Founding Fathers wanted a foreign policy aimed at maintaining good commercial relations as much as possible but avoiding military commitments to other powers.

Most viewed that we should not fight on behalf of others’ liberty, but that we should be an example for others to follow. They also did not want our nation in material support of other regimes, nor dependent on them. Washington saw the need for temporary alliances, like our temporary arrangement with the French during the American Revolution, but he warned against permanent alliances. Jefferson warned against entangling alliances with foreign powers generally. The modern North Atlantic Treaty Organization comes to mind.

NATO was formed as temporary defensive alliance after World War II to oppose the Communist Soviet Union. Now it has morphed into a permanent alliance with multiple agendas. After the old Soviet Union and its alliance structure fell apart, NATO became a bureaucracy in need of a mission. That has worked to our advantage given our policy in Afghanistan. NATO troops are assisting us there.

In other ways, however, our NATO partners have often tried to use the old alliance to strengthen France and/or Germany’s position in the world militarily and diplomatically by leveraging (remember your tax dollars support NATO) their membership in NATO. Indeed, NATO is now being used to further military cooperation with the new Russia which militarily and economically is the most significant remnant of the old Soviet Union’s power base.

A recent NATO press release referred to "increasing interoperability between NATO and Russian forces."

As a nation, we abandoned the Founding Fathers’ view of foreign policy some time ago. Perhaps a good argument can be made that some modification to their original vision was necessary, due to the realities of modern weapons technology, but is the overall principle still valuable? I think it is.

International news wires report that the nation of Georgia in Central Asia is now at war with Russia over the province of South Ossetia. South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia in 1992, but its independence has gone largely unrecognized by the international community. That province also borders the nation of Russia. Recent violence may have been initiated by Georgia trying to force control over the province.

Additional reports now indicate that Russia has not only intervened on behalf of the rebels against Georgia in South Ossetia, but also has invaded Abkhazia, an undisputed province of Georgia. The Russian navy also may be on the move in the Black Sea.

Wire reports indicate up to 2000 civilians may have already perished, most from Russian air strikes.

In all fairness to the Ossetians, it appears that they have a long history of opposition to being part of Georgia. In fact, they have operated independently of Georgia, complete with their own government in recent years.

One sticky part for the good ol’ USA is that we have friendly relations and what could be called low-level entangling alliances with both Georgia and Russia. Russia has to an extent supported our operations in Afghanistan. According to a NATO update dated March 23, 2006, Russia has allowed the leasing of large transport aircraft, in part supporting NATO efforts in Afghanistan.

Georgia, on the other hand, has 2000 troops in Iraq supporting our operations there. Should I say had? It appears 1000 Georgian troops are being withdrawn from Iraq due to the crisis, as of Friday. More important than the mere number is the fact that after the U.S. and Britain, Georgia has the third largest ground force commitment in Iraq.

Since we have working agreements with both countries, where does this conflict leave us?

NATO cares enough about its relationship with Russia that it even has a special NATO-Russian cooperation working group called the NATO-Russia Council. A July press release from the NRC refers to "collaborative efforts to improve transportation ... through Russia to forces in Afghanistan." The release also refers to "increased cooperation in naval operations."

As stated earlier, the Georgians will soon send 1000 troops from Iraq back to Georgia. Will they eventually send all their forces home? That would appear to be a logical assumption if they believe they need to protect their own nation.

Other logical questions: What will both parties ask us to do in order to support them in the conflict? To whom will we say no? How will that affect our efforts in the Middle East?

As president, Thomas Jefferson once faced a group of North African-based Muslim pirates known as the Barbary Pirates. In subsequent military campaigns, the pirates or state-sponsored terrorists – pick your own language – were gradually forced to give up their attempts to extort money from the United States and the enslavement of Americans. Unlike in Iraq, there was no attempt at long-term occupation of foreign land. Also unlike how we are now trying to do things in the Middle East today, we did not put our mission at risk by depending on questionable allies to support our long-term presence.

Many will argue that times have changed. I will argue that principles and the Founders’ vision still matter.