The U.S. Supreme Court is usually too far removed from Hawaii — literally and judicially — to make us sit up and take notice, except perhaps out of academic interest. Even one of the gut-wrenching decisions of this term — Kennedy v. Louisiana, which disallowed the death penalty for a brutal child rapist because the victim was not killed — does little to inform a state with no death penalty statute and little likelihood of getting one on the books.

But gun control? That’s a different matter. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court established for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun, distinct from the necessity of a “well-regulated Militia.” Hawaii’s attorney general, Mark Bennett, along with four other state attorneys general, had urged the court to rule in favor of giving a state broad latitude in regulating gun ownership, individual rights or not. This the court did not do. Nonetheless, by most accounts, the court provided enough room to challenge state laws but not enough to say with certainty that those laws are unconstitutional.

So it’s reasonable to expect that pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association will want to find out. It’s also reasonable to expect that Hawaii’s gun laws, which are fairly strict, will be challenged. So if you’ve ever felt the need to legally carry a concealed weapon, without the chief of police’s approval, you know were to go.

Hawaii’s near-shore waters share a couple of things in common with Alaska’s Prince William Sound. They are achingly beautiful, and oil tankers sail through them. Some twenty years after the Exxon Valdez dumped its load of crude into Prince William Sound, the Supreme Court, in Exxon Shipping v. Baker, reduced the punitive damages in the case to $500 million, down from the original jury award of $5 billion. This hardly seems punitive; it’s about four days of Exxon’s profits. Surely putting a lapsed alcoholic at the helm of a supertanker sailing through a major fishery and a treasured natural environment is worthy of real punishment, in light of the long-term destruction that decision wreaked. Punishment and deterrence are the point of punitive damages, after all.

The court also decided that, in general, punitive damages in maritime cases like this one should be equal to or less than compensatory damages. So if an oil tanker spills its contents off Hawaii waters — for whatever reason — don’t expect too much. Because apparently the plaintiffs in Alaska are learning that lesson the hard way.

Members of Stop Rail Now, target of Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s blistering ad this week skewering opponents to the Honolulu rail project, took the mayor to task for using his campaign funds to finance his attack.

I beg to differ.

There is no issue as identified with Hannemann as rail. If he wants to be re-elected this fall — though so far ANY competitors are waiting in the wings — progress on the rail project is key. Barbara Wong, who heads the Campaign Spending Commission, thinks it’s wholly appropriate, too.

Had he used the city public-information contracts for this purpose, then there would have been cause to complain, especially as the tone is so combative.

TOO combative, some might say. Hannemann indeed may be surprised that some of his former supporters were turned off by his abrasiveness in the ad.

But I’m fine with his treatment of the dust-up as a legitimate campaign issue. He spent his money, he assumes the risk of any fallout. The Stop Rail folks haven’t been pulling their punches, either. Might as well take the gloves off.

All’s fair in love and war. This IS war, isn’t it?

— Vicki Viotti 

At my age every new person I meet reminds me of someone I used to know.  So the challenge is to try and remember the name of the person I used to know. And you know what? I’m truly amazed I can remember that person from long ago. The sad part is I’ve already forgotten the name of the person I just met.

Stupid is as stupid does. Didn’t Forrest Gump say that?

It’s doubtful he had City Councilman Rod Tam in mind, though.

In all the storm swirling around Tam’s use of an epithet that’s offensive to Hispanics — and I won’t repeat it here, because you’ve all heard it, right? — there’s debate over whether it’s a racial slur or simply an insult, and over whether Tam was being hostile or merely thoughtless.

Nobody is debating the simple fact that it’s plain dumb for anyone to use such words, especially someone who depends on the goodwill of the electorate for his job..

Tam has apologized, the council has censured him. That seems about right.

Some in the community are calling for his ouster, and they may get their wish — ultimately.

There are times to give elected officials the boot immediately, but a rude comment, even one this rude, doesn’t quite rise to that level. If every politician got the boot for doing something witless, there’d be winds whistling through the empty government offices statewide.

Those who want Tam out should throw their support behind one worthy candidate seeking to replace him in 2010, and one more to run against him if he does go for the lieutenant governor’s post in 2010.

Yes, that’s a long way down the road. But something tells me Tam’s new opponents won’t forget the stupidity.

– Vicki Viotti

“Bodies: The Exhibition” is the title of the spectacle. The words themselves don’t scare anyone off — we like to look at bodies, right? — until they realize just how literally accurate the title describes things.

These are plasticized but very real cadavers, of real people, and they’re really on display at Ala Moana Center, and for a really fat admission charge, too.

In theory there’s a facination with human physique that could be indulged here. Or so I thought, until I learned more of the particulars.

Specifically: It’s not really clear how these bodies were obtained from China. And even if some official gave permission, most decent people would agree that it wasn’t his or hers to give.

But what brought the picture into focus for me was, well, the picture. The one we ran in our newspaper.

It was a closeup of a cadaver, of the face. Yes, we can study the sinews and muscles and muse about how they all interconnect, but at the point where you’re looking into a face, it ceases being a academic exercise.

It’s inhumane. And just plain creepy that such a thing becomes a public amusement.

I know I won’t be able to walk through the door.

— Vicki Viotti