Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”

Thus far these attacks have fallen into two categories: false and irrelevant. Much of this leaked information seems intended to play into stereotypes about young African-American males. Here’s what everyone should know:

1. Prominent conservative websites published fake photos of Martin. Twitchy, a new website run by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, promoted a photo — purportedly from Martin’s Facebook page — that shows Martin in saggy pants and flipping the bird. The photo, which spread quickly on conservative websites and Twitter, is intended to paint Martin as a thug. As Twitchy later acknowledged, it is not a photo of Trayvon Martin. [Examiner]

2. The Sanford Police selectively leaked irrelevant, negative information about Martin. The authorities told the Orlando Sentinel this morning that Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days “after being found with an empty marijuana baggie.” There is no evidence that Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death, nor would prior possession of marijuana be a reason for killing him. It’s unclear what the relevance of the leak was, other than to smear Martin. [Orlando Sentinel]

3. On Fox News, Geraldo said that Martin was dressed “like a wannabe gangster.” Bill O’Reilly agreed with him. The sole evidence is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. Geraldo added that “everyone that ever stuck up a convenience store” was wearing a hoodie. [ThinkProgress; The Blaze]

4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View]

5. Without any evidence, a right-wing columnist alleged that Martin assaulted a bus driver. Unlike Zimmerman, Trayvon has no documented history of violence. This allegation continues to be advanced by a blogger on the Examiner even after the real reason was leaked to the police and confirmed by the family. [Miami Herald; Examiner]

6. Zimmerman’s friend says Martin was to blame because he was disrespectful to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.” Of course, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and Trayvon had no duty to tell him who he was or where he was going. [NBC News]

The final part of the effort to smear Trayvon Martin is to link him and his supporters to irresponsible fringe groups like the New Black Panthers and marginal provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan. Threats by these groups are serious and should be investigated, but they have nothing to do with Martin or his supporters. The leader of the effort to associate Martin with these groups is Matt Drudge. You can see how he is framing the story today here.

Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smear the reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the least sexy issue presented by the Affordable Care Act case — whether a law known as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act prevents the justices from deciding whether the individual mandate is constitutional until after 2014. If today’s oral argument was any indication, the answer to that question is a resounding no. The justices almost universally expressed skepticism at the claim that the Anti-Injunction Act applies here, with a majority of them appearing to favor a particular reason for saying so.

As ThinkProgress previously explained, the Anti-Injunction Act does not permit anyone to bring a lawsuit trying to block the collection of a tax — taxpayers must first pay their taxes and then, if they believe that they were forced to pay too much, they are allowed to sue for a refund. This matters because the mandate functions by requiring most Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly more income taxes — and since this provision has not yet taken effect, no one has actually payed the higher taxes they are required to pay under the mandate.

At today’s oral argument, however, the justices appeared poised to limit the scope of this law in a way that conveniently allows them to decide this case without a hitch. Going into today’s argument, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act had often been read as a “jurisdictional” statute — meaning that it prevents a lawsuit from moving forward even if the federal government decides that they want to allow the lawsuit to proceed anyway. DOJ argued today that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, and a cross-ideological bloc of justices seemed to indicate that they though DOJ’s actions constitutes a valid waiver of the Anti-Injunction bar. At various points in the argument, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, all seemed to suggest that the Anti-Injunction Act might not be jurisdictional, and thus this lawsuit can proceed today.

It remains to be seen what theory the justices will adopt to say that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this lawsuit. One thing that appears quite clear, however, is that the justices are eager to move on to the merits of this case.

One month ago today, George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But Zimmerman has not been arrested in the case because he says he shot in self-defense. Since then, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law — allowing use of deadly force if there is a “reasonable belief” it is necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm” — has come under fire. The National Rifle Association lobbied heavily for the Florida law, which passed in 2005, and has continued to push for similar laws across the nation.

So far, 25 states have approved Florida-style “Stand Your Ground” measures, and the NRA is not backing down from its support for such laws even after Martin’s tragic death. This legislative session, legislators in another five states are considering turning the self-defense legislation into law in their own states:

ALASKA: After the state House approved the bill, the Alaska Senate is now debating the measure that would expand the right to use lethal force as a means of self-defense — just like the Florida law. An assistant district attorney spoke out against the bill during a hearing earlier this month, telling senators that it is a “bad idea.” “It will do nothing to enhance the safety of law-abiding gun owners,” said James Fayette. What it will do is make it more difficult for me and my colleagues to convict violent criminals.”

IOWA: The state House has approved a Florida-style bill that’s now pending in the Senate. Before the House passed the bill earlier this month, Democrats fled the Iowa Capitol ahead of the vote to protest Republicans bringing the bill up for a vote. It’s likely the legislation will be blocked on procedural grounds, but state Rep. Matt Windschitl (R) says he will reintroduce it.

MASSACHUSETTS: A legislator in Massachusetts introduced a self-defense bill that would allow people to use “guns, knives, baseball bats or other deadly force if they feel threatened or think someone else is endangered.” Sen. Stephen Brewer (D), who introduced the bill, said it’s a matter of allowing people to protect themselves, but another state Democrat, Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, said he fears it would become a “shoot first and ask questions later law.”

Lawmakers in New York and Nebraska have also introduced “Stand Your Ground” bills that are stalled in both legislatures.

Along with the NRA, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has pushed for these “Stand Your Ground” laws across the country. In response to ALEC’s role, a coalition is pressuring the organization’s corporate sponsors to stop funding ALEC’s “reckless agenda” that harm communities.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked a new Texas state law that would institute strict photo identification requirements for all citizens trying to vote. The DOJ refused to grant the law pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act, noting that the bill would unfairly disenfranchise Hispanic voters.

Supporters of the bill say the law is needed to prevent voter impersonation. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) argued:

Texas has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, beyond reproach and accurately reflect the will of voters. The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane. Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach.

How big has the problem been? According to the San Antonio Express-News:

Fewer than five “illegal voting” complaints involving voter impersonations were filed with the Texas Attorney General’s Office from the 2008 and 2010 general elections in which more than 13 million voters participated.

The Texas attorney general’s office did not give the outcome of the four illegal voting complaints that were filed. Only one remains pending, according to agency records.

And as ThinkProgress Justice previously reported, more people than that have been denied their right to vote due to these sorts of strict voter ID laws.

Though Perry has claimed Texas has endured “multiple cases” of voter fraud, even of the paltry 20 election law violation allegations the state’s attorney general handled in the 2008 and 2010 elections, most related to mail-in ballot or campaign finance violations, electioneering too close to a polling place, and a voter blocked by an election worker.

It is unclear how many Texans attempt to illegally check out library books while impersonating neighbors or dead people, each year. But in a state of more than 25 million people, the odds of being even accused of voter impersonation in the Lone Star State are less than one in 6,250,000.

George Zimmerman’s longtime friend Joe Oliver and his attorney Craig Sonner have launched a public relations offensive to defend the shooter of young Trayvon Martin.

Both Oliver and Sonner appear today on ABC’s Good Morning America to talk about their conversations with Zimmerman. Oliver said Zimmerman thought “he was doing the right thing” and “has virtually lost his life now.” He added that Zimmerman was “very, very sorry because in many ways, George has lost his life too.” Watch it:

Yesterday, Oliver was asked about the moment on the 911 tapes when some believe that, just prior to killing Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman used a racial slur. Oliver suggested that Zimmerman did not use a racial slur but said “goons,” which Oliver described as a “term of endearment.”

In a joint statement, House Committee on Ethics Chairman Jo Bonner (R-AL) and Ranking Member Linda Sanchez (D-CA), announced Friday that their committee will probe the actions of Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL). The decision comes after a referral by the Office of Congressional Ethics last month.

Buchanan is reportedly already under a separate ethics investigation for alleged incomplete financial disclosure. The committee did not identify the nature of the new inquiry, though it did say it will announce its course of action on the matter, on or before May 9. An aide to the Florida Republican said the Congressman was confident the committee would clear him of any wrongdoing. Buchanan is also reportedly facing a federal grand jury investigation.

Despite House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) stated “zero-tolerance” policy on ethics, Buchanan continues to serve as finance vice chair for the National Republican Congressional Committee (the House GOP’s campaign arm). In fact, Buchanan was already one of more than 10 Republican Congressmen embroiled in ethics scandals.

Amusingly, Buchanan’s Congressional website includes stories calling for reform in light of a Bush administration ethics scandal at the Minerals Management Agency, and touts his work in support of a 2007 ethics and lobbying bill.

Ten minutes after this post goes live, the nine justices will enter the Supreme Courtroom and begin the first of four hearings to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act. If the justices follow the text of the Constitution, they will have no choice but to uphold the law. Under our founding document, Congress has the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” This, in the words of the very first Supreme Court decision to interpret these words, includes the “full power” over any “sort of trade” that concerns more than one state. So a law regulating nationwide trade in health care clearly qualifies.

To counter the clear thrust of the Constitution’s text, the law’s opponents argue that Congress has gotten too big for its britches. If Congress has the power to require people to carry health insurance, their argument goes, there will be no limit on it’s authority and any kind of law will qualify as a regulation of commerce. Of course, this is not true — the Supreme Court precedents correctly establish that non-economic laws such as federal murder, rape, assault, truancy or sexual morality laws are beyond Congress’ authority to regulate commerce — but it’s worth noting that the plaintiffs’ argument is not a new one. In fact, it is nearly 100 years old:

In our view the necessary effect of this act is, by means of a prohibition against the movement in interstate commerce of ordinary commercial commodities, to regulate the hours of labor of children in factories and mines within the States, a purely state authority. Thus the act in a twofold sense is repugnant to the Constitution. It not only transcends the authority delegated to Congress over commerce but also exerts a power as to a purely local matter to which the federal authority does not extend. The far reaching result of upholding the act cannot be more plainly indicated than by pointing out that if Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the States over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government be practically destroyed.

These words conclude an 1918 case known as Hammer v. Dagenhart, which struck down a federal child labor law under a very similar theory to the one the Affordable Care Act’s opponents press today. Then, like now, conservatives feared that enabling Congress to fully exercise its authority over the nation’s commerce would enable Congress to do whatever it wants — and they convinced five of the Court’s nine justices to join them in this fear and steal away America’s ability to ban child labor.

It’s worth noting the the justices of this era were not exactly consistent in how they limited Congress’ commercial regulations. When Congress tried to protect the right of workers to unionize or to provide railroad workers with a degree of retirement security, the early Twentieth Century justices tossed these laws out. Yet, when mine owners invoked a federal law to suppress a mining union’s cutthroat tactics, the Court suddenly read Congress’ authority over interstate commerce very expansively.

The lesson of this experience is clear. When judges are allowed to ignore the text of the Constitution, they are free to read their own preferences into our founding document. Nearly a century ago, this meant that judges who preferred management to labor effectively created one constitution for corporations and another, inferior constitution for unions. Today, conservatives hope that the five justices who probably didn’t vote for President Obama will eradicate his signature accomplishment despite nothing in the Constitution granting them leave to do so.

Needless to say, this is a very dangerous game, and it is one that should scare the law’s opponents just as much as the law’s supporters. If judges have the power to ignore the Constitution’s text, then there truly will be no limits on the Supreme Court’s authority. And, unlike Members of Congress, justices of the Supreme Court are unelected and serve for life — so there will be no way to check the unlimited grant of power the Affordable Care Act’s opponent’s want to give these justices.