Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (438.201)
    AG may be the compromise they are floating since they want his delegates, but making Edwards VP would sink the ticket...
  2.  (438.202)
    Oh, and evidently Caroline Kennedy's also endorsing Obama tomorrow. Which will also rattle some chains, as she's often now the official representative of the Kennedy clan at public functions -- including the opening of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center.
  3.  (438.203)
    Word right now is that Obama's people are circulating the possibility of offering Edwards Attorney General

    In light of how Edwards chose to spend his time between 2004 and now I would be very pleased with this. He is in the race now for a voice alone, and it will be interesting to see where things go after Super Tuesday. As a 2004 Edwards supporter I think he is questionable choice for VP ticket now, but an excellent choice for AG.

    Oh, and evidently Caroline Kennedy's also endorsing Obama tomorrow

    The Obama endorsements are coming fast now.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2008
     (438.204)
    There are rumors that Ted Kennedy will endorse Obama as well.

    And the San Francisco Chronicle has thrown in with him too:

    The American political system needs a period of reprieve and renewal.

    It needs a reprieve from a White House that draws power from fear, sneers at any science that gets in the way of corporate or theocratic missions and stubbornly adheres to policies that leave the nation sinking in debt and mired in war. It craves a reprieve from the politics of bloodsport that prize clever calculation over courage, winning over principle, party label over national interest.

    The renewal must come from a president who can lead by inspiration, who can set partisanship aside to define and achieve common goals, who can persuade a new generation of Americans that there is something noble and something important about public service.

    There is no doubt about the Democrat with the vision and skills to bring that period of reprieve and renewal. It is Sen. Barack Obama.
  4.  (438.205)
    It isn't a rumor. As I said, Ted is endorsing Obama tomorrow, at a rally in DC.

    Hillary has been campaigning hard behind the scenes for that endorsement, and she's going to feel this like a donkey-kick to the face. Kennedy and Kerry mean Obama has Old Democratic Power for him, and he himself represents the new "young liberal" wing...which will make for some interesting political maneuvers no matter which of them takes the nomination, as each will need to pull together the disparate factions of the Democratic Party in order to have a strong enough coalition to stick the landing in November.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2008
     (438.206)
    Fox News is damn near endorsing Obama and attacking the Clintons at every opportunity.

    That in itself makes me want Hillary to win.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2008
     (438.207)
    Fox News is damn near endorsing Obama and attacking the Clintons at every opportunity.

    That in itself makes me want Hillary to win.


    I wouldn't read too much into it. Obama's new and relatively mild. Hillary's been the "feminazi" boogeywoman since forever. Besides, they loathe McCain since he's a relative moderate, so they're not sure how to think right now.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2008 edited
     (438.208)
    The FOX News thing is surprising: Murdoch has really cozied up to the Clintons--and they to him--since Bill left office.

    Bob Novak is reporting the "Obama's people float idea of Edwards as Obama's AG" story and, while Novak's a cocksucker of mythic proportions, his reporting is generally pretty good. My own suspicion is that Edwards is holding out for a guarantee of a Supreme Court nomination, a la Earl Warren in 1952.

    The Caroline Kennedy/Teddy Kennedy endorsements are huge for Obama: I take his candidacy as in many ways an effort by the pre-Clinton party establishment to return the party to pre-Clinton policies, and I think a lot of older leaders of the party have simply been waiting to see how Obama does in early contests before making their support known. Plus, I have to think that there is some concern in the party that, given the way the Clintons have slimed Obama, African-Americans won't turn out for Hillary in the fall if she's the nominee, so long as the GOP doesn't nominate Giuliani. Low black turnout coupled with a GOP-base motivating Hillary candidacy would be a real nightmare scenrio for the D's.

    And, yeah, I love how Limbaugh has come out so strongly against McCain and Huckabee, although I assume for different reasons. Huckabee would go down in flames in a general election and McCain because he's a genuine threat to the business interests who actually run both Limbaugh and the GOP.
    •  
      CommentAuthororwellseyes
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2008 edited
     (438.209)
    Bob Novak is reporting the "Obama's people float idea of Edwards as Obama's AG" story and, while Novak's a cocksucker of mythic proportions



    The Daily Show's treatment of Novak
    is still the single best public ass-whipping I've seen in memory.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpico
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (438.210)
    The Kennedys' endorsement of Obama, in addition to Kerry's previous (and possibly untterly worthless) endorsement, basically hands Obama Mass. on Super Tuesday. There is no way that a Democrat wins that state without the Kennedy machine behind him. Obama is showing more and more political life, which is good to see.

    Edwards holding out for a Supreme Court nomination seems possible, but ultimately unlikely. In this past term, W. tried nominating someone to the Bench who had never before been a judge, and that turned out less than well for him. Granted, it meant the next nominee he put up was a shoo-in provided any sort of prior demonstrable jurisprudence. The stories say that the nomination of Harriet Miers was the first time W. did something that Cheney didn't approve, so it was either W's hidden intelligence seeping through by sacrificing one of his own for the sure acceptance of a bat-shit crazy nomination later on, or the remnants of a twenty-year coke and whiskey binge getting the better of his senses yet again. Rather than a SC nomination, i think Edwards would be better suited (and possibly more open) to a Federal or Appeals Court position, setting up experience for a later SC nomination. He would be a good AG for Obama and almost certainly confirmed by the (hopefully) Democratic Senate.

    Fox News wants anyone but Clinton to get the nomination, and to top it off, they would have an easier time smearing Obama than anyone else. All they have to do is mix up "Osama" and "Obama" once a week, keep saying the words "Muslim Madrassa," and comparing him to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and the viewership will refuse to vote for him so vehemently that Pavlov would be proud.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (438.211)
    Edwards holding out for a Supreme Court nomination seems possible, but ultimately unlikely. In this past term, W. tried nominating someone to the Bench who had never before been a judge, and that turned out less than well for him. Granted, it meant the next nominee he put up was a shoo-in provided any sort of prior demonstrable jurisprudence. The stories say that the nomination of Harriet Miers was the first time W. did something that Cheney didn't approve, so it was either W's hidden intelligence seeping through by sacrificing one of his own for the sure acceptance of a bat-shit crazy nomination later on, or the remnants of a twenty-year coke and whiskey binge getting the better of his senses yet again. Rather than a SC nomination, i think Edwards would be better suited (and possibly more open) to a Federal or Appeals Court position, setting up experience for a later SC nomination. He would be a good AG for Obama and almost certainly confirmed by the (hopefully) Democratic Senate.


    There are three things wrong with this analysis:

    1. Alito is not "bat-shit crazy." He's a smart judge.

    2. Bush picked Meiers in large measure because Andy Card thought suggesting her would please the boss and, like almost all other mediocre businessmen, Card and Bush made the mistaken assumption that one lawyer is the same as any other.

    3. As you observe, in a Senate controlled by the Democrats--and the next Senate will be--Obama would get his nominations through. Plus, Edwards himself is a former Senator and an accomplished lawyer, two qualities Meiers lacked. The fact that he's a former Senator would be especially helpful to Edwards: it's still fairly clubby, and even some Republicans would likely feel at least some disinclination to block the nomination of a former Senator, even a one-termer like Edwards.
  5.  (438.212)
    1. Alito is not "bat-shit crazy." He's a smart judge.


    Agreed. I find many of his and Roberts' views abhorrent, but neither appear to be "bat-shit crazy".

    Scalia, on the other hand...
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (438.213)
    Oh, he isn't either.

    I mean, seriously, people who claim that the so-called "liberal" wing of the Court are models of judicial acumen seem to forget, conveniently, the Kelo case from two years ago, which allowed a municipality to take people's homes from them as a "government purpose," when the taking would improve economic development.

    Taking the position that 1. words have historically contingent meanings and 2. that any effort toward the "evolution" of their import ought to be addressed by the political branches is anything but batshit crazy.
  6.  (438.214)
    Scalia on how Jack Bauer justifies torture.

    And not liking the result of Kelo does not change the fact it was a proper holding based on previous case law.

    Edit: for better source.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (438.215)
    But Kelo was a poor decision based on the historical meaning of the takings clause, and the fact that, since the late 19th century, the federal courts have strayed from that understanding doesn't change the fact that Kelo and its predecessors were bad law. Stare decisis is only appropriately applied to common law case law: on matters of the construction of laws that result from the political process, like constitutions and statutes, the language of the produced text, in a republic, is the best construction. That's something that American judges, from the early republic forward, failed to see.

    And, really, I don't think that engaging in an academic discussion of the morality of torture in the context of saving hundreds of thousands of lives makes anyone "bat-shit crazy."
  7.  (438.216)
    Lyons, I find originalism (I take you mean textualism in specific) an inherently flawed notion, and I am a strong proponent of a living constitution. That said I owe you a real reply and wish to focus on the State of the Union. Did not wish you to think I was ignoring the response, and will either add a new message (if thread goes on) or edit this latter.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpico
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.217)
    Thing 1: Forgive me. "Bat-shit Crazy" was a rash and inaccurate descriptor for Bush's latter nominee, and I apologize for injecting senseless invective into a discussion which has been remarkably civil and intelligent. And while I did indeed imply he was crazy, I never called into question his intelligence. He is, as you say, smart.

    That being said, Lyons, I do have a problem with what is consistently described as a "strict constructionalist" view of the constitution (or, if you like, originalist). To treat the Law and Jurisprudence as stagnant, as something that does not and should not take into account the world in which we live and the degree to which it has changed in the intervening centuries is almost the equivalent of being willfully ignorant. I'm all for honoring the intent of the Founders and the Framers, but they operated under a different set of presumptions. Shamlessly paraphrasing, they had the same intelligence, just less accumulated knowledge. To say that the judgments they made in drafting the Constitution are sure to fully encapsulate every situation that might arise, if nothing else, shows a deep-seeded fear of the future.

    As far as Edwards getting any sort of support from the Republicans in the Senate, I find that extremely doubtful. Edwards has built his campaign around the idea that "Republican" has become an insult. On top of that, conservatives find his views of the Constitution as abhorrent as I find Rehnquist's.

    Re: Scalia
    Engaging in an academic defense of torture is not bat-shit crazy, I agree completely. The issue I have with that particular instance is that the situation is not as hypothetical as we would all like it to be. That was a Supreme Court Justice telling a roomfull of students that torture is ok in certain situations. Mind you I'm not arguring with his logic, but that does not make him right.

    I'm imagining that most other people on this thread watched the State of the Union. Was anyone else disturbingly reminded of W's statements about Iraq circa 2003 by his statements about Iran in his speech? Or was that just me?
  8.  (438.218)
    The vast majority of research says torture, as portrayed on 24, does not work. People do not reveal critical facts, they instead spout anything you might want to hear, with little regard for relevancy or truth, to stop the pain. Even when claims are produced it has worked, evidence tends to implicate other factors as likely the real source of information. This position tend to be confirmed by ex military intelligence and even officers currently in the US military have asked the producers of 24 to change how the impact and results of torture are portrayed in their fictional world.

    So, within the fictional world of 24 Jack uses a fictional version of torture to achieve goals the real act simply can''t produce. More so, he uses it to such a constant and successful effect it worries real Intelligence for how its influencing the actions of real interrogators. Justice Scalia, a supposedly learned man, challenges a room if they would arrest and try Bauer after one such fictional success to show how real torture might be justified. This is no different then if he has asked the same room if they would arrest would arrest Superman, as a vigilante, after he used heat vision and flight to chase down thwart criminals, and then used such a question as an argument for real vigilante justice.

    I stand by the notion its an example of crazy.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.219)
    That being said, Lyons, I do have a problem with what is consistently described as a "strict constructionalist" view of the constitution (or, if you like, originalist). To treat the law and jurisprudence as stagnant, as something that does not and should not take into account the world in which we live and the degree to which it has changed in the intervening centuries is almost the equivalent of being willfully ignorant.


    But originalism does not take the view that law or jurisprudence either is or should be stagnant/unchanging: it takes the view that change can legitimately come only from the political branches through statute--i.e., if you're against/for laws limiting/requiring/permitting a practice on which the Constitution is silent, get the relevant legislature to change the law--or constitutional amendment. And, if there isn't the political critical mass necessary to effect those changes, then maybe the world hasn't changed sufficiently to justify the claim that society, and thus the Constitution's requirements, has experienced some "evolvution" that it is the role of the judiciary to divine.

    And, yeah, as a matter of terminology, "strict construction" is red meat for the knuckle-draggers. No serious constitutional thinker, Scalia and other originalists included, takes the notion of "strict construction" seriously. Scalia himself has said that "stric construction" is nonsensical.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.220)
    . JTraub wrote :
    The vast majority of research says torture, as portrayed on 24, does not work. People do not reveal critical facts they instead spout anything you might want to hear, with little regard for relevancy or truth, to stop the pain.

    straying away from the topic a little, but i always thought torture was to make the others waiting their turn speak, not the one being wailed on.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.