By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On this issue, Obama supporters and Clinton supporters both disagree with me. But, via Greg Sargent, a plurality of the Democrats are with me:

18. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) The Democratic nomination may be decided by so-called "super delegates" who can pick any candidate they choose. Do you think the super delegates should support the candidate who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses; the candidate who won the most (overall votes); or the candidate they think is best, regardless of either delegate or vote totals?

Delegates 13

Overall votes 46

Candidate they think best 37

Respect the voters. That's my view. You paying attention Nancy Pelosi?

I'm on a lunch break and due back in court this afternoon. Here's an open thread, led by Johnny Cash singing at San Quentin, home to more than 600 death row inmates. More on life and waiting for death at San Quentin here.

You can read how they kill inmates here. How unfortunate the Supreme Court didn't agree, You wouldn't do a dog this way.

A quote from today's Supreme Court opinion in Baze v. Rees is below.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome. I'll be back for tonight's Hilllary-Obama debate.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Barack Obama said:

Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday criticized former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with leaders of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas as he tried to reassure Jewish voters that his candidacy isn't a threat to them or U.S. support for Israel. . . Obama told the Jewish group he had a "fundamental disagreement" with Carter, who was rebuffed by Israeli leaders during a peace mission to the Middle East this week. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction[.] "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

(Emphasis supplied.) There is certainly a contradiction with some of Obama's earlier stated positions on "meeting with dictators" et al. My own view is that Carter should not have met with Hamas, but that is based on the idea that the foreign policy of the United States should be carried out by the current government (like them or not) and former Presidents should not be out there freelancing.

And in case anyone is watching, I have not a word of rebuke for Obama's statement as he is a pol and pols pander. It is what they do.

Less noteworthy but more heartening than today's Supreme Court decision affirming Kentucky's lethal injection protocol is today's 6-3 decision sensibly deciding that drunk driving is not a violent felony, akin to burglary, arson, or extortion, for the purpose of triggering a mandatory 15 year sentence for offenders who have three violent felonies on their record before being sentenced for unlawful possession of a firearm. The lower courts decided that Larry Begay should be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act even though his only prior felony offenses were DUI crimes that caused no injury, given the potential for injury that often accompanies that crime. The Supreme Court limited the statute's scope to felonies that are purposefully violent or aggressive. (more ...)

The good news is that every member of the Supreme Court agrees that disemboweling, beheading, drawing and quartering, dissecting, and burning alive all violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The bad news is that seven justices in a maze of opinions (the lead opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, is joined only by Justices Kennedy and Alito) agree that Kentucky's lethal injection protocol is not cruel and unusual, at least on the record that was made in the Kentucky case.

The decision and the multiple opinions it generated may or may not end the de facto moratorium on death penalty implementation, but it will only fuel the growing debate about the wisdom of death as punishment for a crime. Consider, for instance, the concluding remarks in Justice Breyer's opinion concurring in the result:

By Big Tent Democrat

Conservative Philly radio talk show host Michael Smerconish (he is on MSNBC a lot and is buddies with Tweety I think) has endorsed Barack Obama. I suppose this is good for Obama but it does make me scratch my head:

I'm still a Republican, and while I won't have a vote in the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, like everyone else, I have an opinion as to the better of the two. It's Obama. I've watched virtually all the Democratic debates. Spent time reading the policy papers. Read each of their memoirs. There are few discernible differences between the two on the issues (she wants an individual mandate on health care; he's more anxious to leave Iraq). Each offers a similarly liberal agenda that will cause me angst in the fall.

But right now, one is more focused on an issue of paramount concern to me - the failure to avenge the deaths of innocent Americans by bringing Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to justice. And that's Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.) Has Obama been talking a lot about bin Laden and al-Zawahiri lately? I guess I missed that. Anyway, FWIW.

So does Bruce Springsteen.

By Big Tent Democrat

PPP has Barack Obama leading by 3 in Pennsylvania. To call this an outlier is an understatement. It is the only poll that has Obama ahead. PPP seems intent on making a name for itself in Pennsylvania, one way or another.

More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall ridicules MoDo for having kind words for Hillary:

You know she's got it bad when she has the bit so firmly in her teeth that she even finds herself saying good things about Hillary.

Indeed, I doubt we will ever again see the day when Josh Marshall has a kind word for Hillary. The lack of self awareness is truly astonishing. Is he not aware that he is now on the frontlines of the Hillary Hating blogs?

By Big Tent Democrat

Obama supporter Publius writes (see also yep, Josh Marshall putting up his hands to cover the sun:

Other bloggers have, however, made the logical jump that Judis leaves largely to implication. I usually leave linking to "Big Tent" Democrat to John Cole, but here's what he said over at TalkLeft (unclear though whether he was talking only for him):

Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos. This is why Hillary is more electable in PA, OH, FL and MI.

Florida, perhaps, but both Clinton and Obama will have struggles in the other states versus McCain. More to the point, the fact that Clinton is preferred to Obama among this bloc of voters within a Democratic primary is not strong evidence that she'll do significantly better versus McCain in the general.

I should be glad I suppose to get the "Florida perhaps" concession. But I am struck by the strange argument, I have heard it before, that how a candidate does in a primary with a demographic has absolutely no predictive power as to how a candidate will do in the general election with that demographic. Imagine this argument in reverse - Obama will not do better than Clinton in turning out and getting African Americans to vote for him in a general election. Or college educated white males. Or the vaunted "youth vote." If I wrote that I would rightly be ridiculed by these same "Creative Class" bloggers. But let's set aside the obvious unsoundness of Publius' argument. Let's look at polls on the flip.

At a hearing in Texas today, Thomas McGowan will be freed from a Dallas prison after serving 23 years for a rape and burglary DNA has proven he didn't commit.

McGowan will be the 25th person in Texas to have been convicted of a crime based on faulty eyewitness testimony and later exonerated by DNA testing.

Thomas McGowan was in his mid-20s when he was arrested, and he’ll turn 50 later this year. He has lost nearly his entire adult life to a wrongful conviction that could have – and should have – been prevented,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. “This is the 25th case in Texas where DNA proved that eyewitness identification was incorrect. How many more people need to lose years or decades of their lives before the state implements simple reforms that are proven to make eyewitness identification more accurate?”

The Innocence Project has much more on the case.

In Michigan, 29 year old Nathanial Hackett has been freed after serving 12 years for a rape DNA testing as shown he did not commit. His conviction was based in part upon a coerced false confession.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, an important and closely followed case is being argued today in the Supreme Court: Can the death penalty be imposed as a punishment for child rape, if the child isn't murdered.

Colorado is considering such a law and I outlined the reasons against it here. I agree with this law review article (pdf)that:

First, there is a strong national consensus against imposing the death penalty for child rape. In addition, the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the crime of rape, regardless of the age of the victim, because it does not cause death. Moreover, imposing the death penalty for child rape would fail to serve, and would likely inhibit, the retribution and deterrence functions of the U.S. penal system.

The Sex Crimes blog has a full resource page devoted to the Kennedy case. Also check out Dahlia Lathwick in Newsweek, The Supreme Penalty for Rape.

The Scotus Wiki page for the case with briefs and synopsis and other links is here.

There aren't too many silver linings for Hillary Clinton in this ABC News/Washington Post national poll. (Full poll results here, pdf., Washington Post article on it is here.)

The poll, out today, is a national one. It finds Democrats believe Obama should win the nomination and is more electable in November.

The silver lining: The views of those polled on superdelegates:

Only 13 percent of Democrats say superdelegates should support whoever’s won the most regular delegates in primaries and caucuses – a count in which Obama’s ahead, and seemingly likely to stay so. Instead a plurality, 46 percent, say superdelegates should support the candidate who’s won the most popular votes, a tally in which Clinton still has hopes. And 37 percent say superdelegates should go with their own sense of which candidate they think is best.

In other words, if Hillary does well in the remaining states, and she should, at least in PA, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, a whopping 87% of those polled don't think it's a problem for superdelegates to vote according to either the popular vote total or their conscience instead of by the pledged delegate total.

More...