If you've forgotten what happens when Republican Presidents appoint Supreme Court Justices, and why it's so important we not elect another one in November, check out this BBC interview with Justice Anton Scalia.

In a wide-ranging discussion, he defends his often controversial positions on issues like Guantanamo Bay, argues that torture may be legal and attacks the "sick" practice of televising trials.

...Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

On abortion and the death penalty:

He says there is nothing in the Constitution that grants women the right to an abortion.

The death penalty, he argues, is not covered by the 8th Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."

John McCain promises to appoint more judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito. We get the Government we elect.

A federal judge in California dismissed a lawsuit filed against a San Jose flight company that alleged the company aided the CIA in transporting detainees to secret overseas prisons. The Court agreed with the Bush Administration that the suit could jeopardize state secrets. The opinion is here (pdf).

U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose said he had no authority to decide whether, as three current prisoners and two freed inmates alleged, Jeppesen International Trip Planning colluded with the CIA to violate their rights. The suit instead must be dismissed at the outset because its subject is a secret program that cannot be examined in a public proceeding, Ware said.

Public and confidential declarations filed by CIA Director Michael Hayden show that "proceeding with this case would jeopardize national security and foreign relations," Ware said.

This is the third suit by Ghost Air detainees that has been dismissed.

By Big Tent Democrat

I have the solution for the Florida/Michigan disaster. Seat half of the Michigan and Florida delegations based on the existing results. Then schedule a Florida primary and a Michigan caucus primary in mid-May. If there is no need because Obama has already locked up the nomination in April, then, seat all the delegation based on the existing results and cancel the May contests.

This enfranchises those voters who voted previously AND ensures that Obama gets a fair shot at winning those two states. And it would be a great tiebreaker for deciding the nominee if we are still deadlocked come May. No one could complain could they? Someone will win this thing fair and square and then we can unify.

What am I missing? Is that not a brilliant solution?

Update (TL): Comments are closed now, more than 225 of them, thanks for your thoughts.

By Big Tent Democrat

This is good from MoDo. Except for this:

While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse mistakes.

Absurd. Obama clearly is benefitting from his race, and more power to him. Hillary' gender is clearly a double edged sword, as MoDO basically accepted in the previous part of her column.

In any event, a much more thoughtful MoDo than we have come to expect. Tell me what you think.

By Big Tent Democrat

What do you think of Roger Clemens? Sorry, I got nuthin.

This is an Open Thread. Remember the comments rules. I am just deleting now for all nonconforming comments that I see.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has released a statement today, The Path to the Nomination.

The campaign also notes that since Super Tuesday, it has received more than $13 million online from 135,000 donors (virtually all new).

She also congratulates Sen. Obama on his victories in recent contests.

I've reprinted the statement below the fold:

NOTE: Comments are now closed. (BTD)

By Big Tent Democrat

That's what ABC says:

Though he sometimes aligned himself with Obama — and against Clinton — as a candidate, several Edwards campaign insiders say the former senator began to sour on Obama toward the end of his own campaign, and ultimately left the race questioning whether Obama had the toughness needed to prevail in a presidential race.

"He is much more torn than people realize," said one former aide who has stayed in contact with Edwards. "Honestly, he has serious reservations about both of them."

Me too, John. Me too.

By Big Tent Democrat

What a fine mess Donna Brazile and Howard Dean have created. BTW, she should be removed from commenting on CNN about this primary campaign given the fact she is part of the story, and an ugly part.

Jerome Armstrong has the details:

Speaking as someone who sent Howard Dean to the DNC to decentralize the power of that committee to the states, it was a terrible leadership for him to have allowed the Rules & Bylaws Committee to tangle the presidential nominating selection process by selectively attempting to strip two states of their delegates, while continuing to ignore the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina broke those same rules.

What's that? Yes, read the rules. . . . Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all. And what about Florida & Michigan? Well, we all know what happened to them.

MORE . . .

NOTE - Comments are now closed

I've got a lot of work to do today, so here's an open thread for you. All topics welcome, but remember the commenting rules and keep it clean and civil. And urls must be in html format or they skew the site requiring the deletion of your comment. Thanks.

By Big Tent Democrat

Barack Obama is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. He is likely to be the pledged delegate leader at the end of the process. What else does Obama need? To me, one of two thing. He needs to be the clear popular vote winner (which means larger than the Florida spread) and/or he has to win one of the big contested primaries remaining - Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Why?

To my way of thinking, Obama has yet to prove he can win some of the key states' primaries, states Dems need in a general election. And this is not an unprecedented criteria for a potential nominee. Many like to compare Obama to JFK. And this episode in JFK's fight for the Presidency is instructive:

Here's what I'd like to see for Virginia, Maryland and D.C: Delegate apportionment, broken down by pledged to Obama, pledged to Hillary, Uncommitted, Superdelegates.

Then I'd like to see a national total including tonight's results.

I think I just heard John King on CNN say Hillary and Obama are now essentially even, which suprised me. I would have thought Obama would be ahead after tonight, and Hillary would need TX, Ohio and PA to catch up.

Has anyone seen credible counts?

By Big Tent Democrat

Obama is winning Maryland handily but the questions remain the same for me in terms of whether he will win the nomination. The demographics are my point:

(%age of vote) Clinton Obama

White Democrats

(43%) 55% 42%

Black Democrats

(33%) 16% 84%

Latino Democrats

(4%) 56% 44%

That demographic breakdown on voting margins loses Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania handily for Obama. Obama still has a lot to prove in terms of winning contested large primaries. And yes, this is important for the general election as well.

NOTE comments are now closed in this thread