The New York Times profiles Elizabeth Edwards. We like her already.
Funny enough we laughed out loud reading it. Wonkette definitely rules.
From last night's "Newsnight," Aaron Brown confesses:
Good evening again, everyone. We begin tonight with a confession: I dated John Edwards' wife. Well, not dated like plural, dated like singular. We went out to dinner. Well, we didn't actually go out to dinner. We went to a dinner, just the two of us -- and 2,000 other people. CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown; Aired July 6, 2004 [CNN]
Well, not dinner. More like a snack. And it wasn't really John Edwards's wife. It was this woman I met on the street. A prostitute, actually. Maybe I shouldn't go into detail like this.
[link via Xoverboard]
by TChris
Unofficial word that another U.S. District Judge (this one in the Western District of Texas) has declared the federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional under Blakely. His precise reasoning at this point seems unclear, but a written opinion may be forthcoming.
(via Blakelyblog)
(Update: (TL) Blakely Blog is another new blog on the Blakely decision by Jason Hernandez, "a 3rd year law student at Columbia Law School whose Note is in serious jeopardy of entering the circular file following Blakely.")
Posted on Wed Jul 07, 2004 at 06:43:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Former Enron CEO Ken Lay was indicted today. He's being allowed to surrender tomorrow. Bail is probably arranged, he'll be home for dinner. We have no problem with that, we just wish it were true for every defendant. We find this bit of info somewhat perplexing:
The foreman of the specially-called grand jury told Judge Milloy that at least 16 members were present and at least 12 voted for the indictment.
Does that mean it was not a unanimous grand jury vote? If the prosecutors can't convince all of the grand jurors in a one-sided proceeding at which the defendant has no ability to argue or present or challenge evidence, what does that say about the strength of the Government's case?
Skippy says, "osama bin laden still at large, but at least we got kenny boy!" A big congrats to Skippy who is about to celebrate his second blogiversary (y.w.c.t.p.). Go over and visit and push him over that 500,000 reader visit mark.
by TChris
The President and his fellow country-bangers don't like trial lawyers, and they figure voters don't like them much either.
And few politicians have been as adept at exploiting that hostility as President Bush, who, at the urging of his political adviser Karl Rove, has made attacks on trial lawyers a central part of his political strategy ever since his first run for Texas governor a decade ago.
So John Kerry gave the President a great bashing opportunity by picking a trial lawyer as a VP candidate, didn't he? Not according to a CNN poll:
The poll showed that 67 percent of voters surveyed said his work as a trial lawyer was a strength, while only 27 percent viewed it as a weakness.
According to the president of the National Association of Manufacturers, trial lawyers are "the pariahs of the business community, which is more frightened by them than terrorists, China or higher energy prices." Maybe, but those with less self-interest have trouble thinking the person they rely on to protect their rights is engaged in an evil vocation.
by TChris
Responding to the Supreme Court's reminder that the executive branch of government does not possess limitless and unreviewable power, the Pentagon has begun to demonstrate a repect for due process that is half-hearted at best.
The Pentagon said on Wednesday it was creating panels of U.S. military officers to review whether Guantanamo prisoners were being held legally and would notify them within 10 days of their right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
The detainees aren't given access to lawyers for proceedings before the tribunal. They are given the assistance of a military officer (kinda like the practice of assigning prison guards as advocates for inmates who use a prison's grievance system) but the officer isn't required to have legal training.
The degree to which detainees will be allowed to confront witnesses and to present evidence is unclear, although detainees will apparently be allowed to call witnesses. Whether the proceedings will be open to public scrutiny is undecided.
If the review system has the customary procedural safeguards that attend a serious hearing or trial, and if it can be adequately navigated with the help of someone who lacks training and experience as an advocate, the Pentagon's respect for due process will be determined by the willingness and ability of the panelists to provide a review that is both neutral and meaningful. Nothing in the administration's attitude to date suggests that it wants detention decisions reviewed by fair and independent minds.
The review may produce the release of the most embarrassing cases -- the ones that would be sure losers in court. The rest of the detainees will have to seek relief in federal court, where they can hope to have an impartial review of their imprisonment.
There will be a vote on July 12 on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Please call and e-mail your Senators to oppose it. We support the Human Rights Campaign to uphold civil rights --tell your Senators not to waste their time amending a fundamental document of American liberties in the interest of the Bush Administration's anti-gay agenda.
Don't let Bush and his extreme right-wing friends write discrimination into the Constitution. Stop the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment while you still can.
Law Professor Doug Berman has a "Deep Throat" providing access to DOJ memos on Blakely. We put the first one here. Prof. Berman just got three more, and you can download them from his Sentencing Law and Policy blog .
President Bush has named nine more Guantanamo detainees as eligible for military tribunal trials. 15 detainees to date have been designated. Charges have been filed only against three of them.
We'll be filling in for Atrios tonight at 8:30 ET on Air America Radio's Majority Report with Janeane Garafolo and Sam Seder. You can listen on the internet if the station doesn't broadcast in your area. The show has its own blog where you can leave comments.
Update: It was really fun to do the show. A half-hour went by like lightening. We got to bash the death penalty, Ashcroft, Bush's judicial picks--with no one arguing the other side. That's a first for us.
In other Air America Radio news, Eric of the Hamster is authoring the O'Franken blog this week. Excellent choice.
It's official! We got a "formal notice" in the mail today that TalkLeft has been allocated press credentials for the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. We said this morning we were ecstatic that Kerry selected John Edwards as his running mate, and now we are doubly excited that we will be able to cover the events live and bring you some of the behind the scenes info the major media won't cover--and some news with attitude.
We could definitely use your help with expenses. It will cost us between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 for airfare and hotel (see comments), and we'd like to raise that amount since we'll be losing a week at work. If you're in a position to assist, you can do so here via PayPal. If you'd like to donate anonymously, use Amazon. Both are secure. Many, many thanks.
Update: The DNCC's official blog, BostonDParty, is here--written by Matt Stoller and Eric Schnure.
Don't miss Pressthink's article by Jay Rosen here. Our update is here.
We're not alone in our belief that the greatest impact the 2004 President will have is in picking Supreme Court Justices. The Boston Globe reports that the new President will select up to four new Justices.
Few believe the present court can hold together for another four years, pointing to seats held by two liberals, a conservative, and a frequent swing voter. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71, has battled cancer since 1999. Justice John Paul Stevens is 84. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 79, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, are said to have eyed retirement for several years. Because this court reaches many decisions by 5-to-4 or 6-to-3 votes, the next president may be able to transform its delicate balance into a solid ideological majority that will control American law for the next generation.
It is imperative to us that Bush be replaced so that his attempts to pack the federal courts with right-wing ideologues and judicial activists be stopped. And so that he can't wreak further havoc by putting unacceptable replacements on the Supreme Court.
At the liberal People for the American Way, executive director Ralph Neas argues that a court majority with that perspective would overturn 75 years of jurisprudence, gutting environmental regulations, abortion rights, and a host of civil rights.
As we wrote in December, 2002, this will be a horrible legacy to leave our children:
(413 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |
