Thursday. Open thread

Here is a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< Wednesday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    California Settles Solitary Confinement Lawsuit (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:19:29 AM EST
    This is a 'Game-Changer.'  California had led the nation in keeping people in cold storage," said forensic psychiatrist Terry Kupers, one of several criminal justice experts who had filed research findings in the case...

    Ending years of litigation, hunger strikes and contentious debate, California has agreed to move thousands of state prisoners out of solitary confinement under the terms of a landmark lawsuit settlement.

    Corrections officials, who have long used indefinite isolation to control violent prison gangs, will cease the practice and return nearly 2,000 inmates to the general population, according to the agreement announced Tuesday.

    - Paige St. John, Tribune News Service, August 2, 2015

    This just in (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    and as expected:

    Judge Richard Berman has overturned Tom Brady's four-game suspension.

    As it should be! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    Watch this year... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:01:04 AM EST
    ...as the Patriots fumble total goes back to the league average. Forget Tom's comfort with a Nerf ball in his hand, fumble prevention was the biggest beneficiary for those cheaters. He'll break his leg this year if there is any justice in the universe. He is the supermodel of the NFL. Eff him.

    The Pats o-line better do more holding (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    than usual - which may require watching some WWF videos in preparation - when Tom and Co go up against Marcel Dareus, Mario and Kyle Williams this season..

    Like Belichick... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    ...doesn't have a Plan B.

    George Costanza replied when asked why he cheated:

    Because I am a cheater.

    I have no doubt that some day, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    a scan or MRI will reveal that Brady has a horseshoe firmly seated in his lower colon.

    Next question: when is Bob Kraft giving those two equipment guys their jobs back?

    Also, what effect will there be from the court having essentially completely fked with a collective bargaining agreement?  


    if you read the ruling (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    he didn't overturn or mess with a collective bargaining agreement.  It was more or less that NFL did not uphold their end of the agreement.

    Whether Tom Brady cheated or not is really besides the point for this ruling.

    "Judge Richard M. Berman of Federal District Court in Manhattan did not rule on whether Brady tampered with the footballs in a bid for competitive advantage. Instead, he focused on the narrower question of whether the collective bargaining agreement between the N.F.L. and the players union gave Goodell the authority to carry out the suspension. Judge Berman ruled that it did not."


    It was never in doubt (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    Ruling with an iron fist, aka punishing with no evidence, is a losing hand unless you own an army.

    So is overturning (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    A collectively bargained agreement.  This was only a ruling on procedure of the arbitration and not the underlying facts themselves.  Now will Goddell take the chance and appeal to the 2nd Circuit?  

    See Steve Garvey.

    I hope every referee triple checks the Patriots' game balls this year - to the pont of being annoying to the Patriots, but knowing them, they'll find some other way to cheat.

    Will be great to see regular fumble stats from them.


    Well, Goodell and the League (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    Don't have much time left.  The Patriot's first game is a week away.
    Personally, I think that the ruling will be appealed by the Pittsburgh Steelers, joined by the Bills, Jaguars, and Cowboys.  
    (Yes, it's a joke.)

    This is a... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    ...win/win for Goodell.  The option he would have chosen if he could have on day one, look like the enforcer and Brady plays.

    ... which in my opinion was more than sufficient to establish Tom Brady's culpability in the actual scheme to deflate footballs. Rather, Judge Richard M. Berman focused upon what he saw as the NFL's violation of Brady's right to due process, as provided by terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association.

    I think it's important to note that Judge Berman accepted the Arbitrator's actual findings of fact in this matter which, as he pointed out, are generally not subject to judicial review in any event. Instead, he found that Brady's four-game suspension was "premised upon several significant legal deficiencies."

    Berman took specific issue with the NFL's punishment because as he saw it, Brady had been given no notice by Commissioner Roger Goodell that he could be suspended four games for:

    • Being generally aware that two Patriot equipment managers were deflating footballs in direct violation of league rules;
    • His participation in any such scheme to deflate footballs; and
    • His non-cooperation with the league's investigation.

    And according to Berman, "Brady also had no notice that his discipline would be the equivalent of the discipline imposed upon a player who used performance enhancing drugs."

    The judge further criticized the NFL for denying Brady equal access to investigative files and witness interview notes, and denying him an opportunity to directly examine one of the league's two lead investigators.

    Speaking for myself only, this was the equivalent of having a sentence overturned on a technicality. It's an important distinction, to be sure, if the NFL did indeed violate Brady's right to due process per the collective bargaining agreement, as the NFL Players Association had contended in this case. But it's a technicality nonetheless.



    an illegal search (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    Is also just a "technicality".

    But it should matter.  And I know a lot of people hate Brady, but that's really besides the point when it comes to this case.


    The Walkaway... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    ...don't comply with the NFL investigation and you won't get punished if your name is Tom Brady.

    This is funny, Tom seems to have gotten a little testy at home over being called a cheater.


    Sure, but (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    Pats fans will feel vindicated (even though the judge dud acceot as fact that Brady et al cheated) while the rest of the world knows (again) that they got away with it.

    Go Steelers!


    Well, there would be (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    more than a little bit of schadenfreude if the Steelers completely obliterate the Patriots next Thursday.   ;-)

    The Steelers (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Are my second nd favorite team, so I would root for them anyway.

    But now I'm gonna roit extra hard.


    Much Like the Lions... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    ...all the cheering in the world can't make them win.

    We, the Pack, haVE da Bears at home on Thanksgiving and Detroit has the Eagles.  I think the Eagles are going to be tough this year, but those GD Lions are going to actually make good on their promises one of these years...

    The Pats & Steelers have the opening game this year, Thursday the 10th.  That is a fricken week away, wahooo....


    Ahem (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    As a first and foremost Lions fan, all I can say, is well, I hope so.

    Deadspin hasn't gotten to the Packers yet, but here's something you should love about the Lions.

    Why your team sucks - Detroit Lions

    Yeah, yeah, we know.


    I Forgot About Suh (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    Scratch the making good comment.

    In case you haven't seen the obnoxiousness, here is a video of what the Detroit fans pay for.


    Ha. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    Here's another ode to Lions fans - from a couple of years ago. A few parodies off the "Pure Michigan" ad campaign.

    (Some language, so if you are at work, turn down the volume a bit)



    I Think... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    ...I posted that a long time ago.

    Did not know it was a related to a campaign.


    If the NFL violated the CBA, I agree. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    It still doesn't vacate the actual findings of fact in this matter, which are that Tom Brady (a) likely cheated by getting those two equipment managers to deflate footballs for him prior to games in direct violation of league rules; and then (b) obstructed Mr. Wells's investigation into the matter through his non-cooperation and apparent destruction of evidence.

    And of these three individuals implicated in this scheme, only the two low-level schmucks are punished. For all practical purposes at this point, Tom Brady has basically skated.

    And so, with the harmonious equilibrium of our universe now having been restored, my belief in the American concept of justice is thus reaffirmed, in that its attainment is available to those who can afford it.



    Well If You Are Applying... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    ...the term 'American Justice' to professional sports in which air was let of balls.

    In the scheme of American Justice, this is so dumb that it doesn't even deserve to be in the same sentence.  Yeah he should have been suspended, yeah he cheated, but to invoke American Justice is a wee bit over the top considering he broke a rule, he did not go a crime spree.


    I was being facetious, Scott. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    All I'm saying is that Tom Brady and the NFLPA had the money to afford themselves sufficient legal leverage with the legal system, and that system ultimately delivered on their behalf.

    That their case about the NFL's violation of due process may have had merit is beside the point here. Most people with even more compelling civil cases don't possess the financial resources to take on a multi-billion dollar business like pro football and see it through to a successful conclusion.

    And speaking of people with lack of resources, as far those two poor schlubs who agreed to do Brady's bidding and lost their jobs are concerned, I'm afraid that they'll have to depend on karma for any sense of justice on their own behalf. Or maybe, karma's already exacted its due and they're simply SOL.



    Far too often, Donald, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:39:12 PM EST
    It's the "little guys" who take the fall, and who have little or no recourse.  
    It's the way of the world, unfortunately.

    Rashamon (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    Please explain why the appeal (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    of Goodell's decision was decided in federal district court (as opposed to a state court).  [Yes, I have googled.]

    That's where the NFL filed (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    No idea why it happened that way as I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    Actually (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    The NFLPA filed first in the district court in Minnesota.  Then the NFL filed in NY.

    The NFL actually filed it first (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    to circumvent the union who was filing in Minnesota. They both tried to cherry pick their court. The NFL won the cherry-picking and still lost the case.

    If you're interested (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    Links to stories on today's DeflateGate deflation (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:33:55 AM EST
    The New York Times story.

    The Washington Post story.

    The ABA Journal story on Sony's deflation of "Concussion," because of NFL pressure.


    The parties alleged the federal district (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    court had jurisdiction under the "federal question" statute. I can't figure out what the federal question is and the court did not address jurisdiction.

    Maybe because (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    The arbitration result in dispute, was one that was bargained and agreed to by parties in mulitple jurisdictions?  Also because the outcome affects things in multiple jurisdictions? (For example, Brady plays in multiple cities).

    I think the federal question stems from (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

    Little discussion here on the refugee (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:33:15 AM EST
    crisis in Europe. My opinion is probably not popular here, but maybe it's time for Europe to take more interest in the goings on of ISIS and should step up to take them out.

    I believe wholeheartedly that ISIS is a creation of the United States' blunders in Iraq. Thank you Bush and dark lord Cheney. But now the aftermath is affecting nearly the entire world. We broke it and don't have the will to fix it. I don't want to see US troops back in Iraq, however I also believe that ISIS is the personification of real evil. They need to eliminated. Stopped from breathing air.

    The refugee crisis seems to me, to be an opportunity to create a real coalition of armed forces. It is in Europe's best interests now, to end ISIS or the flow of humanity will not stop.

    It works for me (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    saw something this morning I thought was quite moving.

    editorial cartoons are not always funny


    The refugees are not just fleeing ISIS. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:16:52 AM EST
    Defeating ISIS is important in and of itself, but defeating ISIS will not end the migration of refugees. They are fleeing the effects of global climate change. This is not new information, but it is information that is almost never discussed.

    For three years now, leading security and climate experts -- and Syrians themselves -- have made the connection between climate change and the Syrian civil war. Indeed, when a major peer-reviewed study came out on in March making this very case, Retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley said it identifies “a pretty convincing climate fingerprint" for the Syrian drought.
    Titley, a meteorologist who led the U.S. Navy's Task Force on Climate Change when he was at the Pentagon, also said, "you can draw a very credible climate connection to this disaster we call ISIS right now."
    Compare the words of Admiral Titley -- former Deputy Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance (!) and currently Director of Penn State's Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risks. -- with O'Malley's (video here):
    "One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation-state of Syria and the rise of ISIS was the effect of climate change and the mega-drought that affected that region, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis that created the symptoms -- or rather, the conditions -- of extreme poverty that has led now to the rise of ISIL and this extreme violence."

    This article goes on in greater detail.

    Until we get serious about confronting climate change, until we accept that hard choices must be made about how we fuel our world and must be made now if not sooner, we will experience more and more human tragedy as people struggle and fight to save themselves and their families.


    ISIS does not wear uniforms (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    And with the number of heavy weapons littering that region, you are talking, still, a couple of decades of bloodshed to go about it that way, short of a complete occupation that would include, say, 20 million foreign troops. As such, you'd be better to simply advocate carpet bombing, cuz in the long run, ironically, you'd probably kill fewer people. The best thing is for people everywhere to throw off the shackles of every ridiculous paradigm humanity has created and just be decent to each other. Offer those refugees the greatest opportunity people have ever seen, and offer it to your own citizens too. Lead by overly human EXAMPLE.

    Yes, we don't have the Glorious Koran (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    we have the Glorious Free Market with it's ensuing every-man-for-himself free for all..

    A shoddy substitute paradigm which is, in part, what radical fundamentalists are reacting to.


    It Was Broke... (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    ...long before GWB tried to fix it, but in their hast to repair it, they actually worked on the wrong part, and broke something that was working.  And it's not that we don't have the will, we cannot fix it.

    I am all for stepping in if we could end Islamic extremism in the Middle East and give these people some comfort/rest.

    The real question, is are we going to step up and start taking refugees.  I really hope so, and I am pretty sure I know where the GOP stands on helping the people they screwed over, but damn, kids/people dying to escape the horrors that we, in some part, helped create.

    Let's not forget about the crisis just to the south of us in which the violence is making El Salvador one of most violent countries on the planet.  I believe they have the highest murder rates in the world, surpassing the rate during their civil war.  It's bad.


    Liar Liar (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    pants on fire . From Dick "I didn't do emails" Cheney
    "The day I walked into my new office as the Vice-President, there was a computer there that I had them immediately remove.

    That's sure an odd looking typewriter on your desk there you lying POS.

    Mad Dog's typewriter has stereo speakers. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    Mad Dog also has (none / 0) (#43)
    by fishcamp on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:37:04 AM EST
    one of those incredibly expensive Remington bronzes of cowboys and indians behind him on a table.  What do I have behind my desk?  A batch of tarnished silver plate ski trophies, but at least I didn't lie to get them, I won them.  There are a few second and third place trophies too, that actually have plastic stands.  Oh well, I wasn't VP either, thankfully.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    and apparently Condi Rice was lying about not using email either.

    Interesting Happening in the GOP Today (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:09:52 AM EST
    Trump to meet with Reince Priebus and Trump holding a press conference at 2:00pm

    Not sure where it's going but the best line I've seen on the topic is from Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:

    So... GOP establishment is responding to anti-establishment Trump surge by demanding statement of loyalty to GOP establishment?

    Can't believe he will sign (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:28:14 AM EST
    but if he does he will get some assurances of his own.  Alternatively he might sign with the caveat "if you are nice to me"

    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    There is nothing legally binding by signing.

    That is What I Was Thinking (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    Trump is on-board until he isn't.

    It is always risky to (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    predict what Trump will do.  Much leverage exits in Trump not signing, and it would seem reasonable for him to continue, as in the first debate,  "not to raise his hand."  Therefore, I feel that he WILL sign.   He has now tasted the sweetness of being not only a Republican party contender, but also, a front runner.

    Devils advocate (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    it could be a trap.  An idiotic trap but the best they can do.  Get him to sign the pledge and them unleash the wrath of the 7 hells on him.

    Yes, that mentality seems (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    right up the conga line's alley.  Trump is beyond awful they will say.  And, then when he gets the nomination of the Republican party, they will endorse and support him.

    Of course they will (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    many including Lindsey Graham have said so.

    Clerk Davis of Rowan County, (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:14:25 AM EST
    KY is to appear in federal court today at 11 am.  The Court should levy a heavy fine on the County. Say, $1000 per day until the clerk's office complies with the Court order.  Clerk Davis is a responsibility  of the county, as an elected official.  A personal fine is likely to be paid by her Christian supporters,  Of course, not adhering to the law is OK if it is something they support.   Jail time, could come later, if necessary.   All the fines could be refunded to the county upon compliance, i.e, she does her job.     The county taxpayers faced with increases in taxes, are less likely to become martyrs to their cause.

    I was hoping for 1000 a day (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:25:59 AM EST
    doubling every day until she complies.  That should keep her internet fundraisers busy.

    Yonkers 1989s (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:49:32 AM EST
    In 1988, after Judge Sand imposed contempt-of-court fines that doubled every day, the Council acquiesced and voted to approve the court-ordered desegregation plan. By the time of the vote, though, Yonkers had already racked up $819,000 in nonrefundable fines. If the plan had not been approved, the city would have had to lay off hundreds of workers to pay the mounting fines.

    Jail it is (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    until she agrees to comply. A sad state of affairs, but lawful and apparently necessary.

    Agreed, it's sad but necessary. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    Peter G: "A sad state of affairs, but lawful and apparently necessary."

    At all times in this ridiculous confrontation, even given its foregone legal conclusion, Kim Davis has possessed the capacity to control her fate. Everyone else, from her constituents to Judge Bunning and the U.S. Supreme Court, has been merely reacting to what she's been doing. Thus, jail is an entirely logical and appropriate destination for the path that she, and she alone, deliberately chose to follow.

    Hasta la vista, Christianista.


    You were correct (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:22:02 PM EST

    But saying you are willing to go to jail rather than abide by a Judge's ruling will usually have that Judge send you to jail.


    Remainder of staff gets 30 minutes (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    to decide whether they prefer jail or do their job.

    or quit their jobs, I suppose (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    Seems like they would have a 3-way choice. Quitting wouldn't absolve them from punishment for past disobedience (which would have to be handled in a different sort of proceeding), but it would negate the use of civil, coercive (forward-looking) contempt sanctions now.

    If staff agree to issue licenses (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    then Davis can be let go, with an order prohibiting her from entering the Clerk's office.

    Is this something the judge said, MKS? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    Or something you are suggesting? The judge has to be careful, and I believe is being careful, to use the least power that is sufficient to satisfy his responsibilities to see that federal law is implemented and enforced, and that federal rights are respected. I don't think a federal judge, in that light, could bar Davis from entering the offices. Does the County Clerk not have other responsibilities than issuance of marriage licenses? He won't prevent her from performing those other functions, unless he finds it is essential to achieving the goal of getting marriage licenses issued to those who qualify and have a right to marry.

    It Would Be a Dream Come True... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    ...for most, locked out of work while collecting a check.

    My suggestion (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:08:16 PM EST
    An injunction preventing her from entering the office is less restrictive than being put in jail.  In jail, she cannot go into the office-- or anywhere else....

    Federal judges have a sometimes expansive view of their power.

    But, true, on appeal a plain vanilla incarceration is more likely to be upheld.


    Yes, Clerk Davis (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:34:52 PM EST
    will be a martyr. And, there will be plenty of supporters making sure she does not trip on her jumper as she mounts the pyre.  The sad conga line already has her back--Huckabee says it is the "criminalization of Christianity,"  and we can expect even more legal expertise from the likes of Ted Cruz, the Harvard Law graduate.

     Up to now, I have only noted two saner contenders, Senator Lindsey Graham and CA senate loser and fired HP CEO Fiorina. Of course, they disagree with everything, but do believe that Clerk Davis should comply.that is, do her job.    


    If enough of her assistants agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    to issue the licenses, and Davis agrees not to try to stop, penalize or interfere with them (including the pro forma inclusion of her name on the official documents), then I would think she would go free, and not have to comply personally.

    Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    someone saying, "Resist not evil" and "Render unto Caesar ...." Perhaps the time has come for Ms. Davis to submit to lawful authority, as (arguably) the New Testament commands.

    Peter, it is not even possible (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:10:42 PM EST
    to parse what these evangelical, "born-again" types believe and don't believe.
    They pick and choose what they want to believe, and what they want to ignore.
    Although, I'm pretty sure that this is the case for almost all religions.
    So, there you have it.

    They certainly don't resist evil (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    when they go along with the Heritage Foundation taking food out of the mouths of poor kids and when they cheer on the spending of hundreds of billions on armaments..

    If these people worked in Jesus's pr department, he'd fire all of them. And then watch them clean out their desks to make sure they didn't steal anything on their way out.


    As I predicted, five out of six deputy clerks (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    (not including Davis's son) have agreed to issue the licenses when they get back to the office tomorrow. The judge says she can go free (undoubtedly sitting in the U.S. Marshal's lock-up area still, not at the jail) if she does not interfere with the willing deputies. Within the hour, we shall see if everyone is on board with that.

    Yes, it is reported (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    that the plaintiffs have proposed releasing Clerk Davis out of custody if she agrees to not interfere with marriage licenses being issued by the five deputy clerks---and the Judge agreed.  However, Clerk Davis has refused the deal.  The judge is giving more time for her to think about it.

    I hope she fights it (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    i want to see here sorry ass behind bars.

    You get your wish (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:49:51 PM EST
    The judge agreed to the proposal that five of the deputy clerks -- including a self-proclaimed "preachers' daughter" who wept about it, and who could just dry her tears and find another job -- do Davis' work for her. But when he called her back into the courtroom, she refused to agree to the proposal.  

    So, the judge put her back in the pokey.

    By the way, Bloomberg News has an interesting analysis about a question that I had:  Didn't
    Davis have to take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the land?  Yes, she did.  And she added "so help me God" -- not in the oath but often added, ever since Geo. Washington did so -- and she thinks that means that God's law is paramount.  Not so, says the essayist; that addition is not to God but, instead, only invokes God as witness to the oathtaker's vow.  

    The result, then, is that violating the oath is a sin.  Somebody ought to 'splain that to the sinner Davis.


    I am so completely over this a$$hole (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    i think they should put her In a kennel in the office so she has to watch.

    I'm completely fine with her getting paid for sitting in jail.   I hope she pushes it far enough that the charges become criminal.   That seems possible.


    Also curious what happens (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    to the two copycats.

    Did you happen to catch one of them ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    ... on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show last night? Casey Davis was shockingly clueless about his proscribed duties as an elected public official, and kept citing "the law of nature" and select provisions of the Kentucky Constitution in defense of his position, as though it all trumped the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Morons like that have no business holding public office in any capacity.


    I did (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:43:11 PM EST
    who the hell wears a jogging suit to a national TV appearance?

    Also it's pretty hilarious the see these idiots whining about "lawless" behavior reveal what hypocrites they are.


    Call me skeptical. (none / 0) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    But, I have doubts about her firmly held belief; maybe, just maybe, it started as that, but it has moved full steam ahead into her anti-gay cause.  The idea that the Clerk discharging her ministerial duties is endorsing or otherwise participating in a marriage, straight or gay, is not a stretch of the imagination, but a hallucination.

     And, betraying the sincerity of her firmly held belief even more so is her confusion between personal and personnel.  Indeed,  by Clerk Davis' resistance to  permitting her deputies to do what she finds sinful it suggests religious harassment in the workplace.

    Call me cynical, if I believe she is looking to cash in on her martyrdom. It is all a freebie for her, Liberty Counsel, the anti-gay group is paying her legal fees. And, the County is paying her salary. She refuses to resign.  She may well see not coal, but gold,  in them there KY hills.

     Why, otherwise, refuse a get out of jail free card?  I doubt it was because she heard they are serving possum stew tonight.  I'll go with it being more dramatic to greet Huckabee, Jindal and Paul in jail, with the cameras rolling, than to meet him in the office break room.



    You are cynical (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    and so am I.  And so is John Amato

    Grifters gotta grift and anyone with a brain could see this coming a mile away. I'm sure she knows all about the anti-gay bakery that raised a ton of money off of their homophobia and I imagine she sees a big payday coming for herself to play the persecuted evangelical card.

    I'm laughing at all these law and order conservatives who now are sticking up for Davis, who is breaking the law and should be put into the hoosegow. She's not being asked to perform a gay wedding, but when there is dollar signs attached to the Christian persecution meme - then you get Kim Davis.

    None of us are probably cynical enough.


    Some sins (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    are more equal than others

    It's clearly what she wants (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    her exiting words were "thank you judge"

    Give it to her.  


    That would appear reasonable., (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    especially as a roll-out.  Time is not on the anti-gay side, although there are plenty of hate groups to stoke the embers.   Clerk Davis, in my view, is not so much Rosa Parks as she is George Wallace.

    Gay men and women, with those allied in concern for equality and justice,  have worked within the legal, political and social systems to end the oppression. Even, in the face of Clerk Davis's obstinance, the plaintiffs, both gay and straight, asked only for compliance, using the least severe tool, fines.

     Justice Ginsburg's idea of deliberate movement toward Obergefell v Hodges has, in greatest measure, worked very well--and quickly.  There are but pockets of resistance remaining (e.g., Alabama, Texas, Kentucky), and, they will falter.  

    This having been said, I believe it is a worrying precedent to permit the Clerk, as the elected head of a government office, to not personally comply.  

    It is not just a matter of personal, firmly held belief, but also, a firmly held attitude that is likely to intrude on her office and its complying employees.

      Of course, there are all manner of inexact analogies, but to make a point, it might be like electing a sheriff who will not bear arms, but will, if forced, allow his deputies to be armed.


    I Don't Think It's Reasonable (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    She is putting the burden of her decision on other people.

    What happens when she is the only one there ?  No vacation, no doctor appointment for George because that would leave Kim here, alone.

    Either she can do the job or she can't, it's like the pharmacist who won't give out Plan B, someone's got to do it and by accommodating these personal beliefs they are unaccommodating everyone around them allowing people stand behind beliefs, which for many are completely irrational.

    For example, what if I find that paying incomes taxes goes against my personal belief that the federal government doesn't have the authority to make me pay taxes, even though the courts disagree.  (think Posse Comitatus).  Do I get to say to my boss, yeah, my personal beliefs will not allow me to help prepare a tax return.  Never mind that I probably should not have taken a job in tax...

    Of course not, it's ludicrous, and just because her beliefs are more mainstream, it doesn't make the argument any less ridiculous.  To me they are free to find a job that complies with their conscious, Kim could work at a church where they are free to pick and choose their marriage approval customers.


    Clerk Davis of Rowan County, (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    may find trouble in landing a job in a Church.  They might legally turn her away on firmly held beliefs about the sanctity of marriage--what with her serial marriages and all.

    Good One. (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    Via her lawyers, issued on Tuesday: (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    "I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus himself regarding marriage," she said in the statement. "To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a heaven or hell decision."

    She's entitled to her beliefs; no one's saying she isn't.  But her beliefs are no more and no less important than anyone else's, and those beliefs do not take precedence over the rights of others.  

    If her personal beliefs are in conflict with her job responsibilities, she can either take the position that it isn't "Kim Davis, Christian" who is issuing the licenses, but rather the county, which requires a human being to stand as the representative of the government, and allow the licenses to be issued - or - she can stand on her principles and resign her position.

    I'm so over this stuff it's not even funny.


    It WOuld Be Nice... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    ...if someone would ask her to source the Jesus traching as in another thread the teaching is attributed to Paul.

    Not just Davis (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:27:53 AM EST
    All of her Deputy Clerks have been ordered to appear.

    IT IS ORDERED that this matter be, and is, hereby set for a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court (Doc. # 67) on Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:00a.m. in Ashland, Kentucky. Defendant Davis and each of her deputy clerks shall be present at the hearing.

    Judge Bunning may start with Davis and go right down the line of Clerks until he finds one that will uphold the law.

    Supposedly (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:29:31 AM EST
    one has said they will.   Also two more KY county clerks joined the stoppage yesterday.

    The Question is... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    ...why isn't that person issuing them ?

    I think the 2 additional refusals do not help Davis at all.

    JB, the judge, David Bunning has a interesting pedigree:

    Bunning is the son of Jim Bunning, the Hall of Fame pitcher for the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies who served two terms as Kentucky's junior U.S. Senator. Former Republican President George W. Bush nominated David Bunning for a lifetime position as a federal judge in 2001 when he was just 35 years old, halfway through his dad's first term in the Senate.

    Simple (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    why isn't that person issuing them

    The law reads that Davis issues them unless Davis isn't available. Davis may be unavailable later today.


    Fear of unemployment? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:35:38 AM EST
    Kim Davis is the boss. All the clerks in the office work for her. Anyone issuing a marriage license against her wishes is probably headed for the unemployment line (as of the moment).

    Her Objection... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    ...is her signature on the form, not the office issuing them.

    Coral answered my question.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    her name is on the form.  

    One solution her lawyers have been pushing (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:23:17 AM EST
    is removing her name.  She has said she has no problem issuing them if her name was not on the firm.

    It has been reported (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    that Clerk Davis has intimidated her employees. Inflicting her beliefs on all comers.

    I saw that! (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    Small world

    So the majority (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    of Republicans think that Obama is a Muslim and he's not a US citizen. I'm not sure there is a cure for what ails the GOP these days.

    And there's an unintentionally (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:36:52 PM EST
    Orwellian regular poster here who says scientists can't be trusted because they "believe" things..

    Donald Trump signed the agreement with (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    The RNC.

    So much press coverage I thought he got Osama bin Laden.

    I probably shouldn't even write that. In 10 years some survey of Republican voters will reveal that 34% of them will believe that Donald Trump got Osama bin Laden.

    Donald Trump also says that Tom Brady is a very honorable guy, and he has been exonerated :)

    Yes, very newsworthy. (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    The top contender for the Republican party nomination for president, says he will be a Republican.  And, can expect all the clown car losers to endorse him when he wins.  But, as a good casino guy, no doubt, all bets are off, if his polls drop like a rock.

    The wrong date on the original (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    He held it up and reporters spotted the error. It was dated August instead of September :)

    But they have been discussing how legally binding this pledge is. With the Trump legal team taking it on, probably not very binding.

    Trump said at the podium though that he pledged allegiance to the Republican Party and to the Conservative principles for which it stands.   Wordsmithing, by a talking ass :)


    Wonder What THey Offered Him ? (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    He said 'no' once and it probably helped his chances, so why say 'yes' now ?  Other than the obvious toothless virginity pledge to remain true.

    I think Trump has (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    concluded that he is in a different position now than he was when previously asked.  Being smitten with his prospects as front runner, he has more to gain (securing the endorsement of his losing opponents) than lose (giving ammunition to his losing opponents).  The promise is to be nice to him.  And, they will be.  No FOX ambushes.  Probably, not even a push for his tax returns, as was done for the hapless Romney.

    Yes also (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    there was so many loopholes in that it was hilarious.  This will be to his benefit.  Some states could keep him off the ballot without it.

    I see (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    it as a brilliant, or at least lucky, counter to Jeb's "He's not a Republican" attacks.

    Trump claims to be a Republican and now he has the "papers" to prove it, probably good enough for the rubes. Attack neutralized.


    Somehow the Donald equates (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    Our currently very low score on military preparedness with Hillary Clinton being the worst Sec of State we have ever had :) No details on how that 2+2=4.

    Eurostar (none / 0) (#107)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    had a major fkup in France.

    The train that goes from France to England through the "Chunnel" stopped in the tunnel because of --- well it doesn't matter to me why --- they stopped and let the passengers fester inside the closed cars without ventilation or air-conditioning for two to three hours --- temperatures reaching 95°! - and - I believe in the dark - both figuratively and literally --

    No light. And NO information to the passengers about what was happening.

    I understand that some of the passengers were on the brink of "losing it" - considering smashing the windows and trying to get the hell out.

    To me - this is a frightening episode.
    All the more frightening because this represents yet another example of corporate incompetence arm in arm with government stupidity and callousness regarding their customers and citizens.

    Of course there is the other issue of all of the immigrants trying to flee to safety...

    But - the ones I find myself angry at are the international corporations that created such a piece of sh-t train and the uncaring a-holes who run the d@mn thing.

    I'm mildly claustrophobic. I don't even like to be in elevators. I think I would have flipped out.

    I was on that train just a few weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    and enjoyed it, surprisingly, as I am claustrophobic.  I worried that the time in the tunnel would undo me.

    But our train did not stop.  Nor were we in the dark.  Cripes, I would have lost it, too.

    <note to self:  next time, skip Chunnel train>


    I rode (none / 0) (#120)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    it too - about six or seven months ago.

    I enjoyed the fact that I could go to England so quickly from France - and arrive right in the middle of London.

    But, frankly, I was shocked.. or disappointed by the comfort level of the train - which I thought was minimal. I did not ride in First Class...
    But the lower class - economy or whatever, had very narrow seats which declined minimally or not at all and with an "arm rest" between two seats that would barely accommodate one elbow - let alone two...

    And they kept interrupting whatever sleep you might manage to get by hawking the stuff they were selling in the dining car... Their intercom and speakers worked just fine for that --

    Anyway - I was frankly shocked that two governments - the French and the British - in a combined effort couldn't come up with something more comfortable for the plebes like me.

    But what they did to the folks in the tunnel last week is raising their indifference to our comfort to an Olympian level...


    I love trains (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    and take them whenever possible.  But that sounds pretty awful.

    I asked about Mr Robot in the closed thread.  Did you see the finale?  Did you not love the idea of the worlds debt being erased forever?


    ThinkProgress (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 07:24:18 PM EST
    Mr. Robot, USA's unlikely breakout hit of the summer, aired its finale Wednesday night, a week after it was originally scheduled to air. The episode was postponed after the shooting of two journalists on live TV in Roanoke, Virginia, due to "a graphic scene similar in nature" to the on-camera killings.
    That's been the headline on Mr. Robot for a week now, and if all you want to know is what exactly went down in the scene that prompted the delay, you can. But focus on those few minutes at the expense of the rest of this unnerving, fantastic debut season at your peril. The reason this show skyrocketed to critical smash status over just ten weeks isn't because of the major news it made. The excellence of Mr. Robot isn't about big; it's about small. This is a show with astonishing attention to detail.
    But even though the televised suicide was gruesome and, in light of last week's shooting, especially disturbing, it was not the most graphic part of the show. The most horrifying stuff isn't what we can see. It almost doesn't matter who is knocking on Elliot's door at the end of the episode.
    The real violence in Mr. Robot isn't what happens to other people, outside, on-screen. The real violence is internal, personal. It's hallucinations clashing with reality; competing moralities waging war within.
    It's not what's out there. It's all in your head.



    I saw (none / 0) (#117)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    the finale.

    What I didn't care for was that the premise of the world's debt being erased was not presented with a definite point of view.

    The "people" in what looked like Times Square, were portrayed as slightly weird hippies.

    It looked like a bogus revolution.
    It looked slightly like a fascist revolution.

    All I can say is that I really like the cast.
    But I feel that the writers don't know which way to go. Portray the tyranny of mega-corporations, or to portray the psyches of some tortured souls.
    Portray a revolution as a great thing - a liberating thing - or just a turnover to a new set of tyrants thanks to some gifted but naive hackers.

    I do like the cast.


    I think what you see as an absence (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 08:11:30 PM EST
    of a point of view (which I don't really agree with) is intentional.  If by people in Times Square you mean the scene with the masks, that was a very clear nod to Guy Falks and the great movie "V for Vendetta".

    I think they can, and do, portray the tyranny of mega corporations and the psyches of some tortured soles.  IMO either one without the other would make for a boring story.

    As far as turning it over to a new set of tyrants, it's the end of season one.  

    Do you know B.D. Wong?  The guy who player the character Whiterose?  He only appeared twice in the season.  Once in semi drag (I think he got a Tony for M Butterfly) a couple of weeks ago as the person behind all the mahem and again in the after credits scene with the creepy official of Evil Corp.  

    In other words.   We actually have no freakin clue who is screwing who.

    I think it's terrific.  I can't wait till next season.  I also love the cast.  Rami is especially perfect.


    ... when we took Amtrak's Coast Starlight from Oakland to L.A. It was an otherwise beautiful daytime ride down the California coast, but it was still the biggest mistake I made on that particular mainland trip, because I had a terribly bored 8-year-old and 5-year-old with me. Mom was waiting for us at Grandma's in Pasadena, and I had initially thought it would be fun because the girls had never been on a train before. But they pretty quickly disabused me of that naïve notion. The journey took ten hours, and they were generally disagreeable to awful for about eight of them. In obvious retrospect, we should've flown instead.

    I have a new screen saver (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    I can hear (none / 0) (#114)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    the howls already.
    A former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton's email server is planning to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying before Congress about it, according to a memo obtained by ThinkProgress.
    I already know how the Republicans and the media will play it, but what does it mean legally?

    I find this interesting (my emp.)

    "It is understandable that attorneys for Mr. Pagliano have advised him to assert his constitutional right not to testify given the onslaught of reckless accusations of criminal conduct that continue to be made by many Republicans.
    Methinks the mysterious Mr. P is going soon get his 15 minutes of fame, and not in a good way.

    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    Trey Gowdy can give him immunity but what do you bet he doesn't because he really isn't interested in this and knows there's nothing.

    I really can't blame the guy though.

    This whole thing kind of backs up Hillary's statement that it is partisan blowing up that talking point from the GOP.


    Keeping up with Kim Davis memes (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    is now officially a full time job.

    my favorite so far