Monday Open Thread

I spent all my blogging time last night and this morning weeding out objectionable comments on the Zimmerman threads. I'm still not done.

Big Tent Democrat is very busy the next few days with the pre-relaunch of Daily Kos radio, whose official relaunch comes at Netroots Nation next week.

The Supreme Court has ruled Dick Cheney's secret service agents have immunity in a 2006 Colorado lawsuit filed by a protester who was arrested. The Tenth Circuit had ruled the lawsuit could proceed.

“This court,” Justice Thomas wrote for six justices, “has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause; nor was such a right otherwise clearly established at the time of Howards’s arrest.”

Another example of how much it matters who gets appointed to lifetime positions on the federal courts and Supreme Court.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< George Zimmerman Returns to Jail, Will Seek New Hearing | Bon Jovi Flies With Obama on Air Force One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Mayor Bloomberg backs plan to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    limit arrests for marijuana:


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    Another example of how much it matters who gets appointed to lifetime positions on the federal courts and Supreme Court.

    The decision was unanimous. What does that say about Obama's appointees?

    Geez, the guy darted out of (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:54:47 AM EST
    a crowd, lectured him and then smacked the vice president of the U.S. on the shoulder.  The SS wouldn't be doing its job if they didn't arrest the guy.  They have no way of knowing whether he's harmless or not.

    From what I know if it from news reports, I have zero problem with this decision.


    Thank you. Neither do I. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    I can separate my intense dislike for Dick Cheney enough from the case to realize that these guys were simply doing their job.

    That guy smacked Cheney on the shoulder, and then lied to the Secret Service about it. Absolutely, he should have been arrested. His right to free speech doesn't give him license to engage in what agents protecting Cheney determined was threatening behavior.


    Uh, it was described as an open hand pat , not (none / 0) (#145)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    a "smack."

    How do you know it was a "smack"? T/U.


    Justice Kagan (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    did not participate.  

    Still leaves (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    Sotomayor and the other liberal justices.

    True, and (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    it is curious, to me, that Justice Sotomayor did not, at least, join the reasoning of Justices Breyer and Ginsberg.

    You need to look at the facts of ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    ... the case itself in a more objective manner, and not from the attitude that the man's behavior that day was somehow justified because Dick Cheney is a walking rectal cavity.

    Did you read the argument? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    It was a uninimous ruling, so the alternative opinion from those two does not dispute that fact.  It just makes the ruling more narrow.

    Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer (none / 0) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    voted in the majority, but using  a different and narrower analysis, essentially turning on the applicability of the Hartman decision. Ginsberg and Breyer's reasoning was that suits against ordinary law enforcement officials over retaliatory arrests should not be barred by Hartman, but they did carve out an exception for secret service officials whose protective responsibilities require on the spot decisions. As to the dispute over the manner of the touch to Cheney's body  (light pat v. heavy push) Clarence Thomas wrote that dispute did not affect the analysis of the case.

    I was wondering the same things, why just (none / 0) (#146)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:18:54 PM EST
    Ginsburg and Breyer?

    Nothing except, maybe loathe to overturn precedent (none / 0) (#8)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    Which in some cases is a good thing.

    There's still something called (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:01:43 PM EST

    The Supreme Court argument assumes that a vacancy will open in a Romney administration.  That may or may not be true.  And since Obama hasn't exactly been filling judicial vacancies with lightning speed (even when he had the Senate and the votes), it's not like it's been a top priority for this administration.


    I'd say Pres. Obama has hopped to it (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    re SCOTUS vacancies.  

    With all due respect, the Senate ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    ... still needs to confirm judicial appointments, and the GOP minority has done its ideological damnedest to block a lot of those, too.

    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sj on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    the Senate can neither stall nor confirm an appointment that has never been made.

    Mother Jones article: More Federal judge vacancies (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    now than when Obama took office.


    That's some fine nominatin' efforts, eh?


    Yay! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    That's two down!

    I'd say Pres. Obama has hopped to it (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:04:17 PM EST

    re SCOTUS vacancies.  

    Not so much at the district (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    and appeals level.

    Of course, I can't imagine a president leaving a SCOTUS vacany open long - that would be political suicide.


    Aren't we also looking at (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    Confirmation time in the Senate for Appellate  & District Court level nominations?

    And--as a partial aside:  the significant 5 to 4 decisions (including Citizens United) stand as a principal reason for the President's reelection...under any scenario.  Just take a look at the various Justices case disposition leanings, as well as the circumstances of the individual nominations, and the differences are clear, compelling.


    Ah, but (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    They have to be nominated first before they are confirmed, no? And that is the job of the President alone.

    Exactly correct (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:33:13 AM EST
    And Obama was maddeningly slow on the uptake with nominations when he entered office and had an effective 60 vote majority in his party in the Senate. And now things are in pretty rickety shape as to Obama's care and tending to the federal judiciary.

    To give an idea of just how bad things are in this regard, Obama is almost certainly on his way to being the first President in a long, long, time to have more judicial vacancies at the end of his first term than he started with when he took office. Bush/Cheney started stocking the judiciary immediately on taking office, and they had nowhere near the majority Obama did. Obama apparently could not be bothered with that.


    So...you initiated the issue about timeliness (3.00 / 1) (#20)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    As the protagonist, then, what are the numbers ( with confirmation tmelines.)

    Here (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    From November 2010

    Remarkably, though, even if all of those nominees - significantly, the most diverse in history - are confirmed by the Senate in the lame duck session, then President Obama's judicial nomination record will still be dramatically worse than President Bush's or President Clinton's. Even two dozen new judges will result in a net increase from the 55 judicial vacancies the President had when his term
    began to 82. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton saw overall declines in the number of judicial
    vacancies in their first two years - from 80 to 59 for Bush, and from 107 to 68 for Clinton.

    He's sped up nominations in the past year, but more and more vacancies grow.  Too bad he didn't do this early on, when he had a Democratic Senate with the votes.


    How would dissenting on this case help (none / 0) (#15)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:20:30 PM EST
    advance the cause of anyone on the left?

    Maybe they wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    But how does a case like this help the argument that "but...but...the other guy is worse and would appoint worse judges!" ?

    Rather technical cases like this one, (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    which turned on the scope of qualified immunity from damages judgments in civil rights cases -- a long-entrenched (although pernicious) doctrine -- are not the cases people are talking about when they discuss the consequences of the election.  Who appointed the justices doesn't affect every case, probably not even most cases.  But it affects some, and most of those are particularly important ones.

    To me, qualified immunity is not a pernicious (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:18:23 PM EST
    doctrine.  Why should a public employee be subject to civil liability if a reasonable person in his/her position at that time should not have known his/her actions were illegal?  

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    Except in those rare cases of egregious behavior and / or clear abuse of authority and office, civil servants should generally enjoy civil immunity from personal liability in the course of performing their official duties.

    don't bother? (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    Don't bother because it won't do any good?  Forget writing a dissenting opinion?  Seriously?

    Obama's appointees (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by pgupta on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    As has already been mentioned, the decision was unanimous so it is not like Obama's appointees would have made any difference.

    For those who are concerned about Obama's appointees, the actions of Obama themselves should be of concern too.  And Obama has given plenty to be concerned about and disgusted with in the area of civil liberties, warrantless spying, wars, state secrets, drones and assassinations, etc.

    The biggest problem with sites like Dailykos is their constant cheerleading of anything Obama does.

    Yes I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    from the article -

    Mr. Howards also touched Mr. Cheney on the shoulder. Mr. Howards said the gesture was an openhanded pat. Secret Service agents described it as a forceful push. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the dispute over the manner of the touch "does not affect our analysis."

    I believe unwanted touching is considered by most to be a crime not a first amendment issue. Mr Howard declared his hostility towards Mr Cheney before the touching him lending credence to the Secret Service concerns.

    Bottom line if you are going to scream at somebody keep your hands off him/her.


    We're heading off on ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:36:47 PM EST
    ... my much-anticipated trip to Vietnam tomorrow night. We leave here at 6:00 p.m. for Tokyo-Haneda on Hawaiian Airlines, arriving at 9:30 p.m. the following evening. It's an 8.5 hour flight, but Japan is 19 hours ahead of Hawaii, time-wise. We're overnighting there, then flying to Ho Chi Minh City the following morning on Vietnam Airlines, arriving at the former U.S. air base at Tan Son Nhat (now the city's international airport) in the afternoon.

    I'll try to post when I have the occasional opportunity, as I have no idea how wired Vietnam is. But, considering that I didn't have much problem using the internet in southern Africa (including Zimbabwe) in November 2010, I figure there won't be any problem.

    I'm really looking forward to it, and am going home early today to pack and get ready.

    Take care, everyone. Next time I talk to all of you, it'll be from Asia.


    I know how much you have been (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:04:48 PM EST
    looking forward to it.  I wish you Safe Journey, Donald, and that your trip is everything and more that you hope for.

    Donald, have a great trip (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    and please post when you can. I've always wanted to go to Vietnam and never have (just Thailand and China.) My friends that have been there really enjoyed it.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    This is also a poignant trip for me, because on Friday I'll be visiting the site in the former American quarter in Saigon where my father was killed in a Viet Cong terror bombing back in 1964. He was only the 215th American to die in the Vietnam War at the time of his death, when I was all of four years old.

    He was a senior military advisor to MACV, and as one of the founding officers of the USMC's Force Recon, a specialist in counterinsurgency warfare. It's still sort of bewildering to me to realize what a complete fiasco and disaster that entire misadventure over there turned into after he died, especially since his writings from Saigon make it perfectly clear that he found Vietnam to be the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, it's about bringing things full circle, and gaining a sense of closure.



    Best wishes for a wonderful trip. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    My Uncle served as a Marine (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:20:07 AM EST
    Doing Recon in the Vietnam War.  He was not drafted either though he would come to question the war.  Interesting that your dad was a founding officer.

    My father served as ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    ... chief operating officer under Col. Joe Taylor to the 2nd Marine Reconnaisance Battalion out of Camp Pendleton, and served as Attache to Gen. Bruce Myers in the Pentagon. He, Col. Taylor and Col. Lane Fuller were the ones who also founded the "Pathfinders," which were the Marines (all volunteers) who were dropped behind enemy lines.

    Prior to Vietnam, they actually honed their craft in active hostilities during the Katanga insurrection in the former Belgian Congo in 1961. My father had over 200 parachute jumps to his credit during his career, and is remembered in the Marine Corps as "Mr. Pathfinder."

    Interesting to think that he would be 81 years old now, had he lived.


    I probably asked you this before. Have you (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    read "In Pharoah's Army," by Tobias Wolff?  

    Post whenever you can, please, Donald. (none / 0) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:05:55 PM EST
    Friends who have been to Vietnam love it. They say it is a beautiful country.

    Maybe you'll run into Leon Panetta who is in Vietnam trying to get the Vietnamese to open Camh Ranh Bay to U.S. naval ships.

    Based on the experience of my friends, I think you will find it very easy to get an internet connection.

    If you take photos, please feel free to share.


    The hotels have internet. Where else will (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:13:32 PM EST
    you travel in Vietnam besides Ho Chi Minh City?  Will you also go to Angkor Wat in Cambodia?  Have a wonderful, interesting trip.  

    No. We went to Angkor Wat ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    ... 15 years ago, when we went to Thailand. I would've loved to take the girls there, but Vietnam is our sole destination on this trip, with a three-day stopover in Tokyo on our return leg. I do want them to see Tokyo, which I find to be an absolutely fascinating city.

    We'll be in Ho Chi Minh City through Sunday, staying in the Saigon District -- yes, there is still a place called Saigon, which comprises much of the old center of the city. Then we head north via motorcoach to Hue and Da Nang.

    From Da Nang, we fly to Dien Bien Phu (via Hanoi) in the northwestern part of the country, and spend two days there touring the city and the old battle sites from the French war (1946-54), which I think will be fascinating, considering that Dien Bien Phu is considered by scholars to be one of history's game-changing battles. We then conclude our trip in Haiphong and Hanoi.


    I ditto everyone else in wishing you a (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:10:55 AM EST
    wonderful trip and am looking forward to your writing about it. Connecting with your personal history in that way will make it so much more than a tour. Aloha!

    Go WI (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:49:09 AM EST
    Oust Walker

    From your lips ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    Pretty close, from the polls I've seen.  Maybe a preview of Democratic enthusiasm/turnout in November?

    It's a hell of a fight (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    Every vote matters, every vote counts if it gets counted.  They said this morning that some ballots don't need to be turned in until Friday though, so there is a chance that it won't be decided until then.

    Both sides are poised to ask for (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    a recount, so even by Friday, it may not be over.

    And then there's Kathy Nickolaus, the Waukesha County Clerk...remember her?

    Nickolaus first came under blistering criticism after last year's election night fiasco. She did not disclose the omission of the Brookfield votes publicly for nearly two days. The shortfall of votes made it appear that Supreme Court Justice David Prosser had lost by a couple hundred votes to JoAnne Kloppenburg. When the final results were canvassed with the Brookfield totals included, he had won by nearly 7,000 statewide.

    She was supposed to have relinquished her election-related duties to her deputy, but whether she has is not clear:

    She again created controversy with the way she handled reporting vote totals in the spring election that had reporters up until the next morning waiting for vote totals and totals were not posted on the county website until much later.

    After that incident Vrakas required Nickolaus to hand off election duties to another clerk. However, media reported in the May primary that Nickolaus seemed to still be running things at the county courthouse.

    With people like this involved in the system, it's hard to be confident that the vote totals reported will be accurate, or legitimate.


    I'm assuming that is the reason (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    the DOJ is monitoring the voting too.  There's room for all sorts of ugly to include Walker being the target in a Fed investigation that Shuster says includes wrong doing as governor as well.  Even if Walker wins the recall, he may soon be indicted making the Lt. Governor race extremely important.

    That would be a surprise (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    There are claims of people receiving robocalls (none / 0) (#89)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    telling them that if they signed the petition they don't have to vote.

    That's a really, really (none / 0) (#130)
    by sj on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    common tactic for recall and runoff elections.  For a runoff, the callee is told that if they voted in the first election they don't need to vote in the runoff.  Guess who typically gets called?  That would be the non-white folks.  Kind of makes you sick, doesn't it?  

    Yes... (none / 0) (#93)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    this is one time I will gladly say Buck 'em F*cky!

    Cautiously optimistic from turnout reports.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by magster on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    ... from WI. Dane County clerk (librul Madison) says turnout might reach 80-88 % and that turnout is "wild". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporting that the city is bringing in extra poll workers to deal with heavier than expected turnout.

    John Nichols on Ed Schultz says further... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by magster on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    about Milwaukee that the districts where new poll workers being assigned are in the African American regions of Milwaukee and being called in to assist new registrations of first time voters.

    I hope the DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    has enough manpower their to monitor the Conservative, brown shirt tactics in voter suppression they've managed to infect the country with coast to coast.

    I hope (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    it amounts to something. I'm kind of leery about these "turnout" report because sometimes there's a wave of GOP voters that come later on in the day.

    Occupy Wall Street (none / 0) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    Fizzled out.  It's been fairly obvious that it would ever since the summer when many of us were begging for more coordination and the embrace of more substantive goals and targets.  But the limits of its effectiveness now seem very clear.  Good piece on it. Quote:

    "BUT THE very breadth and openness of this proudly leaderless uprising make it difficult to sustain. Even if it endures, such an insurgency is unlikely to grow into a movement that can bend politics in its direction. Forty years ago, the feminist activist Jo Freeman presciently warned of the severe limits that "structurelessness" imposes on an anti-authoritarian movement:
    The more unstructured a movement is, the less control it has over the directions in which it develops and the political actions in which it engages....Given a certain amount of interest by the media and the appropriateness of social conditions, the ideas will still be diffused widely. But diffusion of ideas does not mean they are implemented; it only means they are talked about. Insofar as they can be applied individually they may be acted on; insofar as they require coordinated political power to be implemented, they will not be.

    Without a structure, it is almost impossible to come up with a strategy for the movement, and tactical decisions can easily go awry."


    When calls for structure came, people thought it was because others wanted the movement to die or be morphed into a tool of the dems.  That was wrong.

    You need structure to survive long term.

    Yes, you need structure (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    to survive long-term and a less oppressive government response to survive at all.

    a less oppressive government response (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    Huh? (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    That was one event in Cleveland, mostly plotted by the FBI themselves, well after the peak of the Occupy movement. The existence of one FBI-driven "plot" doesn't undo the oppressive government response seen in NYC, Oakland, and elsewhere.

    Lie better, please.


    Addison, that comment (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    is doing just fine--hard to do much better.

    OWS was alluded to by Peter Sellars (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    in this text for John Adams' new work:  The Gospel according to the Other Mary," which I heard in LA yesterday.  

    More consequences of the ACA? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    Many colleges are dropping their affordable student health plans or planning to raise rates for the coming school year.

    The demise of low-cost, low-benefit health plans for students is a consequence of the 2010 health-care overhaul. The law is intended to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but it is also eliminating some insurance options.

    Many students already have coverage through their parents and aren't affected by the changes. Parents who get insurance from an employer have traditionally been able to enroll dependents on their plans up to the age of 22 if they are full-time college students, and about two-thirds of students have that kind of coverage, according a 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office. The health-care law has since increased the age at which children can be on their parents' coverage to 26.

    Around 600,000 students, about 7% of the total number of 18-to-23-year-olds in college, bought their own insurance, generally plans arranged by schools for which students pay all the premiums, the GAO study said


    Obama administration officials said they expected only a few schools to drop health-insurance plans entirely.

    The administration is phasing in the requirements for the student plans. In the 2013-2014 school year, plans must cover at least $500,000 in medical expenses, and the year after that plans can't have any payout cap.

    For those colleges that choose to keep their health-insurance plans, students may see sharply rising premiums.

    I would imagine (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    That as college students they would qualify for subsidized care on the exchanges.  So while it may not be offered by the institution directly, they will still be able to get it, at a subsidized rate.

    Depending on how much money the student is making, the cost of insurance may go up, down or stay the same.


    The colleges surveyed (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    For the articel, at least, had plans that were going from around $400 to $1500 (a year, I imagine).  It didn't say if that was dependent on a student's income, but that is a lot more money, and I don't see it getting much cheaper than $400.

    right (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    I was talking about going off the college plans and onto the exchanges.

    What the colleges have offered to date is junk insurance, and the ACA is getting rid of that, which will make insurance more expensive for the people that are currently purchasing junk insurance.  That, I think by nature, includes a lot of young people who don't buy more comprehensive insurance.  But there's a reason only 7% of all students are on it, anyone who can be is on another plan.  And I don't think that they currently give subsidies.

    January 1, 2014 is when the exchanges and federal subsidies go online.  So a student - who I assume is not making very much income - may qualify for federally subsidized care.

    That being said, the whole idea behind a lot of health care reform is that the healthy people pay into the system to subsidize the less healthy people, like in single payer.  The way it's currently done, healthy people can buy cheap/junk insurance, but if you are actually sick you are screwed.

    So yes, it's a trade-off where younger, healthier people pay more into the system.  But if you are broke enough the government will subsidize it.


    Unless the student (none / 0) (#27)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:51:17 PM EST
    is not being claimed as a dependent by their parents.  Otherwise, the parent's incomes will apply.

    If your parents (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    are claiming you as a dependent, I don't know whether or not you still qualify for a subsidy or not.  You still have to file a tax return if someone else claims you as a dependent, if you are making any money.  And I haven't been able to find any information on whether or not the subisdy would apply to that one or the one where you are claimed as a dependent.

    But if your parents are claiming you as a dependent, that means they are helping you out financially and paying for at least 50% of your living expenses, and you have spent 50% of the time living under their roof.  Therefore the calculation of a subsidy based on your own income would be invalid since it doesn't really apply to you.


    Not to mention (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:58:34 AM EST
    the student up to age 26 can go on his/her parents' insurance, no?  That surely costs less than even the cheapo college plan, i would think.

    If the parents have insurance (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:49:47 AM EST
    Yeah, except (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    January 1, 2014 is when the exchanges and federal subsidies go online.

    That isn't going to help anyone when those colleges drop their plans for the upcoming school year.


    gotcha (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    sorry I didn't realize the focus on the time gap.

    I do not know why they phased these things in the way they did, I agree it would have made a lot more sense for the subsidies to come in before the regulatory changes.


    Because (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    They thought the plan would be well received ("Obama saved health care!") and would have been safely re-elected and not accountable for any blips by that point.

    It's purely based on the political calendar, although it will be argued that it was to give enought "time" to those involved.  This was passed in 2009 - my guess is much of this could have been implemented by October of 2012, but that isn't the way it works.


    'low-benefit health plans for students' is the key (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    phrase there. The version of that type of plan with which I'm familiar had low premiums, high out of pocket costs, and low caps for serious treatment. I'm not sad to see them go.

    My experience was very first hand, or maybe I should say first foot. As a junior I tore my achilles tendon and had to have reconstructive surgery. When the bills arrived I discovered that my student insurance plan only covered about 50% of the costs (this was because the hospital decided that allowing me to walk again was voluntary surgery on my part - I could have spent my life with a cane). Had my injury been what they considered life threatening the insurance would have paid up to 75%.

    So yeah, I'd have been happy to have been on my folks' insurance. No tears for one more insurance scam shutting down.


    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    That would be IF their parents have insurance, and since more and more companies are doing away with their plans, or raising their rates, or the fact that many more parents don't have jobs, your scenario does not seem to be as much the norm as you would like it to be.

    I feel like I hit a nerve by not having sympathy (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    for insurance companies that fleece college students with plans that don't really cover much.


    As for the ACA, there are two million college students who now have some sort of health insurance who weren't able to get any sort of coverage before. I think that's a good thing. But I'm a "it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" sort of guy.


    They really are terrible plans (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:32:41 PM EST
    the problem is that a lot of universities require you to have health insurance.  So it's an effective mandate with no subsidy.  That's why they offer junk insurance so you can meet their requirement.  Otherwise I doubt anyone would waste their money on these plans.

    Unfortunately it does seem like some colleges are going to raise rates without dropping the self-imposed mandate.  And the total cost of a college education continues to skyrocket.  The amount of money that can add up in their self-imposed mandates is kind of sickening.  Let's make all freshman buy 200% more food than they need!  And pay for housing that's 200% above market rate!


    The ACA does or will soon provide a subsidy (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    for college age students - but companies who participate can't offer the old low benefit, limited coverage, guess which hat the bean is under junk plans. They have to conform to ACA rules like accepting preexisting conditions, no lifetime caps, etc.

    And that's why they're dropping out of some college markets. They might actually have to cover something instead of just cashing checks. Can't have that; it's not good for the job creators.


    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    It's not really "2 million more college students" since the "2 million" figure counts everybody ages 18-26, and only most parents' plans has to cover children up to age 26 (but not all), and your comment isn't really germane to the topic of the article, which is specifically dealing with college kids who now have insurance through their university plan, but other than that - spot on.

    As a college student aren't you expected to be (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:16:25 PM EST
    smart?  Have you ever heard of reading an insurance policy before purchasing it?? Are these the same types of people who bought houses without reading the mortgage??

    I assume that the two million you refer to are under 26 and now moved to their parents plans. Do you understand that their parents plans, and everyone else's plans have gone up to cover the cost??

    Do you also understand that everyone's coverage costs are going up because of the pre-existing care requirement and the costs associated with that. Many companies, in addition to those that are passing on premium increases, are simply dropping coverage.

    The "to 26" and "pre-existing" coverage may seem to you to be good. Those paying for them may disagree. Those losing company insurance will certainly disagree.

    To me, that is the disgusting part of Obamacare. It doesn't solve anything, it just rearranges the deck chairs.

    One more time. The only solution is a single payer health care plan modeled on Medicare and paid for by a federal sales tax collected at the point of sale (not a VAT) with certain items excluded to increase fairness.


    you understand (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    That they are paying additional premium to be on those plans, they aren't free.  The 26 year olds are not the ones making it more expensive for the rest of you.  That would probably be one of the few downward pressures on cost that were included in this bill.

    Yes, sick people, aka pre existing, do make it more expensive.   That would also be true under single payer as well....  It's either that, or continue to deny them care.  Single payer would put additional downward pressure on cost.   But I have to wonder at this point, for all your going on about single payer, if you have ever supported a politi


    oops (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CST on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:55:06 PM EST
    If you have ever supported a politician who would vote for it.

    I don't see the 26 year olds (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    being a downward push as the companies won't increase premiums enough to cover the cost.

    And if you ever find me a politician who will run on single payer plan.... let me know.


    What if he or she (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    ran on single payer and also publicly stated,  for instance, that launching a preemptive war against Iran would be barbaric, and that people who go out of their way to demonize a particular religion are bad Americans?

    What if ???? (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    Being a reasonable person I would have to carefully weigh the information presented and base my decision on that.

    What would you do????


    the same as you claim (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    you'd do..

    I certainly wouldn't declare the hypothetical candidate mentioned above a radical who wants to weaken America and work toward establishing Sharia law in the U.S..

    As you and I both know the Fox-talk radio nexus would do..


    why modeled on medicare? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:54:56 PM EST
    why not medicare for all?  Why a sales tax rather than some other sort of tax?

    Modeled on Medicare because (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:22:05 AM EST
    it wouldn't be Medicare.

    Current Medicare has a 20% deductible for  Doctor visits... that includes the hospitable where charges can reach the hundreds of thousands.. To get around that people purchase supplemental... last years ours was near $400 a month..

    There are many other things but I won't go there.

    The sales tax has everyone pay. I can think of no other way that is fair.


    Income tax (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:28:04 AM EST
    Sales taxes are one of the most regressive forms of taxation, which is why they're so popular on the right.

    Gov. Jerry Brown, noted righty, (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    is the sponsor behind the latest legislation to increase CA's sales tax.

    It's that or UC and CSU start shedding (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    whole disciplines of study.  

    No arguements from me, (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    just pointing out the partisan claptrap from Yman...

    Claptrap must be... (none / 0) (#113)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    the word of the day on your word of the day calendar.

    I read it in another comment this AM (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    and it tickled me!

    And here I thought a "claptrap"... (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:02:42 PM EST
    was an attractive potential paramour with gonorrhea.

    EEEWWWWWW (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    Ha! How was the mountaing jam? (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    Awesome.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    Warren Haynes knows how to put on a festival. Great atmosphere at the foot of Hunter Mountain, no cops that I could see once you entered the gates.  Two main stages right next to each other... so as one act bid us farewell, the next started right up.

    Winwood was smokin' to close it out.  Tedeschi Trucks and Trombone Shorty really brought it.  And of course The Levon Helm Band w/ Warren Haynes was special, if a bit short, they only did an hour before came back out with Govt. Mule for another set on Saturday night.  


    Awesome! (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    Speaking of which... (none / 0) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 08:21:48 AM EST
    this is pretty scary.

    A potentially dangerous sexually transmitted disease that infects millions of people each year is growing resistant to drugs and could soon become untreatable, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.

    My new fav is "blather." (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    And the question is, if not paid for my a sales tax that everyone pays, how're you gonna get any support from the people who currently have insurance and will just see their taxes go up!

    If we have a single payer system, ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    ... they won't need to pay their portion of the health insurance premium, and costs would be reduced substantially.

    Plus, not everyone votes supports policies based on the benefit they personally receive.


    Where's the "claptrap"? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    Are you saying sales taxes as a form of taxation aren't popular on the right?  or are you saying they aren't regressive?

    Because I'm trying to see how Jerry Brown's support for an increase in the CA sales tax disproves either one of those ...


    resort to what you do best, ie., parsing.

    Suddenly logic is "parsing"? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    Look at my statement again:

    Sales taxes are one of the most regressive forms of taxation, which is why they're so popular on the right.

    Now, how does Jerry Brown's support for increasing CA's sales tax negate either part of my statement?  If I had claimed, "Democrats never support increasing sales taxes", you would have a point.  of course, I didn't, which makes your statement ...

    ... "claptrap".

    BTW - You first have to show someone "to be absurd" at least once, before you can claim to have done it "again".


    that support his intention to increase (as you call it) "one of the most regressive form of taxation" hate the less fortunate among us?

    Ask him (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    If I had to guess, it's because he's trying everything he can to avoid any additional cuts to education funding, which have already been severe.  Of course, the 4-year, 1/4 cent sales tax increase is only part of the proposal, which also includes several other tax increases, mostly income tax increases on people earning $250,000 and up.

    Of course, that changes nothing about my original point - conservatives and their preference for regressive taxes.


    And now we see that regressive taxes (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:11:02 PM EST
    are embraced by the left. To ignore that, while all the while saying "lookie over yonder at them dastardly righty guys" is partisan claptrap. Yup, I'm talking to you.

    SCHIP (none / 0) (#131)
    by Rojas on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:36:11 PM EST
    Is about the most regressive taxes to hit the books.
    I would agree it was proposed by conservatives and is supported by conservatives.
    "claptrap" is a fair summation

    Wasn't talking about ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:46:00 PM EST
    ... SCHIP funding either, although I understand why some people always try to steer the subject towards something that begins with a "C" ...

    ... and ends with a "linton".


    Jim's proposal for funding (none / 0) (#138)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 08:06:07 AM EST
    Medicare for all, while regressive, is much less regressive than than the method used to fund SCHIP.
    claptrap indeed...

    Really? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    'Cause I'd love to see a study on that.

    BTW - Setting aside the fact that I wasn't talking about/defending SCHIP funding - but merely noting the regressive nature of a sales tax to fund single payer healthcare - are you talking about the original funding for SCHIP, or the more recent expansion of SCHIP?

    Any studies to back up your claims, or is it just more CDSing?


    "Regressive taxes are embraced ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:17:53 PM EST
    ... by the left"?!?!

    Because Jerry Brown is suddenly "the left"?  Because he proposes a temporary 1/4 cent sales tax increase while simultaneously proposing large income tax increases on the wealthy, that means the left has "embraced" regressive taxes?!?  All of which ignores my original point which you haven't even dinged?!?!?  That's all you can come up with?!?

    You're seriously funny.

    BTW - Yup, ...

    .... I'm talking to you.


    "Sounds like" ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    ... you could use a reading comprehension class.

    Do you support it? (none / 0) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:28:48 PM EST
    Don't know (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    I live in NJ, and haven't been following it.  All I know is that California has been facing severe budget cuts due to the collapse of their state economy/revenues, and this is the proposal Brown came up with.  I might support it reluctantly if it was the only way to get a badly-needed tax raise passed, and if an increase in income taxes alone wasn't viable, but I'd need to know more.

    Of course, I never claimed that liberals always oppose/never support sales/regressive taxes, merely that conservatives support regressive taxation systems, which is why they prefer sales taxes (or "flat" taxes) over income taxes with higher marginal rates at higher income levels.


    including being the sole brainchild of our blue-est of blue Governor, so for me, anyway, pointing out that the reds are whores on this issue while ignoring the blues standing on the same street corner, is something that invites some scrutiny at the very least...

    Are you accusing Jerry of being a blue dog? (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 05:28:32 PM EST
    Ha! However... (none / 0) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    ...every time I see the term "blue dog" it reminds me of our dear departed "Blue" Great Dane of about years ago. Man, I still miss her...

    Did you see the photo in LAT of one of (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    Queen Elizabeth II's appearances in CA?  A very young Willie Brown (sans hat) stood nearby.  

    I didn't see that, I'll google it. (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    okay, but (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:30:33 PM EST
    Medicare is already in place and there is no reason it could not be improved.  What if instead of 80 percent, it paid 95 percent and the supplemental insurance only had to cover five percent? Or what if we made medicare pay 100 percent?  Medicare is very efficient and has a very low overhead.  It's real problem is that it only serves old people sick people and old sick people?  With all those young healthy people thrown in to the pot also paying their monthly fee, the fee would come down considerably.  There are so many ways to improve medicare with all people on it....

    And, if they changed (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:53:06 PM EST
    Medicare, Part "D," Prescription drug benefits, to allow competitive bidding it would save billions and bring down costs even more.

    What's Your Point ? (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    Obama's keystone policy was/is/will be a failure.

    Doubt many would argue with that.  Maybe failure is a strong word, but when you consider the goal was to get every American access to affordable health care, failure seems pretty accurate.


    More alarming, perhaps, is the trend of (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    more employers going to high-deductible plans for their employees.

    The WaPo:

    Angela Wenger calls herself a self-reliant "German Midwesterner" who hates to complain. But the Wisconsin mom was dismayed when husband Dan's employer switched to an insurance plan that increased the family's medical expenses tenfold.

    Two years ago, the company put white-collar workers on a "high-deductible" plan similar to those typically bought by small businesses and individuals. The Wengers' out-of-pocket medical costs, mainly for treating daughter Emma's juvenile arthritis, soared from a few hundred dollars a year to $7,000, she says.

    The employer: General Electric, one of the largest companies in the world. High-deductible health plans, once deemed a last-resort, "catastrophic" alternative for those with few resources, have gone Fortune 500.


    There's no question that high deductibles are spreading," said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina. "That's a pretty significant trend, and I don't expect it's going to slow up anytime soon. Employers like it because they're providing less coverage. If they can relabel it as consumer-driven then it even sounds good."

    [snip] This year, banking company JPMorgan Chase narrowed its choice for most employees to two medical plans, one with a $3,000 deductible and another with a $5,000 deductible, both for family coverage, plan documents show. The company declined to comment on the switch.


    Big companies that have shifted all or most employees to high-deductible coverage include financial firms Wells Fargo and American Express and grocer Whole Foods. All U.S. workers at building materials giant Saint-Gobain will be on a high-deductible plan starting next year, benefits manager Natasha Romulus said.

    This year, General Electric moved hourly workers to high-deductible coverage after imposing it on salaried employees two years ago.

    Coming soon to a company near you...?


    Base motivation 101 (none / 0) (#24)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    Campaign sues Demstore.com

    Guess having your campaign logo out on the street is secondary to $30 t-shirts.

    I buy a t-shirt from Demstore, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:20:07 PM EST
    I pay $10 and get a t-shirt. The campaign gets nothing. Obama gets me wearing a t-shirt with his name on it.

    If I give the campaign $30, I get a t-shirt along with a $30 tax deduction. The campaign gets my $30, and my contact info to solicit for further donations, yard signs, GOTV efforts, etc. Obama gets me wearing a t-shirt with his name on it.

    By the way, go print up some NFL jerseys to sell on the internet. I'm curious to see if the league thinks having their logos out on the street is secondary to selling products.


    Sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    no tax deduction for political contributions.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    Donations to the official campaign are excluded, so no free t-shirt.

    Regardless, I still think the law allows trademark holders to protect them.


    The NFL isn't trying to get reelected (none / 0) (#35)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    so that is pure straw.

    If you're happy that's fine.  IMHO, there will be many who see this entirely differently.


    How does it differ? Does the campaign not have (none / 0) (#41)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    a legal right to its logos and trademarks just as say, sports franchises do?

    BTW, my happiness has nothing to do with the outcome of this lawsuit. I'm discussing a legal question on a law blog, and used a socratic example.

    But I do agree with you that many will see the campaign attempting to control their items differently. The last thing a great number of folks want is for anything to help the Obama campaign in raising donations and soliciting volunteers.


    A smart campaign (none / 0) (#45)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    would approach an obvious proponent of the reelection, grant them a copyright use then negotiate a revenue share.  

    A dumb campaign would sue a supporter causing bad press/feelings and still not get any guarantees of those $s being spent at the campaign website.  Also, if you think the campaign is gathering a ton of new names and e-mail addresses that they don't already have, don't pursue a career in marketing.


    Kinda like Saturday Night Wrestling.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    If I was going to pick a sport that most mimics our current situation.

    It ain't the election, it's the money (none / 0) (#46)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:43:18 PM EST
    How many people do you suppose who would not have voted for Obama otherwise will do so if they see someone wearing an Obama logo'ed T-shirt?

    Will that be affected by how much was paid for it and where it was purchased?

    This guy is infringing copyright, and the only favor he's trying to do is for his bank account.


    Obama gets (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    Free advertising.

    Any opinions? (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:06:31 PM EST
    Re new Obama campaign ad

    [I haven't seen the ad.]

    Riding with the Kings. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    Lord Stanley is measuring the Staples Center windows for draperies, as the Los Angeles Kings are currently cruising to a Game 3 win over the New Jersey Devils in the NHL Finals and a 3-0 series lead. They're up, 4-0, late in the 3rd period,

    If the Kings close this out with a sweep -- and at this point there's no reason to believe that they can't, given that game 4 is also in L.A. -- their run to the Stanley Cup may well stand as perhaps the most overwhelming and dominant playoff performance in the history of the National Hockey League. That it will have been accomplished by a No. 8 seed makes it all the more amazing.

    Pennsylvania in play (none / 0) (#64)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    Don't kid yourself (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    As one originally from PA's Coal Country--and with many relatives still there (and with those who died from working in the mines hopefully in heaven above)--I say with confidence: Don't kid yourself.

    So long as those in "law enforcement" (none / 0) (#83)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    have qualified immunity, be they Secret Service, ATF or your local yokel sheriff, Americans will continue to have their rights violated, their lives taken, their health put at risk and their pets murdered.

    O'Mara to put off bond hearing (none / 0) (#84)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    I wonder.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    I wonder if maybe there is concern for criminal liability for Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, and as she is an integral player in the mess surrounding the original bond hearing (as I said above more so than George actually) they need time to get her counsel and get him up to speed.

    ... or wanting to limit GZ's exposure to being... (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    ... impeached when GZ testifies about the more important stuff. I wonder how much damage was done to GZs credibility already, if what I read elsewhere is true about O'Mara admitting GZ was not candid about the PayPal account before.

    He says it (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    on their website.

    Whatever the reason, it has to (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    be enough to outweigh the downside of your client sitting in jail for two more weeks, don't you think?

    I guess O'Mara can only hope, too, that his client doesn't say anything else on the telephone that makes any of this worse.


    Do you know if, (none / 0) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:49:01 PM EST
    during discovery, each side has to divulge to the other all evidence they have in their possession, or only that which they intend to use in the trial? (If there is a trial)

    One reason is that Judge Lester is away this week (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    according to NPR this morning. So if it was going to be delayed a week anyway, maybe they figured they might as well give another week to prepare.

    So does (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    this mean he's going to stay in prison? The website sounds really indefinite about when another bond hearing will occur.

    Yep - at least until the hearing (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    They haven't scheduled the hearing, yet, but the judge is away for a week.  O'Mara is probably being vague because the court/judge sets the date, and the judge is away right now.

    Judge Eagles asks for additonal (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:53:09 PM EST
    briefing re two issues in the John Edwards case:

    I honestly don't mind if Edwards (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    gets in trouble for misuse of campaign donations/funds.  But other politicians need to do some slam time for some of the "gifts" they've taken and used too.  I can't stand the hypocrisy.  Gives me a migraine watching Montana have to tell the Supremes to shove it on Citizen's United too...but dim the lights, pass me a Cafergot, and go Montana go!

    They have (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:09:09 PM EST

    The Justices' denial of review of cases involving former Alabama governor Don Eugene Siegelman and former Alabama hospital executive Richard M. Scrushy probably brings to an end their challenge to convictions over Scrushy's contribution of $500,000 to the governor's office to support a ballot measure for an education-funding lottery in the state.  Prosecutors contended that the donation came in return for the governor's decision to give Scrushy a continuing appointment to a state board that determined the number of health-care facilities operating in the state.

    The two had taken their cases to the Supreme Court two years ago, making the same pleas for the Court to provide new guidance on when a campaign contribution may be treated as a crime, when prosecutors have not proved an explicit agreement to trade a public action for an election campaign donation.   At that time, the Court sent their case back to the Eleventh Circuit Court, to take into account the Court's decision that year limiting the scope of the federal law against fraud by public officials.  The Eleventh Circuit, after its new review, once again upheld most of the convictions, but ordered new sentencing.