Friday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< U.S. 2014 Wiretap Report Released | Fourth of July Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Judge identifies (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    12 huge (but comforting) lies about justice in America.

    not sure if lies is the best word (none / 0) (#36)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 04, 2015 at 12:31:56 PM EST
    I have read the article.

    I have a Christian background with a strong strain of skepticism towards human justice . . .

    It is sad to read that crime labs themselves have made serious mistakes.  

    What do you propose, if anything, to improve the reactions of juries to the problems mentioned in the article?

    Making everybody in the USA a skeptical and at times persecuted Christian so that they view skeptically the prosecution's case?

    I wish we had more laws or penalties for prosecutors known to have done Brady and other similar violations . . .


    This is a test (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    which of these videos is a joke

    This one

    Or this one

    Hint, it's a trick question

    They Should Do One... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    ...with full dressed KKK members talking about how they can't change who they are.

    The GOP is putting the Onion out of business.


    I get a kick (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:07:14 PM EST
    ...out of the frustrated GOP fossils trying to hold back the tide of same sex marriage.

    Santorum and Huckabee lead the charge, saying they will "resist" this ruling.  I want to know what form this resistance will take.

    I believe they have taken the Ring pledge (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    not to marry anyone of the same gender as themselves. That should teach the Supreme Court!

    One ring to rule them all (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    One ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all
    And in the darkness bind them

    Yes, of course, there's that Ring (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 09:54:39 PM EST
    But I was referring to this one and this one.

    Did (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 10:06:20 PM EST
    Bristol Palin lose hers, twice? Or should we check the pawn shops in Wasilla?

    Funny... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    ...a purity ring that isn't made from a pure substance, sterling silver.

    If It Works Like the Palin Pledge... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 11:40:55 AM EST
    ...they will bring gay polygamy into the conversation.

    Cruz and others (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    are making a big deal that the vote was 5 to 4.

    Ever notice how a 5 to 4 vote is never a problem if you win?


    Yes, Captain. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    Are they out campaigning against Citizens United (5/4),or Shelby County (5/4)?  

    If you win (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 04, 2015 at 07:13:38 AM EST
    its a mandate.

    What is Really Funny... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    ...they are certainly doing the math, if Hillary wins, which seems very likely, Scalia & Kennedy will probably retire, they will both be 80 in 2016.

    If Ginsburg doesn't retire before the election, there is a good chance the next 2 term President will get 3 appointments.

    It would mean all but 3 justices would be appointed by either a Clinton or Obama.  Not only is that pretty cool, it's funny when you think about folks like Santorum and Cruz who think they are going to get the ruling overturned by stacking the court.


    Historian Juan Cole on "Biblical" (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 05:57:45 PM EST
    Marriage:  It's all there:  Polygamy. Sex slaves.  Dominance and Submission.  Sadism.

    As for getting married biblically, you can do that in all kinds of imaginative ways- take two wives and someone else's sex slave as Abraham did, or 300 sex slaves as Solomon did (not to mention the 700 wives), or your brother's widow in addition to your own wife. And remember, if your sex slave runs away because you're cruel to the person, the Bible (Philemon) says that other people have the duty to return the slave to you, i.e. basically imposes the duty of trafficking slaves back to sadistic sex maniacs who exploit them. But if the owner is nice and a good Christian, he might consider letting the sex slave go. But he doesn't have to.

    The real reason Ralph Reed (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 21, 2015 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    wants to go back to the Old Testament..

    The subtext to (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    a Huckabee/Santorum et al. "Traditional Marriage" as an institution of oppression rather than one of love is the red subtext of a fire engine.  The tradition of loss they lament is not so much the revelation that marriage does not have to be a gendered institution, but that the tradition of gender roles in marriage has been  upended.  

    Traditional marriage depends on what your definition of marriage is.  And, for Huckabee/Santorum, progress is the enemy of their idea of marriage;  Man and a woman they say, but what do they mean?  They may have moved, a bit, from wife as chattel, but not much, if at all, from wife as extension of husband.  Not a person in their own right; wife is duty and procreation and theirs is keeping the little Misses happy.  

    Of course, Huckabee/Santorum are anti-gay panderers.     No acknowledgement is possible that unless it can be shown that same sex marriage harms people who are not gay, or who are gay but don't want to marry, there is no compelling reason for states to ban such marriages.Other than the subtextual tradition and way of life.

     A new tradition of marriage has long ago passed them by-- one of equal partnerships in love and life. They can not abide it and can only seek to have their well-deserved loss privileged as sincerely held belief.  


    The coolest video on Earth (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 06:11:02 PM EST
    Urthecast is a new hidef camera service on the ISS, funded by Canada, Russia and the UK.

    Really amazing (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 06:44:28 PM EST

    Can't be the coolest on Earth (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 04, 2015 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    because it's not "on" the Earth at all! But pretty darn cool!

    The politics of fear, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    a direct GOP legacy from Nixon to Cruz. It worked for Nixon, will it continue to fuel the Clown Car, 2016 model?  

    Linda Greenhouse, NYT Supreme Court reporter from 1978-2008, opines about the hopes of the Clown Caristas to continue the fear-mongering of Nixon via the Supreme Court's King v Burwell and Obergefell v Hodges rulings.

    In these cases, Ms. Greenhouse sees the dissenting Justices determined to fan the flames of resentment--be afraid, be very afraid.  Those who cling to old beliefs, according to Alito, will be left to "whisper their thoughts from the recesses of their homes,"  Roberts' dissent exudes a sense of anticipatory victimization. "Ominous" says Roberts.

    Well, it worked for Nixon and the GOP for a long time--Southern strategy, dog whistles.  Fear can be electorally good.  But, fertile ground is needed for that strategy to carry the day-, soaring crime rates, commies in every nook and cranny, under the bed.  

    Ms. Greenhouse notes that for the "Nixonian fertile ground" of Obergefell and King to be successfully tilled,  for other than that portion of the electorate who are oddly and curiously obsessed, the Clown caristas will have to capitalize on the "fear" that may be generated by happy couples with health insurance.

    In 2016, it is likely not to be the voters who should be afraid, but the Caristas.

    ... with the Greek people in their confrontation with "The Troika" (the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank), likens Angela Merkel, et al., to a medieval doctor who demands that his patients acquiesce to being bled repeatedly, regardless of current conditions and circumstances, and heedless of the potential adverse consequences:

    "[T]the campaign of bullying -- the attempt to terrify Greeks by cutting off bank financing and threatening general chaos, all with the almost open goal of pushing the current leftist government out of office -- was a shameful moment in a Europe that claims to believe in democratic principles. It would have set a terrible precedent if that campaign had succeeded, even if the creditors were making sense.

    "What's more, they weren't. The truth is that Europe's self-styled technocrats are like medieval doctors who insisted on bleeding their patients -- and when their treatment made the patients sicker, demanded even more bleeding. A 'yes' vote in Greece would have condemned the country to years more of suffering under policies that haven't worked and in fact, given the arithmetic, can't work: austerity probably shrinks the economy faster than it reduces debt, so that all the suffering serves no purpose. The landslide victory of the 'no' side offers at least a chance for an escape from this trap."

    I agree with Krugman on this one. The tough austerity measures adopted thus far at the EU's behest, which were supposedly intended to spur economic reforms and recovery, have instead mired Greece in its eighth consecutive year of economic contraction, one which is fast approaching free fall. The Greek economy shrank by 23% between 2008 and 2014, and anemic or no economic growth has been projected for 2015. And the country's public workforce has shrunk correspondingly by 30% during that same period.

    Unemployment in Greece more than tripled in the subsequent five-year period following the first implementation of austerity measures in 2007-08, rising from 7.7% in 2008 to 24.3% in 2012, and the nation's long-term unemployment reached 14.4%. And in a country where access to medical care is linked directly to one's employment, the austerity regime imposed upon the Greek people by their creditors has left nearly one million of the country's 11.2 million citizens with no access to healthcare whatsoever.

    Indeed, the startling collapse of the once-admired Greek public health system, which is entirely due to a lack of requisite funding, has created a devastating domestic health care crisis of rather tragic proportions. Rates for infant mortality, HIV infection and suicide have soared. Even malaria, once all but eradicated in Greece thanks to the public health sector, has since made a startling rebound.

    Clearly, there is little if any likelihood that a small nation like Greece will ever be able to repay its enormous $313 billion debt to its foreign creditors. And to a great extent, those creditors themselves are responsible for having encouraged the very spending policies which created that massive indebtedness in the first place. Debt relief has to be a real and substantive part of any economic aid package to that stricken country.

    To insist that the Greeks instead implement even more draconian austerity measures, as Chancellor Merkel and her allies are doing here, is at once morally reprehensible, fiscally irresponsible and politically reckless. Is she soon going to demand the same medicine for the much larger countries of Spain and Italy, whose own economic recoveries have been hampered -- if not hamstrung -- by the fiscal austerity that's still all the rage in conservative circles?

    Because despite what austerity advocates are saying, there is very strong evidence that these sorts of fiscal policies have been entirely counterproductive to conservatives' own publicly stated goals of restoring economic vitality in the wake of the 2008-09 economic recession. While financial institutions which precipitated that severe economic downturn with their own reckless and misleading banking practices were bailed out, it's been citizens themselves who've had to absorb the resultant cost.  

    More importantly, we need to remember that it really wasn't all that long ago when Europe was a seething caldron of conflicting nationalist ambitions, which produced the sort of destructive rivalries that twice plunged the world into catastrophic world wars during the three decades between 1914 and 1945, and which resulted in nearly 80 million people losing their lives.

    And in that regard, we should further realize that it was the insanely punitive fiscal policies imposed upon the German Weimar Republic by the Allies in the wake of the First World War, which eventually prompted the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Politics and economics are not mutually exclusive, because working class resentments and nationalist fervor have shown a remarkable tendency throughout history to become intertwined and take firm root during times of economic distress, dislocation and hardship.

    NATO and the European Union, borne from the ash heaps of that 30-year disaster, offered Europeans of all nationalities a real opportunity to move beyond the often petty but entirely deadly squabbles that have plagued their history, and into a more enlightened era. It would be a shame to see that this pan-European alliance collapse, due primarily to the willingness of Germany largest and most prosperous member, to once again throw its weight around the continent, much as it has in times past.

    All that does is reaffirm for many skeptics the very real fears which were first expressed 25 years ago, when they publicly doubted the wisdom of allowing East Germany and West Germany reunite in the wake of the Warsaw Pact's collapse.


    This is (none / 0) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 12:07:21 PM EST

    A joint state and federal investigation into the activities of accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof has widened to include other persons of interest, according to multiple sources familiar with the ongoing investigation.

    Reminds (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    me of Timothy McVeigh. At first it seemed like he was a loner but then the feds go to looking into the militia groups among other things.

    Terrorism "Homegrown" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 12:26:24 PM EST
    under the soft grey glow of American social media.

    So in SC (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    they are fighting 'til the last dog dies to keep up that flag. link

    I hope it comes down but honestly considering the majority of the citizens don't seem to want it to come down I believe it when I see it.

    Is the KKK Save the Flag rally (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    still happening?

    As far (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    as I know. One of my friends from high school told another classmate it was time for SC to grow up. Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

    Off topic...but duck fat (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    I order mine online and have it delivered.  I have never seen it in a grocery store here.  It seems to ship fine though.  It comes in a jar.  It has the consistency of soft butter, even coming out of the frig.  One of those BBQ brushes works really well in applying it, or a silicone food brush.

    I get mine by rendering (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 09:02:49 PM EST
    while cooking a duck myself - I usually do the 5 hours at 300 method and collect the fat every hour when I turn the bird.  I usually get a good pint from an average duck.  Keep it in a Mason jar.
    When it cools, I freeze it.  It'll keep a good long time.  There will be some of the glace settling out.  That's good to have around, too.
    I like using it for scrambled eggs - there's a bit of the flavor of the duck, and it takes only a little bit to do the job.

    After reading this I started scrambling eggs (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 21, 2015 at 08:17:51 AM EST
    With a dab of duck fat.  OMG, just another yummy duck fat thang :)

    If you ever get a Chinese roast duck (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 21, 2015 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    you can harvest the fat by putting it in the oven at around 160 degrees so that the fat will melt off the duck and into the pan.

    As one who actually lives (none / 0) (#29)
    by coast on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    In SC, a majority want it to come down.

    Is there (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 04, 2015 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    any polling to back that up? This was put up by a friend in SC link

    Even if the majority wants it up will the lawmakers buck what their constituents want?


    No polling to back it (none / 0) (#39)
    by coast on Sun Jul 05, 2015 at 08:57:13 PM EST
    Up, but I also would not hang my hat on an informal Facebook polls by a local news paper either.

    The flag will come down, then we can actually start a true discussion on race relations - not only in the south but in the entire country.


    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 07:08:46 AM EST
    I have a feeling this is going to get very ugly very fast. Again, I hope I'm wrong but the history in SC has trended toward that type of thing.

    Yesterday (I think) (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    there was a large pro confederate flag anti gay marriage thing in Harrison AR.  Which in spite of being a beautiful place has o believe one of the highest concentrations of white supremacist groups in the country.  
    About 100 miles from here.

    I think the mash up may ultimately help both causes.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    I think so too as far as helping

    Not Many... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    ...but enough big 4x4's this weekend in Galveston with giant confederate flags.  But normally there are none, so I assume it's country folks coming in and being d-bags just because they can.

    I saw a giant one on the beach (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    This weekend, in MA, on Martha's Vineyard in the historically black/wealthy beach town.

    Of all places to fly it, that's just being a d*ck.    I just thought to myself - someone out there is looking to start $hit.


    SC poll from last year (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 07:22:08 AM EST
    61% say it should stay.  33% day it should come down.



    Trump (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    announced that he is worth 8 billion.

    A tidy sum, in my opinion.

    Then, the next day, I read that some guy in Saudi Arabia is giving 32 billion of his money to some charity.

    Makes me think that what I think of as people being very very well
    off are really chump change in the eyes of the people who really run the show.

    Why would you believe him (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    when he says that, given his track record for credibility generally? I'd like to know, for example, the amount of debt he and his companies are carrying, and their payment history on that debt. And how much he pays in taxes, including how many of his real estate deals are tax-favored (i.e., rich-people-welfare-enabled) by the city where they are located. Now, if he offers his personal financial records for an independent audit with disclosure of the results to the media and to the IRS, maybe I'd pay attention.

    Your wish may come true (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:44:10 PM EST
      Trump must disclose

     shifting gears, from a purely strategic sense (although bad for society) I can't think of anything better for Dems than the way the Repub rce is drawing entrants. The more and the crazier they are, the beeter. Trump or some other crazy flamethrower will not get the nomination let alone be elected so being in the game drawing attention toward the crazy and away from the potentially electable is a plus. So is the fracturing of the Repub electorate which will make it more difficult to coalesce around the eventual nominee. And, maybe equally helpful is the way the lunatics will scare away swing voters especially if the sane ones are too fearful of far right backlash to directly repudiate the crazy.

       The Repub set up is a Dem wet dream.


    This is (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    the real deadline.
    But under a 1978 federal ethics law, presidential candidates must file a personal financial disclosure with the FEC within 30 days after announcing their candidacies. (They can request two 45-day extensions.) The filing must detail their financial interests and income, as well as those of their spouses and dependent children.
    He has until mid October to show his cards.

    That being said, I have no idea what game he is playing. He is doubling and tripling down on the Mexican rapist meme for no good reason, sure he gains poll numbers, but his brand, not to mention his wallet, is getting hammered. Trump's name recognition alone would have given him the numbers to get on stage on opening night on Fox, which is the short term goal of any of them.

    If he is bluffing, why damage his brand for a few meaningless poll points? If he is serious does he think he could win on the backs of the racists? If he was so craven why would he be blowing the dog horn this early?  I don't get it.


    He's doubling (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    down on the Mexican racist meme because he's "The Donald" and he has an ego as big as Alaska and can't admit that he was wrong or mistaken. I really don't think at this point it has anything to do with the points in the polls so much he's can't admit that he is ever wrong even to the point where it is costing him business.

    But past that I don't get why he is even running in the first place. What kind of crazy is he offering that isn't being offered by the likes of Ted Cruz or any other crazy Republican? Again, it must all be completely ego driven unless he truly has some mental problem like schizophrenia that we do not know about.


    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 09:48:01 PM EST
    do provide plenty of fodder for us amateur shrinks.

    On the other hand, (none / 0) (#35)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 04, 2015 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    look at idiots like Reagan and W.

    Especially W.

    But who would have thought that either of them could be elected?
    And re-elected on top of it.

    So I don't discount anybody.

    I also have noticed the Dems having a peculiar capacity of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - as in 2000 when Gore picked Lieberman and ran the dumbest most tiring campaign in human history - opening the door for the least qualified person in the United States to become President.


    Summoning Mark Twain (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    "I'd like to buy him for what I think he's worth, and sell him for what he thinks he's worth."

    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    supposedly it was his WHOLE fortune.  He probably only kept a few million for expenses.

    Non-Sense (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    Trump Exaggerating His Net Worth (By 100%) In Presidential Bid

    Since 1982, Forbes has been tracking Trump's net worth in great detail. That's more than thirty years. Over those decades, we have worked both with him and outside experts who can help us come up with a fair market valuation of his assets. Every year, Trump shares a lot of information with us that helps us get to the figures we publish. But he also consistently pushes for a higher net worth--especially when it comes to the value of his personal brand.

    There is  no doubt that Trump is a billionaire and a savvy deal-maker. He turned his father's construction company into the massive empire it is today. He is also a survivor: having gone through a corporate bankruptcy that, according to our research left his personal net worth in the red in the 1990s, Trump clawed himself back to enormous wealth. (Though let's be clear: Trump entities have filed four times for corporate bankruptcy, all related to Atlantic City casino property that he today has a 10% stake in. He has never filed for personal bankruptcy. As Forbes` Clare O'Connor explains, only during the first corporate bankruptcy was his personal fortune at risk.) He owns trophy New York properties like 40 Wall Street, Trump Tower, as well as his Doral golf resort in Miami. His brand keeps growing, too, with Apprentice appearances, books, speaking engagements, Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants and menswear at Macys.

    Forbes puts his wealth at $4.1 B.  

    Why lie about it ?


    With all due respect (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 12:55:02 PM EST
    Forbes does not decide someone's wealth, nor does an editorial in Forbes.

    Of Course... (none / 0) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    ...and no disrespect taken.  

    But that is something Forbes has done for a long time, rank the wealth of people and entities every year.  Donald is 401st richest person in the world according to Forbes, according to Trump he is the 166th.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 08:51:11 PM EST
    but -- 4 billion or 8 billion - it"s just chump change compared to the wealth of the Saudi who just gave 32 billion of his dough to a charity.

    A few years ago I heard Trump say that on the menus of his restaurants, they offer "duckling".
    He explained that they can charge more for "duckling" than "duck" - even though in the restaurant trade, they are one and the same.

    That's the thinking of a scrapper like Trump.

    I don't think the Saudi guy is spending much time looking to make a few bucks extra profit on the sale of a piece of poultry.


    parsing the law (none / 0) (#23)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 06:28:58 PM EST

    San Francisco chose to be a "sanctuary city", so they decided that they could not spend local money to honor an ICE detainer.  He would have been legally detained in Texas.  

    link to above (none / 0) (#24)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jul 03, 2015 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    Looks to me (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sj on Sun Jul 05, 2015 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    like ICE let their arrogance get in the way.
    The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there's an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.

    Since (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 08:10:19 AM EST
    Being a "sanctuary city", San Francisco does not allow money to be used to cooperate with federal immigration law.

    Sounds like Sheriff Joe Arapaio would feel right at home, with that logic.

    ICE did issue a detainer to SF requesting they hold him until immigration officials could pick him up (no more than 48 hours by law), but SF refused to do so.


    Yes, they did (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Jul 07, 2015 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    ICE did issue a detainer to SF requesting they hold him until immigration officials could pick him up (no more than 48 hours by law)
    You  definitely have the Arapaio thing backwards. Looks to me like ICE let their arrogance get in the way and expected Arapaio behavior from SF.
    The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there's an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.

    It's you who are missing my point (3.50 / 2) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2015 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    Arapaio and SF both want to ignore the federal government on matters of immigration.  Their viewpoints are different, but it's the same thought process. You are confused if you can't see the similarities.

    And then there's the fact that Lopez-Sanchez told acrepirter he specifically chose San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city.


    I'm not missing your point at all (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Jul 07, 2015 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    I'm saying you are wrong.

    It's a false analogy. It looks like it fits, but it doesn't fit. And you used it mostly, I believe, because it's inflammatory.

    And I still say ICE let their arrogance get in the way.

    The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there's an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.
    I wonder -- if I put that in boldface, you will finally acknowledge that ICE scr#wed themselves over?

    Nah... you're on a roll and, I expect, determined to hold onto your authoritarian mentality. In your eyes the whole d@mn city is wrong because ICE messed up and didn't issue an arrest warrant.


    Some thoughts on Kennedy's SSM opinion (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    The  trouble with 'dignity' of same-sex marriage

    An interesting argument by Jonathan Turley.

    ...Kennedy's moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the "dignity" of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences.

    For the record, I have long advocated the recognition of same-sex marriage. But the most direct way the justices could have arrived at their conclusion would have been to rely on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. It, along with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, holds that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law, no matter their race, sex, religion or other attributes known as "protected classes." Kennedy and his allies could have added "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes, making the denial of marriage licenses an act of illegal discrimination. This approach would also have clarified the standard in a host of other areas, such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations.

    Instead, Kennedy fashioned the opinion around another part of the 14th Amendment, holding that denial of marriage licenses infringed on the liberty of gay men and women by restricting their right to due process. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly pointed out, liberty under the Constitution has largely been defined as protection against physical restraints or broader government interference -- "not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement." While Kennedy makes a powerful case for an expansive new view of due process, he extends the concept of liberty far beyond prior decisions.


    Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection? What about couples who do not wish to marry but cohabitate? What about polyamorous families, who are less accepted by public opinion but are perhaps no less exemplary when it comes to, in Kennedy's words on marriage, "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family"? The justice does not specify. It certainly appears as if Obergefell extends this protection because same-sex unions are now deemed acceptable by the majority. The courts may not be so readily inclined to find that other loving relationships are, to quote the opinion, a "keystone of the Nation's social order" when they take less-orthodox forms. But popularity hardly seems like a proper legal guide to whether a relationship is dignified.

    With the emergence of this new right, we must now determine how it is balanced against other rights and how far it extends. For example, it is clearly undignified for a gay couple to be denied a wedding cake with a homosexual theme. Yet for a Christian or Muslim baker, it might also feel undignified to be forced to prepare an image celebrating same-sex marriage. Should the right to dignity trump free speech or free exercise.

    I suggest you read the whole argument.  He may be completely wrong, but it is interesting to think about.

    Agreed, it is interesting. (none / 0) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    And, I do not think Turley is completely wrong--but I do think he is wrong.  The Court's expression of dignity, it seems to me, is not a sonorous description of a new right, but rather, recognition of new insights and societal understandings that come to bear so as to uncover unjustified inequality within the fundamental institution that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged.

    Indeed, the inability for challenge was linked to legal, including criminal,  sanctions--which fell in previous Supreme Court rulings, With that cataract removed, a new clarity exists.   With sharper eyes, the limitations existent can be seen to be inconsistent and unequal.  The fundamental right becomes manifest under the 14th Amendment. The call for equality was heard through acceptance.

    Justice Thomas, in his undignified dissent, states that the Court's "musings are misguided" but at least those musing can have no effect on the dignity of the persons the majority demeans.   And, of course, extending dignity, as Turley acknowledges, does not preclude the Court from a tailoring process in the coming years.


    Remember Tooley (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 06, 2015 at 05:58:00 PM EST
    is the one who said Sotomayor lacked the "depth" for the court.  Among other things.   I can't understand why anyone would take a thing the guy says seriously.

    Ah, context is everything (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2015 at 08:15:27 AM EST

    My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. Objecting to the intellectual content of opinions is not the same as objecting to the intellect of an individual. Smart people can have little vision in the law or other fields. No one would suggest that Sotomayor is not incredibly bright. It is her legal vision and the depth of her legal philosophy that is at issue in confirmation debates.

    I have now read dozens of her opinions and focused on the most significant rulings. They do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick. Her defenders have rightfully likened her to Marshall (who is one of my personal heroes). I consider her life as inspiring and I believe that it will give her an added insight into cases. The concern is her view of the law is a bit insular and narrow -- at least as reflected in these opinions. The fact is that few people list Marshall as someone who has had a lasting intellectual influence on the Court. He helped change the law, but few opinions reached a lasting level. That does not mean that he was not smart (which he certainly was) or that his selection was a mistake (he was a brilliant choice). Sotomayor will be a very good justice and her life's story will be an inspiration. She has obviously very intelligent. However, liberals openly called for a liberal version of Scalia. I am not confident that they found it in this nominee despite her powerful personal story.


    Sotomayor's decisions and dissents tend to be abbreviated and limited in scope. Once again, that could reflect a certain deference to her appellate status or a lack of broader vision. It is certainly true, as she stated in a prior interview, that "95 percent of the cases before most judges are fairly mundane." She used this observation to explain why she does not write grand opinions: "I'm not going to be able to spend much time on lofty ideals." However, after 18 years, such cases do come along and warrant a fuller treatment with a glimpse at a deeper judicial philosophy.

    So, what you THINK he meant is not in line with what he actually said.


    Nino, given his recent anti-realist dissent in Obergefell. He is a conservative hack.

    Cue up the outrage (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 09, 2015 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    from the "support our troops" crowd,
    Bush charged $100,000 for his 2012 speech at a charity fundraiser for veterans who lost limbs in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. The former president was also given use of a private jet at a cost of $20,000 and former First Lady Laura Bush was paid $50,000 to speak to the group last year.
     or not. IOKIYAR most likely.