Joseph Lieberman Dies

Joseph Lieberman had died at age 82.

Erik Loomis, who soon will have 1600 grave posts (visits graves of historical figures and writes about them), is not someone who believes you have to "not speak ill of the dead." His obituary was as expected. 

Lieberman appeared in front of the Supreme Court back in 1984 to defend a Sabbath exemption law. It was struck down 8-1 as too much of an absolute benefit to religion. His appearance was a mostly dull affair though in line with his reputation as religiously orthodox. Prof. Loomis notes he divorced his first wife because she was not orthodox enough.

A liberal Republican senator led William Buckley Jr. (the conservative who was concerned about lax Christianity) to support Lieberman's campaign for senator. Early on, at least in my memory, what stood out about him was his Droopy Dog character and sounding like a scold. 

This was a major reason why Gore chose him as vice president, to show Gore was different than that dog (of a different sort) Bill Clinton. People still are saying that if the Florida senator had been chosen instead, the Democrats would have won Florida. Who knows. All I will say there is that Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 opinion.  

Liberals really got upset at Lieberman during the Bush presidency, including his hardline in the War on Terror and support of the Iraq War. 

For instance, we can flashback to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Alberto Gonzales was a major target during the Bush years, including as a general Bush crony. To quote a NYT opinion cited on this blog at the time: 

Republican senators argued that it was unfair to say Mr. Gonzales was personally responsible for the specific acts of torture and degradation at Abu Ghraib. That would be a fair defense if anyone were doing that. The Democrats simply said, rightly, that Mr. Gonzales was one of the central architects of the administration's policy of evading legal restrictions on the treatment of prisoners. He should not have been rewarded with one of the most important jobs in the cabinet.

Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who voted for him. Opposition to the Bush Administration helped Democrats march back to congressional control, eventually having a short-lived sixty vote majority in the Senate. 

The 2006 election brought a liberal challenger to Lieberman, Ned Lamont (currently governor of Connecticut). As I noted at the time, this was seen as some big travesty. How dare people badmouth a sitting Democrat like this? Defending your own is not too surprising on some level. Sen. Gillibrand, for instance, opposed AOC when she ran against a long-sitting representative. 

I supported the Ned Lamont challenge largely since I thought it important in primaries to push from the left. Lamont ultimately won the primary. Lieberman decided to run as an independent. This disgusted me at the time. The Democratic voters spoke, and he said, "FU to the Party." 

Lieberman won as the de facto Republican candidate. There was an actual Republican candidate. He got a small amount of the vote. To add insult to injury, the Democrats (partially since it was a 51/49 Senate) did not penalize him for challenging the Democratic nominee. 

I do not suggest here Joe Lieberman was just a Republican. Even Erik Loomis grants:

To his credit, I guess, Lieberman was decent on some social issues. He generally supported same-sex marriage, cosponsored the 1990 Clean Air Act, and voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But for a Connecticut Democrat, those votes should have been standard fare, not the exception to an otherwise awful career.

Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who blocked a public option (basically letting people an option to have a Medicaid-like health insurance) in the Affordable Care Act fight. He's one of those Democrats who stop things and people blame "Democrats" for it.  Still, even there, he did vote for the final bill unlike every single Republican senator. 

The biggest act of turncoat-ery was his support of John McCain for president in 2008. At the time, William Buckley Jr.'s son came out against McCain to support the side of sanity. 

As Erik Loomis notes, he continued to be a tool when he finally left the Senate after he won his Lieberman for Lieberman Party race:

In 2013, he joined the American Enterprise Institute to run something called the American Internationalism Project with Jon Kyl. He occasionally showed up to Yeshiva University to teach a class. He continued to shake the militarism bells against Iran, attempting to undermine President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal and even led a rally outside of Kirsten Gillibrand’s office to get her to oppose the deal, which failed. 

He endorsed Hillary Clinton (why not? she was something of a hardliner on foreign policy issues). Nonetheless, once Trump won, he still continued to support conservatives. He introduced Betsy DeVos in her confirmation as Education Secretary. At least Neal Katyal had a reason to support Neil Gorsuch because he would show up in front of him regularly.  

Oh well. I guess No Labels will have to find another candidate. If this is not enough about Lieberman, insert "Lieberman" in the search box, and you can read about my thoughts about him over the years.  

Rob Porter: Symbol of Trump White House

The Rob Porter news (CNN had a piece concluding he was seen as too important in managing information in the White House to fire) is disgusting, both regarding defense of a batterer and the lax concerns for security (had to continuously rely on temporary security clearances and was a prime blackmail candidate; recall Clinton's email "sins"). By now, though, it's "yeah, but it doesn't matter." It does, of course, but not enough. BTW, the CNN article's comment regarding Ivanka and Donald's reaction should be put in sarcasm font.

Chelsea Manning Among Those Whose Sentences Commuted

Obama has a record of commutations, pardons are much less, no matter how much ideally he should have done much more. One person among the last couple batches is of special note. I think she was rightly convicted for releasing hundreds of thousands of secret materials as a low level military official, no way merely "whistle-blowing" of illegal actions which endangered innocent parties (which all her defenders from some comments appear don't give a shit about). But, seven years is enough, especially since she admitted fault and didn't flee to Russia, putting aside abuses (how horrible is unclear to me) regarding her treatment.

ETA: "Traitor" is kicked around but she wasn't convicted of treason. Her actions were deemed to have "aided" the enemy, but she was found innocent of that charge. Yes, all sides use the term loosely, some in fact calling her a "patriot." I hold to the idea there is a moral reason to submit to the criminal justice system, fears of mistreatment can apply to those we don't like.

"The Speechwriter" aka A Survivor's Tale

Word mistress Kory Stamper promoted this book on Twitter and really liked the first quarter or so. It was a fun account by a survivor of Gov. Mark "Appalachian Trial" Sanford's administration mixed with a bit of appreciation (comes off fairly well actually & the book ends with a warning not to "trust" politicians) though he found the guy to be something of an inarticulate jerk. But, didn't really hold up the whole way. Worth it for the first part.

Amanda Marcotte Suggests Why Edwards Had Supporters

See here. I was for Dean in '04 but Edwards was my second choice (Kerry -- zzzzz) & I voted for him in the '08 primary since I thought Obama too centrist. He by then had apologized for his Iraq vote. Liked his book. I also was part of the Elizabeth Edwards love.

John Edwards

Maddow excerpted this tonight adding it was pre-Citizens United, noting Newt's millionaire.  But, that guy is a lot of things, but not a corporation.  So what's your point?  Anyway, Edwards might be a "slimeball," but the prosecution was/is is dubious.

Sometimes, Best To Let It Go (Prosecution Edition)

I voted for Edwards (for symbolic reasons in the primary) and was at a personal appearance his wife gave for her second book.  Guy is an ass.  But, he lost his wife and political good name.  The prosecution is a lousy idea, even without its questionable legal basis.

The True Palin

On Lawrence O'Donnell (a political insider himself and one of the people behind West Wing), he as well as Nicolle Wallace (strongly anti-Palin McCain insider who later wrote two books on a Republican woman President that Rachel Maddow liked a lot) noted their admiration for the upcoming HBO film Game Change. I probably will take a look at it, but Andrew Sullivan previewed it by suggesting it provides a much too positive look at Palin herself (who is going around, shocker, denouncing the film). 

Anyone with even the faintest grasp of Palin's reality - including former close aides like Frank Bailey - understands that she is emotionally unstable, paranoid, vindictive, self-destructive, religiously fanatical and clinically deluded. Her "wonderful mothering" led her to take a tiny child with Down Syndrome and parade him in front of the cameras as a political prop, and later hauling him out half-naked at night to show off to fans on her book tour. None of her children has made it to college; one was a teenage vandal, another a teen mom. A man who lived in her house, says her children had to raise themselves. She quit office in mid-term because her vanity and rapacity were more important to her than public service. The victims of her vicious career lie strewn all over Alaska. Anyone faintly aware of reality also knows that John McCain was as cynical, brutal and expedient a figure as anyone to run for president - and that Palin's selection was an act of such grotesque vanity and cynicism that it instantly disqualified him from the presidency.

Don't sugar coat it, Andrew.  I think the analysis is overall fair. [Second thought there is that he is a bit too one-sided there and a bit over the top. "Victims of vicious career strewn all over Alaska" is a bit much.] It is striking how visceral my distaste of Republican candidates have been since 2000.  I didn't support but in no way find it distasteful that people might vote for Bush41 or Bob Dole.  On the other hand, finding Bush43 or McCain/Palin as credible candidates was on some basic level (to repeat myself) risible.  There are those who now were just shocked at how Bush turned out after they saw him as a sane choice in 2000.  Molly Ivins and others told us then that was wrong.  By 2004, as seen even by Meghan McCain, we knew it.  More so in '08 and now in '12.  It is not polite to say so, but we should sometimes be blunt about it. 

Also, I don't agree exactly with everything Andrew Sullivan says here in response to the Derrick Bell video controversy (see my embedded video below), but it is a reasonable analysis of the sort I appreciate.

[Update: The movie was decent -- I think the leads worked well overall  and we got some of the behind the scenes stuff, but it wasn't special or anything.  I think it got weaker as it went on with the second half pretty dull at times. The negatives of Palin as unprepared, above her pay grade, overwhelmed and having some delusions of grandeur was touched upon. I don't really think Sullivan is totally fair in thinking her character was too soft here and besides that would not be dramatically useful.

I think it could be sharper over all.  Mixed vote.  This is from a certain type of viewer of the political scene, of course, others might get more from this sort of thing.  Also, moments like people in the film explaining their connection to Palin or the ugliness of the campaign in certain respects.  So many like me see that talked about so much already but the average person who is not so bloggy etc.  might very well get more out of that.]

Reruns

Detroit beat the Yanks. Another rerun (from 2007):

What one of the Republican presidential candidates are credible? Romney probably is the best, though crazy things pop up now and again to suggest otherwise, and the betting man would say he is the safe choice. The Daily Show had a tieless Mike Huckabee (I thought that was the Obama look) bit where he dreams about there being duck hunting in heaven. Right. Various sorts pipe in about how no hope Ron Paul sounds good ... being against the war/occupation and all, but elide over the fact he is prolife. This being imho insane on a public policy level leads to problems in my mind.

The Huckabee role is filled by someone else though as it turned out McCain was the best (so to speak) and back in the day would be my "sane Republican" choice a la Huntsman. That is, in 2000, when the alternative was Bush and he didn't develop into an asshole (probably had qualities, but weren't as apparent to me). But, there is a rerun flavor to all of this with the Texas cowboy role (looking even more like Josh Brolin of W fame) included. No wonder people want a wild card like Chris Christie, which sounds like it's Latin for "Chris of Chris."

I included another tidbit about the possibility of justices being in place if there was an election at the time of their appointment:

Stevens was well known as a special prosecutor, had moderate vibes and was pleasing enough generally. Ginsburg looked like a nice Jewish girl and Scalia could have chimed in -- they are friendly. Roberts was a pall bearer for Rehnquist -- come on! Souter also is someone who many would probably trust as a judge.

I think Sotomayor and Kagan would work too. Kagan was picked in part for her personality and ability to make friends in high places while Sotomayor has the great life story and appeal to the Hispanic demo. And, she is from the Bronx, so unlike some other women pols, would be a true Yankee fan. Sorry, Sonia. There's always next year where overpriced hitters will be overmatched by someone named "Fister." That closer has those K-Rod glasses and a feistiness to match, doesn't he? Well, he puts up, that's for sure.

Quickies

I see someone looked at my early Palin comments. Often a bit amusing to look back. Started reading this 19th Century prose Shakespeare for younger readers (free via Kindle) and it is a pretty good way to get a quick taste. Mets start off well. Stewie foiled?

And, She Voted For Kerry After The 2000 ****!

Meghan McCain actually is quite likable and down to earth in Dirty Sexy Politics, though she does come off as a bit childish and shallow at times.  She sounds like a typical twenty-something who loves her dad.  But, you still sort of want a bit more from a Columbia grad.

Governmental Duty To Affirmatively Act (Our Right To Have Them Do So)

And Also: I'm not quite sold about the move, but a NY Daily News columnist was a (to quote him) "dummy" to ridicule the move as just plain moronic. As to the 'Boys, well happy for the Packers, but it sort of gives the Giants more hope than they probably deserve.

The special election for an upstate NY House seat in the end played out how the Constitution provision involved suggests it should. House seats are ultimately about local issues, and though it is not compelled by the text, the district system of selecting them highlights that. The Conservative Party outsider was not really concerned about local issues, and had a now infamous session with local press that highlighted this. Really, this is not surprising -- a third party candidate is focused on their issues. Problem for the Republicans was that events overwhelmed things.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party candidate (a state legislator) had some real social liberal bona fides (pro-choice, supportive of same sex marriage). She was not a kneejerk party ideologue sort. Rachel Maddow how her on and didn't ask her about such things (what about the health care bill?). But, and an endorsement from a pro-choice group highlighted the fact, she could well have been an asset as a sane voice in the Republican caucus. There appears to be some. Instead, someone some fear is a Blue Dog sort won. The Republican, who endorsed him, very well might feel comfortable in that caucus.

I say public life with no reference to the incumbency of political office. By the public life of an American citizen I refer to his life as a sovereign; to his constant participation in the active government of his country; to the continual study and decision of political issues which devolve upon him whatever may be his occupation; and to his responsibility for the conduct of national and State affairs as the primary law-making, law-construing, and law-executing power, no matter whether or not he is personally engaged in the public service as policeman or President, as any State official whatever, member of Congress, Chief-Justice of the United States, or a humble justice of the peace. In republics official stations are servitudes. The citizen is king.

The context of this quotation, by a late 19th Century member of Congress, can be found in my discussion here as well as this law review article ("Education, Equality and National Citizenship") cited there. The article is an interesting one, underling how originalism and history is not really the enemy of the liberal point of view -- "originalists" tend to have a slanted view of things that often enough is a shallow view of the complexities of the situation. For instance, if Justice Harlan was so right in Plessy, why don't conservatives support his dissent in the Civil Rights Cases? They do realize St. Harlan also supported laws against interracial sex, right?

The discussion highlights the importance of education to citizenship and therefore the duty (and power) of both the states and the feds to secure some baseline of adequate education for all. Equality does cover social, civil and political affairs (the original view leaned toward accepting social inequality and separation, thus Harlan treated public accommodations different from public schools). But, Goodwin Liu's (author of the article) focus is on citizenship, which does not require equality as such in all these categories (though sometimes, yes) while requiring some basic floor.

Government's role in education underlines that the state has long been considered to be important here. Getting the feds involved -- even with a national university which Madison desired -- was a harder nut to crack. Liu focuses on the duty of Congress in this area, one that reflects original understanding and Harlan's discussion in his dissent to the Civil Right Cases. In passing, Liu also suggests some basic health care is necessary as well, something I go into more detail here. Such a duty suggests that Congress has the power to carry it out, using various methods including the tax/spend power, interstate commerce and Section Five of the 14A.

As I note in my health care discussion there and elsewhere, such a duty in my view also implies (basically by definition) a right. If the government has a duty to do something, even if it has some discretion (e.g., police services), we have the right to it. If the duty is somewhat open-ended, it might be harder to obtain the right by lawsuit. It might even seem a bit inchoate to really be a "right." But, I disagree. As Liu notes, the Constitution is not just about negative rights against the state. It includes some duty (right) to positive dare I say affirmative action. The recent discussion on speech outdoors (Timothy Zick) covers an example -- who but the government can truly protect our ability to publicly protest? This requires action.

Conservatives concerned about property rights can tell you about the importance of governmental action to secure such rights. Some just are a bit selective about taking this to an equitable and logical conclusion.

Sotomayor Q&A: Day 2

And Also: Will the 2008 election ever be truly over?! Another vacancy in effect resulting from it filled.

The Sotomayor hearings have value both for the questions and the answers. This does not mean both lack problems. Heather K. Gerken points to one problem:

The hearings also seemed to have drained the life out of the law itself. Listening to the exchanges, you would never know that the law is a vibrant entity, a remarkable blend of real-world facts and abstract principles. You would never know that lawyering involves nuance and thought. You would think that lawyering is a witless, mechanical exercise and would be surprised to discover that anyone could find a life in the law remotely inspiring.*

This is furthered by fears of "judicial activism" and worries about use of "empathy" or (the beaten to death) speech by Sotomayor that race and gender (duh) affects how a judge acts. As Glenn Greenwald twittered "The irony of all of this: Sotomayor is probably in the upper 10th percentile of mechanistic/legalistic judges - if anything, it's a fault." In fact, this -- in some fashion -- comes out in her answers, which underlines the value of the process. And, she might want to dance around it (some exaggerate her perfidy in this), but Sotomayor noted in an answer to Sen. Cornyn:

And the process of judging, for me, is what life experiences brings to the process. It helps you listen and understand. It doesn't change what the law is or what the law commands.

The "process" includes actual decisions. Dahlia Lithwick, perhaps stepping a bit beyond Sotomayor's explicit words, argued what seems to be a fair reading overall:

Her message today is also clearer: I am human, my background makes a difference. I am not sorry for exploring whether and how it makes a difference, but when I apply the law to the facts—if you look at my record—the law always wins.

Sotomayor's mantra is that she follows the law. The Constitution stays the same even if different people bring different experiences to the table. This is a bit too of a overly cute way of looking at things. A fair reading of her comments, even if you have to read between the lines, underlines that in a real way the "law" develops, it changes. A response to Sen. Cardin:

That's what precedents do. They provide a framework. The Constitution remains the same; society changes. The situations that brings before courts change, but the principles are in -- are the words of the Constitution, guided by how precedent gives or has applied those principles to each situation, and then you take that and you look at the new situation.

Many want nominees to be more substantive in their responses, but Sotomayor repeatedly refused to state what she personally believed a certain provision required. She looked at what the Court did. The process can give us less vanilla in this area, even if specific statements are really out of bounds on ethics grounds because it would in effect be a sort of prejudging. Long term appellate judges are better here, since others just might have out of court statements that actually address such issues. Sen. Coburn, a non-lawyer rather conservative sort provided some firm questioning, Scotusblog was impressed, including some perfectly fine questions like the role in technology when deciding cases. She did not need to avoid the question. Nor this one:

I don't want you to answer that specifically. What I would like to hear you say is, how did we get there? How did we get to the point where something that's spelled out in our Constitution and guaranteed to us, but something that isn't spelled out specifically in our Constitution is? Would you give me your philosophical answer?

The question respected the (in his view) explicit right to bear arms as compared to more implied (ditto) rights such as privacy. It's an interesting question on how the law develops, but as Gerken notes, that flexibility and life scares some people. Also, this back and forth:

In my experience, when I've seen other judges cite to foreign law, they're not using it to drive the conclusion. They're using just to point something out about a comparison between American law or foreign law, but they're not using it in the sense of compelling a result.

COBURN: I'm not sure I agree with that on certain 8th Amendment and 14th Amendment cases.

Fair enough, but the answer was not followed up, since it did not involve her infamous speech (the fact he focused on other issues, including self-defense and the meaning of "death" underlines why I liked his round of questions). I share Randy Barnett's thought that it was thin gruel at times (though I question if past hearings really offered us much more). For instance, Sen. Feingold asked her the process where a right is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. This was in connection to the Second Amendment, but her answers did not even state the overall process used generally. Her answer also was a bit garbled as RB notes (he is more harsh).

[Update: The continual push for her to recuse herself if a Second Amendment case, not just the one she herself decided, does warrant harsh words. OTOH, both Keith and Rachel ignored that Coburn actually asked some real questions to focus on some lame joke he made ... after Sotomayor herself joked about a self-defense scenario she was setting up. That sort of thing annoys me ... Keith does it a bit too often.]

The use of Youngstown (actually Jackson's concurrence, which is at times treated as the holding) was as mandatory as it was token. Scotusblog (live blogging) appears to be correct that she was more comfortable talking about her life as a lawyer. Why not? No pratfalls about "judicial activism" there. She overall came off as intelligent, smart and carefully reasoned. Trying to find out her ideology ... well, good luck there. This includes (second round) when the issue of same sex marriage arose though she carefully addressed Baker v. Nelson.

BTW, overall, Franken looked a bit rough in his questioning. Had a light Perry Mason moment that got a laugh though. His comments on net neutrality did not really fit it well with the question related to a specific case. But, he got a good point in about the word "privacy" not specifically being in the Constitution being only so important. I'd add Dahlia thought he did well overall too.

---

* She continues:

Someone reading these words might think that these are all code words for describing a "living Constitution," that they are intended to depict law as a tool for social reform. But I think my description would be instantly recognizable to lawyers and judges who flatly reject what has become the traditional liberal take on the law. Lawyering is a craft in which all of us can take pride.

I blame neither the Senators nor Judge Sotomayor for the rather sad and inert picture of the law they've given us. This is simply what judicial confirmation hearings have become. Still, it's too bad that what is perhaps the law's most public moment gives the public so little sense of what a remarkable institution it is.

I'd add that how can you not blame the senators? They are at least a wee bit at fault in how they run the process, right? As TalkLeft (or rather, one member) noted, the Republicans' (and here again Coburn underlines it is not just ideology alone) one track mind focus on the 'wise Latina' issue didn't help. Nice comment that pablum is better than b.s.

Sen. Al Franken

And Also: I caught most of Clover, about a young black girl who is left to be cared for by a white stepmother (good to see Elizabeth McGovern with a plum role) on Hallmark. The book -- by an actual black woman farmer though the race angle is fictional -- was also well done. The "ghost" of the dead dad/husband is not really found in the book, which also solely is in the voice of Clover, but fits the visual medium all the same. A case where two sources work well in their own fashion.

There is a tradition where the justice with the least seniority has the responsibility of opening the door during conferences when they discuss cases if someone comes to drop something off. They are closed door affairs where only the justices are allowed. Justice Alito has that responsibility now, but soon (unless something striking happens), Judge (Justice) Sotomayor will have that job. She has made the rounds, but has one more place to go at the very least, since it involves a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I speak of Sen. Franken, who has been appointed to the following:

* United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

* Committee on the Judiciary
o Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
o Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
o Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security

* United States Senate Special Committee on Aging

* United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs*

Until about noon today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) had the least seniority (appointed to replace Clinton), and by chance (or not) presided as the senior senator of Minnesota introduced Al. The Senate website was updated, though no website is there yet, but not the Roll Call list as of this writing. Sen. Franken -- not just a funny man any more or Air America host -- ran because Sen. Paul Wellstone's death touched him so much. And, he thought Norm Coleman dishonored his memory. Now, Al sits at Wellstone's desk. Being a sentimental guy, this clearly affects him.

As many who went on his show, including Paul Krugman, know, Sen. Franken is not only funny, sentimental, and a bit corny, but he deeply cares about progressive policies and is a downright smart (Harvard grad) policy wonk. This comes out in some of the clips in the "funny man" link, including when he talks to Letterman about his trips to entertain the troops, and at one point talks about how he has talked to experts who told him about the mental trauma service brings. It was the experts he brought on that might have been the best part of his radio show, especially to the degree just Al (after Katherine left) at times got to be a bit much.

Besides health care (Social Security and Medicare is of special importance to him, particularly as such governmental safety nets helped his wife's family survive), Al at one point spoke about the need to end the Iraq War. Besides wishing him good luck and asking him to remained principled and independent like his sometime guest Sen. Sanders (I-CT), this gives me a chance to toss out a top 10 war defenses.

---

* It is unclear how much influence he will have immediately in the health insurance realm, since (so it seems) his spot will be filled by Sen. Whitehouse (a good egg on some other issues) while the current legislation is being negotiated. Universal health care was a clear concern of Franken's during the campaign. There are over thirty thousand Native Americans in the state, and "Old Al" alone suggests the other committee is important to him.

The judicial slot is interesting though -- seems a big plum for a rookie without legal experience. Some of those subcommittees, though consumer rights etc. (e.g., he comes from a border state) fits his general interests, are rather technical. OTOH, that might be a plus in some ways.

Franken Again

Not too long ago, Rachel Maddow guest hosted for Al Franken when something happened in New Orleans. Now, one is a popular MSNBC host, the other a U.S. senator. Franken aimed to not take the "60 votes" thing too seriously. Sane enough, especially with Specter as the 59th. And, why should it be, with the House and presidency controlled by Democrats? A minority check is nice, but at some point it's a bit much, especially if it is taken too far, and people don't quite notice.

Franken In ...

Finally (Sotomayor connection). As to Star Trek, thought increases negatives. For instance, early on we are shown Kirk cheating a test in place to teach dealing with a "no win" scenario, which fans will recognize from elsewhere. This includes the fear that brings. But, the film never has him in a command role dealing with that. Spock in this respect comes off as a more complex character. Cf. Star Trek II.

Us v. Them, Them & Us?

And Also: One of many criticisms of the appointment of Sen. Gillibrand is that it would mean a loss to the Dems since she was from a conservative district. Instead, in a race the Republicans gave some emphasis to, the Dem won the election in a nail-biter. Also out of NY: interesting 2A case not involving guns. Wonder what KG thinks!

Nothing has yet repealed Nature’s dictates. We eat to live and kill to eat. So do all the world’s other creatures. At rock bottom, we are Them and they are US. There is no basic difference in our capacities for suffering and pleasure. But we have opportunities that they do not: the ability to reflect on what we do, the power to act humanely, the obligation not to waste a whit of what we take, and the grace to be thankful.

“All animals engage in purposeful action … seeking food, mates [and seek to protect our offspring], and the company of others. … Animals investigate novel and biologically significant stimuli as we do, ignore old and uninteresting events just as we do, and share our limited capacity for incoming information. We are not the only conscious beings on earth.”

-- Janet Lembke, Because The Cat Purrs: How We Relate to Other Species and Why It Matters (also quoting Bernard J. Baars, neuroscientist)

Deja Vu?

Mixing politics with Justice Department business is bad no matter who does it. Good reports on Rachel last night too. GG's clip etc. shows it is in flux and a long haul, but we need to understand principles now. Meanwhile, today was election day, for me at least, since a local pol went to the Obama Administration. Democracy in action via 19th Century lever machines!

Use the Koh Battle Wisely

And Also: Facts noted after 2000 and 2004 underlined that various attacks on Gore and Kerry were wrong. Perhaps, we should have had re-dos then too? Charming how prosecutorial wrongdoing means the guy is now factually innocent. Does that work with drug dealers too?

Dahlia Lithwick is upset that various sorts are inflicting unfair attacks on legal appointments in the Obama Administration, particularly because she respects and has some personal connection with many of them. For instance, Dawn Johnsen is up for head of the OLC, and has written for Slate plus was a leading progressive legal voice. Meanwhile, attacks on her include scary if misleading at best citations of an old footnote in an abortion brief referencing (ack) the 13th Amendment. Pragmatically you avoid mentioning it, but even facing such things front on, her side comes out right.

This comes with the territory, but one side tends to be noticeably more rabid and lockstep than the other. [The pox is on both houses, as shown by Prof. Levinson's rabid attacks on Sen. Gillibrand (see comments), but the sides are not equal. But, this can be a tiresome battle, and issues of substance should be our core focus.] Now, it's Prof. Koh's time, though as I note in posts like this one, it has not be just a unilateral battle. The Internet provides a means to research lies and misleads, try to address the assumptions of some opponents (even if they are not convinced, their claims can taint the discussion without a reply) and even listen to the guy on YouTube or whatnot.

And, in the spirit of his career as a law professor, this can be a teaching moment, promoting the truth on things like international law's role in our jurisprudence and the value of the rule of law overall. Even at Bagram Air Force Base.

Saturday Quickies (Now With More Quick)

Not a big fan, but apropos yesterday, Jack Shafer's latest is a new low. [Even if you sorta agree with his annoyance.] Tired of hearing about A-Rod. By now, the Yanks aren't really fun any more, though continual collapses don't make Mets necessarily fun city. Still, happy we can see a bit of Spring Training later this week. Month gone, Obama has failed. Oh well. (Seriously, get a grip!) BTW, iCarly needs its energy back. Where is the lib blog coverage of Shafer?