On the same day when the media was starting to openly question why Justice David Souter hadn't hired any law clerks for the OT 2009, it now appears he's retiring. He's a good man.
And now the fun starts: who will take his place? I'm leaning toward Harriet Miers.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
It's official
You know a health concern is a health "scare" once Mom has sent you an email suggesting you wear a surgical mask on the airplane. Congrats, swine flu, you've made it.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Almost draft time
It's not a sporting event, but it's an event about sports. And for some reason I'm totally hooked on the NFL Draft. It doesn't matter what draft position the Seahawks have -- I'll pay attention. But this year they're fourth, and may end up being a power broker on draft day. I'm irrationally excited about it.
There's a ton of speculation about the 'Hawks taking Mark Sanchez (QB - USC), but I think it's a smokescreen. They can't seriously want to take him so high in the draft. But they know that other teams are looking for a QB, and I think the dream scenario is to trade down into the 12-20 range, where they'll pick an RB or CB, or both if they get two picks in the trade. That's what I'm hoping for.
If they stay at 4, I think they'll hope Aaron Curry (OLB - Wake Forest) is still there, but if he's gone then there's really no one exciting to choose from. My guess is they'll go Michael Crabtree (WR - Texas Tech), because apparently they're not interested in drafting another OL so high right now. I just don't see them drafting QB in the first round when Hasselbeck is still productive, and apparently healthy. This team will still be competitive for a couple more seasons before it needs to rebuild, so they need an impact player right now. That's a WR, RB, or potential starter on defense.
Go Hawks. Choose wisely.
There's a ton of speculation about the 'Hawks taking Mark Sanchez (QB - USC), but I think it's a smokescreen. They can't seriously want to take him so high in the draft. But they know that other teams are looking for a QB, and I think the dream scenario is to trade down into the 12-20 range, where they'll pick an RB or CB, or both if they get two picks in the trade. That's what I'm hoping for.
If they stay at 4, I think they'll hope Aaron Curry (OLB - Wake Forest) is still there, but if he's gone then there's really no one exciting to choose from. My guess is they'll go Michael Crabtree (WR - Texas Tech), because apparently they're not interested in drafting another OL so high right now. I just don't see them drafting QB in the first round when Hasselbeck is still productive, and apparently healthy. This team will still be competitive for a couple more seasons before it needs to rebuild, so they need an impact player right now. That's a WR, RB, or potential starter on defense.
Go Hawks. Choose wisely.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
So that's over
Wrapping up the weird Juneau senate caper, Sarah Palin relented and appointed the Democratic compromise candidate, Dennis Egan. So that's over. And all it cost her was her AG candidate.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
WAR is over
And let this be a lesson to all of us. This is what happens when you play politics for no apparent reason. It gets you nowhere.
So, yeah. As we left off last night, Wayne Anthony Ross was in trouble for implying that the legislature shouldn't consider the law when dealing with Sarah Palin's illegal nomination of three names to fill the Juneau senate seat. This morning, the day of WAR's confirmation vote, he distributed a memo saying that "rumors" that he had suggested they disregard the law were "totally false." An ADN reporter then helpfully posted an audio recording of WAR saying exactly what was reported.
And with that fresh in their minds, the legislature took to the floor to vote, and proceeded to reject WAR as attorney general. The legislature has never before rejected a governor's nominee. So the man who has referred to gays as "degenerates" will not be the state's top lawyer.
So to recap, Palin decides to play games with the Juneau Senate seat, illegally submits three names for the seat, and gets WAR to say the move was legal, when it clearly wasn't. WAR says not to worry so much about legal/illegal, and then he lies about whether he said that. That, my friends, is how to subvert a political appointment from the inside.
Oh, and we're still missing a senator. And now an attorney general.
So, yeah. As we left off last night, Wayne Anthony Ross was in trouble for implying that the legislature shouldn't consider the law when dealing with Sarah Palin's illegal nomination of three names to fill the Juneau senate seat. This morning, the day of WAR's confirmation vote, he distributed a memo saying that "rumors" that he had suggested they disregard the law were "totally false." An ADN reporter then helpfully posted an audio recording of WAR saying exactly what was reported.
And with that fresh in their minds, the legislature took to the floor to vote, and proceeded to reject WAR as attorney general. The legislature has never before rejected a governor's nominee. So the man who has referred to gays as "degenerates" will not be the state's top lawyer.
So to recap, Palin decides to play games with the Juneau Senate seat, illegally submits three names for the seat, and gets WAR to say the move was legal, when it clearly wasn't. WAR says not to worry so much about legal/illegal, and then he lies about whether he said that. That, my friends, is how to subvert a political appointment from the inside.
Oh, and we're still missing a senator. And now an attorney general.
The circus continues
When we left off, Sarah Palin was trying to fill a vacant state senate seat. State law says she must select someone approved by the Juneau Democrats. She rejected the Dems' choice, and then the Dems rejected her choice (a guy who had been a registered Republican just weeks earlier). Palin rejected that rejection, and the Dems rejected her rejection of their rejection. We clear? Good.
Since then, the Dems provided a list of acceptable replacements, but Palin went off the list and chose someone else. The Dems rejected him, and then met with Juneau Republicans to nominate a mutually acceptable replacement. And Palin rejected that nominee. She then gave the Dems her own list of three: the two nominees the Dems had already rejected, plus a third guy who -- you guessed it -- only registered as a Democrat a couple weeks ago. The Dems then did nothing, because Palin wasn't allowed under state law to present her own list. And this is where it gets even more fun.
In attempt to support the legality of her list of three, Palin asked her newly appointed Attorney General, Wayne Anthony Ross ("WAR"), to give his opinion. WAR isn't AG yet, though -- his confirmation vote is scheduled for Thursday of this week. WAR speaketh thusly: "It seems to me the most important thing that can be done by the Senate is not argue with legal or illegal but to appoint somebody to represent Juneau." And now, according to the ADN, WAR's confirmation is in jeopardy because of his apparent willingness to disregard the law. And we're no closer to getting a new senator.
Since then, the Dems provided a list of acceptable replacements, but Palin went off the list and chose someone else. The Dems rejected him, and then met with Juneau Republicans to nominate a mutually acceptable replacement. And Palin rejected that nominee. She then gave the Dems her own list of three: the two nominees the Dems had already rejected, plus a third guy who -- you guessed it -- only registered as a Democrat a couple weeks ago. The Dems then did nothing, because Palin wasn't allowed under state law to present her own list. And this is where it gets even more fun.
In attempt to support the legality of her list of three, Palin asked her newly appointed Attorney General, Wayne Anthony Ross ("WAR"), to give his opinion. WAR isn't AG yet, though -- his confirmation vote is scheduled for Thursday of this week. WAR speaketh thusly: "It seems to me the most important thing that can be done by the Senate is not argue with legal or illegal but to appoint somebody to represent Juneau." And now, according to the ADN, WAR's confirmation is in jeopardy because of his apparent willingness to disregard the law. And we're no closer to getting a new senator.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Bear cop!
It sounds like a Discovery Channel series, but I prefer the idea of a "Barney Miller"-style precinct full of bear cops. There's the older guy approaching retirement... the grizzled (heh) veteran tired of all the bear shenanigans. Then there's the rookie cop who maybe lost a family member in a bear attack, and now has something to prove. Maybe he's too reckless. Then there's the philosophical, wisecracking cop whose puns lead the other detectives to learn more about the bears, and more about themselves. Finally there's the ambitious cop who's only using the bear precinct as a stepping stone to move on to bigger and better things. Maybe he doesn't respect the bears enough, and puts the entire precinct at risk.
We can only hope. It's a new position in the Municipality of Anchorage, so send in your resumes now if you think you'd like to "relocate and destroy problem bears."
We can only hope. It's a new position in the Municipality of Anchorage, so send in your resumes now if you think you'd like to "relocate and destroy problem bears."
St. Mathew 5-21
Next in the series, Hutchins Hall gets biblical. Matthew 5-21: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." The creepiness of this window, to me, is that it depicts Michigan Law Students as potential perpetrators and victims of murder. Not all windows are about the students; this one preys on feelings that are undoubtedly permanent features of the school: envy and jealousy.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The wolves
Newsweek has a good review of the practice of aerial wolf hunting, as a means of predator control. It was a Palin-related issue in the 2008 election, but it's a longstanding political issue in Alaska -- the subject of numerous statewide propositions (the people tend to vote against aerial hunting) and government rulemaking (Fish and Game tends to okay it). It's another example of the issue that, in a way, defines Alaska: the balance between conservation and resource extraction.
On one side you've got an argument that the state really wants "unlimited commercial consumption" of game by "artificially turning Alaska into a game farm, into one big hunting ground." They also argue that the plan may never actually work, as wolves will simply "fill the vacuum" and continue to enter predator control areas because of the lack of competition. But those arguments are true for any predator control programs. The big problem with aerial hunting is the animal cruelty issue -- a wolf shot but not killed will suffer until it eventually dies. Ground-based hunting avoids that problem.
The other side of the argument is the simple fact that so many people here -- including subsistence hunters -- depend on moose and caribou to survive.
On one side you've got an argument that the state really wants "unlimited commercial consumption" of game by "artificially turning Alaska into a game farm, into one big hunting ground." They also argue that the plan may never actually work, as wolves will simply "fill the vacuum" and continue to enter predator control areas because of the lack of competition. But those arguments are true for any predator control programs. The big problem with aerial hunting is the animal cruelty issue -- a wolf shot but not killed will suffer until it eventually dies. Ground-based hunting avoids that problem.
The other side of the argument is the simple fact that so many people here -- including subsistence hunters -- depend on moose and caribou to survive.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
New M's, Old M's
I was planning to write something about all the hope I had for the Mariners this season, what with the new outfield and the new front office. But then they had a 5-3 lead in the bottom of the ninth tonight, 2 outs and nobody on, and blew the game. And then I remembered what it's like to have a sporting event ruin your day.
This is still a team in transition. It's going to take several years for the stink of the Bill Bavasi era to wear off -- after Carlos Silva, Jarrod Washburn, Miguel Batista, and Kenji Johjima are gone. (And meanwhile Adam Jones is ready to become an allstar in Baltimore... that trade will haunt us for 15 years.) And we won't know the impact of bad Bavasi drafts for years to come; already we know that Brandon Morrow will never start, and 2007 pick Phillippe Aumont is being moved to the bullpen too. What an unmitigated failure the Bavasi tenure turned out to be, and it's going to take a while to get back to contention.
I figure M's win 70 games this year. They might hang in the mix for a while, but they'll ditch Bedard and (sadly) Beltre at the trade deadline, and the second half of the season will be a glorified AAA team. I hope I'm wrong.
Go Mariners.
This is still a team in transition. It's going to take several years for the stink of the Bill Bavasi era to wear off -- after Carlos Silva, Jarrod Washburn, Miguel Batista, and Kenji Johjima are gone. (And meanwhile Adam Jones is ready to become an allstar in Baltimore... that trade will haunt us for 15 years.) And we won't know the impact of bad Bavasi drafts for years to come; already we know that Brandon Morrow will never start, and 2007 pick Phillippe Aumont is being moved to the bullpen too. What an unmitigated failure the Bavasi tenure turned out to be, and it's going to take a while to get back to contention.
I figure M's win 70 games this year. They might hang in the mix for a while, but they'll ditch Bedard and (sadly) Beltre at the trade deadline, and the second half of the season will be a glorified AAA team. I hope I'm wrong.
Go Mariners.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Congratulations, Iowa
With the Final 4 on TV in the background (go Sparty), I've had time today to skim through yesterday's decision by the Iowa Supreme Court that ruled the state's ban on same sex marriage violates the equal protection clause. It's a very well-written opinion -- the first I've seen that so thoroughly discusses all the arguments surrounding the issue. And, by a unanimous vote, the Court absolutely eviscerates the state's attempts to support the ban. The opinion takes no shortcuts and pulls no punches. It should be the model for future opinions to come.
Once the Court establishes that the law treats similarly situated groups differently, it goes step by step through the government's purposes for the law, patiently explaining the absurdity in each. For example, maintaining "tradition" simply for tradition's sake is a circular objective; the state offered no evidence that a same-sex marriage ban ensures children will be raised in the "optimal milieu", and if that's really its purpose the statute is over- and under-inclusive anyway; the ban does nothing to "promote procreation" or "promote stability in opposite-sex relationships"; this is not a fair or equal way to "conserve state resources". In sum, the state had no cognizable reason to support the ban. The Court then acknowledged that the ban derives in great part from religious opposition to same-sex marriage, but those arguments don't have any real role in an argument over civil (as opposed to religious) marriage.
I've surfed around the web looking for an intelligent legal response to the opinion, but all I found was the typical bleating about activist judges and legislating from the bench (thanks Mike Huckabee!), which really only belies a lack of understanding of constitutional government and the equal protection clause. Most reviews are favorable.
After an opinion like this it's hard not to think about California. California's high court made a similar ruling, but because of the proposition system that allows a bare majority to amend the constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution is essentially useless.
Once the Court establishes that the law treats similarly situated groups differently, it goes step by step through the government's purposes for the law, patiently explaining the absurdity in each. For example, maintaining "tradition" simply for tradition's sake is a circular objective; the state offered no evidence that a same-sex marriage ban ensures children will be raised in the "optimal milieu", and if that's really its purpose the statute is over- and under-inclusive anyway; the ban does nothing to "promote procreation" or "promote stability in opposite-sex relationships"; this is not a fair or equal way to "conserve state resources". In sum, the state had no cognizable reason to support the ban. The Court then acknowledged that the ban derives in great part from religious opposition to same-sex marriage, but those arguments don't have any real role in an argument over civil (as opposed to religious) marriage.
I've surfed around the web looking for an intelligent legal response to the opinion, but all I found was the typical bleating about activist judges and legislating from the bench (thanks Mike Huckabee!), which really only belies a lack of understanding of constitutional government and the equal protection clause. Most reviews are favorable.
After an opinion like this it's hard not to think about California. California's high court made a similar ruling, but because of the proposition system that allows a bare majority to amend the constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution is essentially useless.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Today in Alaska politics
What a wonderful place this is, with its crazyass politics. Today, more than most days, reminds you how weird this state is.
First you have the reactions to the Ted Stevens case, where the Alaska Republican Party and Governor Sarah Palin publicly requested newly elected Senator Mark Begich to resign and have a special election against Ted Stevens. Begich released a statement with a bunch of polite words in it, effectively saying thanks but no thanks. If I were him, I wouldn't have used words so much as: "Wha? Ha ha. No. Pfffffthhhppp." It doesn't go unnoticed, by the way, that Palin called for Stevens to resign immediately after his conviction, before his appeal had a chance to play out. I'm beginning to believe calling for the resignation of a senator is just a reflex for her now. (Watch out Lisa Murkowski.)
Your second story involves the complicated process of replacing Kim Elton in the state senate, who resigned to work in the US Interior Department. State law requires the political party of the vacant seat's district (Juneau) to nominate a replacement for the governor to appoint. Democrats nominated the current Speaker of the House, but Palin rejected that choice and nominated her own: a "Democrat" who was a Republican a few weeks ago but switched his affiliation so he could be eligible for this appointment. Yesterday Senate Democrats rejected Palin's choice, and tonight Palin rejected the Democrats' rejection. And now Democrats are rejecting Palin's rejection of their rejection.
Awesome. This has been the fun byproduct of the 2008 election -- intense, petty political squabbles. It started with Palin's bizarrely bitter statement in reaction to Elton taking the Interior job: "Senator Elton pledged his allegiance to President Obama last summer." (Meow.) It continues with today's triple-rejection; can't wait to see where it goes next.
ADDED: Don Young says Begich shouldn't resign but Stevens should run for governor in 2010 against Palin. Can't see that happening, but it would be amazing.
First you have the reactions to the Ted Stevens case, where the Alaska Republican Party and Governor Sarah Palin publicly requested newly elected Senator Mark Begich to resign and have a special election against Ted Stevens. Begich released a statement with a bunch of polite words in it, effectively saying thanks but no thanks. If I were him, I wouldn't have used words so much as: "Wha? Ha ha. No. Pfffffthhhppp." It doesn't go unnoticed, by the way, that Palin called for Stevens to resign immediately after his conviction, before his appeal had a chance to play out. I'm beginning to believe calling for the resignation of a senator is just a reflex for her now. (Watch out Lisa Murkowski.)
Your second story involves the complicated process of replacing Kim Elton in the state senate, who resigned to work in the US Interior Department. State law requires the political party of the vacant seat's district (Juneau) to nominate a replacement for the governor to appoint. Democrats nominated the current Speaker of the House, but Palin rejected that choice and nominated her own: a "Democrat" who was a Republican a few weeks ago but switched his affiliation so he could be eligible for this appointment. Yesterday Senate Democrats rejected Palin's choice, and tonight Palin rejected the Democrats' rejection. And now Democrats are rejecting Palin's rejection of their rejection.
Awesome. This has been the fun byproduct of the 2008 election -- intense, petty political squabbles. It started with Palin's bizarrely bitter statement in reaction to Elton taking the Interior job: "Senator Elton pledged his allegiance to President Obama last summer." (Meow.) It continues with today's triple-rejection; can't wait to see where it goes next.
ADDED: Don Young says Begich shouldn't resign but Stevens should run for governor in 2010 against Palin. Can't see that happening, but it would be amazing.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Ted wins
AG Holder stepped in and ended the Stevens case. I still don't think I can comment with any specificity, but I will say one thing in general. Ted's decision to push for a speedy trial was both the best and worst thing he could have done. Best: Justice wasn't able to get itself organized that quickly, so errors were bound to happen. Worst: if he'd pushed trial back a few months, he'd probably still be senator right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
