Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4194 Posts

Recommended: 575 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. To clarify, (1 Reply)

    he hasn’t exactly come out and said he won’t veto. But he has come pretty close.

  2. The useless Globe endorsement (0 Replies)

    As you’ll recall, the Globe endorsed Lydia Edwards. She finished fourth, well behind Boncore and Rizzo. You’d think that in a low turnout special election, something like a newspaper endorsement might make a difference. And you’d be wrong. We’ve known that for a while now, of course; yesterday was another demonstration.

  3. True. However, (0 Replies)

    in a funny way, this order is not that different from what a trial court judge might have said to the parties in a pretrial conference, in an effort to settle the case. It’s just that (a) it was done in public, on the Court’s docket sheet, and (b) the Supreme Court almost never does this.

  4. No. (0 Replies)

    The SJC has to decide the case, and currently the conviction is in limbo. The SJC could decide to entertain new briefing and argument, or just reconsider it on the existing record, but I can’t imagine that they won’t issue a new opinion either upholding or throwing out Caetano’s conviction.

  5. Serious question (2 Replies)

    about Bernie’s voice in the Senate. Maybe it would be different now that he’s run a national campaign. But I think we can agree that, in a few short years, Elizabeth Warren has become a considerably more effective and high-profile spokesperson for the issues they share than Bernie ever was during his time there. So, I’m less persuaded by the “no VP” argument in the case of Sanders than I am in the case of Warren.

  6. The order is pretty clear, IMHO. (0 Replies)

    I know I’m used to reading these kinds of things, but still.

  7. Well, (0 Replies)

    that’s essentially what the SJC held. The Supreme Court ruled that the SJC went about answering that question in the wrong way.

  8. McDonald (0 Replies)

    says that the 2nd Amendment applies with equal force to the states as to the federal government. Since Heller was about the DC government, the states weren’t involved, so the question remained open.

  9. Heh. Well, if so, (1 Reply)

    the message was received and rejected.

  10. No, they can't. (0 Replies)

    This has come up before – Justice Douglas suffered a stroke while serving on the Court, and it was a big problem. There is no mechanism other than impeachment to force a Justice’s retirement. Douglas eventually resigned, but it wasn’t pretty.

  11. You can call it whatever you like, (2 Replies)

    but the simple fact is that, other things being equal, a younger appointee is likely to serve on the Court for longer than an older one. Justices have life tenure, which means that they are among the most enduring parts of a president’s legacy. It’s natural – and, IMHO, sensible – for a president to want their appointees to serve for a very long time.

  12. "negotiation mode" (1 Reply)

    No, I don’t think what you suggest will happen. Garland is, in effect, a compromise candidate: he’s much older and more centrist than Obama would be likely to nominate under other circumstances.

    What I do think is possible is that, if the election on November 8 shows a Democratic president and Senate coming into power, Obama might withdraw Garland’s nomination on November 9 before the lame-duck session has a chance to act.

  13. Yes, I agree (0 Replies)

    that his rhetoric has changed in the respect you identify from when I originally wrote this post. It’s a remarkable phenomenon, as fascinating as it is scary.

  14. "Misspoke" is pretty standard pol-speak (1 Reply)

    for “I was wrong.” I wouldn’t get too upset about the wording. The main thing is that she acknowledged that she screwed up. She should never have said what she said, but at least she has recognized her error.

  15. Kelly's draw, I think, (2 Replies)

    is the Grassley connection. He was effusive at her last confirmation hearing. Would be hard for him to deny her any hearing at all this time.

  16. Yes. Also Jane Kelly, (2 Replies)

    who is a friend of Chuck Grassley.

  17. It's all very well to bemoan the role of the media (2 Replies)

    They’ve surely played a part in creating Trumpenstein. But the real problem all along has been the other candidates. That was amplified 1000x last night when they simply surrendered at the end. I was astonished.

  18. The pledge is irrelevant (1 Reply)

    Rubio said he’d back Trump because he’d be better than Clinton or Sanders. Wow, really? Cruz was almost as bad, saying that he’d sacrifice the country’s best interests so that he didn’t have to go back on some silly paper that Reince Priebus made him sign. Please.

    Oh, and did you miss it? Trump was asked that very question. He said he’d support the nominee even if it’s not him.

  19. At some point, on some ballot, (1 Reply)

    you have to get 50%+1. So, if he arrives at the convention with 43%, no, he probably won’t be the nominee. The problem is that the rules are such that if he keeps winning pluralities like he’s won so far, he can easily amass a majority of delegates before the convention.

  20. Here's an argument (1 Reply)

    that at least one major party has already proven itself incapable of performing the essential function of political parties.