Comments on: Love For Lieberman

By: mjh

mjh — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:02:43 +0000

Scarecrow – I won’t re-lurk. Thanks for your suggestions. I’m still in the clouds right now with the SCOTUS decision. This is the first good news we’ve had since Fitz indicted Libby. So hard to focus on work what with good news finally. I just want to bask in the ruling. I loved hearing Bush stammer and stutter today about the ruling.

By: cloud7

cloud7 — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:08:46 +0000

Just wondering… is it possible the wingnuts are trying to get their base out in CT to vote Dem in the primary & get their buddy Lieberman through the Dem primary? Hmmm. Might be good to get the Democrat voters fired up for this primary as well.

By: Tom Tomberg

Tom Tomberg — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:17:47 +0000

“Crazy Ass Racist Bitch” should only have a hyphen b/w the last two words if it’s being used to modify a noun, as in “Crazy Ass Racist-Bitch Signal”. You could defensibly hyphenate “Crazy-Ass” at all times, however.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:53:40 +0000

To Lieberman verb. Said of a member of a political party who uses his party’s opponents talking points to separate himself from his own party’s beliefs.

ex: Given the AP report below:
“Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,” and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

“Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters,” the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.”

“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God,’” he said. “Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats.”

Barack Obama Liebermaned on religion.

By: Millineryman

Millineryman — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:49:36 +0000

They can have Joe, Who needs him anyway.

By: cynic

cynic — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:29:01 +0000

norskflamethrower at 153. I’m afraid you’ve nailed it.

By: Cozumel

Cozumel — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:26:25 +0000

meta,

Eric Burdon - Nice, thanks!

We gotta get outta this place ; )

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:03:42 +0000

It’s a strange pschological disorder he’s got: Constantly ratting out his associates in order to curry favor with The Boss. In another environment, Lieberman would be called a snitch, and we all know how everybody loves and respects a snitch. They end up despised by their former friends and held in contempt by their masters. Lieberman is the Democratic party’s Quisling. He needs to remember that things don’t go well for snitches when push comes to shove.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:01:51 +0000

Imman - I’ll agree it is not surprising, but I don’t see any victory for the international rule of law. More so - I see another chip on the exclusionary front and another posture to sidestep applications of treaties for upcoming cases or to take the next best step — a violation ceded, but with no remedy.

The context seems discouraging to me. We have had two cases in quick succession refusing to apply the exclusionary rule where executive actions violate existing laws or standards. With the cases in the pipeline, it certainly seems to me that things are taking shape in a framework for violations of the warrant requirment for the NSA cases, torture evidence, etc. to end up with no legal remedy of exclusion.

Rendition cases with treaties that require no transfers to countries that torture - no remedy other than a “diplomatic” one. Notice to consular offices of detention - no remedy to instead detain their citizens and ship them to other countries for torture. Or rather, a “diplomatic” remedy. IOW, the question isn’t so much that they are saying they won’t recognize the treaty - but rather that they are not willing to apply legal safeguards for violatons of the treaties.

All assuming the state secrets doesn’t stop the court from getting that far. (The whole “diplomatic remedy” is kind of farcical IMO when the existence of the treaty IS the diplomatic remedy.)

Anyway, I see the combo of decisions out the last few months as not looking good for the cases in the pipeline from the WOT. Hope that is wrong. I’ve been in a black mood all week and I hope it is just innate crankiness.

By: dogeatdogi

dogeatdogi — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:54:53 +0000

Labor loses that lovin feeling!