do you have a date for the dance?

I’m going back to my overt slate.com campaign contributions. Dahlia Lithwick manages to align timely events (the Duke case and U.S. Attorney purge) into the one argument that clarifies just what pisses me off the most about the U.S. Attorney scandal. In fact, it sort of hits at what irritates me about the entire DoJ “HR” office. It’s not so much the fact that they ‘hire’ politically-connected people (that is always bothersome) but that they are hiring unqualified people. Not only that, the ones doing the hiring and firing are unqualified. The Attorney General is unqualified. The senior positions in DoJ and the U.S. Attorney offices are either being filled by political appointees, or filled by those hired by these appointees; we know that, we get it, and that is part and parcel to government so you can desist with the “pleasure of the President”, as if that’s code for incompetent. The idea that you can bring onboard people like Sampson and Goodling, and expect anything but jackassery, is comical. You know what? I don’t need to hear Goodling testify in this matter. As far as I’m concerned, she can stand on her Fifth Amendment right, or Sen. Leahy can take her testimony behind closed doors – I don’t need to see her fumble through testimony looking more and more like a lost high school senior trying to explain why she was home late from the Prom. Based on Sampson’s testimony, I think he must have been her date. These two ‘operatives’ are the poster children for the problems Lithwick addresses in her article: they are mirror images of the people they are installing in USA offices – neophytes who hold unbelievable power and who respond only to political will and pressure. (Without even knowing or seeing the newly appointed attorneys you simply need to take a look at these two dunderheads to understand what we’re in for.) These legal sophomores are replacing experienced prosecutors simply because they wouldn’t toe the Bush line, and I’ll take an experienced Bushie over a J.V. moot court team member any day. I don’t want anyone serving as one of our 93 USAs who can’t separate law from politics, or doesn’t have the ability to separate the two. I don’t think I want anyone who finished law school in the last decade. I most decidedly don’t want the new wave of attorneys to be racked-and-stacked by the Sampsons and Goodlings at DoJ. This new crop of ‘lawyers’ know exactly how and why they got the job and they’ll continue to act, and prosecute, in ways that will allow them to keep the job. They’re all young, inexperienced, weak, and unable to stand up to their kings…just what I want in my U.S. Attorney.

Peace. Right?

T.

jinx. pinch poke you owe me...

Just a quick link to Lithwick's story that she clearly aced from my 'more/less/extreme' babble earlier this week. I'm getting so very tired of trendsetting; if only the guys would get onboard with the sideburn idea I'd get less grief at home. No more slate.com links until next Friday - I'm giving them too much business as it is...

T.

bong hits 4 dahlia

I’ve been following this story over the last few weeks as it has sidled up to its Supreme Court crossroad. I think I fall on the side of the student in this case, even a goofball like this kid, since I don’t know how disruptive the behavior really was and I think the principal overreacted. As with any case, the justices can reach to almost any scenario to suggest that an action, or free speech event, would clearly be out-of-bounds. Either side of the bench (and even though the seating arrangements are by longevity on the court, there are clear sides) can use what I call the “torturing the nuke hider” attack plan against any argument or law placed before them. This plan, or line of logic, is loosely based on the argument for torture that invokes the “we’ve got a terrorist, he has a nuclear bomb set to explode in NYC in 30 minutes, and we need to know where it’s located” basis for saying that torture is okay. If decisions are made solely on absolute extremes, any possible extreme that can be considered inflammatory, then I consider it invalid. I think Scalia is treading down this path a bit when he asks about the rape button during arguments. I wouldn’t answer that question any differently than most…it is unacceptable, but that question isn’t valid law in my mind.

Now that I’ve pawned off my lack of legal training on everyone I’ll give you Dahlia Lithwicks’s much better, and hilarious, summary of yesterday’s session.

T.