Monthly Archives: June 2003

Judicial Filibusters

This entry was posted in US Politics on by

The senate is confirming folks like Nathan Chertoff for judicial positions 88-1. From Nate Hentoff:

In his book After, Steve Brill, based on his sources, reports that in the strategy sessions at the Justice Department, Chertoff, agreeing that the detainees should be held for long periods of questioning, said that even if some got a hearing, “the hearings could not only be done in secret, but also could be delayed, and that even after the hearings were held and they were ordered deported [usually for only minor immigration violations], there was nothing in the law that said they absolutely had to be deported immediately. They could be held still longer.”
As for the detainees’ right to contact lawyers, Chertoff and the others in the room, reports Brill, knew that under INS rules, the prisoners “were entitled to call a lawyer from jail, but the lists the INS provided of available lawyers invariably had phone numbers that were not in service.” (Emphasis added.)

Yea, I know what follows isn’t perfect logic. However, if this guy with such callous views of our rights is so easily approved then imagine just how bad the ones currently being filibustered must be.

Via Talkleft.

Saucy Harry

This entry was posted in Harry Potter Literature on by

John at Catallarchy has found some entertaining, though out of context, snippets from the new Harry Potter.

Now, I’m sure most of you have not been looking for this type of thing as you read the Harry Potter stories but have you found other examples? Rowling was not adverse to sneaking in a bit of off color humor in the earlier books.

Dog praises bush

This entry was posted in bush on by

The talking dog reads Pravda and praises bush:

The man has built himself into an infinitely better athlete than I’ll ever be. For that, he has my unqualified admiration.

But this is quite out of context. Go read the entire post especially the strong raised leg of the next to to last paragraph.

Corporate Rights

This entry was posted in Capitalism Democracy Economics Libertarianism on by

Emma at Late Night Thoughts joins Dave Pollard and Thom Hartman, author of Unequal Protection, in taking on corporate personhood. A thorough fisking of these folks arguments would find some individual points to argue but I think the essence of what they are saying holds true:

our elected and appointed legislative, executive and judicial ‘public servants’ have enacted, approved and upheld laws that imbue corporations with rights that should belong only to natural persons*

Read Emma’s post and then the Pollard/Hartman material and give it some thought.

Emma observes that:

The screams you hear from the corner are coming from those conservatives that want to protect “capitalism” and “free markets”.

I can’t think of reasons why folks who truly support capitalism and free markets would disagree with the essence (see above) of this discussion. Capitalism does not thrive in an environment wrapped in special protections, subsidies, etc. Most likely those screaming are more of the statist variety and come from both the right and the left.

Thanks to Jeanne at Body and Soul for the pointer.
*orginal text read

our elected representatives have approved laws that imbue corporations with rights that should belong only to natural persons