An Open Letter to President Obama : The Problem With Accepting Syrian Refugees.

Dear Mr. President,

Don't you EVER call me bigoted or frightened or xenophobic because I will not support your half baked plan to admit Syrian refugees into America. Its not b/c of them that I object, its because of YOU!

You have proven yourself to either be the dumbest President since Harding, or the biggest liar since Clinton. You may be both, but I fear more the latter than the former.

You see, in order to engender trust in your work and that of those that work in your administration, you have to be RESPONSIBLE. You are not.  You never take responsibility. Any problem you encounter is always someone else's fault. You claim to never know anything when there is a MAJOR screwup in your administration. You find out when you read it in the newspapers. This does not engender trust.

You also say things you cannot prove or back up! You see Mr. President, ISIS was not the JV team; you do not have Isis contained; Your former Secretary of State knew a lot more than she allegedly told you, and she used private e-mails which she later destroyed without your approval, and  your staff (ie Ms. Jarrett) planned lies about most if not all of it.
By the way When the President of the United States of America draws a "line in the sand" and then has to let the Europeans pull your foot out of your mouth, that does not engender trust in you or your word.

You promised transparency, but yours has been the least transparent administration since Nixon. You promised to not spy on us, LOL! Nixon is in the clouds saying "Whoa, this guy is good". Hell even J Edgar Hoover would be impressed. You spied on our allies and lied to them about it. Your IRS targeted your "enemies" but you take NO responsibility for their actions. Instead your administration has covered its wrong doing up. Cover ups do not engender trust.

Personally,  I don't think you or anyone working for you, could spot an Islamic or for that matter ANY Terrorist if he was standing in front of them with a lit bomb screaming "JIIIIHADDDDD!" and wearing an Allahu Akbar!!! Pin. Hence I do not think your administration can be trusted to properly vet incoming refugees to determine which of them may be the one to blow something up in the USA.

No Mr. President, I am neither a bigot nor a xenophobe, I am just an ordinary American citizen who has lost faith in his government's, and more importantly his President's ability to preserve his freedom OR his safety. That is why so many Americans are against taking in Syrian Refugees right now. If you would step out of your Rose Garden for a few minutes and talk to the part of your constituency that you do not like, you might learn a thing or two. Who knows, you might even apologize correctly for your past behavior and that of your staff and start to get back the trust of the public that you had three short years ago but squandered since.

Yours truly
Anthony Colleluori

AKA That Lawyer Dude.

Mischaracterizing The Checks and Balances In Our Constitutions Framework: Justice Scalia's Dissent in Arizona v. USA

As promised I have had a chance to read, reread and digest the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona v. United States where a majority of the Supreme Court ruled Arizona's controversial Immigration law a\k\a SB1070 as unconstitutional.

You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here

What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.

Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.

With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.

Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.

Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.

(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)

In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:

...U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.

Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.

Mr. Romney, Your Silence is Deafening: Where is the Real Republican Immigration Plan

Yesterday I was pretty critical of President Obama about what I consider to be a basically valueless change in Administrations policy on Immigration. Today I want to make it clear I am just as unhappy with the Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. You see, Obama hasn't really kept his campaign promises to pass comprehensive Immigration reform, however Mr. Romney has yet to even make a promise with any proposal. I am actually more inclined to be angry at Republicans for not trying to come to the table with a plan than at Obama who has at least put forth a plan that Republicans promise to filibuster. Look it is easy to say NO! It is hard to say, "this is what we need and we know what you are looking for and here is our proposal."

Five times yesterday, Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Romney on "Face the Nation" if he would undo the Napalitano Order to not seek deportation of "Dream actors" for now. Five times he failed to say what he'd do. Thing is, I think Mitt doesn't really dislike the Presidents plan, he just can't say it without alienating every xenophobic wingnut who is supporting him on the right. Here is the thing, George W. Bush had a great plan, but the wingnuts took over and ruined any chance the Republicans had of passing the plan, fixing the problem and winning the day. That is the problem with "Pure" politics. You cannot get anything done with someone who is "my way or the highway."

The Majority of Americans favor a road to citizenship for people who are already here. The majority also seeks a plan that would make it counter productive for someone to come over here and be illegal. The people who vote in the cock-eyed primaries, aren't those people. Here is the thing, Bush was willing to fight his party, but he really couldn't fathom a way to do it. As a result he lost the Hispanic vote for McCain. McCain (who also shot himself in the foot by abandoning everything he ever stood for and with his Sarah Palin Fiasco)paid for it dearly. Romney has caved on EVERY THING for which he ever stood. Now no one, not the conservatives, not the libertarians, and not the American public will ever trust him. If I were an anti-immigration Republican, I wouldn't vote for this guy, I don't know what he will ultimately do. As a Pro-immigration Libertarian, I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a living disaster for America and especially on this issue, even if I believe a President Romeny will flip (when the pollsters tell him to.)

I will probably cast a vote for Gary Johnson, who is better than either Romney or Obama. Then again, I may be so fed up by November I may not vote at all... (don't get excited, I will probably vote, I like doing it too much to give it up.)

NEWSFLASH: Osama Bin Laden Killed by American Operatives in Pakistan: Other News of the Weekend.

Tonight the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (POTUS) announced that the CIA in co-ordination with the Pakistani Government located and killed OSAMA BIN LADEN Public Enemy number one (here and abroad.) That news is important and it is welcomed. I cannot say I am disappointed in anything other than the time it took to find him. May he never rest a day in eternity. I hope those 76 Virgin(ian)s he thought he would get are kicking the crap out of him right now in Hell. Congratulations to President Obama, Leon Panetta and the countless agents of the FBI CIA and of course of armed forces who have worked in hopes of this announcement, for bringing this terrorist to justice. No, it doesn't bring back our loved ones and it will never erase the misery of 9/11 or the days that followed it, but it does provide a sense of closure.

As for other News I found interesting, all of it pales in face of the news above. Just in case however you want to know what I thought was otherwise interesting, here are a couple of articles I wanted to write about:



I was going to use the blog tonight to talk about the futility of charging a nine year old child with murder for shaking a baby and how we need to separate the emotion of the parents losing an infant from the need to avenge a death with the "death" of another child when that child does something horrible.

I was also going to talk about the need for an "Expungement" Statute in NY given the fact that people arrested and convicted for even minor crimes can not get jobs anymore because of the Internet's ability to derail their job search with convictions. I was going to point to an article in the NY Times (semi subscription) which points out that people who have paid their debt to society long ago still cannot get work because of small or substantial indiscretion decades before.

Justice Scalia Gives The President ( and the rest of us) Something To Think About

It is a new year here and first thing out of the box is a story about, Justice Scalia suggesting there are too many judges on the Supreme court.

Note I didn't say too many lawyers. (He is not advocating the promotion of non attorney's to the bench.)Scalia is actually saying what a lot of libertarians have been saying over the past 20 years, that is, there are not enough trial lawyers and other non-government lawyers on the bench and it is skewing the court to a position of over favoring the government at the expense of the individual.

Throughout history up until the last 20 years, there have always been non-judicial members of the court. Now most of the makeup of the SCOTUS are former prosecutors and government lawyers who then became judges pretty much right out of the government service without spending any real time in the well on behalf of an individual or company. The mindset of a person who works with the government their whole lives is that the government is always right. That was the antithesis of the fabric of our Constitution writers.

Scalia makes an excellent point that the court needs people on it who have spent a good portion of their lives defending the needs and rights of people.

One doesn't need to be a "Constitutional scholar" to be a good appellate court justice. Mr. President if you are looking for a few names for consideration that may share your sense of right wrong and and the American way, how about Professor Charles Ogletree from Harvard, Hon. Dennis Archer a former mayor of Detroit, Michigan Supreme Court Justice and recent past president of the American Bar Association (also the first president of the ABA of color.) or Judge Nancy Gertler a trial judge in the first circuit who spent much of her early career as a Criminal Defense lawyer?

Whom do you think would make a good Supreme Court Justice??

Hat tip: Law.Com

Edited to add hyperlink to posting and Hat tip.

Response to the Ridiculous: A Measured Rant in Resonse to an Idiotic Argument Against the DREAM ACT

The DREAM ACT was reintroduced last month followed by President Barack Obama stating his intention to begin debating true immigration reform.

A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.


Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.

You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.

1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:

"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."

There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.

Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.

3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.

Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.

Lessons I Learned This Month: Eat Less Calories ,Exercise More, Doodle When You Can, and Don't Mess Around With Pres. Obama!

I really envy the people who find something cool and interesting to say everyday. I blog in spurts A month here and a month there then a week off here and a month off there. Not much of a way to build a following. Nevertheless, I blog for the enjoyment so if it isn't fun I am not going to do it.

Now that I have found my way home again. I think I will start off light.

First off, Did you know doodling was good for you? Yup that's right. It HELPS you concentrate. Same with playing easy games like Brickbreaker on a Blackberry or Freecell. I am often guilty of this when I get board in an interview or on a phone call. Some clients find it quite distracting. I find if I don't do it I lose my concentration. Now I know why. Read about it here

As for diet and exercise, guess what, Eat less, move more, lose weight. It's all here in this study. NIH had to commission a study for this??
Eating less calories and moving more has never been a question. The reason for the various diets is that eating less and exercising more is not what calls to most obese people. Chocolate shakes and steaks call to us. Now I know you are saying just do that, it doesn't matter how you do it. That said, however, getting me to do this is not an easy undertaking. Food and the way we use is part of the answer. This study doesn't go into that. It repeats simple science. Put in less fuel, use more energy, you should need to get to surplus faster. Got it. Now tell me what, where and how. Keep me doing it and then you have something.

President Obama at least sounds like a President. He has issued a dare so to speak against lobbyist's who intend to stand in the way of his change platform on issues like energy and healthcare. I guess we will see if his bully pulpit is bigger than the soft campaign money of the special interests. So far I like the guy though not all of his programs.


I am not a big Rush Limbaugh kind of guy. Hey Rush, get a clue, the public threw you guys out. You sat there for 8 years as a bully pulpit for a President who took his marching orders from your playbook and it in part caused the greatest depression since the great depression. You aren't pulling for the President to succeed in putting us back on track? Screw you!! I don't like everything he is doing, but he is our guy and we need to give him a chance like we did Bush, and if his plan works, and works well, then the loyal (NOTE TO RUSH I SAID LOYAL) opposition is going to have to do some rethinking.

Personally I think we need to allow for a correction. We also need to get out of fixing markets and let them self correct. What we need to do better is recognize phony products (sub-prime loan credit default swaps or CDS)and not allow them to be traded to people who don't understand them. I think we need to roll back the bankruptcy rules too. By changing them, we let the banks loan out too much money to risky borrowers. The new laws encouraged banking officials to think they can't lose as borrowers could not just walk away from the loans anymore, they had to restructure and pay some of it back. Oh well...

There is one more thing I think we need to do. We need to start teaching, requiring state-wide teaching of economics in the schools starting with Micro-economics in the younger grades and Macro in the High School. It should be required of every kid to have at least 2 years of it in HS in order to graduate. Maybe then we will all understand the issues and how to read a public budget and a stock and shareholders report.

Okay that's it for tonight. It is nice to be back. See you all around.

The Start of a New World, The Week The Dream Comes True : Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama

I have so little to add to all that is being said on the air, in the main stream media and in all the blogs. This is the start of a new world. A world that I am sure many in my lifetime feared, and many more doubted. A world, where finally the promise that any man woman or child can be President of the United States is fulfilled.

From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, possibly the most revered land in the nation (other than a National Cemetery) Martin Luther King Jr. stood up to the powers that would liked never to see this week come and said:

"And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!"

Tuesday is another huge step in achieving the MLK Dream. But it is not just his dream that is fulfilled this week. With the Inauguration of Barack Obama, we also fulfill the dreams of Ganhdi, and Lincoln, and Jesus Christ. King said in his speech:

"In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

On Tuesday, we have an opportunity to show the world, that the concepts of peaceful protest, advocacy, education, and persistence can change the way the world works. War and killing doesn't have to be the way. In fact, war and killing usually just leads to more war and killing. Peaceful respectful disagreement will bring about permanent change. Discipline and Dignity... If that isn't a good description of our President-elect, nothing is. I don't know what he will do, or if it will work, or even if I will agree with him, but I already see he is a man, who exudes dignity and discipline.

There is a different feel in Washington DC. It is one of hope and renewal. There is a return of class to the city. People even speak of trust. I haven't heard the word trust in the city since 1969.

Obama is reaching out to the Republicans. He is seeking to work with the men in the middle. He may be saving the Republican party from itself by doing so. Brave Republicans like McCain and Graham understand that working in a genial environment is the only way to accomplish anything. Failure to do so will reign down anger from the people on the main streets of every city and town in the country. We cannot have 4 more years of nothing being accomplished in Washington DC.

Of course, such bi-partisanship will bring about rage from the neo-con right (or are they really left?) because, they will claim they cannot take pot shots at the President and the Democratic leadership if the moderate Republicans give them cover. Too bad. Rush and the idiotic blond bimbo who wishes she were he, will have to just shoot at each other for a change. They have been shooting the Republicans in the foot long enough. Liberals of the far out persuasion will have the same difficulties. If they want to accomplish anything in Washington DC without making their re-elections impossible, they will have to come to the middle with their social agenda, and maybe their economic agenda as well.

On the other hand, we all could go to a tax program allowing Americans to keep 90% of what they earn. I bet that stimulates the economy right away.

Finally, maybe the dreams of the man we honor on Monday, become fulfilled with the Inauguration he made possible of the man we entrust with our nation's well being on Tuesday. With great challenge, comes great opportunity. But with great opportunity, comes great responsibility not to squander that opportunity. The last eight years have been squandered opportunity. As a nation we have tired of that waste.

It will be an historic week. I will pray, it is an historic Presidency.Congratulations Dr. King, and welcome Mr. Obama, Mr. President. Welcome, and good luck.

Interesting Stories From the Blogosphere week of November 11, 2008 Part I of IV. Technology and You (and Pres-elect Obama too!)

I read a lot of blogs and online newspapers every week. I love the Internet and find it a source of information and relaxation. I get most of my ideas for my blog from other writers as I do not often have the time to run the stories down myself.
Sometimes I come across posts that would make a nice mini post on my blog, but I am not willing to write a whole post about them. I'd rather comment and link. I save them up for the week and put them into my around the Blogosphere posts. Still, I like to have themes. So for the first time, I have broken them up so you can look at the stuff that interests you most and ignore the rest (at your peril).


1. Obama the YouTube President"

This first post then for the Week beginning on November 11, 2008 deals with our President-elect Barack Obama. He is not only our first part Afro-American President, but also very tech savvy. Presidents since FDR have been doing regular radio addresses. Most of us only get snippets from new shows because we can 1. never find the actual address when it is played and 2. What's a radio??.

Obama however has solved the problem by doing a weekly podcast.

The Blogosphere is agog with the use of the Internet by President Elect Obama. In its latest form. The President-Elect has started a weekly podcast. Here is an article concerning the podcast from WaPo and here is the actual podcast . Should be a very interesting Presidency for so many reasons.
HatTip:Laughingsquid.com

2. Speaking of Tech, Here is what the Internet has for the rest of us.

A. Since almost everyone who reads this blog voluntarily seems to have a better read blog than I do, I thought I'd help you all out. Here are 16 Essential PC Apps for Bloggers. No this is not about political correctness.
Hattip: ProBlogger

B.If you are on Twitter.com (and you probably ought to be) you will want to have friends follow you. Here are 10 suggestions on how to get a bigger following of "twitterati" from Alltop's Guy Kawasaki.

C. RSS is a useful tool for keeping track of things important to you. I use it for example to put all the blogs I want to track in one place. You just click the Rss box on top of the blog and add it to your reader (I use Google Reader) and viole` you have it all in one place. Here are 29 more uses for RSS.
Hattip: LouisGray.com Where you go if you want to stay ahead of the crowd, or the crowded Internet.

D. My final tidbit for this segment The Boys over at Gizmodo.com tell you about an I-Phone application that helps you figure out if you are too drunk to drive. I would tell you that it is an inacurrate calculation or rough calculation at best and if you are anywhere near danger (that is to say .o3 or less from an arrest situation) don't take the test. Yeah you will lose your license immediately for one year, but you can beat the case and save a small fortune. Not to mention how hard it is to get a job with a criminal conviction on your record...

Now onto the Legal part of our trip. Go to my next post.

What Would Happen If There Were a Disaster At the Inauguration?: A Potential Flaw in the Rules of Succession

I often worry about disasters. I am not sure why. I think I am an optimist. On the other hand, Lawyers are planners and one of the things Mrs. Lawyer Dude always compliments me on is that I usually see things happening down the road and I always have a contingency plan. Hence I have been thinking a lot about Inauguration day. I mean it is going to be the most historical one in the last century. It is also going to stir up a lot of idiot people who have an ax to grind, or think they do. Further, we always have those cave dwelling morons from Al Qaeda , looking for a reason to blow our big party. It occurred to me that everybody who is anybody is going to want to (and probably can) be there, on the podium. I mean we will see the Pres. The Pres-elect, VP and VP elect, Chief Justice and presumably the entire Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader as well as the Senate Majority and Minority leaders and a host of Senators and Congressmen and Cabinet members. So, who will be watching the store and what happens if the worst happens and all these people are unable to serve for a while.

OK Before you all get on me for being a damp cloth, the guys and gals over at the Wall Street Journal "Law Blog"have been wondering about this stuff too.Their post "President Condoleezza Rice" explains how the title could come true. They however are smarter than me, cause they have some potential answers. The real answer seems to be however, that if a Bush Cabinet Member survives, and President-Elect Obama is not inaugurated, the Bushie is President for the next four years. That would thwart the Will of the People it seems. It is a good thing lawyer types like me worry about things like this.

BTW Follow me on Twitter
and Check out my new Website
Kennedy Inauguration Picture above provided by Wikipedia under a Common License.

Stuff I Missed Blogging About: Obama, Neo-cons, Smart and Stupid Conservatives.

While I was without a Laptop, and couldn't really post the way I wanted to, a lot occurred. The last week of October and the first week of November of an election year has got to be the worst time of the year to have your laptop stolen. Here is what I would have linked to had I been able to (and a few I can link to in a more timely fashion).

To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster That is the Question

I thought these two posts were interesting. Sen. Kyl has announced his plan to filibuster any Obama judicial nominee that he feels will be too liberal. (I should note that Tomás de Torquemada was too liberal for Kyl.)

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

With the federal judiciary almost 25% under its need, I might suggest that Kyl be careful about what he filibusters. I wonder how Kyl feels about the fact that the gang of 14 ruined his good time by nixing the "nuclear option" now? Anyway, I think if he intends to tie up the judiciary as it has been tied up over the last 16 years, he think again. I think he has a good chance of destroying the careers of many of the Republican Senators he works with now. He has the ability to filibuster the Republicans into irrelevance.

Here is Johnathan Adler over at Volokh Conspiracy, kind of seeing it the way I do and here is Jerry Merrit at TalkLeft discussing the issue too. Who said I can't be fair and balanced?

No Son, You Can't Watch 'Sesame Street' in Prison."

While reading TalkLeft I also noticed this tidbit about an 8 year old who may have killed his abusive dad...The Police in Arizona think the kid should be charged as an adult. That would expose this 3rd grader to a sentence of life in prison.

You know, I don't remember conservatives being so wasteful or so stupid. No guys, even if an Eight year old knows right from wrong, it should not open him up to prison. In fact, I am not even sure it should be handled in court at all. If he is uncontrollable, he may need to be taken out of the home and placed in a foster care situation that would provide a great amount of supervision, but I don't think it serves the child or the state to warehouse someone for the next 70 years. Who raised the adults calling for adult treatment?? How can their be such a disconnect between the northeast and the southwest and our sensibilities? Arizona has one of the worst records for rehabilitation in the country. What hope would that leave for this child?

Conservatives With Brains.

Patterico Pontifications talks about the Decency of Barack Obama. Patterico, who is a very conservative assistant district attorney in S. California takes the time to really look at the man who ran for and is now the President Elect of the United States of America. It is clear that Obama is a decent if somewhat politically misguided. Patterico recalls all of the things that Obama did throughout the long campaign to try to tone down the rhetoric of the campaign and focus on policies. Patterico suggest that conservatives spend their time focusing on policy issues and bury issues of personality. At least Patterico gets it. America is tired and can ill afford four more years of personality assassination.

On the issue of how the Republicans go from rulers to the minority in two of the three branches of government, a wonderful piece in this week's "Weekly Standard" by P.J. O'Rourke. O'Rourke is a conservative raconteur but he is dead on in his description of the way the conservatives sold out the Regan Mandate by allowing the Neo-conservatives to set and dominate the agenda. My only disappointment is that while playing the story for a laugh, he sometimes falls into the same type of talk that cost the Republicans the Presidency. (Knocking Bill Ayers, John Edwards fidelity, etc.) His description of the Abortion albatross is right on. We need to tone down that rhetoric too and work to overturn Roe to return the issue to the states where it belongs. While we are at it, maybe we should start to find a way to limit the Commerce clause and keep the feds out of state and local issues. In the end thought O'Rourke is absoulutely right "We Blew It".


Not Too Bright Conservatives
Then there is the decision of Elizabeth Dole and her campaign to lie about her opponent's religious practices. Just because one understands the First Amendment and has a extreme view of the separation of Church and State does not mean the person is Godless. The good People of North Carolina took note of the dirty tactic and through Lizzy right out of office... Sorry but it was a deserved defeat. Kay Hagen (Dole's opponent, a Sunday School teacher)was irate, now she is elected.
Hattip: The Agitator



One other cool thing. Friday's blog post was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. That is pretty cool I think.
HatTip: twitter.com/VBalasubramani

More later this week till then follow me on Twitter:http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude