• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF After Party Thread of Harsh Realities

Status
Not open for further replies.
GhaleonEB said:
And Ritchie has been going out of his way to avoid appearing partisan. He delegated the selection of the panel to two judges.


http://mnpublius.com/2008/11/ritchie-appoints-two-republicans-judges/

This makes the rulings which have so far favored Franken that much harder to paint as being made by a partisan panel.

yeah the two super R's have really seemed good so far, not real big fights, arguments, anything. as they plow through the Franken challenges, they seem to be setting standards for what is an overvote, undervote, where initials are indicating 'i am OKing this change' or 'this is who i am', etc. they're all joking around about cookies, and seemingly doing the best they can with the situation their in. i'm finding it quite fascinating
 
....why is this so enthralling? o_o This is C-Span kinda stuff but I'm watching it intently.
 
How many ballots are they reviewing? Seeing that Coleman is at +217, Franken would have to net 218 successful challenges today to win. And that's assuming that none of Coleman's challenges pass.

Right?
 
woeds said:
How many ballots are they reviewing? Seeing that Coleman is at +217, Franken would have to net 218 successful challenges today to win. And that's assuming that none of Coleman's challenges pass.

Right?

It will take more than one day. And no. You have to wait to until the challenges are done or at least most of them. A vote can essentially go in any direction on a challenge.
 
Stoney Mason said:
It will take more than one day. And no. You have to wait to until the challenges are done or at least most of them. A vote can essentially go in any direction on a challenge.
Yeah their goal is to be done by end of day Friday, but at this rate it might go into next week. I'm actually surprised at how many challenges are holding up.
 
Tamanon said:
Because the voters are electing him?

You guys do recognize that it is factually impossible for any candidate for appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat to meet that criterion, right?

(Yeah, I'll admit, I set you guys up to walk into that on purpose.)
 
charlequin said:
You guys do recognize that it is factually impossible for any candidate for appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat to meet that criterion, right?

(Yeah, I'll admit, I set you guys up to walk into that on purpose.)

What's to walk into? If the voters don't elect someone, then you have to justify the appointment in another way. Kennedy doesn't.
 
Franken is doing quite well today. The AP, Star Tribune and Franken camp's analysis all were based on the initial ruling of the elections official at the time of the challenge. So far, Franken has picked up several votes by the panel overturning the election official call.

This summary is behind by a dozen or so - Franken has picked up a few more this way since then. Coleman will have to do much better than expected with his challenges to turn it around if this pace keeps up.
 
Tamanon said:
What's to walk into? If the voters don't elect someone, then you have to justify the appointment in another way.

Why is "I think this person will do a good job" not a justification?

Fundamentally, there are no real qualifications for the position of Senator, and past "experience" is not an indicator of success in the position. Hillary Clinton had served in no elected office before becoming Senator (with her closest brush to legislation being a high-profile debacle that people still speak ill of today), yet I was very satisfied with her performance in the Senate.

Similarly, Franken has even less governmental experience of any kind, no education beyond a bachelor's degree... his only qualification is his ideology of government and his status as a commentator on political matters. By any standard of "experience" or "qualification," he should be wildly unsuited to the position.

To me, though, this is irrelevant because I don't believe that Senators have any real responsibility whatsoever besides satisfying their constituents, and I don't see any reason why Clinton, Franken, or Kennedy is incapable of doing so. I actually think experience and qualification matter far less for the Senate than they do for President, and I don't think they're particularly relevant there either -- otherwise I wouldn't really have supported Obama, would I?

So what's the real objection here? Is it that New York is so Democratic that whoever the appointee is will easily win re-election? That would seem to argue against any appointment but one who agreed to leave the seat open to a primary-picked candidate in 2010 illegitimate. Is it that Kennedy is inherently tainted by her famous name? It seems silly to me to object to establishment candidates when they're conveniently identified by name but not when they're people from less famous families who are just as thoroughly enmeshed in the existing political culture.
 
Hitokage said:
I'm somehow getting the impression some of you don't approve of Caroline Kennedy...

I really like her. The problem is, I have no clue what her actual political beliefs are beyond some standard boilerplate, plus she's shown no inclination for public service until this opening, which always gets my hackles up a bit.
 
charlequin said:
Why is "I think this person will do a good job" not a justification?

Fundamentally, there are no real qualifications for the position of Senator, and past "experience" is not an indicator of success in the position. Hillary Clinton had served in no elected office before becoming Senator (with her closest brush to legislation being a high-profile debacle that people still speak ill of today), yet I was very satisfied with her performance in the Senate.

Similarly, Franken has even less governmental experience of any kind, no education beyond a bachelor's degree... his only qualification is his ideology of government and his status as a commentator on political matters. By any standard of "experience" or "qualification," he should be wildly unsuited to the position.

To me, though, this is irrelevant because I don't believe that Senators have any real responsibility whatsoever besides satisfying their constituents, and I don't see any reason why Clinton, Franken, or Kennedy is incapable of doing so. I actually think experience and qualification matter far less for the Senate than they do for President, and I don't think they're particularly relevant there either -- otherwise I wouldn't really have supported Obama, would I?

So what's the real objection here? Is it that New York is so Democratic that whoever the appointee is will easily win re-election? That would seem to argue against any appointment but one who agreed to leave the seat open to a primary-picked candidate in 2010 illegitimate. Is it that Kennedy is inherently tainted by her famous name? It seems silly to me to object to establishment candidates when they're conveniently identified by name but not when they're people from less famous families who are just as thoroughly enmeshed in the existing political culture.

I roughly agree with you charlequin. I'm not overly fond of the pick but for me it's nothing to get in a tizzy about. But perhaps that's because I'm far more cynical about politics in general than a lot of people.
 
To me, though, this is irrelevant because I don't believe that Senators have any real responsibility whatsoever besides satisfying their constituents, and I don't see any reason why Clinton, Franken, or Kennedy is incapable of doing so. I actually think experience and qualification matter far less for the Senate than they do for President, and I don't think they're particularly relevant there either -- otherwise I wouldn't really have supported Obama, would I?
The crux of their argument is that this is for the constituents to decide.
 
Stoney Mason said:
I roughly agree with you charlequin. I'm not overly fond of the pick but for me it's nothing to get in a tizzy about. But perhaps that's because I'm far more cynical about politics in general than a lot of people.

I guess on the other hand, at least this one doesn't seem to be openly for sale!
 
A federal appeals court just declared part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

Here's some choice parts of the article:

Raw Story article and ACLU press release said:
NEW YORK – A federal appeals court today upheld, in part, a decision striking down provisions of the Patriot Act that prevent national security letter (NSL) recipients from speaking out about the secret records demands. The decision comes in an American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging the FBI's authority to use NSLs to demand sensitive and private customer records from Internet Service Providers and then forbid them from discussing the requests. Siding with the ACLU, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the statute's gag provisions violate the First Amendment.

"We are gratified that the appeals court found that the FBI cannot silence people with complete disregard for the First Amendment simply by saying the words 'national security,'" said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "This is a major victory for the rule of law. The court recognized the need for judicial oversight of the government's dangerous gag power and rejected the Bush administration's position that the courts should just rubber-stamp these gag orders. By upholding the critical check of judicial review, the FBI can no longer use this incredible power to hide abuse of its intrusive Patriot Act surveillance powers and silence critics."

The appeals court invalidated parts of the statute that wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to initiate judicial review of gag orders, holding that the government has the burden to go to court and justify silencing NSL recipients. The appeals court also invalidated parts of the statute that narrowly limited judicial review of the gag orders – provisions that required the courts to treat the government's claims about the need for secrecy as conclusive and required the courts to defer entirely to the executive branch.

"The appellate panel correctly observed that the imposition of such a conclusive presumption ignored well-settled First Amendment standards and deprived the judiciary of its important function as a protector of fundamental rights," said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director for the New York Civil Liberties Union.

In this regard, the opinion stated: "The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements."

The court, therefore, also ruled that the government must now justify the gag on the John Doe NSL recipient in the case, a gag that has been in place for more than four years.

The ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed this lawsuit in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that received an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal, and even today the ACLU is prohibited from disclosing its client's identity. The FBI continues to maintain the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than four years old (and may well have ended), and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP over a year and a half ago.

In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL statute, ruling that the FBI could not constitutionally demand sensitive records without judicial review and that permanent gag orders violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The government appealed the ruling, but Congress amended the NSL provision before the court issued a decision.

The ACLU brought a new challenge to the amended provision, and in September 2007, Judge Marrero again found the statute unconstitutional.

Bills aimed at bringing the NSL authority back in line with the Constitution were introduced last year in both the House and Senate after reports had confirmed and detailed the widespread abuse of the authority by federal law enforcement. Since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, relaxing restrictions on the FBI's use of the power, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase, to nearly 200,000 between 2003 and 2006. A March 2008 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report revealed that, among other abuses, the FBI misused NSLs to sidestep the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). In one instance, the FBI issued NSLs to obtain information after the FISC twice refused its requests on First Amendment grounds. The OIG also found that the FBI continues to impose gag orders on about 97 percent of NSL recipients and that, in some cases, the FBI failed to sufficiently justify why the gag orders were imposed in the first place.

In addition to this case, the ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute multiple times. One case was brought on behalf of a group of Connecticut librarians and another case, called Internet Archive v. Mukasey, involved an NSL served on a digital library in California. In the latter case, the FBI withdrew the NSL and the gag as part of the settlement of a legal challenge brought by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
 
Hitokage said:
The crux of their argument is that this is for the constituents to decide.

But this is an appointment to the position and cannot, by definition, have the force of a real election behind it until 2010 -- at which time, the position will be filled by election anyway and either the appointed person will be "legitimized" or defeated (either by a primary opponent or a Republican challenger).

Sure, Kennedy is leveraging her name to get this appointment, but everybody would be leveraging something that might not actually win them the office under normal circumstances. Kennedy would get a huge structural advantage in 2010 (an incumbent who would probably be safe from primary challenge), but again, any appointee would have these benefits unless they were appointed solely to be a bench-warmer. (If people are arguing that these appointments should always go to people who won't run again, or that such appointments should be legally eliminated in favor of special elections, that's a position I can't argue against, but I haven't seen anyone make that specific case so far.)

Anyway, my general position is spelled out pretty well by this blog post linked to on 538. Kennedy's history of working with art and education non-profits suggests that she'll be invested in matters that I strongly support and which I consider very important to NY's health -- and I didn't actually realize that Louise Slaughter had endorsed Kennedy, but if she's good enough for Louise she is absolutely good enough for me.

Tamanon said:
I guess on the other hand, at least this one doesn't seem to be openly for sale!

Hahaha.
 
From the live stream:

How you know Franken had a good day on the challenge reviews: the Coleman camp just sent in a big list of re-submitted challenges (ones they had challenged, then withdrawn previously). Their explanation was today's rulings had provided "clarity" around what is a legitimate challenge and was isn't, but they didn't withdraw any challenges. Just added more. The panel is pissed that there are so many frivolous challenges in Franken's pile, and Coleman had more than double his before these additional ones came in.

I think they lost ground today and are throwing more frivolous challenges into the mix in hopes of picking some up.
 
As it went on it sort of became obvious who the Republicans were and who the Democrats were. :D

The sec of state seems pretty impartial and fair which is good
 
Barack Obama on Wednesday will announce Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as his agriculture secretary pick, a transition aide says.

picture_1201.png
 
Stoney Mason said:
Barack Obama on Wednesday will announce Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as his agriculture secretary pick, a transition aide says.

I predict a problem here as Obama has to explain why he would pick a governor(strike 1) from a state bordering Blago's(strike 2). Throw in the three letter name(you're out of there!) and this is a political scandal.
 
GhaleonEB said:
From the live stream:

How you know Franken had a good day on the challenge reviews: the Coleman camp just sent in a big list of re-submitted challenges (ones they had challenged, then withdrawn previously). Their explanation was today's rulings had provided "clarity" around what is a legitimate challenge and was isn't, but they didn't withdraw any challenges. Just added more. The panel is pissed that there are so many frivolous challenges in Franken's pile, and Coleman had more than double his before these additional ones came in.

I think they lost ground today and are throwing more frivolous challenges into the mix in hopes of picking some up.
Chief Justice Magnuson was right that no deadline was set for challenging ballots. I would've liked for him to more strongly press the candidates towards an armistice. I can see his dilemma, though, in doing so from both a legal and party standpoint. The Secretary of State's office needs to set a standard; though who knows if they can given the challenge process is underway (may not want to change the rules, again, midstream).

Still, the Coleman camp was obviously jarred by how many reversals went in Franken's favor (coupled with the emerging narrative from the AP and Star Tribune about who they think wins).

Must suck for MN Republicans. They want to keep the seat, of course, but have never been fervent Coleman supporters (that's reserved for Governor Pawlenty). You never know what party Coleman might belong to in a couple years when the winds change.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Barack Obama on Wednesday will announce Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as his agriculture secretary pick, a transition aide says.

This, I am not really happy about. I understand that we won't improve on the matter any time soon, but I don't want anyone heading agriculture that's going to increase America's capitulation to biocrop companies and the corn lobby.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
old!! :) im so glad the media took it in the rear a bit with their assumptions.

Seriously, the media is so intent of creating a scandal over just about anything these days. Too bad they've shown they had no integrity over the last 8 years, giving Bush and Co. a free pass.
 
maximum360 said:
Seriously, the media is so intent of creating a scandal over just about anything these days. Too bad they've shown they had no integrity over the last 8 years, giving Bush and Co. a free pass.
Your liberal media at work.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Barack Obama on Wednesday will announce Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as his agriculture secretary pick, a transition aide says.


Interesting. It's been pretty heavily hinted that there will be another Republican in there somewhere, but that only really leaves Transportation and Labor, neither of which are positions any Democrat would want a Republican in. I guess he could've been referring to one of the intelligence posts, but does anyone want more moderates and conservatives in the national security team?
 
Shirokun said:
Why, what's the latest from them?
As already mentioned:

They resubmitted a bunch of challenges that they had withdrawn today on the basis of the first day of reviews "clarifying" to them what constituted a proper challenge and what didn't.

Of course, they did not withdraw any challenges: they only added to them, and they already had more than twice as many challenges as Franken.


In other words, they're flooding the board with frivolous challenges in the hopes that some will pass through.

Of course, the board is now getting pissed off at Coleman.
 
GaimeGuy said:
As already mentioned:

They resubmitted a bunch of challenges that they had withdrawn today on the basis of the first day of reviews "clarifying" to them what constituted a proper challenge and what didn't.

Of course, they did not withdraw any challenges: they only added to them, and they already had more than twice as many challenges as Franken.


In other words, they're flooding the board with frivolous challenges in the hopes that some will pass through.

Of course, the board is now getting pissed off at Coleman.


yeah, thats what it seems like. Today's challenges did not seem to go well for Coleman. Franken was either challenging a Coleman vote or challenging a ruling of 'no vote' by saying he wanted it. he may have lost some in the 'that wasn't Coleman' pile, but damn he did win a couple i thought would go for Coleman. Scribbles an oval with a slight line going to Coleman but the oval is between the I and Coleman? no clear voter intent, whereas I would've been like the dude "drew" a line from his oval to Coleman!

so yeah, while Coleman's lead went up presently, because he won back votes that were challenged, I don't think it went up nearly as much as he wanted
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom