Presidential Primaries

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 23 2008, 09:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't be worrying about Pennsylvania in the primary or general election. Being able to cut that 20 point lead in half was probably the dagger, in retrospect (along with Edwards stepping aside on Super Tuesday and the 11 primaries Obama won in a row).</div>

Yeah. Have to agree about Pennsylvania. Hillary won the race on the strength of two major factors: older women, and the Rendell political machine. The political machine is killer in PA: Obama didn't even win Pittsburgh, the first time I've seen where he didn't win a city. That all bodes well for him in the general when the political machine and the feminism-era older women switch towards him.

I am, however, pissed-worry about what the **** to do about Ohio. I think it's going to require nominating the Governor for the VP slot. . . nothing less. Better start the vetting process.

I'm feeling pretty good about the Pennsylvania primary, now that a day has past. Hillary now has to win an impossible portion of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch over fifty percent of the pledged: something like 71%, which isn't possible given the proportional representation allocation. I think it's somewhat funny; you could make an argument that the three biggest days for Obama were Super Tuesday, Texas-OH, PA, all of which have been considered comeback wins for Hillary in the media.

Obama won another two supers today, he apparently has twenty more lined up, and I expect another rush if he pulls out a victory in Indiana. I actually think we'll see Obama proclaim himself the winner of the nomination if he wins in Indiana. Obama apparently has 1726 delegates now; short about 300. I'd conservatively estimate his delegate pull at around 105-110 on May 6, leaving him around 190, 195 short -- if another 50 supers shift on that day that cuts it to numbers quintessentially ending the race for good. Obama's hosting a huge celebration the night of the primary; Mellancamp is playing. Even if he loses, he'll have won over half the popular vote and delegates on that day. Expect to see confetti.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 23 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So it looks like I actually get a semi-meaningful vote next week. I have no clue who I prefer less between those two.</div>

Wait, I thought you were a Republican? Are you just switching for the primary? I think one of the more interesting sub-stories in this primary is the Republicans, who have every intention of voting for McCain in November, voting in the Democratic primary. I don't mean the Rush Limbaugh philes who are switching over just to make the race go longer; but the other group who is following the race and just voting in the Dem primary for fun because the Repub primary is finished.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 14 2008, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you were a betting man, would you bet that Bush gives Scooter Libby a full pardon? You mentioned about the pardons given by presidents at the ends of their terms... I would bet that Bush does NOT.</div>

Well Bush already effectively completely pardoned Libby so I don't see how this is really an issue. Two years of probation? You get the same for possession of Mary J. That's not really even a sentence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 14 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While we're discussing the law...

Is the purpose of the courts to:
1) determine the truth
2) administer justice

Pick one.

I'll entertain you with a bit of history about how the purpose of the law changed from one to the other.</div>

It's really a false dichotomy. Criminal courts have transitioned from truth to justice as the Fourth Amendment protections have grown (but they also has shrunk again, on the whole, over the last thirty years). However, most civil disputes are settled using arbitration now, which aren't bound by the rules of evidence. It's more of a free-for-all civil-law type system where, depending on the rules, anything is allowed. So, I would have to say that the legal system as a whole, with the rise of arbitration, has become diversified: systems for truth finding, systems for justice side-by-side.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 23 2008, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 14 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While we're discussing the law...

Is the purpose of the courts to:
1) determine the truth
2) administer justice

Pick one.

I'll entertain you with a bit of history about how the purpose of the law changed from one to the other.</div>

It's really a false dichotomy. Criminal courts have transitioned from truth to justice as the Fourth Amendment protections have grown (but they also has shrunk again, on the whole, over the last thirty years). However, most civil disputes are settled using arbitration now, which aren't bound by the rules of evidence. It's more of a free-for-all civil-law type system where, depending on the rules, anything is allowed. So, I would have to say that the legal system as a whole, with the rise of arbitration, has become diversified: systems for truth finding, systems for justice side-by-side.
</div>

The reason it's not a false dichotomy is that there was a major shift from truth to justice in the 1940s, post WW II, and not long before the whole concept of meritocracy came into being. I was specific in the question asking about "the courts" and not about the "justice system..." I'm not at all convinced that this was a change for the better, but it is the foundation behind what they're teaching at all the best law schools.

The northeastern sense of elitism is hardly new. It certainly goes back to the founding of the nation and probably even before that (the issues then were slavery and public education). While "old" may be good in its own ways, it shouldn't dominate. (This is the origin of the northeastern liberal smear used against John Kerry, FWIW).

Harvard isn't the only elitist institution in the area. You have Yale, too. And if you look at the list of their graduates, you'll find an impressive list of graduates, including Mr. Bill Clinton himself (Hillary, too), the previously mentioned John Kerry, a whole host of notables in congress, 2 SCOTUS justices, and a good part of the Bush Administration. It's not political - much of the Clinton administration came from Yale as well.

It's fine to graduate people who go on to be leaders in the community (presidents, congress, law, business, whatever). It's a wholly different thing to use the institution as the means to build a society in the view of the school's president.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 23 2008, 11:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 14 2008, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you were a betting man, would you bet that Bush gives Scooter Libby a full pardon? You mentioned about the pardons given by presidents at the ends of their terms... I would bet that Bush does NOT.</div>

Well Bush already effectively completely pardoned Libby so I don't see how this is really an issue. Two years of probation? You get the same for possession of Mary J. That's not really even a sentence.
</div>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

After Libby was denied bail during his appeal process on July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month federal prison sentence, calling it "excessive," but he did not change the other parts of the sentence and their conditions.[15] That presidential commutation left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JayJohnstone @ Apr 23 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 23 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 23 2008, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't say it is "effectively a tie". Obama will only need around 40% of the delegates once it goes the convention, a huge edge.</div>

Neither candidate will have the 2025 delegates needed by the convention. That's 2025 needed and won via the primaries.

So when nobody wins and nobody loses, what do you call it? A TIE. T-I-E.

Spelled it out for ya

The very truth is that all 800 super delegates can make up their minds, for sure, at the convention. Whatever they say now is not a lock. You'd think so, but we've already seen some of them come out and say they're switching one way or the other.
</div>

You are as good at Math as Hillary is at dodging sniper fire.
</div>

I admit it's been a long time since I took math in school, but I'm pretty sure that ~1700 is less than 2025, and that the word "IF" isn't a mathematical construct but a logic one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 24 2008, 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 14 2008, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While we're discussing the law...

Is the purpose of the courts to:
1) determine the truth
2) administer justice

Pick one.

I'll entertain you with a bit of history about how the purpose of the law changed from one to the other.</div>

Neither. I'd argue the purpose of the courts is to protect our rights and enforce our rights to dispense with them. There is no area of law that's fundamentally not about this.
Criminal and Constitutional law deals with societal protection of our personal and property rights, and deals with our individual rights of protection against government.
Property law establishes rights of ownership.
Contract law deals with our right to have private promises enforced.
Tort law deals with our rights to not be injured by the actions of others.

Truth and justice are all ancillary to establishing rights in the first place. Which is why it's a problem when judges go finding "new rights" in the Constitution and whatnot.
</div>

I tend to be as idealistic as you are, but "neither" just isn't how it is in actuality.

The remedy capability of the courts is there to administer justice, and that's all it is used for (in civil cases).

Punishment that the courts can levy against people is there to administer justice (in criminal cases).

That covers every one of the forms of law you enumerated, except for appellate courts (and SCOTUS). Those courts exist mostly for the purpose of assuring the proceedings in the lower court cases were legit, and not much more. SCOTUS? Are they a political body these days? I'd argue that in Bush v. Gore, they used their remedy power to administer justice, and I find none of their other cases/rulings to be much different in nature.

If truth were what the courts are about, OJ would be in prison for life. Instead, the jury administered justice as they saw fit, and the whole proceeding was orchestrated to see justice administered. Not much different in civil cases where the jury finds against the side with the deep pockets.

It is unfortunate that Rights have little to do with the courts.

See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

 

It's a marathon. No runners have crossed the finish line yet. Two are VERY close. People in the crowd are hoping one wins so they're trying to convince the one in 2nd place to stop running.

Thing is, neither is going to actually cross the finish line.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 25 2008, 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't bet against it, but I don't think the numbers make much difference at this point. If you looked at the numbers a month ago, you'd have said "I bet this thing will be over in a month"

I think what's determinative is that that Hillary has the chutzpah to just say no and keep going, and as long as she's arguing with every breath that Obama can't win a general election and Obama is busy putting his foot in his mouth, there are plenty of supers who are gonna stay on the fence.

Not saying it definitively won't be decided until the convention, but if the numbers were a guide we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.</div>

I disagree to an extent. I two issues are determinative: first and foremost, many of the superdelegates aren't even allocated yet. A large sum -- like one hundred and fifty or something. They don't get chosen 'till closer to the convention, if this needed to be any more complicated. Secondly, there are still a large number of superdelegates who believe that this long fight is good for the Democratic party. Obviously, Dean isn't one of those people. I don't think it's a question of who, but when. But as to the question of "when": I have no idea.

 

Look at the AP article I posted recently. It talks about the criteria the super delegates are considering. The ones that favor Obama aren't a big % of the remaining delegates. Not that Obama won't win them over.

BTW, Dean went to Yale.