Another rebuttal

To the private and religious school apologists like Captain Fishsticks, Katie, John Brandl, and many Republicans, including the governor and Spot's state Senator, Geoff Michel. A recent Department of Education study says public schools do better. Christian private schools do the worst.

In "The Manufactured Crisis: "Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America's Public Schools" Dr. David Berliner and Bruce Biddle argued that ongoing criticism of America's public schools is baseless and partisan. [read review of book in Christian Ethics Today]. A new study released January 2006, funded by the US Department of Education, by researchers at the University of Illinois at Champagne Urbana rebuts claims on the alleged low performance of public schools [ click here for PDF of full report ]. Meanwhile, the ongoing assault on America's public schools comes from many quarters . . .

Via the always excellent Media Transparency.

wer-sal (n)

Another word for weasel. Greg Wersal, at least that’s the name he is using today, filed petition Friday for the investigation of past and current members of the Minnesota Supreme Court. You remember Wersal; he’s the knave who changed his name to “Carlson” in an unsuccessful run for the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2000. Here’s the story from the link:

Wersal? Carlson? Carlson-Wersal? What’s His Name?

In August 2000, Kiffmeyer ruled that Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Greg Wersal could use his wife’s maiden name, Carlson, on the ballot. Critics charged that the move was an attempt to pander to voters of Scandinavian descent. Wersal had not (at least not for any public purpose) used the name “Carlson” before the election, nor has he used it since. Wersal is an attorney, listed in the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory, but his name appears there as “Gregory F. Wersal.” Additionally, Wersal was the petitioner in a U.S. Supreme Court case relating to his candidacy (but not relating to this issue). His brief to the Court listed his name as “Gregory F. Wersal.” Greg and Cheryl Wersal also have their phone number listed under "G & C Wersal.” Still, Kiffmeyer decided that she would be engaging in gender-based discrimination against Wersal if she denied his request to adopt his wife’s name on the ballot, when wives have traditionally taken their husbands’ names.

Here’s what Carlson-now-back-to-Wersal seeks:

Wersal asked the Board on Judicial Standards and the Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility to look into Chief Justice Russell Anderson, Justice G. Barry Anderson, Justice Paul Anderson and former Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz.

"The public needs to know if judges on our highest court have engaged in unethical conduct by giving pledges, promises, assurances or mere hints as to how they would rule on an issue likely to come before the court," Wersal wrote in a letter to the two boards. He released the letter to reporters. [of course he did, Spot] [italics are Spot’s, too]

You can see how ol’ Greg might think it would be useful to have Scandinavian name!

The conduct that Wersal is complaining about arises, of course, out of l’affaire de johnson, the ethics charge made against Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson that was recently dismissed. Conservatives have been trying to keep the issue alive to try to hurt Dean Johnson politically and try to force a floor vote in the Senate on the gay marriage amendment ban bill. Captain Fishsticks has labored mightily at the project, and Spot comments here. Katie had a column excreting outrage, and Spot commented in post titled The feces-flinging monkey. Spot has a couple of other posts about the flap, too.

And now comes Wersal. For years, Wersal has been jumping up and down like the Eddie Murphy donkey in the movie Shrek shouting PICK ME PICK ME in a effort to get a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court. He can’t get a governor to do it, so he has run for the office – unsuccessfully – a couple of times. Wersal the weasel’s petition is just a transparent attempt to set himself up to do it again.

The person with the least amount of standing on planet earth to bring a petition alleging the discussion of issues by Justices outside the court is Greg Wersal. You see, boys and girls, Greg Wersal along with the Republican Party in Minnesota are the agents of destruction in dismantling the rules against party endorsements for judges and the discussion of specific issues in judicial campaigns.

It's not the first time Wersal has taken on Supreme Court or its members. He twice tried and failed to win a seat on the Supreme Court during elections. And he was the driving force in a federal lawsuit that successfully eased restrictions on judicial campaigning.

Ironically, he helped persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Minnesota rules barring judicial candidates from talking about disputed legal and political issues during campaigns.

Wersal said in his letter that the 2002 decision doesn't allow judges to make pledges or promises on issues that are likely to come before them. [italics are Spot’s]

Spotty says more than ironically, how about hypocritically? No one ever said, least of all Senator Johnson, that a Justice made a pledge or promise about a DOMA vote. Nor is this the first time that Wersal has tried to harm the reputation or position of a public official. In 2001, he was part of a scheme to have Attorney Mike Hatch recalled for not defending the State’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down.

Wersal is just another Republican trouble maker. One who thinks that he and his agenda should be on the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Tags: Greg Wersal makes a cameo appearance in l'affaire de johnson

She got flowers; what did he get?

Here's Helen Thomas surrounded by some of the roses sent to her as a thank you for her questioning of Chimpy McFlightsuit at a recent newsconference.

Here's a news article about Helen and the flowers.

Sticks to Katie to Wersal

Spotty wishes he had posted his prediction to his inner dog that this would happen. CP at minvolved called it to Spot's attention this afternoon. Spot will have more on this in coming days.

The feces-flinging monkey

Katie’s Thursday column, titled We need to know who is telling the whole truth, is breathtaking. Rarely in the field of human polemics have so many been libeled in so many ways by so few ill-crafted words. Spot predicts that We need to know who is telling the whole truth will stand as a monument to the art of the smear for a generation. Just when you think that Katie couldn’t possibly get any more bilious, she goes out and draws a new mark on the tree for the hacks and hackettes at MOB and Pajamas Media to shoot at.

The subject of Katie’s harangue, of course, is l’affaire de johnson. Spot has written about this before. Here, too. He has also posted about Craig Westover’s lament that the drama is drawing to a close. Spotty has told you, boys and girls, that with Katie, subtext is everything. Why is she trying to reanimate this corpse? It is pretty simple, really. Katie wants to damage Majority Leader Dean Johnson as much as possible, hoping to help bring pressure on Johnson to bring the gay marriage ban amendment to the Senate floor for a vote. The Republicans want the amendment on the ballot this fall really, really bad, because they face a massacre this November if they don’t get their entire base out to vote.

Now, boys and girls, let’s spend some time at the examining table with the rancid remains.

The flingees in Katie’s blast include Senator Majority Leader Dean Johnson, Minority Leader Dick Day, the ethics subcommittee that examined the complaint against Senator Johnson, Chief Justice Russell Anderson, and the Senate DFL Caucus. Did Spot leave somebody out? Oh, yeah, the governor, too.

Katie starts out by telling us that either Dean Johnson or Russell Anderson is a liar (actually, she slyly puts the words in the mouths of our protagonists). Spot wants to start with a question: What do Russell Anderson and Katie have in common?

They both went to law school?

Yes, but that’s not what Spot had in mind.

They both have kinda geeky hair?

Spotty will not be the judge of that.

Okay, we give up.

The answer is that neither Katie nor Russell Anderson has any first-hand knowledge of the conversations that make up l’affair de johnson. If the definition of a liar includes actually knowing the falsity of the utterance, Russell Anderson cannot be a liar. An officious fool, perhaps. Spotty, that was uncalled for. Apologize! Ok, Spot is sorry.

On the other hand, Senator Johnson, through his lawyer, said he was willing to name names and call witnesses. Putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak. Suddenly, the Chief Justice clams up, a couple of members of the ethics subcommittee admit that Johnson’s version is “plausible,” and Dick Day and the Republicans back away slowly. Spot says connect the spots.

Katie also shrieks about the breach of judicial (and legislative) ethics that must have occurred here. She wants us to accept as fact that a breach occurred, but it isn’t so. First, let’s remember that Dean Johnson (for better or worse, probably better) is neither lawyer nor judge. The Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to him.

Moreover, you will search the Code of Judicial Conduct that Spot just linked to in vain for the prohibition of a judge talking to a member of another branch of government. CANON 1 states that a Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary. CANON 2 states that a Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities. That’s as close as it gets.

Do these canons mean that a lawyer and a judge can’t have lunch and even talk “shop” about issues other than ones before the judge at the time? No, of course not. Nor does it mean that being a judge is such a priesthood that he or she cannot talk to a member of another branch of government. Do you suppose that Abe Fortas never spoke to Lyndon Johnson? Okay, bad example. How about Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia? They shared a duck blind and a private jet when cases that included the name “Cheney” were before the Supreme Court. As friends in politics for a long time, don’t you suppose that they talk “shop” maybe even a little, from time to time? Of course. History is full of examples of governors or legislators who became judges. The oath of office doesn’t include an oath of conversational celibacy.

It must be remembered that no DOMA case is before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Senator Johnson did not receive an advisory opinion, which is a complicated doctrine that has built up a couple of centuries of jurisprudence on things like case and controversy, ripeness and standing, by the way. One might forgive Captain Fishsticks for confusion here, but not Katie – nor the Chief Justice, for that matter.

As Spot has said a couple of times, it was indiscreet of Senator Johnson to refer to conversations that whoever he talked to thought were private and off-the-cuff discussions. And Johnson has apologized for that.

Speaking of forgiveness, Katie says that she is not prepared to forgive Senator Johnson just yet. There isn’t a drop of forgiveness in Katie; we wouldn’t expect you to forgive, Katie. You’re incapable of it. Katie and the rest of the DOMA hyenas will stick the gay marriage issue up the public’s arse every chance and every way they can.

Tag: feces-flinging monkey

Mea culpa

Probably none of you remembers this post, but Spot does. Check back Spot's original for an update discussion of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a celebrated 1964 Supreme Court opinion.

INCOMING!

Katie comes out like a feces-flinging monkey this morning. Because the column is an unusually large specimen of maliciousness and pettiness, and because Spot is rather busy today, it may be a day or so before he can do the autopsy.

But he will.

Once more into the Sticksian ooze

Captain Fishsticks sucks his teeth, stares into his monitor with moist eyes, and then releases a long wistful sigh. You see, Sticks has been blowing hot air into the corpse of l’affaire de johnson for as long as Sticks can remember, and longer than most people care to remember. And that’s Sticks’ problem. People just don’t care. Of course, most people don’t live in the tight-assed world of epistemology that Sticks inhabits. Sometimes, Sticks, the pursuit of something turns into obsession; just ask a guy named Ahab.

Sticks’ valediction (Spotty fervently hopes) on l’affaire de johnson came in a Pioneer Press column today, thoughtfully reprinted by Sticks on his blog. Sticks is unhappy that the Senate ethics panel did not do a full Torquemada on Senator Johnson.

It sounds, in fact, like the Senator was well-represented at the ethics panel hearing. The Star Tribune reports today that two of the four panel members have said that Johnson’s version of events was “plausible.” They probably applied the Rule of Probability that Spotty told you about earlier, boys and girls. That and the fact that Johnson was apparently prepared to call witnesses to support him if the panel wanted to go the full-meal deal route. Spotty wonders if Johnson’s lawyer mentioned that Chief Justice Russell Anderson couldn’t be a witness at a hearing, since he had no first hand knowledge of what happened! According to the Star Tribune article, the Chief Justice has no further comment.

L’affaire de johnson is a cautionary tale for legislators, judges, and Spotty says, the voting public. As Spot discussed earlier, the barriers to party endorsement and discussion of issue positions by judicial candidates have fallen. These developments portend far more serious dangers to the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary than Dean Johnson’s little informal chats.

Tags: Captain Fishsticks l'affaire de johnson

What in a name?

A lot. Especially when it comes to the name of a stadium on the University of Minnesota campus. Here are the opening grafs of an article in the Pioneer Press online edition today:

The University of Minnesota's new football stadium strategy passed its first test Tuesday at the state Capitol, but a panel of lawmakers punted several thorny financial issues to another committee.

Two stadium bills moved through the Senate Higher Education Committee on unanimous voice votes, indicating bipartisan support for a basic plan unveiled Friday with the support of Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

One of the bills, backed by the university, says funding should include student fees and a corporate name on the door. The other bill scraps the fee and the naming deal, with a key senator indicating those ideas are fundamentally tacky.

Tacky? Yup, according to Larry Pogemiller:

Sen. Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, whose district includes the university, said charging students $50 annually to help pay for the stadium is inappropriate in light of large tuition increases in recent years. He also wants the stadium name to honor veterans or a former university athletic hero or administrator.

University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks, on the other hand, thinks the deal which names the stadium after a saving and loan is hunky-dory. The Prez was accompanied at the hearing yesterday by Spotty’s own senator, Geoff Michel. These are strange bedfellows indeed!

Spot’s readers know that Robert Bruininks is the Prez, but fewer probably know that his academic background is education. He spent most of his career training new teachers in education and child development and running a university department to do that. At a land grant university. A big time supporter of public education, you’d think.

Geoff Michel, on the other hand, is a member of the Minnesota Republican Taliban, a supporter of religious school vouchers, the $185,000,000 budget cut to K-12 education last biennium, and the governor’s hare-brained 65% solution last year, not to mention his partisan support for Cheri Pierson Yecke, the cashiered Commissioner of Education. Spotty says just peruse the archives of www.retiregeoffmichel.blogspot.com/ for more.

Oh, and by the way, Michel’s wife is the niece of former U Athletic Director Tom Moe. No link here, but trust Spot; it’s true.

TCF, the putative sponsor of the stadium that will get the naming rights, is the creature of William Cooper, until recently the Chairman of TCF. Cooper is also one of the big-deal Republicans in Minnesota, a supporter of the Minnesota Taxpayers League. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that a leading member of the bunch so allergic to the public interest, and both K-12 and higher education budgets, would get his company’s name on a stadium at the state’s land grant and leading university. Think the Carrie Nation School of Viticulture.

Senator Pogemiller says that the naming deal is not a “deal-breaker” for him. It ought to be.

Tags: University of Minnesota Geoff Michel William Cooper

Well, he's not afraid of needles!

Zacarias Moussaoui, that is. It is amazing to contemplate that the prosecution’s best friend in this case is the defendant himself:

Until Mr. Moussaoui took the stand, the momentum seemed to be with the defense, which had contended that he was a fringe figure in Al Qaeda whose leaders held him in low regard.

Moreover, the government's case had been plagued by problems. After the disclosure that a government transportation lawyer had improperly coached some aviation security witnesses, the testimony of two other witnesses about how the F.B.I. handled investigative leads before Sept. 11 raised as many questions over the government's performance as it did about Mr. Moussaoui's culpability.

From the same NYT article from today however, it seems as though ol’ Zacarias may be suffering delusions of grandeur:

Before the day was over, the jury also had the extraordinary experience of hearing a reading of testimony taken in a deposition from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is said to have organized the Sept. 11 attacks and is being held somewhere in the secret overseas detention system of the Central Intelligence Agency.

That deposition, in which Mr. Mohammed answered questions agreed to by prosecutors and defense lawyers, seemed to contradict Mr. Moussaoui's assertion that he was meant to be a pilot on Sept. 11.

Mr. Mohammed portrayed Mr. Moussaoui as a fringe figure who might have been used in a second wave of attacks if needed.

For more than an hour, Michael Nachmanoff, a public defender, recited Mr. Mohammed's answers in what resembled an oddly disembodied literary reading. Mr. Nachmanoff read out testimony that any planning for a second wave of attacks "was only in the most preliminary stages" and that targets had not even been selected.

But no matter. What’s really important is that Moussaoui can now be executed and give us all the catharsis we so desperately desire! There is a God.

Readin' and 'rithmic and nothing else

This is interesting, and more than a little troubling. The NYT reports today on a trend in US education away from social studies, science, and art. Why? The requirements of No Child Left Behind, of course. For some low scoring kids, this means essentially a full day of reading and math:

About 125 of the school's lowest-performing students [at Martin Luther King Jr. junior high in Sacramento] are barred from taking anything except math, reading and gym, a measure that Samuel Harris, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army who is the school's principal, said was draconian but necessary. "When you look at a kid and you know he can't read, that's a tough call you've got to make," Mr. Harris said.

In the article, some commenters say this might make school a little, well, booooooring. Ya think?

If Katie thinks we're ahistorical now, just give it a generation or two.

Tags: No Child Left Unscathed

Be careful, people!

On the roads tonight, that is. You see, the pseudo-morality play called l'affaire de johnson has been resolved. That means that a lot of right wing bloggers like MDE and Captain Fishsticks will be at loose ends; they will probably be out late drinking tonight.

Who's your Daddy, Sticks?

Spotty told you, Sticks, that the Legislature would have no appetite for further consideration of school vouchers. Apparently, Sticks got a chance to see that first hand:

But the number one thing that has pissed me off today is the House Education Policy Committee that today voted down the Educational Access Grant Bill. I am too mad to write about it. [but he undoubtedly will, ed.] The arrogance of those voting against the bill that would have allowed a small percentage of low-income families in city schools to use limited vouchers to attend private schools is incomprehensible to me. I doubt this makes the front page tomorrow. Maybe if they held the committee meeting naked and spent some time stomping bunnies instead of trampling the future of young children the story might get some ink. Like I said. (sic) I’m pissed.

Horse pucky. Vouchers are merely the transition phase to an entirely private school system in the eyes of the social Darwinist hunter gatherers like Sticks. As though he cared about inner-city school children.

What is interesting to Spot is that vouchers couldn’t even make it out of a Republican House committee!

Tags: school vouchers become extinct before they are born

First hand knowledge

Chief Justice Russell Anderson doesn’t know what he is talking about. Literally. Whoa Spotty, that’s pretty strong! No it’s not; it’s by is own admission. Justice Anderson has no first-hand knowledge of anything related to any conversations between members of the Court and Dean Johnson regarding DOMA. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. He says he polled the members of the Court and nobody issued an advisory opinion.

We don’t give advisory opinions,” he said. “We decide these cases in the context of real cases with real people and real controversies. We do not prejudge them.”

CP at minvolved has the quote and a discussion. Spot has also written about the flap.

If the Chief Justice is saying that no member of the Court ever had a discussion with a legislator in the abstract about a legal issue, if that’s what he is saying, he is being, well, disingenuous.

Regarding the Chief Justice’s investigation, you let Spot ask the questions, and he’ll get you any answer you want.

It was indiscreet of Dean Johnson to talk about any casual conversation he may have had with a Supreme Court Justice. But it is also untrue, as people like Captain Fishsticks (you’ll have to look it up yourself) suggest, that the integrity of the judiciary has somehow been fatally wounded.

Let’s talk about the issues that really relate to governance.

Gratuitous violence

Today, Katie commits a curious drive-by smearing of outgoing Minneapolis Police Chief Bill McManus. Keep moving people, there isn't anything to see here.

A callow fellow

Alternate titles: It's a dirty job, part 3, or Wendy wanks again

This is the third in a series of posts in a blog-wide effort to unearth some of the best wing-nuttery from the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Spot has been concentrating on his homies over at Never Never Land.

Here’s another bit of wisdom from Wendy, excreted about the time of the US invasion of Iraq:

In the Middle East, no good deed goes unpunished

Last night, in a series of blogs, I tried to explain the folly of basing, even in part, our policy decisions in the war on terrorism on their effects on the "hearts and minds" of Arabs. I argued that the populations in question view the world through a prism so distorted by hatred and irrationality that efforts to win them over are, in the short term, futile. Some might object that I am painting a cartoonish picture of Arabs. There are, of course, many sophisticated, well-educated, and even relatively moderate citizens of Arab countries. Isn't it possible to make these people kindly disposed to us through policy choices that are consistent with our national interests?

Perhaps the best way for me to answer this question is by describing my experiences with Iranians. My wife spent many years living in Iran, and I have met many Iranians, nearly all of whom are well-educated. Incredibly, I found a consensus among Iranians of a certain age that the British were behind everything of consequence that happened in Iran through the 1979 revolution and even into the 1990s. This belief stems from the massive influence that the British exercised in the region up through World War II. By the 1950s, the Americans were pulling the strings in Iran, and continued to do so until the revolution, after which, of course, no western country had any real influence. Nonetheless, smart, well-educated, and pro-western Iranians remained convinced that the British were controlling events. This was true, I found out, even of the most influential figures of the Shah's regime. My old law firm represented the Shah's son during the 1990s. The lead attorney in the representation, who had gotten to know most of the inner circle, told me that, almost to a person, they were obsessed with the British.

To several generation (sic) of Arabs, we are "the British." If we withdrew from the region completely, we would still be blamed for everything adverse that occurs in the Middle East for the next 30, or perhaps even 50, years. It is tempting, and very American, to believe that by doing good deeds in the Middle East, we can improve perceptions of us there. Liberals and conservatives share this view. For liberals, the good deed is resolving the Israeli-Arab view. For conservatives, it is liberating Iraq and making it a successful, prosperous democracy. These happy scenarios are not beyond the realm of possibility (sic). In my view, however, we should not count on them. [italics are Spot’s]

Posted by Paul at 09:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) 3/31/03

Well Wendy, if you hung around Iranians, you sure didn’t learn a helluva lot.

Yo Wendy! Although both Arabs and Persians tend to be brown, Iranians are not Arabs. You could look it up. In fact, you probably should. Putz.

As to the silly notion that the British and the US had interfered with affairs in Iran up through the revolution in 1979, of course it’s true. The Brits were much better at the imperial interference business than the US, of course, up until recently. In fact, Iran is a touching case of the torch being passed from one hegemon to another. Spot speaks, of course, of the joint British – US assistance (to put it charitably) in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran under Prime Minister Mossadegh and the return of the exiled Shah to the Peacock Throne.

You see, Mossadegh had the temerity to question how the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was keeping its books. In other words, we engineered the coup for oil. And the Shah was our boy until the Islamic revolution in 1979. So, the Iranians (and probably the Arabs, too!) have plenty of justification for suspicion of US motives in the region, even up to today.

Finally, Spot has to ask, Wendy, do you really think that engineering the 1953 coup in Iran was a “good deed”?

Tags: more Never Never Land musings about the Iraq war

Dean Johnson, CP, and a Spotty

Two posts at minvolved win a Spotty with an oak leaf collar. The first one was yesterday, and the second one this morning. Both deal with the political storm over remarks made by Majority Leader Dean Johnson. A Spotty, for those new to this blog, is award given to the writer of a letter to the editor, an op-ed piece, a commentary, and now a blog post who writes something that Spot wishes that he had written. [cash value 1/20th of a cent]

In the first post, CP examines some of the compromises and attempted compromises that have been put on the judiciary. Spot was not amazed to find that Republicans, and their shrieks of “judicial activism” feature prominently in the list. It is not minor irony that Republicans are now howling over casual conversations about DOMA that Dean Johnson says he had with a member or members of the Minnesota Supreme Court, who, after all, inhabit the same building and walk the same halls. Maybe they buy hot dogs at the same stand, although that doesn’t seem very judicial.

The post today follows on some things that Spot was going to write, but CP is a morning sponge, and Spot is neither morning nor sponge.

The papers this morning are full of Chief Justice Russell Anderson’s public comments about the question, and CP discusses them very well. Here’s a quote from the Chief Justice, a recent Pawlenty appointee by the way, from CP’s post; the link is there:

“We don’t give advisory opinions,” he said. “We decide these cases in the context of real cases with real people and real controversies. We do not prejudge them.”

Jeebus that sounds so noble. And of course, the Court does not render advisory opinions. But if Justice Russell is telling us that a Supreme Court Justice has never discussed a legal issue, not before the Court at the time, with a legislator or constituent, Spotty suggests that you take the statement with a grain of salt, a big grain of salt.

Now, boys and girls, Spot is going to tell you about Louis Nizer’s “Rule of Probability.” Nizer was a famous 20th century trial lawyer, more famous that Johnny Cochrane, even. Nizer’s rule helped him sort out conflicting evidence to figure out what really happened in a given situation. The rule is simple: “It probably happened in the most ordinary way.” One of Spot’s lawyer friends has a corollary to the rule: “Even if it didn’t, you’ll have trouble convincing a jury otherwise.”

You may say Spotty, that is just a statement of the obvious, but often it’s not. Let’s take a look at the present situation. Is it likely that Dean Johnson would run into a Supreme Court Justice from time to time? Yep. Is it likely that that the Majority Leader might talk shop about an issue that is occupying the Legislature and the Majority Leader’s mind, but not the Court? Again, yep. Is it likely that a Justice would thereupon draw himself up to his full height, stare at the Majority Leader, and say, in a voice soaked with contempt, “We don’t issue advisory opinions”? Of course not.

Dean Johnson’s mistake is – in all probability – taking some remarks made over that non-judicial hot dog and repeating them.

It is also interesting to note that Johnson's comments would probably be admitted in court - as proof that things were said - res gestae - but the Chief Justice's statements that comments were never made would be inadmissable hearsay, since he doesn't claim to be a party to the conversations and therefore has no first-hand knowledge.

It also bears repeating another point that CP made. Republican Greg Wersal has been successful in invalidating restraints against judges talking about political and legal issues in judicial elections and restrictions against judicial candidates seeking political party endorsement. CP links to an MPR article about this, but here’s the link, just for good order’s sake.

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, boys and girls. When Greg Wersel – or Russell Anderson – runs for the Supreme Court with a Republican endorsement, just watch all those shiny-faced College Republicans, presently demonstrating outside the Majority Leader’s door, out campaigning and talking about Wersel’s position on gay rights, abortion, school vouchers, etc. and etc.

Can you say hypocrisy? Spotty thought you could.

Tags: Majority Leader Dean Johnson judicial integrity

Clap louder for Tink

Clap louder, Tink can hear you.

Communist stooges?

Ol' Spotty was going to wade into the fetid swamp of the archives over at Powerline, but before he could do that, he saw this gem from Wendy today:

Say it ain't so, Joe

My conservative cousin from New York, who used to take me to baseball games at the Polo Grounds and Griffith Stadium (where we'd watch Cuban pitchers Camilo Pascual and Pedro Ramos), finds that Jon Miller and Joe Morgan "served as conduits for Castro's propaganda" in their broadcast of the World Baseball Classic game between Cuba and The Dominican Republic. He writes:

[Spot gave you the link; follow it if you want.]

Joe Morgan and Jon Miller are communist stooges? Hysterical laughter. Sorry. You know, Spot used to think that Tink, and maybe even Peter, were better than Wendy in the histrionics department, but he's no longer sure. The two posts that Spot referred to recently from the Powerline archives are both from Wendy, and there is another great one from Wendy coming soon.

Joe and John are the best baseball announcing team in radio or television. John's baritone voice and pacing and language in the play-by-play are lyrical. Joe Morgan is the best baseball technician in broadcasting. The clowns who are usually tapped to do the World Series aren't fit to shine the shoes of Joe and John.

The call the wind Katie

Isn’t there a song that goes like that? Anyway.

Katie is usually a little better at screed rotation. Today, we get Katie’s second column in a row on gay marriage. The headline of the column, which Katie probably did not write, is If gay marriage is OK'd, definition of bigotry will expand. That’s a pretty good head, actually. Spot thinks that Katie is getting pretty worried about this.

As MNObserver, er, observes, the shorter version of the column is We must move quickly to embrace bigotry lest we be redefined as bigots. Most people don’t like to think of themselves as bigots; the cognitive dissonance keeps them awake at night.

The editorial pages of the Star Tribune this past couple of days have been full of letters calling Katie, well, a bigot for her column last Thursday. And Katie doesn’t like it one bit, nosiree bob. She’s a fine Christian woman, righteous and probably very, very chaste; how could she be called a bigot? Here’s a snippet of Katie’s vice-like logic from today:

Supporters of same-sex marriage often insist that "extending marriage rights" to gay people is no big deal. It won't change life for the rest of us, they say. But if same-sex marriage becomes a civil right, the belief that one-man, one-woman marriage is best for kids becomes discriminatory, and those who hold it become bigots.

Yeah, Katie, it’s just like those darn Northerners who kept meddling in that “peculiar institution,” slavery. It really annoyed a lot of Southerners, so much so that they tried to pick up their marbles and leave.

In the end, Katie, you need to accept the fact this isn’t about you. In fact, most things aren’t about you. No one is telling you that you have to change your own mating behavior, or even your attitudes. You just have to be prepared to accept the obloquy for having those attitudes. Seems fair to Spot.

Tags: Katie is afraid of gay marriage