Via e-mail, I see there is a website dedicated to thanking Tony Blair and the British. Interesting.
John Cole started Balloon Juice early in 2002. Those who have followed along know that this has been quite the journey.
Right Ruling, Lousy Outcome
One of the downsides of living in a country that has as much freedom and dedication to individual rights are Supreme Court Rulings like this one:
The Supreme Court ruled today that the government has only a limited right to force mentally ill defendants charged with nonviolent crimes to take medication to make them competent for trial.
The 6-3 ruling sets a series of conditions that must be met before a mentally ill defendant can be drugged against his will, erecting a relatively high bar for prosecutors. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said that “involuntary administration of drugs solely for trial competence purposes” should occur only “in limited circumstances.”
The justices effectively set out a checklist for government to meet: Its interest in prosecuting a serious crime must be great; the treatment must be medically appropriate and be the least intrusive remedy available; and the treatment must be “substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial.”
Admitted, my legal knowledge is limited, but it seems to me there needs to be a very high bar set before forcing individuals to be medicated against their will. To those of you with legal backgrounds and a better understanding of the case law, I would appreciate your comments or links to anything you may have written about this issue so I can read them and pass them along.
*** Update ***
It appears I completely misread this article, and it will have no impact on individuals outside the courtroom. Thus, my comments and, in particular, my title, are a rambling, incoherent, ill-informed mess. In other words, ignore this post- unless you have something more intelligent to say than I have- which, given the low bar I have set here, should not be difficult.
This Is Absurd
How terrified are the Democrats that Bush might get to select a Supreme Court Justice? So afraid that they want to choose Bush’s nominee:
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont has urged President Bush to avoid a traumatic national battle over the Supreme Court by consulting with him and other leading Democrats before choosing a nominee, should a vacancy occur.
In two recent letters to the White House, Mr. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that if Mr. Bush took advantage of a vacancy on the court to select a staunchly conservative judge, it would produce a political war that would upset the nation and diminish respect for the courts.
“Though the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention over vacancies that may arise on the court, contention is avoidable, and consensus should be our goal,” Mr. Leahy wrote on Wednesday. “I would hope your objective will not be to send the Senate nominees so polarizing that their confirmations are eked out in narrow margins.”
Do not be fooled- this is not a fig leaf or an appeal for bipartisanship. This is tantamount to blackmail- ‘Let us help you choose the candidate or there will be a traumatic national battle over the Supreme Court.’ Leahy should be told where to stick it.
And, for the record, Mr. Leahy, the constitution does not require ‘consensus’ to appoint someone to the Supreme Court. It requires a majority, despite how much you and the Democrats now want that to be changed.
Pizza Madness
I think this is sheer genius:
AP Photo
Instead of going Dumpster-diving for maybe a half-eaten sandwich and some cold fries, Peter Schoeff, a 20-year-old homeless man, was served a slice of hot pizza dripping with cheese.
All he had to do was hold a sign for about 40 minutes that read: “Pizza Schmizza paid me to hold this sign instead of asking for money.”
Seems fair to me.
(via Drudge)
Idiotic Recall
I hate this idea. Impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath was one thing (and TROLLS- do not try to turn this thread into a Clinton impeachment discussion), but simply deciding that you don’t like a governor and trying to have a ‘re-do’ strikes me as overtly partisan and a subversion of the process (I know it is technically legal- don’t lecture me):
A Republican-led campaign to recall California’s Democratic governor, once dismissed as improbable, now appears poised to qualify for the ballot – and to shake up California politics like never before.
The outcome is anyone’s guess, and the situation has politicians from both parties scrambling. It promises to be “a wild ride,” promises one political consultant.
Gov. Gray Davis was elected in a landslide in 1998 but his approval rating tumbled to 28 percent amid voter wrath over the state’s energy and budget crises.
The people of California knew what they were voting for, and they re-elected Gray Davis. I am not saying this as a ‘let’s punish Californians for being so stupid they re-elected Davis, so they should have to live with him’ attitude, but rather as a simple statement of fact. He is their governor, and barring criminal activity (not alleged activity), I am against recalling him. This is simply a bad idea. If the California Republicans had half a brain and were not morons, they would have voted for Riordan in the primaries in 2002. Instead, they went for rigid ideological purity, and put forth an absolutely unpalatable candidate- Hell, he was such an awful candidate he is lucky most of you probably can’t even remember his name. I will put his name in the extended entry below, but I am betting most of you won’t remember, as he was that awful. Worse than Gray Davis- if the voters are to be believed.
At any rate, I think this recall is cheap and tawdry and I hope the Republicans get burned for it.
The Analyst and the Southern Cal. Lawyer have some opinions on this issue.
IRS Refund Check
Does anyone know how to get an IRS refund check re-issued? I have one from last year thsat I forgot to cash, and I would like to find out how to get it re-issued.
Dean in 2004
Like I said– Dean is going to be the Democrat nominee:
Former Gov. Howard Dean was victorious in a straw poll of Democratic activists at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention.
Dean beat eight competing Democrats in both categories — delegates and alternates, and official guests.
John Kerry was second to Dean in the delegate count (126 to 33). Kerry also was second to Dean in the guest count (77 to 17).
Dean’s combined total of 203 topped Kerry’s combined total of 50.