Worst Argument EVER for Ruining the Missouri Plan

Professor Bill Eckhardt has a history of engaging in misleading right-wing attacks on the Missouri Plan for selection of judges. I won't rehash the factual and logical mistakes he made in that failed attempt, other than to point out that it was embarrassing enough that the Dean of the Law School felt compelled to publicize her strong support of the Missouri Plan.

He's at it again, with the same batch of false logic and factual mistakes that characterized his earlier attempt. It's unworthy of a law professor, and it's almost unworthy of response. In the end, as I've said before, the Missouri Plan works well, and every single attempt to change the Missouri Plan is designed to increase the role of politicians and political consultants.

BUT - right at the end, Professor Eckhardt tosses in a doozy of an argument that deserves to be pointed out, if only for its intellectual, political and moral bankruptcy. Professor Eckhardt asks those of us who defend the plan that has served as a model for other states:

Are they not concerned that defeating HJR 10 could lead to a ballot initiative that would completely eliminate the Missouri Plan and move Missouri to something no one has asked for yet? Though a move to contested judicial elections — opposed by many of us — has not been proposed by reformers, others may be tempted if modest reforms fail.

If that is the case, the Missouri Bar and other opponents may look at a Missouri in which judges are directly elected and dream of the days when moderate reform was possible.

In other words, Professor Eckhardt is trying to convince us to abandon a successful system of judicial selection because if we don't, his side of the argument might do something really, really stupid - something so stupid that he opposes it, and nobody has even proposed it yet!

It is a sign of the desperation of those who hate our judicial system that they are resorting to hollow threats in an attempt to further politicize our courts.

Tea-Bagger Potty Line?

Like most observers of politics, I was amused by the tea-bag parties organized by anti-tax protesters in response to Obama's tax cuts. The sputtering outrage of the right wing provokes not fear, dread or even respect from those that pay attention. How dare right-wingers protest taxes when Obama is cutting them for 95% of us? How dare the Republicans complain about deficits when the Bush administration launched us on a disastrous path after Clinton had generated budget surpluses? How dare the tea-baggers denounce government spending after Bush created an economic crisis and launched an unnecessary war on the wrong country?

The tea-baggers were not to be taken seriously, so I basically ignored them.

But this morning, I happened across Platte Countian Ivan Foley's hyped-up coverage of the protest, and saw that it was less of a protest than a gathering. Here is a picture that Mr. Foley took of their "crowd":

Seriously. A few months ago, that would have qualified as the shortest of the porta-potty lines for Barack Obama's rally. But, whatever, if they want to count that cluster of like-minded folks as a rally, that's their right. Personally, I'm a little surprised they could find even that many people to stand with this guy without wearing a hood:

Right Wingers are Kind of Funny Sometimes

Sometimes, when right-wingers try to predict how progressives would react to hypotheticals, they are so oddly mistaken that it makes me wonder if they have any understanding at all of non-reptilian thought-processes.

The latest example comes from one of the more reasonable right-wingers, my blog-friend Rhymes with Right. "Could You Imagine The Outrage…", he headlines before carrying on with, "If a GOP president-elect selected one of Sirhan Sirhan’s lawyers for an important role on his White House? I think we all know that there would have been a serious shit-storm over such a choice."

This reaction was inspired because Obama has chosen Gregory Craig as White House counsel, and Mr. Craig has done some excellent legal work in some controversial cases. Read the post if you want to enjoy the outrage of someone who apparently does not understand the fact that good lawyers take on tough cases and unpopular clients.

His imagined reaction is quite funny, really. It would never occur to me to be upset if Harriet Meiers had successfully represented Sirhan Sirhan - in fact, if the Bush administration had done a better job of choosing people for competence rather than for rigid doctrinal purity, our country would be in a far better place than it is today. Competence is a good thing in our world, and so is the ability to work in a world of some complexity.

But a portion of the right-wing will never get that. They assume that we are just as shallow and knee-jerk as they are, which only bolsters their black and white world view. It's sad, really.

(Note - lest I be accused of painting with too broad a brush, I realize that not all Republicans are so simplistic in their understanding. This is representative of only one of the patches in the quilt that is the Republican party.)

Taking Jobs Americans Won't Do

A high school valedictorian is getting deported to Armenia, because his family fled to the US when he was two years old.

Apparently, the salutatorian didn't want the top job.

Merry Christmas, Conservatives!

Here at Casa Gonemild, we've had a peaceful Christmas, complete with nativity scenes and family time. We had dinner with Johnson County Republicans, and had too much great food and not a word of politics. A lot of well-chosen books were exchanged around our Christmas tree, other fun stuff, and a new guitar player will soon be adding music to the world.

I was wryly amused by the people who sought to use "Merry Christmas" as "fighting words" agsinst to liberals. Yes, they thought that they could somehow use Jesus' birthday as a political weapon.

From the bottom of my heart, I wish those people peace on earth, and good will to men (and women).

Open Letter to the Judiciary, Based Upon Right Wing Fear-Mongering

I love the fascinating glimpses into the fearful rightwing mind that you can pick up by reading some of the rightwing blogs. It is fascinating to see that some of them really do believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is bogus. Really. Some of them really do believe that if we do not continue in Bush's Iraq debacle, we will have sharia law imposed upon us. Really. Some of them think that scientists are banding together to dupe us into believing in global warming, even though it snowed a few times this past winter, so the left wing can impose socialism on them. Really.

But this morning, I was greeted with this gem: " . . . many of us have been concerned about the unilateral imposition of homosexual marriage upon the nation by judges . . .". Folks, that is funny.

Here is my open letter to the judiciary, just in case the right wing is correct about this:

Dear Judge __________,

I would much prefer it if you would not unilaterally impose homosexual marriage on me, but I understand that it is going to happen anyhow. Well, if that's the case, I humbly entreat you to consider the following traits I would like in my homosexual spouse. I would like him to be wealthy, and generous. It would be great if he shares my love of cooking, and I would prefer it if you could find me a non-smoker and non-snorer. Looks aren't very important to me (at least in men), but if he wore the same size clothes as I do, that would have some obvious advantages.

Oh, and if he happens to have a remarkably low libido, I would appreciate that, as well.

Thank you for your consideration of this humble request.

Gone Mild

I don't think those requests are unreasonable. After all, except the snoring issues, I like to think I'm quite a catch.

One Less Dumb Rightwing Lawyer

One of the problems facing this nation is the plethora of dumb rightwing lawyers. Without this supply of dumb rightwing lawyers, our court systems would not need to deal with silly, malicious, and poorly thought-out suits brought by fringe-element organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund, the Institute for Justice, and the United States Attorney's Office.

The problem is not so much the fact that some attorneys are rightwingers. Indeed, I've worked for, with and against a lot of rightwing attorneys, and most of them are credits to their profession.

The problem lies with the dumb rightwing lawyers. They are everywhere. 150+ bottom-tier graduates of bottom-tier Regent University School of Law (founded by Pat Robertson) have found their way into the ranks of the US Attorney's Office, so confounding the works that people like Monica Goodling find themselves "crossing the line" without ever showing evidence that she knew where the line was in the first place.

Thank goodness that Massachusetts has chosen to light a candle rather than curse the darkness. Despite getting sued for $9.75 million (why not make it an even $10 million?), the Massachusetts Board of Law Examiners is refusing admission to Stephen Dunne, who came up short on the Bar Exam after refusing to respond to a question involving a gay couple. Answering the question, he argued, would imply that he endorses gay marriage and parenting.

I'm happy that the liberal lawyers among us didn't fall victim to this trap. Where would the rule of law be today if we had refused to answer questions about the death penalty, or about corporate powers? What if we had refused to answer questions about domestic law until gay couples could participate?

The Bar Exam is a test of knowledge demonstrating whether you are intellectually fit to practice law. If you fail it for a lack of knowledge, you are free to study up and give it another try. If you think you failed it because of your political beliefs, though, perhaps you'd do better as a rightwing something else, okay?

Malkin and the Unhinged Right: Calling Our Troops "Losers"

I was disgusted to see Rhymes with Right, one of the right-wing blogs I visit and generally enjoy, call our troops "losers". I was even more disgusted to see that he got his marching orders from the Queen of Concentration Camps, Michelle Malkin.

I know, I know, that they think they are humorously twisting Harry Reid's position, but it's simply sick and despicable for the Keyboard Kommandoes to sit stateside and call our troops names. Have they no decency whatsoever? Is there nothing so slimy and putrid that it would repulse even them in their attempts to score some pointless political point? To what, if any, debased rhetorical means would they not resort to support this optional war?

Do you think they will ever look back on their work and hang their heads in shame?

Supporting the Troops the Right Wing Way (Until They Get Hurt)

A lot of right-wingers make a big deal out of pretending to support our troops, and they react with vein-popping indignation when someone suggests that those troops who engaged in torture have something in common with other brothers in torture, or suggest that some of them entered the military because it was their best career option, rather than sheerly from exuberant patriotism.

Funny, then, to see how silent they have been in the face of the mistreatment of the troops here at Walter Reed. Go ahead, check Media Lies, one of the right-wing bloggers I include on my blog roll (you'll have to scroll past his failed petition "defending" the troops from those that would reduce the costs of this war). Go ahead, check Rhymes with Right, another rightwinger on my blogroll. You won't find anything - they don't care about our troops after they've been wounded and can no longer support the Bush regime on the battlefield.

Apparently, these defenders of the troops are unaware of the "sticks and stones" theory. If you say something that could possibly be construed as not-totally-supportive of our troops' sainthood, you are evil personified. But, if you leave one of our wounded warriors soaking in his own urine, you're okay in their book, because you work for the President.

I really shouldn't single out the rightwingers on my own blogroll. They are very much representative of the rest of the rightwing bloggers, as demonstrated by the usually-funny, but sometimes unable to see the humor, Jesus' General.