Senate evidently remembers its job.

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto is a policy analyst and part-time dungeon master. When not talking endlessly about matters of public policy, he is a dungeon master on the NWN World of Avlis

Related Post Roulette

74 Responses

  1. Burt Likko says:

    An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

    Oh noes we’re disarming ourselves in the face of scimitar-wielding maniacs! Why does Senator Feinstein so badly wish for America to be overrun by the secret enemy within, destroyed by the myriad of sleeper cells of terrorists [who might be] already within our borders?Report

  2. Scott says:

    Surely Barry would never willing violate the Constitution.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Scott says:

      Been wondering — are you a Birther, or do you just hang out with them? “Barry” being a birther term and all.Report

      • Scott in reply to Morat20 says:

        I wasn’t aware that Barry was specifically a birther insult or indicated agreement with them. I was just going for insult plus it is fun to watch Kazzy get upset every time I say it. It’s my version of the names liberals had for Bush. I spent years watching liberals call him all sorts of names but when I say Barry here folks get upset about my lack of respect.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Scott says:

          So deliberately attempting to insult the President and agitate others in the community, while offering nothing constructive or even germane to the conversation, is the type of behavior we consider acceptable nowadays? Wonderful.Report

          • BlaiseP in reply to Kazzy says:

            Advocatus diaboli, as a Liberal, I have some serious problems with how Due Process has been treated over the last few years. Granted, President Obama isn’t exactly a Bond Villain here, but if the Democrats are finally getting Due Process back on track, why couldn’t the president have made such a proposal years ago? Was he too scared? Now that this war’s winding down and we’re finally getting out of that shithole in Afghanistan, have the Democrats finally decided to amend the worst breach of our rights in law since the Alien and Sedition Acts?

            I’m glad to see this coming along but it’s far too late to make me happy.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to BlaiseP says:

              There are *PLENTY* of things to criticize the President about. Calling him a poopyhead is about as weak as it gets. Calling him a poopyhead because you know it bothers other people is weaker still.Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Kazzy says:

                Quit playing Scott’s little game, Kaz. Fact is, this detention amendment is long overdue. Scott’s sarcasm would have no impact if there wasn’t a note of truth to this. But really, this is, as Nob points out, The Senate Remembering to Do Its Job.

                Sorta helpful to look at the original law to see how things changed and why this is so important.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to BlaiseP says:

                I don’t mind the sarcasm or the legitimate criticism of Obama’s policies. It is the insistence on using the term “Barry” precisely because he knows it pisses people off that I find objectionable. Leave aside all the potential dog-whistling within the phrase. He is now on record as saying he says it to insult the President and to piss people like me off. That is destructive to our community.Report

              • Scott in reply to Kazzy says:


                My original and only intent was to insult Barry. That fact that you get your undies in a knot was a bonus that only became apparent later on. Gliven some of the things you’ve said to me and others I’m not buying your pity poor me bc I’ve been agitated routine.Report

              • Kim in reply to Scott says:

                You insult someone you aren’t even talking to.
                Why bother?Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Kazzy says:

                As Scott himself points out, all he wanted to do was pull your chain. Barry was his childhood name. Scott hasn’t had anything useful or thoughtful to say for a very long while. If, by pissing you off, he can get a little frisson of delight to shoot up his pant leg, you could deny him that pleasure by not responding to him.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

                Kazzy, there’s no doubt it’s being done to jerk your chain, and there’s no doubt it’s intended to be a sign of disrespect to the Prez, and there’s no doubt it’s pretty childish and immature.

                But I wouldn’t say it’s dogwhistling. Adding the ‘y’ or ‘ie’ to a first name, to indicate disrespect or diminishment to the president as in a childhood nickname (which in this case as Blaise points out is actually historically accurate), with the implication that they are callow/inexperienced/stupid, goes back as long as I can remember.

                “Ronnie” Reagan. “Billy” or “Slick Willie” Clinton. Bush the Elder being referred to as “Georgie”, while GWB was “Georgie-boy”, “Shrub”, “Dubya” or the more explicit “Dumbya”, etc.

                Anyway dude, my advice would be to ignore it, unless it’s either obviously profane, or directly insulting to one of the forum participants. You’re just giving him what he wants when you get visibly annoyed.

                If I see someone use “Barry” un-ironically, that’s usually just a trigger for me to just skip the comment, because it’s obvious they probably have such an axe to grind that it’s not going to be worth it, and the likelihood of any (intended) humor is low. Life’s too short, my man.Report

              • M.A. in reply to Glyph says:

                My personal favorite is “Saint Ronnie Raygun.” But that’s more an indictment of the sort of mythologized version of Reagan that the conserva/tarians trot out when they need to talk about the “good old days” of the 1980s that exist only in their diseased imaginations. They spend a lot of time ignoring the real Ronald Reagan, a very centrist president who regularly compromised and worked with the other side of the aisle in order to get things done for the good of the nation.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

                I think that, for some, Barry was a dogwhistle. But that is not my point. Typically, I do ignore Scott when he indulges in this silliness. Or I’ll make a single comment exposing his ignorance and move on. But for him to go on record, unprovoked, stating that his primary purpose was to issue a childish insult to the President and a direct and known agitation to a member of our community? That’s some ugly shit right there, even if the issue itself is a rather small one.

                I don’t need anyone’s pity. I just worry about where we go as a community if we say that Scott’s antics are acceptable. Especially when so many other folks are being told what they can and cannot (or should and should not say) on a thread not far from here.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

                M.A., based on past comments, it surprises me for some reason that you are not more critical of Reagan than that.

                Learn something new every day I guess!Report

              • M.A. in reply to Glyph says:

                Glyph, the real Ronald Reagan is nothing like the conserva/tarians portray him today.

                The real Ronald Reagan stood staunchly with trade unions; in fact on several occasions he described the right to unionize “one of the most elemental human rights.”

                The real Ronald Reagan campaigned for an initial tax cut plan, but raised taxes 11 times in cooperation across the aisle during his administration.

                Was he perfect? No, and far from it. But he was relatively fair and willing to work across the aisle and reach compromises, which is more than can be said for 99% of the conserva/tarians today.Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Glyph says:

                Reagan changed his minds on unions, as he changed his mind on pretty much everything. He busted the PATCO strike.Report

              • M.A. in reply to Glyph says:

                PATCO was a special case, Blaise; as a public sector union, they were governed under the same laws that prevent firefighters and cops from striking.

                It wasn’t anything about their right to unionize, it was their right to engage in the strike that was his issue. Since the air traffic controllers unionized again under NATCA, Reagan’s action to fire the PATCO workers has had relatively little actual effect save for his being lionized as an “anti-union crusader” by credulous and clueless conserva/tarians on the matter.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

                Kaz, no pity intended. Just friendly advice, trying to save you some time and lower your blood pressure when something just doesn’t seem worth the trouble. I’ll try not to mention it again, obviously you can handle things as you see fit. Sorry for interjecting.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:


                No worries. I appreciate, both here and elsewhere, you general appeals toward temperence. The “pity” remarked was aimed at Scott’s comment that I was seeking a pity party. Far from it. I just don’t want this place to devolve into needless trolling and feces flinging.Report

              • MikeSchilling in reply to Glyph says:

                My favorite is “Chimpy McHaliburton”, which I was told many times by conservatives was what we evil Leftists called the president. Needless to say, I never heard anyone else use it. It was exactly like someone holding a 2×4 saying “You’d like to whack me in the head with this, wouldn’t you? Like this (whap!) or this (thwack!) or this (smash!). Well,” he says as the blood starts to runs down his face, “I’m not going to let you!”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Glyph says:

                “Hurricane W. Hitlerburton” was a personal fave.

                I prefer to use “Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama” when I, myself, am trying to poke. It has the benefit of being perfectly defensible.Report

              • Kim in reply to Glyph says:

                yeah, see… that one actually WORKS. It pokes fun just gently and pointedly enough that even the liberals laugh alongside.Report

              • wardsmith in reply to Kazzy says:

                Calling him a poopyhead

                So now calling someone “Barry” is equivalent to calling him a poopyhead? That seems rather odd to me, but I guess I don’t have exceptionally tight panties on today. Meanwhile I have two good friends named Barry, one of whom has the nickname Bear, possibly because he’s 6’6″ and weighs 320lbs. I’ll give him a call right now and tell him Kazzy says Barry means poopyhead. I’m sure he’ll be amused. 🙂Report

              • MikeSchilling in reply to wardsmith says:

                From the Fox World Series broadcast:

                (Zito is unexpectedly brilliant, and the crowd at AT&T is chanting “Barry, Barry”)

                Joe Buck: Of course, this crowd is used to chanting for a different Barry.
                Tim McCarver: Yes, when Barry Manilow used to play concerts here.
                Buck: No, I meant Barry Bonds.

                Which brings up the question: Is there, in the entire world, a more humorless, self-important douche than Joe Buck?Report

              • No. If Tim McCarver is less of a humorless, self-important douche than you, then you win the title and immediate,y gain induction ito the Humorless, Self Important Douceh Hall of Hame.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                I noticed something odd this year. Fox did both the NLCS and the Series, and I of course watched every game I didn’t attend. McCarver did an OK job during the NLCS — didn’t talk too much, tell pointless stories, bring up idiotic stats, ride a hobby-horse into the ground, etc. [1] During the Series was as awful as ever.

                So I’m wondering if, for events like the Series and All-Star game, he’s told “We’ll have a lot of viewers that aren’t big baseball fans. You need to make an effort to entertain them to keep them watching.”

                1. I had bet a friend that every setback for the Cards would result in “That was a mistake Tony LaRussa wouldn’t have made.” Totally wrong. Not even once.Report

              • I hate to admit this, as my hatred of the McCarver-Buck tandem knows no bounds, but I think you’re probably right. People forget this, but before he started doing all of the nationally televised games full time, he was one of the Mets’ tandem of color guys with Ralph Kiner in the 80’s. He was actually really good in that job, to the point that the only people associated with that team that I idolized more were Mookie Wilson (because he was Mookie Wilson) and Keith Hernandez (because he played First Base). But even then I noticed a huge difference between the way McCarver called the nationally broadcast games and the way he called the Mets games. By the early to mid-90s I mostly only saw him on the nationally televised games* and my idolization quickly turned to pure hatred, and never turned back.

                I pray that Ron Darling does not suffer the same fate.

                *I don’t recall the exact reason why I rarely caught him on Mets telecasts in the 90s – probably a combination of the Mets’ perennial suckitude and unlikableness in that period and erratic access to the channel that carried most of their games; I also vaguely recall that he was just working part-time for the Mets broadcasts by that point.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                MikeS, I know you appreciate Brit humor, so I must ask if you have seen the Mitchell & Webb “Snooker Commentators” sketches?

                If not, just start with #1 and go from there, I think you’ll enjoy them (I do, and I know jack-all about snooker):


                “Oh, that’s a bad miss.”Report

              • Glyph in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                Well that link pasted screwy, sorry, but it seems to work if you copy/paste it in yr browser.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                Huh, clicking thru works too. Weird.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                It’s a search, not the precise URL of one video, and it’s got enough of the search term to give the right answers.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Mark Thompson says:


                This is probably my favorite M & W sketch, a couple of Nazis experiencing the slowly-dawning realization that they might, in fact, be “the baddies”:


              • MikeSchilling in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                That is funny stuff. It’s a damned shame Harvard and Yale don’t turn out comedians the way Oxford and Cambridge do.Report

              • LWA (liberal With Attitude) in reply to wardsmith says:

                Being a certified Liberal, I will give you permission to call President Barack Obama anything you like.
                However, there is one thing which you may not call him.

                Private Citizen Barack Obama. At least not for another 4 years.Report

              • wardsmith in reply to wardsmith says:

                Now when I follow through as I said I would a month ago and call him by the sobriquet Bronco Bama, it is of course in honor of my little friend AbigaelReport

              • Kim in reply to wardsmith says:

                If you wish to sound like you’re four, who am I to stop you?Report

              • James Hanley in reply to wardsmith says:

                Bronco Bama has the advantage of being funny. If you’re going to mock someone, humor is necessary. Barry doesn’t make me chuckle, so it’s clearly no good.Report

              • Kim in reply to James Hanley says:

                Bronco Bama would actually be funny, and cool, if you were going with cowboy imagery in general. I like the idea of wrangling the president. Or of the president wrangling congress.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to wardsmith says:

                It’s a nice callback to Bronislau Nagurski.Report

            • M.A. in reply to BlaiseP says:

              A lot of the former may have plenty to do with the Republicans holding the House who were peeing their panties over the idea of “terrists on a amurrikan soil” every time closing Gitmo was mentioned.Report

        • Mark Thompson in reply to Scott says:

          This strikes me as an overt admission that you are a troll with no interest in actual discussion or debate, a fact that’s been quite obvious for some time now.

          The commenting policy includes the phrase “we reserve the right to delete comments that do not appear aimed at advancing the relevant discussion.” I’ve never been comfortable with judging someone’s intent even where it seems obvious to me what that intent is, which is why I’ve let your trolling stand over the years. But that concern is now out the window now that you’ve confessed your intentions.

          Consider this a warning: the next time you comment in a manner that appears to be trolling, I will drop the banhammer. Given your admission that you are, in fact, a troll, whining about this or otherwise responding in a way that indicates you are unwilling to reform shall also result in me dropping the banhammer.Report

          • Mopey Duns in reply to Mark Thompson says:

            Serious request for clarification. Is it LoOG policy that presidents are to be referred to only in a respectful manner, or at least by their surnames? Does this apply only to sitting presidents, or do we have to do it for all of them? Even the dead ones? Especially the dead ones?

            Will anyone get upset if I call the Greatest American(TM) ‘Abe’? (Okay. That last part wasn’t totally serious).Report

            • Is it LoOG policy that presidents are to be referred to only in a respectful manner, or at least by their surnames?

              No. It is, however, League policy that participants actually attempt to engage in good faith discussion. It became evident over the years that Scott’s* “participation” was not intended for this purpose and was just intended to pick at wounds and generate all heat, no light. He has now explicitly acknowledged that this is his intention, and not in what we might consider an apologetic manner. Once one unapologetically brags about being a troll who is uninterested in being a part of the community or improving the community, then one should not be surprised that one is no longer welcome in that community.

              *There is at least one other commenter who uses the handle “Scott” who does not seek to troll on the all too rare occasions he appears. If you can think of a contribution by a commenter named “Scott” that made an actual attempt at conversation, then you are recalling a comment by this latter commenter.Report

            • BlaiseP in reply to Mopey Duns says:

              Nah. Our own backchannel communications protocol (linguistics term for all the stuff you say when you’re not actually saying anything) kinda goes along this wise:

              We’re mostly overeducated guys with a penchant for a good turn of phrase. Scott’s greatest crime is being boring. Were he to come up with some interesting turns of phrase which would lend some levity to his lumpen insults, he’d be the toast of the town. DensityDuck, who’s been just horrid to me, is far more interesting. He, at least, gets off a pretty good zinger. And I punish him most ‘scruciatingly when he does. But like the blind pig finding an acorn, the Duck can occasionally find something interesting to say.

              “Barry” isn’t really the problem. It’s kinda like fart jokes: some are genuinely hilarious. Once you try to tear a good joke apart, it’s like a bunny rabbit, it never hops again. If a good joke can’t be deconstructed, how much less possible a bad joke? Deconstructing Scott, or why we generally refer to presidents without using terms of art like Chimpy McBush or Slick Willie or Ronnie Raygun — that’s all backchannel stuff. Maybe we want to be taken seriously. Maybe we’re snobs who want to distinguish ourselves by a better tone of voice.

              That said, I fear the door has opened to Much Meta.Report

            • Burt Likko in reply to Mopey Duns says:

              We don’t have a uniform style manual, if that’s what you’re asking. I’m not consistent myself. Sometimes it’s “the President” and sometime’s it’s “President Obama” and sometimes it’s “Barack Obama” and sometimes it’s “Mr. Obama” and sometimes it’s just “Obama.” I think any of those uses is well within the boundaries of appropriate means of reference. At the point he stops being President, it would no longer be appropriate to refer to him as “the President,” but “President Obama” would still be appropriate then, in honor of his past service in that office, or while discussion of something he did during that service. It’s entirely appropriate to refer to “President Bush” or “President Clinton” in the same light.

              Use or reference to the incumbent President’s middle name, “Hussein,” can be inferred to imply a degree of insult and emphasis on otherness depending on context, but there are contexts in which it is simply recital of his full name. Generally, a President’s middle name isn’t particularly important and is ignored, except to distinguish Presidents whose names would otherwise be identical (George H.W. Bush from George W. Bush, John Adams from John Quincy Adams). Generally, if the remainder of the comment casts aspersion upon the President, I interpret the use of his middle name in that comment as pointing out otherness and thus at least bordering on an insult.

              As I understand it, he called himself “Barry” as a young man in an attempt to fit in with peers, and after a time he realized that using his real name was a better idea, more dignified, and that his real friends either didn’t care what his real name was or preferred that he use his real name. Calling him “Barry” makes fun of that period in his life, a period in which he was a young man seeking belonging and friendship — which is why I find it a little galling that he be made fun of that way, because I went through such a phase before I found such self-confidence as I enjoy now, and I bet nearly everyone else reading this did at one point in their lives, too. I know I don’t enjoy it when someone even good-naturedly teases me about things from that point in my life and I bet nearly everyone else reading this has similar sorts of feelings about their own times of awkwardness and self-doubt — how much worse would such a thing be if it were not good-natured but instead aimed with intent to insult?

              And if you heard someone aim such an insult at me, even though you personally were not the target, wouldn’t you feel awkward and upset on my behalf? Even if you were taking the intellectual side of a discussion in opposition to me, wouldn’t you think that the insult blended in to the other discussion was socially inappropriate and possibly even damaging to the point you wanted to make?

              Add to that the fact that Birthers do indeed refer to the man as “Barry” not just for the purpose of mocking him but to suggest that he lied about what his name was, and that the purpose of the lie was to escape detection and to “look American,” compounding the emphasis on his being “other” when the truth is that he is anything but “other.” His story is as American a story as my own. Blending “Barry” with Birtherism pushes him out of the American identity and makes him not just Other Than American, but an Enemy Of America. (Which, when associated with some other criticism of him, makes that criticism look like weaker ketchup than it would otherwise be.)

              That’s why it’s not a good thing to call the President “Barry.” For anyone.

              Perhaps our commenter above never thought about it that way before. If so, I hope he thinks about it now, and in the future finds a way to express references to the President that does not contain such an unnecessary insult. Somehow, for the rest of us, that’s a pretty easy maneuver to execute even when we’re criticizing him.Report

              • FTR, I have asked him to stop using it. However, I think it’s about a 2 on the outrage meter hereabouts.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                Which is about all it has mustered, until now, with the outrage being aimed more at the explicit manner he has admitted to using it. Usually when he said it, I’d fire one off about the silliness and move on. Minimal outrage. That he felt the need to mention agitating me, on a thread I had not yet even commented on (or read until I saw my name pop up), seemed to cross a line.

                If you did indeed discourage his usage (and I have no reason to believe you didn’t, I just didn’t see that personally), good on for your standing up for a better brand of discourse.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Burt Likko says:

                And yes, I know that a sub-species of liberal took joy in sneeringly referring to Mitt Romney’s first name “Willard,” which also strikes me as disrespectful. I can’t recall what cheap play on names was aimed at John McCain but I’m sure there was one, and referring to the immediate past President as “W” doesn’t strike me as insulting because he enjoyed it when people referred to him that way and cultivated the nickname.Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Rather opposite to the “Barry” line, Mitt Romney chose his own middle name for himself and stuck with that choice all his life.Report

              • M.A. in reply to BlaiseP says:

                Where I lived, conservatives were more likely to call Mitt Romney “Mittens” than anything else, especially the radio guys during the GOP primary season. I wonder if that means anything.Report

              • Kim in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Yes, the president who liked to do the “pull my finger” fart-joke gag in the Oval Office.

                I actually wouldn’t mind someone calling Obama Barry as a form of informality, provided they actually were doing it as something approaching friendly… But it’s not, at least not as far as I can tell (Slick Willie, or Slick Eddie Rendell, are both names that they didn’t pick, after all. The nicks stick because they’re pretty accurate, and aren’t meant to be totally derogatory).Report

            • Jeff No-Last-Name in reply to Mopey Duns says:

              It’s not just the “Barry” that Mark is referring to — it’s Scott’s admission that he uses it to troll, and for no other reason. “Barry” does carry extra weight that, say, the Clenis! doesn’t, though.Report

              • “it’s Scott’s admission that he uses it to troll, and for no other reason. .”

                This. If he were using the term in the context of actually trying to make a substantive point, I wouldn’t object to it. Combined with the fact that this admission confirms suspicions I’ve had about Scott’s “participation” hereabouts going back literally 2 or 3 years, in which I can’t think of a single useful comment that he’s made, but I can think of countless snide and contentless comments……well, the use of the term “Barry,” by itself, is the least of my concerns.Report

              • Kim in reply to Mark Thompson says:

                Yes, the rule around here seems to be: “if you’re gonna troll, at least put some blasted content into your comments.”Report

              • Mark Thompson in reply to Kim says:

                That’s a fairly succinct and accurate way to describe the spirit of the policy.Report

    • Shazbot5 in reply to Scott says:

      This is the jerk behavior that we don’t condemn strongly enough, IMO.

      I wish Scott would get lost forever. And if people here disagree with me, they’re sending the message to conform to accepting that Scott’s behavior and beliefs are tolerable. They aren’t.Report

  3. Mopey Duns says:

    And back on topic…Woohoo for due process!

    Quick, someone who knows the American legislature better than me tell me the chances of this passing.Report

    • BlaiseP in reply to Mopey Duns says:

      I’d think the odds are very good. Inter arma silent leges == in time of war the laws are silent. Now the Democrats can afford to exhibit a conscience, mostly to get the critics in their own camp off their collective backs.Report

  4. Tom Van Dyke says:

    11/27: “And even the man whose objections have so far been the main stumbling block for the bill, Sen. Rand Paul, told POLITICO he thought negotiations were making progress. Although Paul said he has not formally placed a hold on the defense bill, he has renewed his campaign for language that protects the rights of U.S. citizens detained by the military to the speedy jury trials they’re entitled to under the Constitution. “We’re working on a deal,” Paul said.”

      • Burt Likko in reply to Nob Akimoto says:

        Agreed. Senator Paul may have his faults (who doesn’t?) but he seems more principled than your average politician to me.Report

        • LATE ADD: Rand Paul announces amendment (w/Feinstein [D] and Lee [R]) passes, 67-29.


          I want to congratulate my colleagues on — even though they appear to sometimes have disdain to the trial by jury, to now appear to be supporting the right to trial by jury. And I congratulate them on their conversion. I think they’re still a little bit confused on Hamdi.

          Hamdi had to do with the citizen fighting overseas and nothing to do with the citizen here. I have great confidence that the Supreme Court, given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to trial by jury whether they were appointed by Ronald Reagan or President Obama. So we’ll have that fight on another day. I will say, though, that our oath of office says that we will defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.

          I met with cadets this week and they asked me about, ‘what is the freedom we fight for?’ The freedom we fight for is the Bill of Rights, it is the Constitution. If we have careless disregard for the Constitution, what are we fighting for?

          I will tell you since I know this record of this debate will be widely read, that I want to make former objection to the crazy bastards standard. I don’t really think that if we’re going to have a crazy bastard standard that we shouldn’t have a right to trial by jury, because if we’re going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sakes – would you not want if you’re a crazy bastard to have a right to trial by jury?

          I think this is a very serious debate and should not be made frivolous. This is an ancient right that we have defended for 800 years, for goodness sakes. To say that habeas is due process is absurd. It’s the beginning of due process. If you don’t have a right to trial by jury, you do not have due process. You do not have a Constitution. What are you fighting against and for if you throw the Constitution out? If you throw the Sixth Amendment out? It’s in the body of our Constitution. It’s in the Bill of Rights. It’s in every constitution in the United States. For goodness sakes, the trial by jury has been a long-standing and ancient and noble right. For goodness sakes, let’s not scrap it now.

          I will accept victory today. I hope we will win victory and reaffirm the right to trial by jury, but let’s don’t play any games with any aspect and really believe that any Supreme Court in the United States, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, is going to say that an American citizen does not have a right to trial by jury.Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

            I have great confidence that the Supreme Court, given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to trial by jury whether they were appointed by Ronald Reagan or President Obama.

            Absolutely. It’s the ones appointed by Bushes you have to watch out for.Report

          • James Hanley in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

            I have great confidence that the Supreme Court, given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to trial by jury

            Sure, now that the two wars are winding down and it just might be safe for them to have principles again.Report