U.S. Politics, 12

[Guest Raidne]

Ah yes, Kelo, thanks. Wrote a law review comment on that one, but I was blanking. Of course, I had a couple hours of dental work followed by two glasses of wine today, but I imagine being put on the spot tends to clear the memory also.

Of anything but Dred Scott.

Ini, I'll give you a third: Rici. I seriously forgot the name of Citizens United. How about the case where Kennedy upheld the ban on partial birth abortion? The outcome isn't the worst thing ever, but the case was just awful - name?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But Dred Scott? Come ON. That's covered in high school civics courses.

He didn't forget that case though. He was asked for a decision with which he disagreed from the last 15 or so years, couldn't remember one, so went with an older decision with which he disagreed.

I'm a punkass twentysomething and I can name recent Supreme Court cases I disagree with -- Citizens United and and Kelo come to mind. I'd have to think a little harder for a third but I'm pretty sure I'd come up with one. For someone to be unable to name any at all, by name or by topic, while running for a legislative position, is inexcusable.

The question wasn't "name a case", but name one within the past 10-15 years with which you disagreed. I personally think political junkies overrate the importance of being able to list case names, because myself and the other lawyer who've answered have admitted we're not so good at it ourselves.

Now, I'm very good at naming relevant cases within my area of specialization because I deal with them all the time. But even in watercooler discussions with other attorneys on political-type Supreme Court cases, it's generally "Yeah, that case in Michigan sucked", or "the whole independent agency thing in that case from the 80's" sucked, but rarely the case name. You just file them away a bit deeper if you're not discussing them in sort of the obsessive message-board manner. Just being honest.

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, Dred Scott is not a bad answer for, like, Bill and Ted. I mean, at least they knew one case, right?

But what I really want to know is this: does he think Africa is a country?

[The Progressive]

ETA: I have to say, I'd hire FLOW as a lawyer - guy understands that, hey, you've got to say something and he seems to be able to run circles around the straight face test.

You would for real? I deal with his type of lawyers quite frequently and that sort of tactics would more than likely lead to a cause finding from us, lol.

A good lawyer would know when to shut up instead of running circles around the facts and then try their hardest to minimize the damages their clients are liable for.

[The Progressive]

Fixed it for you.

Look at it this way: if you asked me to name decisions I agreed with and were decided in the last 15 years, and I said "Brown v Board of Edu", I'd be wrong, because my statement didn't fall within the timeline of the question. And then, if asked again, I didn't name anything, I'd be avoiding the question.

So at the very least, he didn't answer the question, at worst, he was wrong.

Lol, to be fair, there's a very slight possibility that instead of being a rightwing blowhard idiot, he simply agrees with all SCOTUS decisions made since Dredd Scott.

[Inigima]

It looks like Ckrisz beat me to both Kelo and Citizens United, heh. When I hit reply those weren't posted yet. Raids, I don't recall Rici.

FLOW, I don't mean that he should necessarily have to cite by name. As others said, something like "that eminent domain case" is fine with me. So that's a copout, IMO.

[Guest Raidne]

Lev, those are the clients who deserve you to find cause. I mean, what are their lawyers supposed to do? Be like, yeah, okay, it was pretext. Whatever. That lawyer probably doesn't care about you guys and is preserving stuff for appeal.

[MinDonner]

Just out of curiousity, did you not name any such cases because you couldn't recall them?

Dude. I am a) English and b ) not running for election for the US government. The only two cases I even know the names of are Roe vs Wade and Loving vs Virginia, and I don't even know if they were Supreme Court decisions. But then why would I need to?

[TerraPrime]

But why shouldn't we expect the nominal leaders of our country to have a better-than-average level of knowledge?

I want people who are smarter than me in positions of leadership. I don't want people who are the same level of intelligence as me. I definitely don't want people who are dumber than me.

So, I see no issue in sniggering a bit at the lack of knowledge on the SCOTUS from a political candidate. If they are going to be involved in making laws, I'd hope that they have a passing familiarity with what makes a law constitutional and what makes it not, you know, like the type of information you'd get from knowing a bit about decisions from the SCOTUS.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Anyone want to comment on Olbermann's suspension? I didn't realize he surrendered his right to offer financial support to candidates of his choice when he went to work for MSNBC.

[awesome possum]

He didn't forget that case though. He was asked for a decision with which he disagreed from the last 15 or so years, couldn't remember one, so went with an older decision with which he disagreed.

The question wasn't "name a case", but name one within the past 10-15 years with which you disagreed. I personally think political junkies overrate the importance of being able to list case names, because myself and the other lawyer who've answered have admitted we're not so good at it ourselves.

Now, I'm very good at naming relevant cases within my area of specialization because I deal with them all the time. But even in watercooler discussions with other attorneys on political-type Supreme Court cases, it's generally "Yeah, that case in Michigan sucked", or "the whole independent agency thing in that case from the 80's" sucked, but rarely the case name. You just file them away a bit deeper if you're not discussing them in sort of the obsessive message-board manner. Just being honest.

You keep trying to talk semantics instead of specifics. It would have been OK for him, or O'Donnell or Palin to simply say they couldn't think of the name and then explain which case they disagreed with. There lots of names and many of them are hard to remember because they're so basic. But if you're running for political office, you should be expected to know a little bit of everything in regards to politics. You don't have to be the smartest in the room, but you certainly shouldn't be the dumbest either.... unless of course you're running as Republican tea party candidate. Then it might actually be a plus because "ur just 1 of teh peeples!"

And the fact that both Palin and O'Donnell were both victims of this "attack" means every politician should have at least done some cursory cramming in case of such an instance.

Methinks that you are defending him because he's a Republican

Fixed that for you. For FLOW, it doesn't really matter. If they have an ® at the end of their name, unless they've done something unforgivable like work with Democrats on an issue, then they should be defended unto death.

[awesome possum]

Anyone want to comment on Olbermann's suspension? I didn't realize he surrendered his right to offer financial support to candidates of his choice when he went to work for MSNBC.

Well at least one of the three major news organizations seems to have some sort of standards in place these days.

[Inigima]

In my opinion Olbermann's suspension is bullshit, though some disclosure might be in order -- although Keith Olbermann's political views are hardly unknowns. But MSNBC is a private company and they can follow whatever asinine policies they want. They will probably regret benching one of the only reasons they have that people watch MSNBC, though.

There are allegations that other MSNBC contributors -- Scarborough, Buchanan -- may have made similar contributions, but it's unclear whether this policy existed at the time, or whether they got private approval as policy dictated.

[Old Nan]

But why shouldn't we expect the nominal leaders of our country to have a better-than-average level of knowledge?

I want people who are smarter than me in positions of leadership. I don't want people who are the same level of intelligence as me. I definitely don't want people who are dumber than me.

We should expect our leaders to be well-informed because I want leaders who are well-informed because it pleases me to meet my expectations and I expect leaders to be well-informed...

I, for one, do not want to be ruled by elitist technocrats, and it seems that most of my fellow Americans are right with me on that score.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

How does offering finacial support to a candidate affect Olbermann's job? It's not as though MSNBC doesn't have a lien to the left in its reporting and pundantry. What's wrong with financial support if the Reporter or pundint is upfront about it?

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

How does offering finacial support to a candidate affect Olbermann's job? It's not as though MSNBC doesn't have a lien to the left in its reporting and pundantry. What's wrong with financial support if the Reporter or pundint is upfront about it?

Nothing. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? If he broke a policy of theirs, kudos to them for enforcing punishment on their biggest star.

[Shryke]

But why shouldn't we expect the nominal leaders of our country to have a better-than-average level of knowledge?

I want people who are smarter than me in positions of leadership. I don't want people who are the same level of intelligence as me. I definitely don't want people who are dumber than me.

So, I see no issue in sniggering a bit at the lack of knowledge on the SCOTUS from a political candidate. If they are going to be involved in making laws, I'd hope that they have a passing familiarity with what makes a law constitutional and what makes it not, you know, like the type of information you'd get from knowing a bit about decisions from the SCOTUS.

Sadly TP, talking to people who work in the US government or reading comments from them or, shit, even just watching those couple of "Obama vs The Entire GOP" open forum thingies he did, it becomes readily obvious that the opposite is in fact true.

Most of the people in government probably know less about policy then a bunch of the people in this thread.

[Altherion]

But why shouldn't we expect the nominal leaders of our country to have a better-than-average level of knowledge?

Because one of the keys to not being constantly disappointed is to temper your expectations. :)

[C S]

Anyone want to comment on Olbermann's suspension? I didn't realize he surrendered his right to offer financial support to candidates of his choice when he went to work for MSNBC.

I think his actions were quite hypocritical considering his recent criticism of Fox News for their financial support of conservative organizations. I think it is pretty commonplace for most news media outlets to prohibit financial or volunteer support of political causes for all journalists including commentators.

For the record, I am a regular viewer of the show and watch it 3 to 5 times a week, most weeks (yep, I'm a flaming liberal pinko commie). :commie:

[C S]

We should expect our leaders to be well-informed because I want leaders who are well-informed because it pleases me to meet my expectations and I expect leaders to be well-informed...

I, for one, do not want to be ruled by elitist technocrats, and it seems that most of my fellow Americans are right with me on that score.

So smart people = elitist technocrats?