Right now, Sen. George Allen and challenger Jim Webb are debating on Meet the Press. I’m a few minutes behind from a few TiVo pauses, so if that doesn’t suit you try checking out Jon Henke’s liveblogging instead (or better, in addition to). Probably a good idea to check in there anyway.

(more…)

A recent editorial in the Richmond Times-Dispatch advocates abolishing the requirement that lawyers be licensed. What say you?

Yeesh. Either there’s a lot more/less to this story than meets the eye, or Donald Rumsfeld should be fired yesterday.

There is a huge trade deficit between the House of Xrlq and the local Food Lion. In only six months’ time, we’ve already bought more stuff from them than they will ever buy from us.

As an obscure right-wing blogger, I got an advance copy of Jim Geraghty’s new book, Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership. I think it comes out on the 19th but you can order it now. Geraghty makes a strong case that terrorism is not just another political issue, but the issue that has dominated since 9/11 and will continue to for some time. The book’s not perfect, and probably could have used a little more editing, but it’s well worth the read, particularly if you’re a Democrat who’d like to see your party start winning more elections.

More details on the book to come, when I’m not completely spent from a delayed flight on “Who needs a long runway, the shorter one looks just fine to me!” Airlines. Actually, I had delays both ways, but this time they lost my luggage, too, probably by failing to transfer it in Atlanta when I barely managed to transfer myself. Between my experiences and Patterico’s, I’m curious: has anyone ever changed planes in Atlanta and not had trouble?

Neal Boortz (‘hat tip: Steve Sturm) offers a series of really dumb reasons not to vote for anyone. I’ve read them all so you don’t have to.

(more…)

Yesturday I was drunk as a judge, but today I’m as soaber as Mell Gibson. I still think Mahmood Ackmadinnyjod is a kool dude, and that Stephen Speelburg is responsable for all the wars in the wolrd. Wimmin kops put shugar on their boobies. Kathrun Harris will make a grate Sennitor. 9/11 (10 yeers ago, dumasse, not today!) was an innside job, and President Regan should be impeeched. Stay away frum coughfee, that stuffel kill you.

I mite could boan Ann Coleter and Debbie Scheisse after a few bears, but druncor soaber, stay away from Kristen Powell. Shes mine, Allahdammit. Are you threatening me? Daved Warrun has a point, and not jest the won on his hedd.

Duh nuh NUH nuh nuh NUH
Nuh NUH, nuh-nuh NUH,
Nuh nuh nuh NUH
Nuh nuh NUH
My Sharoney.

Be shure to voat in the next elecshun or raip will become leegul. And the joos controle everythig. Dont furget that.

The weekend is technically over but my conference has just begun. After three margaritas, two gins and tonics, one glass of wine and on my first beer, I’m in as good a position as ever to test that in vino veritas shibboleth, so here goes.

(more…)

Today Dick Cheney said on FoxNews that we’ve gone half a decade without a major terrorist act on U.S. soil because we’ve done a hell of a job. Compare Michael Brown, who lost his job at FEMA for only having done a heck of a job.

Memo to all Administration employees: heck is out, hell is in.

Patterico opposes jury nullification but recently proposed something even worse: abolishing the rules of evidence and letting both parties present whatever crazy “evidence” they want, be it relevant, irrelevant, racist, or whatever. Inviting juries to form conclusions based on whatever they want would cause far more judicial chaos than anything the FIJA crowd has proposed. However, I have come up with a proposal that would help the next John Peter Zenger without also helping the next O.J.: let the defendant decide whether or not to put the law on trial, and absolutely forbid the jury from nullifying, under pain of contempt, if he does not. FIJA purists may object that the jury’s “right” should not be subject to the whim of the parties to the case. Hogwash. The defendant is the one with a right to a fair trial, not the jury; they have no “right” to be there at all.

Here’s how my proposal would work. Anyone charged with a crime would have three options (other than pleading guilty, of course):

1. Plead not guilty.
2. Plead not guilty by reason of nullification.
3. Plead not guilty by reason of factual innocence and nullification.

Option #1 would result in a trial under today’s rules, except that the jury would be advised that the defendant has waived his right to challenge the law in question. Option #2 would amount to a guilty plea on the underlying offense, with the jury empaneled only to hear challenges to the law itself, or to its application to this particular defendant under these particular circumstances. Jury acquittals would now be appealable under a rigorous “abuse of discretion” standard, with convictions subject to de novo review. Option #3 would be available only when a challenge to the law and the factual allegations can be made in good faith, e.g., a person charged with prostitution could argue “I never hired a prostitute, and prostitution shouldn’t be a crime even if I did,” but a medical marijuana user could not argue “I never had a joint, and the joint that cop caught me with was medically necessary” would not. With both legal and factual issues in play, jury verdicts would now be appealable under a preponderance of evidence standard. This lesser standard would also give the real John Peter Zengers of the world an incentive to use Option #2 rather than #3 when the real issue is just with the law, and not whether the alleged conduct really took place.

Any takers?