Patterico's Pontifications


Deep Throat Dies

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:52 am

Mark Felt was 95.

Barack Obama and I Now Have Something in Common . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:49 am

We’ve both been Atrios’s Wanker of the Day.

(Atrios is mad at Obama over the whole Rick Warren thing.)

I have two questions for the Obama people who are shocked by the fact that Obama has picked Prop-8-supporting minister Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation:

1) When Obama said he opposed gay marriage, did you believe him?

2) When Obama sat and listened to a bigoted preacher for 20 years, and then said he didn’t subscribe to any of the preacher’s hate-filled ideas, did you believe him?

To Sacramento Democrats, the Law Is Apparently Just a Nuisance to Be Skirted

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:41 am

When even the L.A. Times calls your scheme “brazen,” you know it’s bad.

Democrats in California are planning to illegally raise taxes through a simple shell game:

The proposal would employ an arcane loophole in state law that lets legislators pass a tax bill with a simple majority vote — if the bill does not raise more revenue.

The Democrats intend to do two things: eliminate some existing fees, including those on gasoline, and substitute tax increases that would include a 9.9% levy on oil extraction and the income tax surcharge.

Under the proposal, the Democrats would then reimpose the gas fees at higher levels; fees can be raised with simple majority votes. The gas money would go to roads and transportation. The net effect would be billions of dollars in new revenue for the state.

Like I said: a shell game. And, yes, “brazen.” It’s clear that the Democrats’ attitude is: to hell with the law that says you can’t do this.

Anyone who supports this scheme doesn’t respect the law. It’s that simple.

JRM Answers Past Criminal Law Hypos and Poses Some New Ones

Filed under: Crime,General — Patterico @ 12:34 am

Over at The Jury Talks Back, JRM gives his views on his sentencing hypotheticals.

His answers and mine line up pretty well.

On the first, I said that a 25-to-life sentence was the correct legal answer, but that I’d be OK with a sentence of 5-10 years if it weren’t for the Three Strikes law. JRM says he’d give the guy nine.

On the second, I said I’d give 5-6 years, depending on the defendant’s sincerity in renouncing criminal activity. He said he could see a court giving 4-7 years, and would opt for the low end of 4 years if the guy flipped on his cohorts.

I’m summarizing his answers; read the whole thing for his more complete and very interesting views.

JRM also has a new hypothetical that gives you two fact patterns, and asks you what crime each defendant has committed, and what the punishment (if any) should be. Go answer that one now.

Pictures from Our 2008 Vacations, 6

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:33 am

Big Sur, August 21, 2008

« Previous Page

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2392 secs.