Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2010

Biden vs Brown on Military Law

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 9:09 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

From Politico:

“On CBS’s “Face the Nation” last weekend, Biden shot back that he doesn’t “know whether the new senator from Massachusetts understands: When you get tried in a military tribunal, you get a lawyer, too.

“He’s trying to give me a lesson on military law, and I didn’t think it was appropriate,” Brown told POLITICO. “And I thought he was off base when it comes to explaining to the American people that somehow I need a lesson on whether people get attorneys — of course they get attorneys. There’s a difference as to what type of attorney they’re going to get and when they’re going to get that attorney, and how are they treated, and what rights do they, in fact, get.”

Brown said he is particularly incensed by Biden’s remarks because he’s served in the Massachusetts Army National Guard for more than 30 years and is currently the Guard’s top defense attorney in New England.

“I know the military rules and regulations and procedures from A to Z,” Brown said.”

Very few attorneys are familiar with military rules and regulations except for those who practice military law, so I’m doubtful Biden knows much about the topic. It would be an interesting area of inquiry if a reporter were so inclined.

— DRJ

82 Responses to “Biden vs Brown on Military Law”

  1. biden doesn’t know much about anything which is why he was selected as vp. Without knowing anything he couldn’t show up obama who doesn’t know much of anything either.

    A classic case of dumb or dumber. I will let you put them in the appropriate order.

    Jim (582155)

  2. Just imagine if a GOP pol called out BHO on some aspect of Con Law and had the audacity to question his knowledge of same!

    This is a fantastic Gotcha! moment. The conservative blogosphere needs to go to town on this one.

    Ed from SFV (f6a87d)

  3. To call Biden an idiot is to insult idiots. If Obama actually knew Con Law he would not propose most of his legislative proposals. Perhaps the GOP should calling out BHO on his supposed Con Law knowledge.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  4. Except BHO is not a constitutional lawyer whereas Brown is a military lawyer.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  5. a sillvillian calling out a serving JAG officer, and a senior one at that, on Military Law???

    Joe, you ignorant slut…..

    (my money’s on the O-5…. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. Joe Biden really is an ignorant moron.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  7. DRJ,

    I believe you may be incorrectly attributing the last bolded quote to Biden. I read it that way on a quick skim. It’s poorly written and skips around, but it’s Brown who is making that claim.

    Cory J (e9e07a)

  8. That being said, it’s certainly dumb for Biden to call out Brown and say that Brown lacks understanding on the topic.

    Cory J (e9e07a)

  9. So is Biden trying to say that a miltary trial and trial in a local U.S. District Court are the same?

    That is crazy. No jury in a military court. And I am sure that the rules in a military court don’t hinge on Miranda rights. And I doubt that the prosecution has to turn over state secrets.

    The KSM trial will see lots of attempts of the defense to reveal military secrets as well as to attack the Bush administration’s techniques in protecting America.

    And that’s why Obama is doing this. Don’t believe that the AG did this without running it by Obama.

    Alta Bob (e8af2b)

  10. Joe Biden is just a drunken Irishman who embarrasses Obama according to Ann Coulter. Geraldo didn’t like the line and neither did Joe Trippi, who was also appearing on the show.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  11. Joe Biden is just a drunken Irishman who embarrasses Obama according to Ann Coulter. Geraldo didn’t like the line and neither did Joe Trippi, who was also appearing on the show.

    i didn’t know Geraldo was Irish, and i take it Joe is from Trippirary…. tell’em both to have a pint and get over and then it’ll be St. Paddy’s day before either one s*bers up enough to notice, and, by that time, they won’t even remember why their kickers are knotted up, assuming they haven’t lost them entirely by then.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  12. Cory J,

    I used the title Biden vs Brown because I was trying to compare Biden’s quote (the first bolded section) with Brown’s quote (the second bolded section). I’ll add bolding to the second-to-last paragraph to make that more clear, and thanks for pointing that out.

    DRJ (6a8003)

  13. there are protections similar to Miranda rights in the UCMJ, but regular military prosecutions under the UCMJ for service members accused of criminal misconduct are not the same as military tribunals for terrorists.

    that being said, i doubt that any currently serving senior JAG officer, or even a junior one, has not conducted significant research, participated in official training or had professional discussions on the issue in question. it’s my bus fare bet that, except for a few lawyers at the “Volokh” or “Beldar” level, they are the most current and well read people on the issue, simply because they will actually have to face it, and their OER’s will reflect their knowledge, or lack there of, should they be called.

    you can be an incompetent and make O-5, but its hard, and you are rarely allowed to be in high profile positions if you are. they have to *really* hate you to skyline you like that. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  14. DRJ,

    Gotcha. I thought either interpretation was reasonable; that’s why I said you “may have” misattributed the quote.

    When I first read the story, I thought the quote was a natural continuation of Biden’s earlier quote. I guess that reflects my bias about Biden that I instantly assume he is dumb enough to give a lecture about one small area of military law and then go on to claim he knows everything about military law.

    Cory J (e9e07a)

  15. I guess that reflects my bias about Biden that I instantly assume he is dumb enough to give a lecture about one small area of military law and then go on to claim he knows everything about military law.

    Heh. It does sound like something he might do.

    DRJ (6a8003)

  16. In their 2008 debate, Palin suggested that Article I of the US Constitution was about the legislative branch and Biden jumped in to correct her, saying that Article I was about the Executive (you idiot).

    Sadly, Palin did not have the courage of her convictions, as she was right and Mr Judiciary Committee Chairman was clueless as usual.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  17. It would be an interesting area of inquiry if a reporter were so inclined

    LOL, DRJ plants a seed although i doubt that a MSM reporter would be so inclined

    james conrad (6aa946)

  18. Biden ranked 76th out of 85 graduates in his class from Syracuse University College of Law, and he flunked two classes in addition to the one in which he was initially given an F for plagiarism (but was allowed to re-take).

    How could we doubt the legal acumen of such an academic superstar?

    Beldar (975641)

  19. Seriously, though: DRJ’s right that “[v]ery few attorneys are familiar with military rules and regulations except for those who practice military law.” But that in no way excuses Biden (and I don’t read DRJ as in any way attempting to do that).

    The big-picture differences between legal rights and procedures in the civilian system and in the military commission system established for terrorists — including precisely such things as when, whether, and for what purposes an accused is entitled to advice and representation by counsel — have been absolutely crucial to several sets of proposed and enacted federal legislation. Those differences have also been the determinative factors in a series of federal court rulings, including SCOTUS rulings, in which the military commissions legislation has been tested, was found wanting, and then (after revision) was ultimately approved. No Representative or Senator who’s served since 9/11/01 can possibly contend that he or she has been legitimately unaware of those big-picture differences, since that would be tantamount to saying he or she had no clue about the most substantive and important details of the legislation upon which he or she has been repeatedly voting.

    Of course, in Biden’s case, that would be a truthful admission, which is yet another reason we’ll never hear it. He lies as reflexively as he breathes, and even if he knew he was being disingenuous and inaccurate in the accusation he was hurling at Brown, Biden simply wouldn’t have cared.

    Nor will, frankly, will the portion of the public who reflexively supports Biden and Obama and excuses their whoppers. Truth and fairness are concepts they consider quaint and dispensable; all that counts for them is winning by any means.

    Beldar (975641)

  20. Q: What are two of the most chilling words in modern political discourse?

    A: “President Biden” …

    Joe Biden is Barack Obama’s version of Spiro Agnew: life insurance.

    Mike G in Corvallis (70f47e)

  21. Biden’s son Beau is a military lawyer. He spent his deployment at Camp Victory making sure that if any insurgents got shot, the proper soldier was charged.
    …. just kidding about the last part, but he did spend his time at Camp Victory

    “Biden is a member of the Delaware Army National Guard and serves as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps as part of the 261st Signal Brigade in Smyrna, Delaware.”

    I wonder if Brown is his senior officer

    SteveG (11baba)

  22. Jose padilla had a lawyer and that didn’t stop the US government from turning him insane and finally trying him in a criminal court.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  23. The words President Biden are positively chilling. While it would apocalyptically funny to watch a real life version of President Tug Benson.

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  24. Jose padilla had a lawyer and that didn’t stop the US government from turning him insane and finally trying him in a criminal court.

    Right, the insanity of the ex-con who ran off to join Al Qaeda is totally BOOSHES FAULT ELEVENTY!!!!

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  25. “Right, the insanity of the ex-con who ran off to join Al Qaeda is totally BOOSHES FAULT ELEVENTY!!!!”

    Or maybe you just don’t know what I’m talking about.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  26. imdw…

    YOU don’t know what you’re talking about….

    reff (176333)

  27. Your threadjack is a case involving a US citizen who converted to Islam in prison, then ran off to join Al Qaeda, was jerked around by their guys, then sent back to the US with evidence of a plan to detonate a dirty bomb. Normally, he would have been dumped in a military prison, but the fact that he was a US citizen made his fate uncertain. While trying US citizens in military courts isn’t unprecedented (Ex Parte Quirin for example), it’s very rare. The 5 or so years he spent in Guantanamo while there was legal wrangling to figure out where to bring charges is the result of the extraordinary facts of the case. But you’re right, I have no idea what I’m talking about you pompous ignoramus.

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  28. Or maybe you just don’t know what I’m talking about.

    A far more reasonable explanation is that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Something that frequently demonstrate in this venue. Would you care to explain why it is that you are compelled to come here and act the ignoramus?

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  29. Perhaps Biden is confusing the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (assistance of counsel before, during and after trial) with the Fifth Amendment right to counsel (presence of a lawyer to prevent coerced self-incrimination).

    Commodore (3b38e7)

  30. Is Hadlowe new? I like this new person, whoever they are… 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (46e187)

  31. #28 EW1: …that you frequently…

    And no, Hadlowe and I are not in any communication. Our serendipitous vocabulary choices reflect solely upon the object of my post.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  32. imd-dumbass, you are an insane Liberal Cultist.

    I’ll have to ask my lawyer his opinion of this. He a retired Marine Col JAG. He got the conviction of Bobby Garwood for desertion in Vietnam.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  33. 2. This is a fantastic Gotcha! moment. The conservative blogosphere needs to go to town on this one.
    Comment by Ed from SFV —

    The really sad thing is that nearly everyone who knows anything already knows that VP Biden is not one to be taken seriously, and more evidence for that is not going to make a difference.

    I think the best spokeperson about why a military tribunal is needed is Andy McCarthy, who can readily discuss the problems resulting from using a criminal trial for terrorism with his expewrience trying the “Blind Sheikh” behind the 1st bombing of the WTC.

    Of course, you lawyer-folk may have another opinion that will correct me.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  34. Mr Jacobs, I don’t know why you like Hadlowe. He’s just another very well informed individual with a sharp-edged delivery.

    John Hitchcock (365e79)

  35. “The 5 or so years he spent in Guantanamo while there was legal wrangling to figure out where to bring charges is the result of the extraordinary facts of the case.”

    Padilla was not in Guantanamo.

    imdw (c4ad6c)

  36. Padilla should have been in the ground for the last five years….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  37. You are correct about Guantanamo. It has been a few years since I looked at Padilla. That said, it doesn’t change the fact that your threadjack has little to no bearing on the subject of the thread, but is a mere invocation of a threadbare progressive shibboleth. It’s so reflexive that there’s almost no cognitive input, like a software loop that looks for certain key phrases, then, regardless of context, spits out preprogrammed counterpoints.

    If “military tribunals”;
    Then “Padilla”;

    Never mind that the post was regarding a brainless utterance by that embarrassing goofus Biden. Never mind that the controversy about Padilla was not his representation in a military court, but the lack of habeus corpus since charges were not brought against him in either a military or civilian court for years. The software loop has spoken, and so must the inane output that the loop demands. So crawl back in your hidey hole and wait for the next keyword in your loop to trigger a banal and unimaginitive response.

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  38. “You are correct about Guantanamo. It has been a few years since I looked at Padilla”

    So have you looked at how he turned out?

    “That said, it doesn’t change the fact that your threadjack has little to no bearing on the subject of the thread”

    Little to do with what having a lawyer means. I see.

    “The software loop has spoken, and so must the inane output that the loop demands. So crawl back in your hidey hole and wait for the next keyword in your loop to trigger a banal and unimaginitive response.”

    All this time you spent writing this, you could have spent reading about Padilla. Or eating an ice cream cone.

    imdw (72206b)

  39. That said, it doesn’t change the fact that your threadjack has little to no bearing on the subject of the thread, but is a mere invocation of a threadbare progressive shibboleth. It’s so reflexive that there’s almost no cognitive input, like a software loop that looks for certain key phrases, then, regardless of context, spits out preprogrammed counterpoints.

    That is the most nearly perfect definition of imdw I have read. Hadlowe, are you a psychiatrist or deprogrammer of mind-bending cult victims? 😉

    nk (db4a41)

  40. Gotta give credit to Hadlowe – the first response to imadimwit and he calls it exactly right. Wait a few more posts, soon enough his description of “pompous ignoramus” will seem almost charitable by comparison.

    Dmac (799abd)

  41. Wow, that didn’t take long, did it?

    Dmac (799abd)

  42. Someone should go into the archives and re – post imadimwit’s characterization of all those who disagree with it pedophiliacs.

    Dmac (799abd)

  43. Abdullah Muhajir ‘Servant of the Foreigner’ that’s the name Padilla chose, as Thiessen points out, the KSM interrogation revealed how he was put together
    with El Shukrijumah, to work on a dirty bomb, theydidn’t get along, so he was teamed up with Binyam Mohammed, an UK national of Ethiopian background, who was rendered back to England, early last year.

    ian cormac (b07ff6)

  44. “Someone should go into the archives and re – post imadimwit’s characterization of all those who disagree with it pedophiliacs.”

    Say whaaa?

    imdw (490521)

  45. Did you miss the part up above about extraordinary facts? Padilla happened to land in a hole in the law that hadn’t been looked at seriously since WWII; US citizens aiding and abetting an enemy who had declared war on the country. Used to be, that was a hanging offense.

    And it has little to no bearing on access to an attorney in a military tribunal. Since Padilla was not charged with a crime for years while incarcerated, his access to counsel under military court rules is not in question. His habeas corpus rights were violated, but again, extraordinary facts offer some support for the violation under Ex Parte Quirin.

    And as to his supposed insanity, (which has no bearing on Biden’s inanity) how sane was he when he ran off to join Al Qaeda? Ignoring the fact that the civilian court that convicted him found he was competent to stand trial, if he fell into insanity, he didn’t have a very long fall.

    So how exactly is Padilla’s case relevant to Biden’s spurious allegation that Scott Brown doesn’t know the ins and outs of military legal rules?

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  46. Hadlowe, imd-dumbass is throwing feces on the wall trying to win a rhetorical point. imd-dumbass can’t hack reality. It needs deprogramming from the Cult of Liberal Thought.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  47. Or maybe you just don’t know what I’m talking about.

    Comment by imdw

    You know, that is the usual situation around here. We never know what you are talking about except we know it is coming from the left.

    From Wikipedia

    On February 22, 2007, at the competency hearing, Angela Hegarty, a psychiatrist hired by Padilla’s defense, said that after 22 hours of examining Padilla it was her opinion that he was mentally unfit to stand trial. She said that he exhibited “a facial tic, problems with social contact, lack of concentration and a form of Stockholm syndrome.” She diagnosed his condition as post-traumatic stress disorder.[29][30] She told the court “It’s my opinion that he lacks the capacity to assist counsel. He has a great deal of difficulty talking about the current case before him.”[30] In cross examination Federal prosecutor John Shipley pointed out that Padilla had a score of zero on Hegarty’s post-traumatic stress disorder test and pointed out that this information was omitted in her final report. Hegarty responded that this omission was an error on her part.[30] Another psychiatrist hired by the defense testified along the same lines. The Miami Herald reported that a “U.S. Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist who believes Padilla is fit to face trial and Defense Department officials — are expected to testify at the ongoing hearing before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke.”

    Yup, it sure looks like he went looney, all right. He had a facial tic, for example. Everybody knows that’s a sign of craziness, at least to a psychiatrist hired by the defense.

    Great post, dope.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  48. “US citizens aiding and abetting an enemy who had declared war on the country. Used to be, that was a hanging offense.”

    It’s called treason. I know it got kind of icky around reconstruction, but yeah it’s a crime.

    “And it has little to no bearing on access to an attorney in a military tribunal”

    The point is he had access to a lawyer as a declared enemy combatant even without a tribunal.

    “And as to his supposed insanity, (which has no bearing on Biden’s inanity) how sane was he when he ran off to join Al Qaeda?”

    You’re not familiar with his condition, are you?

    “So how exactly is Padilla’s case relevant to Biden’s spurious allegation that Scott Brown doesn’t know the ins and outs of military legal rules?”

    Padilla is just one example, but “spending money on lawyers” isn’t the wingnut talking point it is cracked up to be. What matters is what happens after there’s a lawyer. So find a new talking point.

    imdw (e870b9)

  49. imd-dumbass, I’ll pay for and shoot the bullet that takes care of Padilla. Kindly stand between.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  50. So, imdw hijacks another thread. Sigh. I don’t know who is the more hopeless attention-seeking troll: imdw with these red-meat idiocies here, or Biden trolling all of us.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  51. This kind of intentional and willful obtusity if par for the course with dimwit.

    JD (ae4c43)

  52. With Scott Brown it looks as if we not only got a new Senator but a higher quality of Senator. His willingness to immediately and publicly call people (Biden) out in a respectful manner and correct the facts is something that was not done well at all by most officials during the Bush administration. Ignoring slurs and lies, rather than correcting the record, often causes a serious re-write of history related to that person’s reputation that can take decades to fix. It appears Scott was watching this and learning.

    Patterico’s emphasis on exposing and correcting published errors and lies on many subjects and on many occasions is also to be commended.

    elissa (34c4db)

  53. The point is he had access to a lawyer as a declared enemy combatant even without a tribunal.

    Manifestly not so. Part of the major controversy during the early years of Padilla’s incarceration is that he was not allowed access to counsel or his access was severely limited as he was not officially charged with a crime. Through much work and pressure, the ACLU was able to get access and provide him with counsel, something I commend them for.

    Padilla is just one example,

    And this is the very crux of the problem. Padilla is the embodiment of the old saw that good facts make bad law. But don’t let that stop you from bringing it up whenever someone mentions military trials. Wouldn’t want to add complexity to the preprogrammed response system, after all.

    but “spending money on lawyers” isn’t the wingnut talking point it is cracked up to be. What matters is what happens after there’s a lawyer. So find a new talking point.

    I frankly have no idea what this means. The post is on Biden alleging that Scott Brown has a lack of familiarity with the rules of military law. Where in that is there a “wingnut talking point” about “spending money on lawyers,” whatever that means?

    But enough with the misdirection. Padilla’s case does nothing to rebut Scott Brown’s point about military law, nor does it make Biden less a windbag.

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  54. “With Scott Brown it looks as if we not only got a new Senator but a higher quality of Senator. His willingness to immediately and publicly call people (Biden) out in a respectful manner and correct the facts is something that was not done well at all by most officials during the Bush administration.”

    What is particularly annoying about him is that he should — and indeed does — know what a crappy talking point it was that he was advancing.

    imdw (803b85)

  55. “Where in that is there a “wingnut talking point” about “spending money on lawyers,” whatever that means?”

    So you don’t know what it was that Scott Brown said that led Biden to allege that Brown had a lack of familiarity here? I see.

    Would it be misdirection for me to add it here, and you prefer to find it on your own, or you want me to go find it?

    imdw (803b85)

  56. –What is particularly annoying about him is that he should — and indeed does — know what a crappy talking pont it was that he was advancing–

    You must be referring to Biden here.

    elissa (34c4db)

  57. Hadlowe (since imdw is going all passive-agressive here), Scott Brown stated (I paraphrase). We should spend money to defeat terrorists, not to provide lawyers to defend them.

    He repeated that line at his post election celebration.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  58. I am aware of that. However, when imdw brought up the talking point, it was in a post directed at me. At no point in this thread have I made an argument about the costs of attorneys, so it was a complete non-sequitur. If he was meaning that Scott Brown should find a new talking point, he should have said so when he brought it up the first time.

    Apologies if I conflated his non-sequitur responses to me with an ambiguous non-sequitur addressed at Scott Brown, or conservatives in general, or DRJ. I can’t really tell who it was addressed to.

    Hadlowe (f36744)

  59. [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Comment by MD in Philly — 2/16/2010

    I don’t remember being moderated before, was it an over active filter? being too off topic? My Al Gore fan club membership and tattoo on my R shoulder????

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  60. “At no point in this thread have I made an argument about the costs of attorneys, so it was a complete non-sequitur. If he was meaning that Scott Brown should find a new talking point, he should have said so when he brought it up the first time.”

    Hint: it’s not about you.

    imdw (603c39)

  61. I don’t remember being moderated before, was it an over active filter?
    Comment by MD in Philly — 2/16/2010 @ 9:19 am

    The keyword was “Sheikh”. Not your fault at all. (Unless you meant the tattoo was of Al Gore, then we may need to talk) 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  62. Hadlowe, for imdw, information only flows out; it is seemingly incapable of taking in new information and digesting it properly. Many have tried; good luck to you if you endeavor to pursue such a path.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  63. Not your fault at all. (Unless you meant the tattoo was of Al Gore, then we may need to talk)
    Comment by Stashiu3 — 2/16/2010

    Thanks for the response.

    That was the intended meaning, but I was just trying to be funny, really…

    Come to think of it, I should be reading what you have posted on Amy Bishop, but you have probably done the more responsible thing and just kept quiet in the face of uncertainty.

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  64. It’s called treason. I know it got kind of icky around reconstruction, but yeah it’s a crime.

    A “crime” that a Democratic president, FDR, decided to deal with by having the American citizen dealt with using a military tribunal and a firing squad.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. Come to think of it, I should be reading what you have posted on Amy Bishop, but you have probably done the more responsible thing and just kept quiet in the face of uncertainty.
    Comment by MD in Philly — 2/16/2010 @ 9:49 am

    Yep. Lots of information available, but I get the feeling there is more coming and will wait for a bit. I will say (since I haven’t seen anyone else say it yet) that I don’t believe she was legally insane or of diminished capacity. Too much premeditation, organization, and history.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  66. “A “crime” that a Democratic president, FDR, decided to deal with by having the American citizen dealt with using a military tribunal and a firing squad.”

    Well if FDR did it. I guess that means… what? We need another CCC as well?

    imdw (b67c0f)

  67. Do the handful of traitors that FDR executed outweigh the thousands not executed during reconstruction? Some might say so.

    imdw (b67c0f)

  68. I don’t remember being moderated before, was it an over active filter? being too off topic? My Al Gore fan club membership and tattoo on my R shoulder????

    Comment by MD in Philly — 2/16/2010 @ 9:19 am

    I don’t know whether it was my misspelling of Jean Anouilh or my mention of Shakespeare that put me in moderation in another thread, MD in Philly.

    The best comment site on the internet is having a lot of problems, lately.

    [note: released from moderation. The word “Sheikh”, or variations of it like “Shake” as in “Shakespeare” automatically get filtered. The result of a persistent troll in the past. Nothing reflecting any current commenters. –Stashiu]

    nk (db4a41)

  69. I sure hope ice cream doesn’t get filtered. That stuff is gooooood.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  70. As I said last year, Joe Biden is Barack Obama’s best insurance against assasination.

    Bored Lawyer (c8f13b)

  71. The best comment site on the internet is having a lot of problems, lately.

    Not the least of which is getting pages to load.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c781de)

  72. Comment by Bored Lawyer — 2/16/2010 @ 11:01 am

    As is the Speaker of the House for the Veep.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c781de)

  73. From one non sequitur to an even more incoherent non sequitur.

    We need better trolls.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  74. While we are doing a bit of free association, I’ll share something I just saw on Fox while taking a lunch break.

    Megyn Kelly (a lawyer) was talking with the weather reporter and asked a “Carsonesque”:
    “Do you know how cold it is?”
    “No, how cold is it?”
    “It is so cold I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.”

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  75. Well thank goodness we didn’t end up with a STOOPID vice president.

    joe (9955cf)

  76. Some might say so.

    Ah, there it is – the last bullet for our loyal Troll. Always goes for the strawman when it’s arguments are beclowned – it has learned it’s lessons well from it’s master in the WH.

    Say whaaa?

    The rhetorical brilliance on dispay here is amazing.

    Dmac (799abd)

  77. We need better trolls.

    Biden.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  78. Comment by joe — 2/16/2010 @ 11:46 am
    Stoopid would be a step up from what we’ve got.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c781de)

  79. SPQR – Pres. Roosevelt, or more likely someone reporting to him, also decided to have Americans of Japanese ancestry rounded up and kept in relocation camps for several years.

    I don’t think the fact that Pres. Roosevelt’s administration did that constitutes per se evidence of constitutionality, that proper procedure was followed, or that it would be legal for the current president to do what he did.

    It does constitute evidence that the understanding of the law preferred by contemporary liberals is not the historic understanding, and it shifts some of the burden of supporting the argument to us. But it doesn’t refute the argument; and, as a means of argumentation, it reeks of appeal to authority: “this guy who you like did it, so it must be OK”.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  80. […] No Sheeples Here: I’d Rather Have A Bottle In Front Of Me Patterico’s Pontifications: Biden vs Brown on Military Law Gateway Pundit: Joe Biden in 2002: “We Have to Eliminate Saddam”… Joe Biden in 2010: “Iraq […]

    When LA Times & Rockefeller Take Obama and Biden to Task, You Know the Dem Party Is Knee-Deep in Cow Patties (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  81. 29.Perhaps Biden is confusing the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (assistance of counsel before, during and after trial) with the Fifth Amendment right to counsel (presence of a lawyer to prevent coerced self-incrimination).
    Comment by Commodore — 2/16/2010 @ 6:25 am

    — Biden is confusing reality with Lunchbucket Joe’s World, where everything “the other side” does is automatically wrong, regardless of the inconvenient truth.

    Icy Texan (33337e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1142 secs.