Mar 31, 2008 at 5:56 PM by Political Chase
SurveyUSA has a new poll out showing Hillary Clinton with an overwhelming 58 to 29 lead in Kentucky. This is the first poll of the state’s Democratic Primary, which has long since been considered Hillary’s to lose.
Details: "Clinton leads narrowly in greater Louisville, but leads decisively in other parts of the state, including 4:1 in Eastern KY. Obama trails by 20 among men, trails by 37 among women." The margin of error is 4.1 percent. 10 percent chose other and only four percent were undecided.
Kentucky’s primary will be May 20, which is the same day as the Oregon primary.
Mar 31, 2008 at 5:17 PM by Political Chase
What relevance or significance might the Supreme Court ruling against the Justice Department in the William Jefferson bribery case have on lawmakers’ claims they could not expose Bush’s breaking of FISA laws because they would be violating the law?
The Court denied a Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that the FBI raid of Jefferson’s office had violated his rights under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. This would seem to be in context, at least somewhat, with a post I wrote a few months ago, where I quoted a law professor’s posit that lawmakers were not at risk of jail or fines if they blew the whistle on George Bush breaking of FISA laws.
To reiterate, Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
(emphasis added)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and others have claimed numerous times they were incensed when initially told by Cheney et al. in classified settings about Bush’s illegal wiretapping programs. But the Honorable Lawmakers claimed they were unable to publicly express their Righteous Indignation because they would be guilty of Treason or other Heinous Crimes if they adhered to their Oath.
Professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law disagreed. He writes:
The Speech and Debate clause has been interpreted to extend beyond floor speeches, e.g. to committee statements, but it unquestionably applies to floor statements. Thus, it would have been possible for Rep. Harman, or Senator Rockefeller, or the others allegedly briefed to go to the floor, either during the times when members may speak on topics of their choice, or under one of the extraordinary mechanism for privileged statements, and denounce the Bush administration’s determinate to torture helpless captives in secret offshore detention facilities.
Although Eric Lichtbau debunked Harman’s Righteous Indignation claims in his recently released book, the question remains – do lawmakers have more assurance of immunity considering the Court’s ruling today. My hunch is Professor Froomkin’s posit may have been further validated, but since I am not a constitutional lawyer, I am at best speculating.
Mar 31, 2008 at 12:38 PM by Political Chase
President Bush was booed last night at the Washington Nationals’ opener last night in National Park. The crowd loudly booed Bush as he walked to the pitcher’s mound to deliver the opening pitch and continued taunting him until he left the field.
Watch it (h/t - ThinkProgress).
I’m surprised he agreed to make the appearance. I can’t remember the last time I saw Bush appear before anything but a select crowd where he was assured a positive reception.
Mar 31, 2008 at 11:54 AM by Political Chase
(updated below)
The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is expected to endorse Barack Obama today. But more significantly, the Journal reports the entire NC House delegation is "poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group" before the May 6 NC primary. How often is a state’s entire House delegation going to make a unanimous decision on a primary candidate?
Their individual endorsements are important if for no other reason than increasing the number of Obama’s superdelegates, but the collective decision seems to say much more than mere endorsement. It sends a strong message about moving the party in a specific direction and it will certainly be influential on NC Democratic Primary voters.
It also makes a statement about the perceived viability of Sen. Clinton’s campaign. At some point superdelegates are going to rally behind one candidate and it will be the candidate viewed as more electable. At the end of the day, they’re politicians and they will be looking out for their own interests — what will serve them best overall in the long-term. Siding with a loser has zero advantages.
Update: Sen. Amy Klobuchar has announced her endorsement of Obama. Also, the Obama campaign denies they have the NC House delegation locked up:
"We’re pleased to have the support of Rep. Butterfield and are working to earn the endorsement of his colleagues in the NC Congressional delegation. Despite the Wall Street Journal’s optimism, none of them has told our campaign that they are ready to announce their endorsement of Senator Obama — so we’ll keep working on it."
