The Daily Telegraph; home to sad, loser Tories for as long as anyone can remember. Also features half naked girls ever second day to help the 80 year old ex-colonels who constitute, eh, 50% of its readership get excited. Other than that, comedy entertainment can be got by sad middle class tossers whining about excessive private school fees, plus a letters page full of armchair reactionaries. It a larf….

However, the sports pages are not bad…..

The slow (and of course, not so slow) erosion of any credibility that these RW goons have is interesting. In contrast to actual dissent from the likes of Krugman and Greenwald the RW stuff is getting more nit picking and less substantial.
These guys are obviously unused to being in opposition to the government so are tending to highlight what might be seen as “the easy stuff”. One can pounce on any unregarded thing like this minor law change and spin straw into, alleged, gold. Only, the glitter paint wears off and… it’s straw.
And no matter how often that happens, no matter how many times their tomdickery is proved, they will be back with more of the same tomorrow with no apology.
So why do they do it? Consider: they inhabit the blogaquarium and have a pretty solid core of readers. Will they win any new converts by this cavalcade of nonsense? No, I think that they will only impress the core readership and the new attention will be from the likes of SN! which has got to sting.
They won’t get new readers because 1) the citizenship is actually unaware of their existence and 2) how many times do you have to see someone get slapped down before you realise that they are a bozo and stop reading them?
Still, these are interesting times.

Gavin, your admirably prodigious and timely output of late has rendered me virtually commentless. Heck, all I’ve done over the last few weeks is potter in the garden and chop firewood for next winter. If only my axe could be so finely ground… is it hormonal osmosis that lends you such lucid acuity?

You gotta love the constant whine from the right that “Bush couldn’t have gotten away with this” or “Can you imagine if Bush did that?” or even “The liberal MSM would be tearing up Bush’s asshole for doing that!” and other such statements. As though Bush hasn’t gotten away scot free after wiping his ass with the Constitution, starting an unnecessary war using a bullshit premise, destroying the US’s reputation and turning us all into accessories to brutal torture.

Jesus, Obama is already getting it worse from the media than Bush ever did. What these assholes are really angry about is that the American people like Obama better, and the only possible explanation for that is librul media brainwashing, cuz just look at the guy. How could any red-blooded American approve of that guy as President? And how dare you call me a racist, it has nothing to do with his duskiness, and everything to do with… uh… like, his birth certificate and, um… well he looks like a, a, er, a commie! Yeah, he’s a socialist. I didn’t even notice his negrosity. Yeah, his spending has me outraged. Sure.

The fact is, Obsama’s time is almost up and his plan to destroy USA=fail. We, the heartland, will take back USA in name of freedom.

What is it with trolls and omitting the definite article from “the USA”? Is it a hint that the troll in question is a parody?

Gary R. was kidding, right? In fact, his entire Twitter account could have been written by Colbert.

Searching the Gazoogle for Garuppert’s portmanteau creation ‘Obsama’ turns out to be a passport to about 3610 websites, and MOST OF THEM WERE SHOUTING AT ME.

Well, no wonder, S.C.

The S.C. clan is a bit scary…

Remember this was the same crowd of idjits who, a year ago, would be glad to bend your ear for hours about how “criminals have all the rights in this country, thanks to libruls!”

Well, I give the “say anything blog” partial credit for at least living up to its name.

Also, you have to ask yourself, can you imagine the outcry if libruls had launched such a patently ridiculous straw-man attack on King George?

Funny. They didn’t seem all that concerned that the guys Bush had tortured had no access, none, to attorneys. Not even US citizen Jose Padilla, if memory serves. But that was just a policy difference, and if it’s prosecuted, it’s because it’s just a political witchhunt.

Thus continues the right’s proud tradition of swallowing camels while gagging on gnats.

The “shorter” answer to this is, of course: “Obama can’t remove a defendant’s right to an attorney, because Bush already did it.”

There’s something appropriate about their ignorance of the difference between the Fifth vs. Sixth amendment rights to counsel. I mean, if torture’s OK, the Fifth has gotta be an empty letter, right?

Because the Sixth Amendment applies to 2 the federal government

I read that first as “applies 2 the federal government” and worried that the SCOTUS was reduced in these dark End Times to texting slang.

Hey – the pic at the top – I always had the theory that wearing your baseball cap backwards reduced your I.Q. ’cause it set up a counter-current in the brain that reduced its efficency. I see if you take someone who’s not very bright and do it, it also eliminates any ability to access memories from the last decade or so.

As a public defender (and on most issues an Obama supporter), I find the Justice Department’s brief pretty disgusting.

Ruling that a defendant may “waive” counsel after asserting that right in court would encourage the police to interrogate defendants without notifying their lawyers after coercing the defendant into “waiving” counsel.

Another likely prospect is that police will interrogate suspects while a criminal case is pending and falsely claim that a defendant waived counsel.

Nothing good for civil liberties here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/us-amicus-in-montejo-4-14-09.pdf

Please, please, please tell me that you photoshopped in that pic of K-Lo. Any man that has a cheesecake shot of K-Lo on his wall needs to turn in his balls.

Who knew Jack Black’s stunt double was a wingnut blogger?

Any man that has a cheesecake shot of K-Lo on his wall needs to turn in his balls.

To be fair, any picture of K-Lo is bound to show evidence of recent cheesecake consumption.

Any man that has a cheesecake shot of K-Lo on his wall needs to turn in his balls.

Please to stop comparing K-Lo and cheesecake.

I like cheesecake.

AdrianLesher:

Based on this: Whether or not the newfangled Obama Justice Department is on the right side in this case (which seems unlikely), and y’know, my own inside information, I don’t think Gav is arguing that what the Justice Department is doing is right. I think he’s just pointing out that it’s not what these wingnuts are saying is happening (and that they also ignored everything Bush did along these lines).

PS – good for you, on the public defender thing!

But isn’t Gavin’s quote from the SCOTUS blog is a statement of the current policy? As Gavin says, the Obama justice department is trying to change the policy, so what are they trying to change it to?

I’m coming to believe right wingers aren’t hypocrites per se. They’re more like goldfish or less intelligent house pets. They’re incapable of considering events from any but their own personal point of view, so all events are analyzed in the context of the last 15 minutes of their lives.

When a Republican is in charge, then civil rights are irritating give aways to criminals by the liberal bleeding hearts. When Obsama is in charge, running his campaign of harrassment and persecution against right wingers (ie writing an accurate report about their plans to engage in violence to pursue political aims), then civil rights are vital freedoms in need of voiciferous defence against oppression.

While the two sentiments are contradictory, right wingers believe each at the time they state it, because they’re incapable of contextualizing.

As Digby and others have noted, they really never do learn anything from the past. It all goes into the memory hole. These people loved Sarah Palin, who is the natural sequel to the Bush presidency: Second verse, same as the first, little bit louder and a little bit worse.

Isn’t Obama the guy that got video cameras put in all interrogation rooms in Illinois?

Isn’t Obama the guy that got video cameras put in all interrogation rooms in Illinois?

This proves he is trying to expand the surveillance state and spy on PATRIOTIC Americans at all times in their lives! Next he will want to be able to spy on your library records!!!

Never mind about that!! What’s important is that Obama went out in public wearing SHORTS!

“during a golf outing to Andrews Air Force Base on Sunday, the commander-in-chief broke a style dictate that says grown men should never wear shorts.”

Further proof that George Bush never existed.

First they’re letting “them” on the golf courses, then they’re letting “them” wear shorts on the golf courses!

Oh, and become president. Also.

OMG, don’t you all understand? USA is being run by a black man! Panic! Panic! Panic!

Michigan v. Jackson held that a defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is presumed invalid if the police initiate interrogation after he has asserted the right at an arraignment or similar proceeding.

Lemme see if I understand this: a guy is arrested. The police want to ask him some questions. He asks for his lawyer. The police continue to ask questions, goading him into answering.

He rises to the bait, answering the questions, implicitly revoking his waiver.

And somehow, the police at are fault for asking the questions?

Oh, sure, you libtards would prefer that we all just be tried under Shania law, except for terrorists, who automatically get a free CRA house from Jimmy Carter.

Was “Shania” law intentional? If so, brav-o.

Well, what do you expect from someone who steals his look from Kevin Smith and his blog name from a John Cusack movie and doesn’t really understand the issues involved, he’s just gakking them from some British rag, but he’s the son of a cop and he knows what they’re like. Which should lead to some interesting convos around the Port dinner table, but that’s not my lookout.

Shania law.

Shania Law? That don’t impress me much.

Michigan v. Jackson held that a defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is presumed invalid if the police initiate interrogation after he has asserted the right at an arraignment or similar proceeding.

You know, I’m actually not 100% convinced that the DOJ is wrong here. I could easily imagine a scenario in which a defendant invokes a right to counsel, then gets his ass whomped by the police at an “interrogation” with the intent of coercing him into waiving that right in court. It would seem that this is why the intervention of a police-initiated interrogation between the pre-trial hearing and the trial is a necessary condition for this waiver to stand valid.

If this reasoning holds, I think this may be a step in favor of civil liberties rather than away from them. But there are probably other circumstances where it might actually benefit the defendant to do this. So I guess any rush to judgment is probably wrong.

Dissenting Opinion said…

Indeed, this is a potentially tricky legal issue, and therefore way beyond the scope of bumpersticker wingnut politics.

Which I believe is central to Gav’s point.

Going further on my “conservatives as house pets” theory, I think the reason they’re so unable to tolerate a Demmycrap President, or anyone “not like me” is because they essentially see the president as the “leader of the pack” alpha-dog. They never got the whole “first among equals” or “constitutionally limited leader of the constitutionally limited government” thing. “President” is synonymous with “absolute monarch” in some (overgrown) lizard part of their brains.

They really do think of the Pres as “my commander in chief” neglecting the whole “of the army and navy” rather vital qualifier.

So they’re like dogs being asked to accept leadership of the pack by a dolphin or a parrot. It just doesn’t compute and they can’t take it without shitting the rug and chewing up all the shoes.

Was “Shania” law intentional? If so, brav-o.

Dan D, are you not aware of all Internet Traditions?

As Gavin says, the Obama justice department is trying to change the policy, so what are they trying to change it to?

They want a confession not to be invalid if, after an arraignment in which a defendant claims his right to an attorney, the police initiate contact with him and he decides to talk to them without an attorney present.

I don’t think it’s a good idea, but it’s certainly not a judicial repeal of the 6th Amendment.

Remember how the right went crazy when Bush did this to lawyers & defendants?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E5DC1E3AF933A15751C0A9639C8B63

No, neither do I.

Grown men should definitely wear shorts. Brad Pitt, for example.

I’m working on a new theory.

Until now I’ve been all “Christians love to feel persecuted.” Now I’m expanding the cohort to include all Wing-Gnutts. The “can you imagine if the Right did this” trope is pure poutrage with a vital sub-text of “see how UNFAIR everything is?” at the heart of which is the touching plaint, “See how I CONTINUE to be unappreciated by the world/my peer group/the cool kids/the hot chicks/etc.?”

It may be that the events of the last eight years have driven from the right everyone except those for whom self-pity is the default emotional and psychological state. Including: emotionally-arrested adolescent geniuses, dorks, nerds with no special intellectual or artistic skill, and Daddy worshipers who need the approval of the powerful to feel Okay.

So their writings–to the world; to each other–are just a series of “See?!” and “Aren’t I right to feel ill-used?” and so forth–i.e., a philosophy and politics of nothing more than brute grievance.

First, imagine if a Republican administration were doing this. Then imagine what the media’s reaction would be.

[Pee-Wee Herman voice]

I don’t have to imagine it, Dottie – I lived it.

/[Pee-Wee Herman voice]

OT, but R.S. McCain is calling people whores:

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/whorism.html

Let’s face it, if Valenti’s ideology is embraced by liberals, this will certainly make matters simple for horny teenage boys looking for an easy score. How can you tell which girls put out? They’re the ones whose moms have Obama stickers on their minivan bumpers.

Classy.

Jennifer @ 14:07 nailed it – it’s sort of hard to take away what’s already long gone.

The Douchenozzle Nation is suffering from some serious seperation-anxiety in the absence of their beloved Commander Codpiece, & there’s nobody in the GOP who’s a viable candidate to take his place on their altars – for weak-minded followers like them, THAT’s real torture. Their Extreme-Emo sulkathon might go on for a very very long time if they can’t find a new Warrior-Daddy … let it be – the longer the merrier.

Can you imagine if the major news-media had actually done their jobs from 2000 to 2008 instead of spending nearly every minute of eight nauseating years joyfully licking Bush’s taint & telling everyone it was sweeter than honey?

Yeah … me neither.

Shorter entire wingnutosphere: It’s different now, he might take those rights away from white people!

Classy.

What a dick – and not even a creative dick. Is his bullshit any different than the Redoublechin stereotype of easy liberal girls has ever been?

Ah, somehow I had missed the shania law thing. I will punish myself with a remedial viewing of all lolcats and all your base image macros.

Re: slutty daughters. Are we forgetting Bristol Palin for gawd’s sake?

Like I said, they’re goldfish. Their highly esteemed VP nominee had a teenage daughter get pregnant in her own fucking house and still they’re going to run with “librul parents raise sluttts”

Dear Gav–

Here’s an excerpt from the Government’s brief:

But the Sixth Amendment does not require an additional, prophylactic rule that overrides a defendant’s free choice to speak with the police, in police-initiated interrogation, simply because the defendant previously has requested counsel at an arraignment.

And

The Edwards rule was established “to prevent the police from effectively overriding a defendant’s assertion of his Miranda rights by badgering him into waiving those rights.” Id. at 638 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Harvey, 494 U.S. at 350. But the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is about protecting the adversary process at trial, not about police “badgering,” so application of the Edwards rule to the Sixth Amendment never made real sense.
Concerns about police coercion are of course important, but they are well and amply addressed through the Miranda and Edwards rules.

With that last rash comment cited above, I’m afraid I can no longer turn to Mr. Robert Stacy McCain for serious and respected analysis of social issues.

Are we forgetting Bristol Palin for gawd’s sake?

I, for one, would like to.

Case in point: my own 14 year-old daughter. Raised by sex-positive liberal parents, attends a charter performing arts high school, yet she laments about how “boy crazy” the girls in her school are who come from heavily Christian and Jewish religious families are (she’s too polite to say “slutty”.)

Meanwhile, her parents essentially agree with Valenti’s premises and have taught them to our daughter, who has always been given the fact-based answers to sex questions since she was old enough to ask them, she knows where the condom drawer is but has no reason to need them yet – not interested, because she KNOWS where babies and STDs come from and has more important things to do with her life right now.

Meanwhile, an army of Bristol Palins in the Red States lead the nation in teenage pregnancy and STDs because… liberals are sluts?

Forehead. Desk. Splinters.

I, for one, would like to.

Perhaps I’m getting vindictive in my oncoming middle age, but I remind myself what conservatives would have done if Chelsea or one of the Gore daughters had gotten knocked up out of wedlock.

They deserve to be reminded of this always and forever.

Oh, DanD, I didn’t mean that as an aspersion on your comment, and yes, I want to hold their feet to the fire.

I just wish they would all just go away.

Is his bullshit any different than the Redoublechin stereotype of easy liberal girls has ever been?

And, as usual, it’s wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, an army of Bristol Palins in the Red States lead the nation in teenage pregnancy and STDs because… liberals are sluts?

That is pretty dumb, but not as contradictory as it seems – if I understand the wingnut concept of “slut” properly. If a girl is willing – or forced – to accept the “consequences” of sexual activity, i.e. STDs and pregnancy, her sluttiness is cancelled out. It’s when they want sex with impunity that they become real hos.

if I understand the wingnut concept of “slut” properly. If a girl is willing – or forced – to accept the “consequences” of sexual activity, i.e. STDs and pregnancy, her sluttiness is cancelled out.

So it’s not slutty until you use a condom?

So it’s not slutty until you use a condom?

I can’t say for sure – I think it is slutty without a condom as long as no pregnancy or STD has yet taken root. I’m no expert on wingnut sexuality – thank goodness.

actor212, ditto. No offense taken of course.

Added a couple of phrases to the last bit before the ‘read the rest’ tag.

Forgive me, they were delicious
so sweet and so cold

Couple of things here.

First, Supreme court cases do not happen in a day.

From scotusblog, emphasis mine,

The Supreme Court on March 27 told counsel to file briefs on the fate of that 23-year-old precedent. That order was issued in Montejo v. Louisiana (07-1529), a case the Justices had heard in January. The Jackson precedent is centrally at issue in that case.

Docketed June 9, ’08.

So, let’s see. Which administration was in when this whole thing got rolling? Under what AG was the government’s case developed?

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Okay, the Obama DOJ isn’t dropping a case already argued in front of the Supreme Court, and so is carrying out an assault on our liberties (that began before he was in). I suppose that the whingetards assume that the entire workings of the DOJ are put on hold while the patriotic Americans working there are all replaced with communist clones by the new administration.

Oh. Kay.

Secondly, as this is now a matter of the Judicial rather than the Executive branch, wouldn’t the wingtards get all ruffled if Obama did interject his Presidentin’ into this? I mean, I know that Republican Presidents are supposed to have ultimate, unchecked power over all three branches of government, but a Democrat? Oh come now.

I don’t think I like the government’s stance on this case, but I’d hardly put the blame on Obama.

So it’s not slutty until you use a condom?

No silly, it’s only slutty if the woman enjoys it.

Used to be that calling it immoral and a sin and an offense against God was enough to ruin it. Since that canard has lost its power over the years they need the fear of unintended pregnancy and STDs to take its place.

They hate sex education and contraceptives because they are the gravest threat yet to their ability to control the sex lives of the wimmenfolk.

He’s got a picture of K-Lo on the wall! Sick!

Remember when guys like this used to have pictures of hot chicks? Well, maybe not guys exactly like this…

Rob Port: North Dakota’s Ambassador of Stupid for way too long now.

Can you imagine what the outcry over this would have been had President John McCain, or for that matter President George W. Bush, had tried this?

Sadly, Yes…

In December 2001, while working at the Professional Responsibility and Advisory Office of the U.S. Department of Justice, Radack received an inquiry from the FBI about whether Lindh could be questioned without the presence of counsel. Radack responded that this was not permitted by law, since Lindh’s father had already retained a lawyer for him. The FBI nevertheless questioned Lindh without the presence of his lawyer. Radack thus advised that the confession should be sealed and could not be used in a criminal case against Lindh. The prosecution ignored her advice and used the evidence. Furthermore, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that “to our knowledge, (Lindh) has not chosen a lawyer (at the time of interrogation)”.

stupelanche

This looks like a Swiss dessert, Gavin. Maybe “stupi-lanche” would work better?

No silly, it’s only slutty if the woman enjoys it.

I have to correct my mom who has called all my girlfriends “sluts” in that case.

actor212 – there’s precedent for “stupelanche”, FWIW. (One of my favorite posts.)

The Edwards rule was established “to prevent the police from effectively overriding a defendant’s assertion of his Miranda rights by badgering him into waiving those rights.”
…
Isn’t Obama the guy that got video cameras put in all interrogation rooms in Illinois?

Objection, your honour! Counsel is witnessing the badger!

I heard that Obama-supporting mothers allowed their daughters to have tramp-stamps based on popular carton characters.

if I understand the wingnut concept of “slut” properly. If a girl is willing – or forced – to accept the “consequences” of sexual activity, i.e. STDs and pregnancy, her sluttiness is cancelled out.

It isn’t quite that simple. STDs just aren’t spoken of. Pregnancy cancels out sluttiness, but only if the woman pays proper penance and proves to everyone’s satisfaction that she no longer enjoys sex. If she is pregnant and carries the baby to term, and marries the father, AND overcompensates by being the bestest christian wife ever, she will generally be held in high esteem and only whispered about occasionally, in a loving and uplifting way.

If she can’t marry the father but gives birth to the child, she becomes sort of a living example to others, which is valuable enough to earn her some respect. However, she has to take an active role in warning other young girls, and find a christian husband ASAP. Her best options are christian divorcees, christian widowers, and christian ex-gays.

Her best options are christian divorcees, christian widowers, and christian ex-gays.

Funny how many there are of the first two, even at such a young age.

Objection, your honour! Counsel is witnessing the badger!

you and the rest of the god-botherers can get off my porch this instant.

…popular carton characters.

…as may be seen on the ever-popular carton channel.

the christian ex-gays will make damn sure she never enjoys sex, and that’s how it should be of course!

Reagan wore a wig, saw it at Rotten.com.

Conservatives champing at the bit over civil liberties and habeas corpus. Where were these liberals during The Decider administration?

Hey, Cato doesn’t really count as conservative, I think. They’re libertarian, not conservative.

Hey, Cato doesn’t really count as conservative, I think. They pretend they’re libertarian, not conservative.

Fixed yer post.

I know a few Catoans. They’re about as libertarian as, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, John Boehner or Strom Thurmond, meaning they are until the well runs dry and then it’s all “Katie bar the door!”

…as may be seen on the ever-popular carton channel.

Actually I think “carton characters” are the missing kids whose pictures get put on milk cartons.

Which would make a pretty interesting tramp stamp, I have to say. “Have you seen me?”