Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
7-2

Closing by warning people not to try to rely on the case in the future, as the plurality did, is like erecting a neon sign that flashes, GET YOUR RESULTS-ORIENTED JURISPRUDENCE HERE! That would be equally true if the decision had been 7-2 (or 5-4, etc.) the other way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
But see Bush v. Gore.

Fla. Supreme Court decision?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fla. Supreme Court decision?

I thought states were allowed to fuck people over. How else are they going to be laboratories of democracy?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

oops

[sgtclub]

From Ed Meese:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407161000.asp

The Senate has logged more cloture votes [votes trying to end a filibuster] during the 108th Congress than through all previous Congresses combined." Never before in history has the Senate used a filibuster to block the confirmation of a nominee that enjoyed majority support.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

So it turns out the destroyed microfilm in Denver was not the only place the President's Nat Guard records could be found.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Associated Press asked a federal judge Friday to order the Pentagon to quickly turn over a full copy of President Bush's military service record.
...
Those [previously disclosed] records came from federal records clearinghouses. Texas law requires separate record keeping for state National Guard service, and those records should exist on microfilm in Austin, the AP said.

So, in other words, there are at least two significant places that the admin didn't look before it told the world "we've shown you everything" a few months ago.

The article also mentions allegations that the records were tampered with back in '97 while W was running for Governor (and while Clinton was building the greatest military force in the world). No mention of any Russian submarine involvement though.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And on the subject of Florida, how did y'all determine that only .1% or whatever of those people had Hispanic names? If you only counted people with names that ended in vowels, it sounds like you would only hit Italians and the Polish.

If you eyeballed people and held a color chart up to their skin (you know, to get rid of black people from the list), you'd be ruling in or out many, many black-hispanics, a group that is particularly well-represented in an state like FLA.

Anyhoo, any idea how they figured out the list was *only* .1% hispanic names? This sounds like a leftist media planted story if I ever heard one.

Good questions all, but you're not gonna muzzle us leftists that easily. The article (and my post) quotes the low Hispanic number for illustrative purposes, but it really looks to me like the problem was the methodology.

The Fla system was that the state criminal database would be compared with each county's voter list. Both lists are broken down by ethnicity. To make sure that the Ed Jones on the felon list was the Ed Jones on the voter list, the clerks were supposed to compare ethnicity of the Ed Jones on each list. If the ethnicity (and presumably other characteristics, can't tell from the article) matches, the guy gets purged.

The problem was that the felon list doesn't have a Hispanic category. So in other words, even if there was a felon listed under Hispanic on the voter list, that person would not get purged because that person would not be listed under "Hispanic" on the felon list. Because there was no Hispanic category.

As I said in my original post, I don't dispute that this is explainable as a coincidence or administrative oversight, but when these oversights keep piling up and keep working in favor of the party in charge it makes one wonder, leftist or no.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So it turns out the destroyed microfilm in Denver was not the only place the President's Nat Guard records could be found.
So, in other words, there are at least two significant places that the admin didn't look before it told the world "we've shown you everything" a few months ago.

.

Keep in mind that FOIA does not require the government to turn over things not in its possession, which things in state archives are not.

That said, these are payroll records, right? Those typically are not kept as part of a person's file, but rather are organization files that contain information about certain individuals. Sure, it has information about them, but it's not exactly the "file on them". Compare, for example, a request to a college for a student's file. Would that also include pictures of his dorm/college somewhere hanging on the walls?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So, in other words, there are at least two significant places that the admin didn't look before it told the world "we've shown you everything" a few months ago.

I'm betting the people who have been in charge of putting together or executing a document inspection find it sort of odd that people would bring up the lack of 1970 era pay records as unusual.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From Ed Meese:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407161000.asp

Well, if you can't rely on the neutral, even-handed observations of Ed Meese, what can you rely on?

How many Clinton nominations did the Repubs prevent from even coming to debate and vote?

On a related point, given the Repub logjam on judicial appointments -- and given that Clinton is the only Dem president in 24 years -- how exactly did the Dems go about stuffing the court with all these wild-eyed pinko activits?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm betting the people who have been in charge of putting together or executing a document inspection find it sort of odd that people would bring up the lack of 1970 era pay records as unusual.

oh. this was meant to call for a response from the 3 (at least) lefties who claim to do litigation.

[SlaveNoMore]

The Larry Davis Experience
The article also mentions allegations that the records were tampered with back in '97 while W was running for Governor (and while Clinton was building the greatest military force in the world). No mention of any Russian submarine involvement though.

How could I have missed this? Oh, its in the Guardian. Right.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Well, if you can't rely on the neutral, even-handed observations of Ed Meese, what can you rely on?

How many Clinton nominations did the Repubs prevent from even coming to debate and vote?

On a related point, given the Repub logjam on judicial appointments -- and given that Clinton is the only Dem president in 24 years -- how exactly did the Dems go about stuffing the court with all these wild-eyed pinko activits?

Yes, yes, Souter was a big fuckup. We know, we know, we know.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Keep in mind that FOIA does not require the government to turn over things not in its possession, which things in state archives are not.

That said, these are payroll records, right? Those typically are not kept as part of a person's file, but rather are organization files that contain information about certain individuals. Sure, it has information about them, but it's not exactly the "file on them". Compare, for example, a request to a college for a student's file. Would that also include pictures of his dorm/college somewhere hanging on the walls?

I don't really get your student analogy. I think you may be confusing my reference to the admin having said "we've shown you everything" a few months ago. That was before the FOIA lawsuit, and had nothing to do with what records were covered by the AP's initial FOIA request or what could be defined as "the file on W" for those purposes.

The admin's statement was in response to media inquiries, which pointed out that other candidates in similar situations (notably McCain and Kerry) had signed a blanket release and opened up all their files. Instead of doing that Bush released selected files and said that he had shown everything that could prove he showed up back in '72. These slected files included pay records for a week during '72, I believe, but no reference to where Bush was when he drew the pay. This lawsuit indicates there was other places to look for clearer info. That's all I'm saying. I'm predisposed to suspicion, of course, but even so I'm not really arguing there was a violation of the letter or spirit of FOIA.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How could I have missed this? Oh, its in the Guardian. Right.

If you prefer, here's FNC's version.

[Aside to Burger] Interestingly this article does point out AP's contention that the TX files are controlled by the Air National Guard, a fed entity, and thus covered under FOIA.