On a related note Lieu wanted to be the first to call “dibbs” on the Senate seat should she win in 2020.
He’d be great for it.
I think a Michael Bennet/Harris ticket would be good.
I’d love to see him in the Senate, but I imagine he’ll have to battle Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell for that honor. Can we just make all three of them senators? Can we, please?
embraces the future, not the past
As long as that doesn’t mean: “let bygones be bygones about obstruction and conspiracy against the US.”
I don’t think there’s any chance any Democrat running has any interest in doing that.
Is this the first formal endorsement by anybody of note? 538 isn’t running their tracker yet.
Robert Murray was responsible for altering a transcript to make it appear that a defendant facing child molestation charges had admitted his guilt. This fabrication not only undid the case against Efrain Velasco-Palacios, but also resulted in disciplinary proceedings against Murray. Those proceedings finally reached a firm conclusion in March this year, when the State Bar Court’s decision to suspend Murray from the practice of law for one year went into effect. That decision said it best:
We find that Murray deliberately created and inserted a fraudulent document into a criminal prosecution while he was actively negotiating a resolution by plea agreement. This altered evidence bore no indicia of being a “prank,” and Murray made no prompt effort thereafter to control the consequences. Murray’s behavior is wholly inappropriate and unbecoming of an experienced prosecution, who is expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct and to act as a gatekeeper to the fair administration of justice.
The issue is that Harris defended what is essentially the indefensible, particularly in a county long famous for prosecutorial overreach. If you’re talking about a “broken” justice system, probably not a good idea to break it more when you’re the state AG.
…she defended the California state prosecutor Robert Murray after he falsified a defendant’s confession that was used to threaten a sentence of life in prison,
Right? If Wyoming can have two senators, clearly California should have at least 3.
Also, I was going to say Newson could be on your list, but I think he’d finish his term(s) as Governor and just wait out DiFi if he still wants to be senator.
To be proportional, if WY can have 2 senators, CA would be entitled to 80.
Yes, you’re right I hope – and with their law backgrounds, I think both Harris and Warren are likely to support continued investigation and prosecution. I just hear that phrase and it reminds me of the rhetoric about “moving on” around Cheney and Bush, hence my reaction.
In reality I could live with the Senate being as is if the house was truly proportional which it isn’t.
As the # of house districts are limited to 435, and no state can have less than 1, even the house is skewed to lower population states.
As such Wyoming has 1 Congressman representing 550k people. And in California 1 member represents almost 800k.
The cap at 435 however is not in the constitution and can (should) be changed.
It should be that the smallest state’s population sets the size (roughly) of each district that would then drive the number of seats in the house. Currently that would mean ~570 total seats and a state like California would instead of 55, have 70 seats…
I’d ike a Harris/Klobuchar ticket. (But of course will vote for any Dem… Well, except Bernie Sanders. Fuck that guy!) (Yeah yeah, i know, he’s not really a Dem, but will run as one, so… As i said, fuck that sandbagging sonofabitch.)
Off to a strong start
I hear ya, but I just don’t think there’ll be any appetite for that kind of thing with this administration. I don’t think the public would allow it. Plus, I think the desire to make these people pay is deeply personal and is absolutely crucial to the restoration of our democracy.
I don’t think Sanders has a chance this time around, but I would not understand sitting out an election where Sanders is running against Trump, Pence, or Rubio.
In accounting law, the phenomenon of underpaying on an installment contract, usually not paying the final invoices, is called dilution. Average people call this getting stiffed.
In voter representation, the US has gone from protecting the rights of small states to dilution of large-state representation. The Swiss really hated being stiffed. They modeled their democratic institutions after the US model, but in the 1990s changed the composition of their upper-house senate to reflect better population differences and quickly saw more democratic outcomes. Switzerland, which probably takes the housewife thing to the max for Western Europe, nevertheless had a paid maternity law in place by 2005. Such changes would likely occur in the US as well. 70% of the US population supports paid maternity leave. Also in health care (pre-Baucus sabotage), the US was on track to get a Swiss-like healthcare system. The key difference is that everybody must have insurance, and if you don’t have money the state pays for your coverage. The relative advantages and performances of each plan are released each year, and the insured are free to switch insurers without penalty once a year, meaning the competition is near perfect.
Well, I can say that because it’s purely hypothetical. I’m pretty confident Sanders won’t even get out of the gate, let alone into the first turn.
It is kind of disheartening that the Kamala Harris bandwagon has grown so large with little so scrutiny. A quick review of her record shows she is more than a little ethically challenged. I am sure this will come out during the campaign but this tendency by Democrats to chase the latest shiny object is getting ridiculous.
Other than sit on committees and toss out zingers during hearings, Harris hasn’t really done anything in the Senate. Meanwhile, there are earnest folks who do things rather than just grandstand. I am confident the campaign will expose the high-living talkers from the doers but until then this campaign might be unbearable.