Althouse: "Sarah Palin Signs Deal to Preside Judge Judy-Style Over Her Own Reality TV Courtroom."

March 22, 2016

"Sarah Palin Signs Deal to Preside Judge Judy-Style Over Her Own Reality TV Courtroom."

"Unlike the two famous TV judges, Palin does not have a juris doctor degree. But the source notes that the bestselling author has a variety of other qualities that make her perfectly suited to the job...."

Sure. Why not make up new ways to be a judge? This aligns nicely with the suggestions I've seen lately that the President ought to put a nonlawyer on the Supreme Court. Who trusts lawyers to make decisions? Branch out!

Oh, yeah, here it is. Glenn Reynolds said it: "Maybe it’s time to name a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court. There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires Supreme Court justices to be lawyers, and there are some pretty decent arguments as to why non-lawyers should be represented.... [L]aw is supposed to govern everyone’s actions, and everyone is supposed to understand it.... [T[here are hundreds of millions of Americans who aren’t lawyers, and surely some of them are smart enough to decide important questions... Shouldn’t we open the court up to a little diversity?"

112 comments:

Unknown said...: So you're proposing Palin for SCOTUS? Cool.; 3/22/16, 2:45 PM
Ken B said...: Glenn seems to have implicitly bought into the notion that the USSC should set policy not interpret statutes.; 3/22/16, 2:51 PM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, have you ever seen "Judge Judy"? Sarah Palin could hardly do worse.; 3/22/16, 2:53 PM
AllenS said...: I, AllenS a non-lawyer took a lawyer in front of the bar association, and got $5,000 out of him. Sometimes, that lawyer shit doesn't cut it.; 3/22/16, 2:59 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Ken B said...

Glenn seems to have implicitly bought into the notion that the USSC should set policy not interpret statutes.

I don't see that in the linked article. I would say he seems to have implicitly bought into the reality that the USSC does set policy, and that this is not likely to change.; 3/22/16, 3:01 PM
Achilles said...: Lawyers and Judges have set themselves up as a religious theocracy.

Who could seriously read the majority in Roe v. Wade and think any of them actually read the constitution? They just make stuff up. I could do that too but as a USSC justice I would actually read the constitution and the federalist papers and other writings and apply them to the case at hand.

You don't need 8 years of leftist agitprop and memorization training to be able to read and interpret the constitution.; 3/22/16, 3:01 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Big Mike:

Except Sheindlin obtained her JD in 1965, worked as a corporate lawyer, prosecutor and a criminal and family court judge before becoming the supervising family court judge for Manhattan. Whatever you say about the buffoonery of her show (or judge shows in particular), she had a reputation as a witty, intelligent judge long before TV producers came knocking.

Palin, by contrast, is a beauty pageant airhead.; 3/22/16, 3:03 PM
Beaumont said...: [L]aw is supposed to govern everyone’s actions, and everyone is supposed to understand it.... [T[here are hundreds of millions of Americans who aren’t lawyers, and surely some of them are smart enough to decide important questions.

Smart in what sense?; 3/22/16, 3:08 PM
Chuck said...: There is a perversity in this, which is that since courts have become super-legislatures or at least mini-legislatures, they should not be closed to the broader public.

The problem is with courts doing legislative things in the first place.

Average citizens are right to claim their place at the table of legislative discussions. Meanwhile, courts shouldn't be doing legislative things.

And there may be no better example of courts playing "legislature," than the federal courts' imposition of same-sex marriage on the majority of states whose citizens voted on the subject and in many cases who amended their state constitutions in order to make their public will know, and also to deliberately try to place it beyond judicial review. Specifically.

Yet another reality show I won't be watching.; 3/22/16, 3:08 PM
amielalune said...: There are millions of people in this country smarter than the average attorney, or even the brightest. While I would love to ban attorneys from serving in elected office, I still think judges (at least in federal court) should probably be attorneys. Otherwise, way too much catchup time (on case law, etc.) would be required for them to be effective.

Very interesting that Glenn Reynolds thinks it's doable....; 3/22/16, 3:12 PM
Chuck said...: She may have to recuse herself if In Re: Glenn Rice is assigned to her docket.

http://deadspin.com/5840042/new-biography-claims-sarah-palin-had-a-one-night-stand-with-glen-rice-in-1987; 3/22/16, 3:14 PM
MadisonMan said...: Otherwise, way too much catchup time (on case law, etc.) would be required for them to be effective.

Isn't that what Law Clerks do?

Chances that the President (Lawyer) and Legislature (Many Lawyers) will think the Court shouldn't be the exclusive domain of Lawyers? Zero.; 3/22/16, 3:15 PM
MadisonMan said...: Palin, by contrast, is a beauty pageant airhead.

How is that a hindrance to being on a TV show?

Your post would've been shorter if you'd just written I don't like Sarah Palin.; 3/22/16, 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Associate justices Reed and Jackson were lawyers but did not graduate from law school. if you ask me, that's a start.; 3/22/16, 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/22/16, 3:17 PM
J. Farmer said...: @MadisonMan:

How is that a hindrance to being on a TV show?

Your post would've been shorter if you'd just written I don't like Sarah Palin.

If you'll notice, my response was addressed to someone who brought up the comparison with Judith Sheindlin. I was simply clarifying the comparison, in which case writing "I don't like Sarah Palin" (which I don't), wouldn't have been illuminating to my point.; 3/22/16, 3:19 PM
I Callahan said...: Glenn seems to have implicitly bought into the notion that the USSC should set policy not interpret statutes.

What are you talking about here? That horse left the barn a long time ago. Lawyers know better than anyone how to take something written and make it mean something it was never intended to mean. Putting non-lawyers in such a situation would make it LESS likely that they'd set policy.; 3/22/16, 3:19 PM
Big Mike said...: @J Farmer, that "airhead" negotiated more international agreements as Governor of Alaska than Barack Obama's Secretary of State did during his first term of office.

You need to step back and stop believing your own propaganda.; 3/22/16, 3:26 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Don't forget all the darn lawyers in the Congress and the Presidency (Obama, Clinton, Nixon, perhaps Hillary).

Where's all the gentlemen farmers we used to have in Congress?

Anything thwarting the spread of lawyers into positions of power is probably a good thing.; 3/22/16, 3:26 PM
Chuck said...: Well, about Justice Jackson, whose name recently resurfaced with the passing of Justice Scalia, and discussions of who was the greatest writer in the history of the Supreme Court. (Jackson is a candidate; Scalia would be my choice.)

Jackson was denied a law degree because he was too young according his law school's rules to be conferred a degree, is my recollection. He's like Clarence Darrow, and of the same era; Darrow didn't stay long enough to get his law degree from Michigan. It wasn't much an educational failing in those days; as he had years of clerking service before and after law school.

And yet Justice Jackson is in the rarified company (nobody else) of having served as the U.S. Solicitor General, the U.S. Attorney General, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and as the Chief Counsel for the Nuremberg Trials prosecution.; 3/22/16, 3:27 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "@Althouse, have you ever seen "Judge Judy"?"

Sure.; 3/22/16, 3:35 PM
Gahrie said...: I've been arguing that we should be appointing non-lawyers since the mid-1980's. At one point I made the argument that we should prohibit lawyers from serving on the Supreme Court.; 3/22/16, 3:38 PM
Gabriel said...: The Constitution allows Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court*. I don't understand why they haven't removed that functionality from the Supreme Court and established a sort of constitutional review court. They could decide who has standing to sue for constitutional review, and that could be all that court does. It wouldn't have to be judges, could have members from all three branches of government, some elected, some appointed, whatever.

They could do all this without a Constitutional amendment.

*Article III section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."; 3/22/16, 3:39 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Big Mike:

"that 'airhead' negotiated more international agreements as Governor of Alaska than Barack Obama's Secretary of State did during his first term of office.

Tell me some of the international agreements she negotiated.

"You need to step back and stop believing your own propaganda."

"There was a time, however, when conservatives upheld adult standards—such as clarity of speech and thought—without apology, even in the face of the relentless downward pull of adolescent culture. But now, when a vice-presidential candidate talks like a teenager, mugs like an American Idol contestant, and traffics in syntactical dead-ends and non sequiturs, we are supposed to find her charming and authentic." --Heather MacDonald, Manhattan Institute, published in City Journal here.; 3/22/16, 3:40 PM
I Callahan said...: But now, when a vice-presidential candidate talks like a teenager, mugs like an American Idol contestant, and traffics in syntactical dead-ends and non sequiturs, we are supposed to find her charming and authentic

I always thought conservatism was a philosophy. I didn't know that to be a conservative required certain speech and writing skills. Or even a certain way one is expected to act.

Do you get grades for conservatism, other than based on your accomplishments? What school gives you a degree in Conservatism? Limbaugh is always talking about his Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Maybe that's what you're referring to. That said, I have a feeling she'd get good grades under his standards.

Palin was the governor of a state. Heather MacDonald has worked at a think tank all her life. As for experience, the former beats the latter. I find that a bit more important than MacDonald does, but she has a vested interest in believing otherwise.; 3/22/16, 3:51 PM
Simon said...: To argue in favor of appointing a non-lawyer to the court, one must either not understand what the court does or pretend that one doesn't.

Prof. Reynolds knows exactly what the court does. Poor form.; 3/22/16, 3:54 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Speaking of bad analogies...
The Supreme Court is not a TV show.

Non-lawyers:possibly good Justices::non-lawyers:acceptable TV judge show hosts

Not...not compelling, Prof.; 3/22/16, 3:55 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Simon said...To argue in favor of appointing a non-lawyer to the court, one must either not understand what the court does or pretend that one doesn't.

I reject your assertion. An American History professor who happened to be brilliant and had studied American law (or, I dunno, the history of legal reasoning or some such) couldn't possibly make an acceptable Justice, to you? ONLY lawyers can possibly be Justices? Seems like you have the burden of proof if that's your argument, Simon.; 3/22/16, 3:58 PM
jimbino said...: While I hold a Juris Doctor degree but never sat for any bar, I consider myself qualified to serve as a judge. My U of Chicago physics classmate, David Friedman, even more eminently qualified, teaches Law and Economics at Santa Clara U and maintains "I'm an academic economist, teach in a law school, [and] have never taken a course for credit in either field."; 3/22/16, 3:58 PM
J. Farmer said...: I Callahan:

Nowhere in your quote or in MacDonald's longer article did she say "that to be a conservative required a conservative required certain speech and writing skills." She didn't even mention writing skills. She said "clarity of speech and thought" and gave those as examples of "adult standards." If you don't agree that clarity of speech and thought are important standards, then fine.

"As for experience, the former beats the latter."

Except MacDonald never made the claim that she should be vice president or that she has the qualifications for such a job nor did she claim that working for a think tank made one a better candidate than being a governor.; 3/22/16, 3:58 PM
jr565 said...: You're guilty. You betcha!; 3/22/16, 4:01 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: There was a time, however, when conservatives upheld adult standards—such as clarity of speech and thought—without apology, even in the face of the relentless downward pull of adolescent culture.

And were roundly mocked for it, and lost influence in the culture based on the characterization of conservatives as stuffed shirts, egghead intellectuals out of touch with the real world, etc. What a fun Goldilocks world conservatives are required to inhabit! If you sound like WFBuckely you're ridiculous and it's ok to mock and ignore you (too formal, too pretentious, etc) and if you sound like Sarah Palin you're ridiculous and it's ok to mock and ignore you (too informal,too uncultured, too simple, etc).
I'll bet if conservatives get it JUST RIGHT they'll win respect from popular culture & the Media, though...just try harder, fellas!; 3/22/16, 4:02 PM
Simon said...: Achilles said...
"You don't need 8 years of leftist agitprop and memorization training to be able to read and interpret the constitution."

No, but you do need some legal training to do the work that the court actually does, most of which isn't about constitutional issues at all, big or small. Take, for example, this morning's decision in Sturgeon v. Frost: Under 54 U.S.C. §100751(b), the National Park Service may regulate “boating and other activities on or relating to water located within System units,” but how does that interact with section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 in a case where Alaska, not the United States, has title to the land under the water at issue and state law allows what the regulations purport to forbid?

Now, maybe where you live you could walk into the nearest Denny's and get an informed opinion on that question from the first patron you encounter, but I tend to think that these are the kinds of questions require a bit of legal training to understand them and answer them correctly.; 3/22/16, 4:05 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: jimbino said...My U of Chicago physics classmate, David Friedman, even more eminently qualified

That magnificent so-and-so, I read his book (Amazon link)! It was good; recommended.

I haven't read The Machinery of Freedom (Amazon link) but I'd like to.; 3/22/16, 4:06 PM
Simon said...: HoodlumDoodlum said...
"I reject your assertion. An American History professor who happened to be brilliant and had studied American law (or, I dunno, the history of legal reasoning or some such) couldn't possibly make an acceptable Justice, to you? ONLY lawyers can possibly be Justices? Seems like you have the burden of proof if that's your argument, Simon."

See my post above, for example. The questions that the Supreme Court actually spends its time working on are difficult questions about law. The constitutional docket is tiny; the real business of the court involves difficult, technical cases involving complex interactions of statutes. The court spends its time on the tax code and antitrust and sentencing and a myriad other things that make sense only to lawyers, and you know why? Because it's a frakking court! It isn't a council of revision or a superlegislature or a philosophy seminar; it's a court, and oddly enough the justices spend their days doing lawyer's work.

Take a few minutes and browse through the cases decided thusfar this term and tell me that this isn't lawyer's work:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/15; 3/22/16, 4:11 PM
Big Mike said...: @J Farmer, try the Alaska Gas Pipeline. Wikipedia downplays her role to just her signing the bill. Her role was more active. You could look it up. Beyond wiki, of course.

For all her education, for all her credentials, Heather MacDonald has nothing like Sarah Palin's accomplishments. She speaks better, perhaps, and she writes better. But she couldn't buck the Republican establishment and win a governorship. There are people who talk, and people who do. You and Heather talk and write. Sarah Palin did.; 3/22/16, 4:12 PM
MikeR said...: http://www.amazon.com/Thing-Explainer-Complicated-Stuff-Simple/dp/0544668251/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458681249&sr=8-1&keywords=thing+explainer
Thing Explainer: a "The Way Things Work", but using only the thousand most common words in the language. Not easy to do.; 3/22/16, 4:16 PM
mtrobertslaw said...: Progressives are always telling us that the Constitution is a living, breathing organism. And it is always evolving. But the rules that govern the direction of its growth are unknown. The best that can be hoped for are mystical incantations that summon up mysterious penumbras and vibrations from who knows where.

I know of no law school that trains its students how to master these incantations, much less control these penumbras and vibrations once they appear. What is sorely needed on the Court is not someone trained in the law, but instead a person steeped in the hidden knowledge of new age mysticism.; 3/22/16, 4:18 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Big Mike:

The Alaska gas pipeline is not an international agreement.

Running for office is a PR campaign. You're essentially saying that anybody who hasn't run for office can't criticize those who have. MacDonald's point was that she didn't believe Palin was qualified and she made her case. Your counter argument is that Palin is more accomplished than MacDonald. Doesn't address a single critique MacDonald made.; 3/22/16, 4:21 PM
mccullough said...: Palin's first decree will be that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by Article II; 3/22/16, 4:32 PM
Shawn Levasseur said...: The key here is phase "Judge Judy style".

This whole genre's modern popularity began with "The People's Court" with Judge Wapner, back in the 1980's.

Warner ruled based on California law, in small claims cases. His manner was calm, and was a likable guy. Even though there were more than a few silly cases brought up on the show, Wapner rose above any schlock. Even as he became famous he at least appeared to have a sense of humility about it.

Most of his modern successors (including Judge Judy) however, want to be the ringmaster and lead clown of their respective circuses. I have no idea if they even rule based on the laws anymore, or even if the cases are real or manufactured disputes. I guess the Judge Wapner style had a time limit to how long it could run on TV.; 3/22/16, 4:43 PM
Unknown said...: "No, but you do need some legal training to do the work that the court actually does, most of which isn't about constitutional issues at all, big or small. Take, for example, this morning's decision in Sturgeon v. Frost: Under 54 U.S.C. §100751(b), the National Park Service may regulate “boating and other activities on or relating to water located within System units,” but how does that interact with section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 in a case where Alaska, not the United States, has title to the land under the water at issue and state law allows what the regulations purport to forbid?"

Could you identify what legal training, specifically, is required to resolve this? Beyond intelligence, judgment and research is there some magical secret handshake that allows lawyers and only lawyers to get to the bottom of this? If so, why did it have to get elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution? Were the lawyers before that not good enough? Did their legal super powers not work to the right degree?

No offense, but interpreting seismic data and finding the right location to drill an oil well requires special training. Writing software code requires special training. Designing a building so it doesn't fall down requires special training. Resolving contradictions in law that many, many lawyers can't agree on doesn't require special training. It requires intelligence, judgment and research.

If you've blown a lot of cash on a law degree, I apologize for pointing this out. If you've blown a lot of money on a business degree (also something that doesn't actually require special training, just intelligence & judgment), I apologize for pointing this out. On the bright side, you've bought a paper credential that many people, rightly or wrongly, put a lot of value on.; 3/22/16, 4:46 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: AllenS:

Re your comment at 2:59

i'd expect you to beat any lawyer in an arm wrestling contest lefthanded at the local tappie.; 3/22/16, 4:46 PM
J. Farmer said...: The law, per se, doesn't have much to do with these shows. The plaintiffs and defendants agree to participate in what is essentially binding arbitration.; 3/22/16, 4:48 PM
Unknown said...: J. Farmer - the AGPL is an international agreement. It goes through Canada. Look at a map, nitwit.

They're not selling the gas to the 500 people who live in Alaska. It's supposed to connect to Chicago (but never will at these prices).; 3/22/16, 4:50 PM
William said...: The more important qualification is not a law degree but rather a degree from Yale or Harvard and membership in a minority group. The law degree can be worked around, but these other are essential.........I don't watch reality shows, eat sushi, or listen to rap music, but if I were younger and more open minded I would probably partake of these pleasures. Sarah Palin has an attractive personality, and people will tune in. I don't know if a Judge Judy type show is the best forum for her talents, however. Maybe a celebrity cooking show where she swaps favorite recipes with Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham.; 3/22/16, 4:57 PM
n.n said...: Class diversity based on merit. Sure.

There is more wisdom in people than is observed in lawyers.; 3/22/16, 5:02 PM
WWMartin said...: When the Supreme Court uses shadows and smoke (excuse me, penumbras and emanations) to make social policy while pretending to make legal decisions, the relevance of a law degree becomes quite low.; 3/22/16, 5:06 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

"J. Farmer - the AGPL is an international agreement. It goes through Canada. Look at a map, nitwit.

You don't know what you're talking about you fuckwit. The law that Sarah Palin signed as Alaska governor was not an international agreement.; 3/22/16, 5:07 PM
Roughcoat said...: Althouse and Reynolds don't like each other but neither wants to say so. Instead they snipe at each other in their blogs.; 3/22/16, 5:13 PM
Unknown said...: Sarah Palin did a lot of work on the AGPL beyond signing a law, fuckwit. Without Canada it's just a bunch of masturbation because you can't magically teleport it from Alaska to the lower 48. And I say that as someone from the oil company side who didn't appreciate her contribution because she was (IMO) trying to carve out too much value for the state of Alaska and not enough for Canada or the Contractor Group. You fuckwit.; 3/22/16, 5:14 PM
Unknown said...: And I will add that's what the original poster Big Mike told you and you're still not listening. Fuckwit.; 3/22/16, 5:19 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

No, the law did not involve any negotiations with Canadian government officials. First of all, an international agreement is an agreement between two nations. State governors have no authority to enter into international agreements because they cannot bind the US nationally. Even if Palin did all of the work on the law and wrote the legislation herself, it is not an international agreement, you dipshit.; 3/22/16, 5:23 PM
J. Farmer said...: "And I will add that's what the original poster Big Mike told you and you're still not listening."

No, he said the following:

"@J Farmer, that 'airhead' negotiated more international agreements as Governor of Alaska than Barack Obama's Secretary of State did during his first term of office."

This is patently false. Sarah Palin did not negotiate any international agreements.; 3/22/16, 5:25 PM
narciso said...: lector emptor, as with chuck who trawls in the slime, reports from such apocryphal sources, are not to be accepted until further detail, the Canadian Menace, my way of characterizing
how any project the Seven Sisters were not a party to, till 2009, when she brokered a joint
venture with Exxon, right before she stepped down,; 3/22/16, 5:26 PM
Wince said...: "Sarah Palin Signs Deal to Preside Judge Judy-Style Over Her Own Reality TV Courtroom."

Please, God, let it be Cinemax !; 3/22/16, 5:32 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: Glenn Reynolds' piece came out before this announcement about Sarah Palin.; 3/22/16, 5:35 PM
machine said...: Has she quit this job yet?; 3/22/16, 5:44 PM
Unknown said...: Negotiating an agreement and signing one are not the same thing (as Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton will happily tell you, because they haven't signed many either). You seem focused on whether she inked a final deal as opposed to whether she got into deep & heated negotiations with Canada, the contractor group, Japan (for the alternate LNG proposal) and the First Nations (who needless to say insisted on their share of the pie, because racism, oppression, it's really my land not yours).

She was deep in it. I disliked her approach because like a labor union she fought only Alaska's corner and had trouble understanding that if you kill the goose who lays the golden eggs, no one gets any omelettes - but I can't deny she went hard for Alaska's share of the pie with the Canuck government and others (Exxon and Conoco Phillips are American but BP of course is British).

Personally I think she's a cunt but I struggle with "airhead" - if only.; 3/22/16, 5:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

"Negotiating an agreement and signing one are not the same thing"

Unless I am mistaken, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act is what we are talking about here. Negotiating, drafting, signing...give Palin sole credit for all of it for all I care. It is not an international agreement. And nothing you've just said changes that.; 3/22/16, 5:53 PM
narciso said...: parnell did shut down the AGIA deal, having dismantled her natural resources department, hence she lost confidence in him, of course, persilly was rewarded with the pipeline coordinator for said libels, and elton was likewise given authority over interior affairs, for his skill at lawfare,; 3/22/16, 5:53 PM
Unknown said...: You're mistaken, J Farmer, that's not what we're talking about.

But look, that's fine dude. Passing the act was part of the negotiation. If you don't want to (or can't) understand that, I'll live with the fact that J. Farmer, Internet poster, doesn't understand it.; 3/22/16, 6:02 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

Fine then. Tell me what you're talking about, and then I'll tell you why it's not an international agreement. The person who actually brought up the pipeline wrote the following:

"@J Farmer, try the Alaska Gas Pipeline. Wikipedia downplays her role to just her signing the bill. Her role was more active. You could look it up. Beyond wiki, of course."

So what piece of legislation do you think he was talking about?; 3/22/16, 6:04 PM
Unknown said...: But I'd still like to hear Simon's view as to exactly what super special training a lawyer brings to resolving the issues he's raised that a reasonably intelligent and wise person can't bring backed up with a bit of research.

How is legal training in any way like specialized training in petroleum engineering, coding or architecture?; 3/22/16, 6:07 PM
Chuck said...: narciso said...
lector emptor, as with chuck who trawls in the slime, reports from such apocryphal sources, are not to be accepted until further detail,

If you think I am making up the story about Sarah (Heath) Palin and Glenn Rice, I'm not. They were both single at the time, to be sure; although Sarah Heath knew Todd Palin at the time, and would soon thereafter be engaged to him.

I'd never have believed it myself; I was a close follower of Michigan basketball at the time and had season tickets.

But Glenn Rice has now confirmed it himself.; 3/22/16, 6:08 PM
Big Mike said...: @J Farmer, now you're resorting to sophistry, and you're not very good at it.; 3/22/16, 6:20 PM
Unknown said...: He wasn't talking about legislation he was talking about negotiation. I quote:

"@J Farmer, that "airhead" negotiated more international agreements as Governor of Alaska than Barack Obama's Secretary of State did during his first term of office."

And the negotiation was very much international. Without Transcanada PL and the Canadian government there can be no AGPL.

That was always part of the problem - that and the fact that it would be the largest single capital project in human history, so probably difficult to deliver on time and on budget. On the project team we once had a spirited debate as to whether the Great Pyramids of Giza, indexed for inflation, might have been bigger. It was inconclusive.

But seriously, if you want to pretend Sarah Palin is just an airhead Tina Fey seeing Russia from her house, knock yourself out, Internet poster J Farmer.; 3/22/16, 6:20 PM
narciso said...: once upon a time, back in the nixon administration, we considered such projects, of course it was with spiro agnew, breaking the tie, because the democrats like our current solon at the naval observatory was against it,; 3/22/16, 6:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

But seriously, if you want to pretend Sarah Palin is just an airhead Tina Fey seeing Russia from her house, knock yourself out, Internet poster J Farmer.

First, I am not sure why you keep employing "internet poster" as if it means anything. Yes, I post on the Internet. Just like you do. So what?

Second, I never tire of correcting people about the apocryphal myth of Pain saying she can see Russia from her house. Nonetheless, it was the Palin camp who injected Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of Palin's qualifications.

Third, I very much remember the 2008 campaign. I listened to Palin speak and quite a bit of the time found her incoherent. This is the basis of my opinion of her. Most people agreed that Palin's particular area of strength was oil and gas. Not surprising given the issues involved in statewide election in Alaska.

Fourth, Palin has never negotiated an international agreement in any sense that that phrase has ever been understood.

Fifth, there's a reason Phyllis Schlafly never participated in a swimsuit competition. Because she's not an airhead; unlike Palin.; 3/22/16, 6:37 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Big Mike:

"@J Farmer, now you're resorting to sophistry, and you're not very good at it.

Tell me what argument I've made that is false...; 3/22/16, 6:38 PM
Unknown said...: And seriously, Simon? What's up dude? Tell me about the super special lawyer training. Because those codes you flagged in your original post were wicked scary. Need an astrophysicist to interpret all that shit, I'm guessing, Or maybe a reasonably smart high school graduate with a few hours of spare time.

And seriously, Simon, if you don't think a smart high school graduate with a few hours of spare time couldn't read and understand the Supreme Court decision and even venture some thoughts on alternative decisions and pros and cons of them, give a holler dude.; 3/22/16, 6:41 PM
Big Mike said...: An agreement was negotiated with Canada -- a foreign nation -- for a pipeline route from Alaska through Canada to a terminus in a Canadian city.

Which is more than Barack Obama's Secretary of State ever managed to negotiate.

And having married a nuclear scientist, I have to say that anyone who equates feminine pulchritude with a lack of brains is seriously mistaken. My wife was no airhead and Sarah Palin is no airhead.; 3/22/16, 6:42 PM
Unknown said...: I disagree with your fourth and fifth points J Farmer and I have personal experience to do so. But that's okay. Relax and have a good one.; 3/22/16, 6:43 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Big Mike:

What was the name of the final agreement? Who were Palin's counterparts on the Canadian side? Wasn't TransCanada awarded a contract through a competitive bid process as is typically the norm for state contracts?; 3/22/16, 6:47 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

"I disagree with your fourth and fifth points J Farmer and I have personal experience to do so. But that's okay. Relax and have a good one."

I am sure there's plenty of people who have "personal experience" with Sarah Palin who don't think she's an airhead. I disagree with them. Again, my opinion is based on the words that came out of Palin's own mouth. So if you want to say she's razor sharp behind closed doors but talks like a moron when she gets in front of a camera, then I have no real way of disputing that.; 3/22/16, 6:50 PM
Thorley Winston said...: An agreement was negotiated with Canada -- a foreign nation -- for a pipeline route from Alaska through Canada to a terminus in a Canadian city.

I don’t’ believe that’s entirely accurate. What appears to have happened is that the Alaskan government (under Governor Palin) opened up bidding for the project and allowed TransCanada Corporation (a Canadian company) to put in a bid for the project. TransCanada Corporation won the bid but they, not the Alaskan government, were the ones responsible for getting any required regulatory approvals to have the pipeline built in Canada. The Alaskan government’s role was to pick them for the job and provided them with seed money ($500 million IIRC) to compensate them for their expenses in getting the Canadian regulatory approvals.

I don’t know what Governor Palin’s direct role, if any, was in the bidding process that chose TransCanada Corporation but it doesn’t appear that she or her government were the ones negotiating with the Canadian government.; 3/22/16, 6:50 PM
narciso said...: one of the law firms that handled the negotiations, had a senior partner who was much impressed with her and her team's work, compare that with the chicago annenberg exchange,; 3/22/16, 6:57 PM
Unknown said...: Oh FFS J Farmer who else could deliver the project in Canada, Foothills? TCPL was always the only game in town and they and the Canadian government knew it. Please just stop - Wikipedia will not tell you what you need to know and you can't google the rest fast enough for this thread.

"Competitive bid process" - technically, yes. Now insert belly laugh here - and if you don't know why that's a belly laugh, please just stop.; 3/22/16, 6:58 PM
Unknown said...: "I am sure there's plenty of people who have "personal experience" with Sarah Palin who don't think she's an airhead. I disagree with them. Again, my opinion is based on the words that came out of Palin's own mouth. So if you want to say she's razor sharp behind closed doors but talks like a moron when she gets in front of a camera, then I have no real way of disputing that."

Okay.; 3/22/16, 6:59 PM
Unknown said...: "I don’t’ believe that’s entirely accurate."

Goal was always Chicago and the US Midwest. There's not enough customers in Canada to make it work.

The act, the open season and the award were part of the negotiation. No one does the largest single capital project in human history without negotiating the outcome of the formal bid process ahead of time. But no one can control the gas price and things cratered (and have stayed cratered).; 3/22/16, 7:05 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

You inserted yourself into a dialogue I was having with another commenter. So please drop the whiny bitch routine.

If I was feigning knowledge, I wouldn't ask questions. I am more than open to being corrected. I love learning new things. If Palin had negotiated an international agreement, it would be public record. Do you have any source? I asked who her Canadian counterparts were on the other side of the negotiating table. Simple question.; 3/22/16, 7:06 PM
Thorley Winston said...: one of the law firms that handled the negotiations, had a senior partner who was much impressed with her and her team's work, compare that with the chicago annenberg exchange,

What was the name of the law firm and who was the senior partner?; 3/22/16, 7:06 PM
Unknown said...: And TCPL pocketed the $500m "seed money" when the prices tanked and the project cratered. But that was the deal.; 3/22/16, 7:07 PM
Thorley Winston said...: The act, the open season and the award were part of the negotiation.

By that standard then, if while he was in the Illinois State Legislature, Barack Obama ever voted on a bill that awarded a bid to a foreign company that was responsible for dealing with its own government as part of its bid, he has as much claim to have negotiated an “international agreement” as then governor Sarah Palin.

Which in reality appears to be little to none.; 3/22/16, 7:14 PM
Unknown said...: So just to make sure I have this correct, you want me to publish the name of TCPL's and Canada's lead negotiators on the AGPL from 2006 (presumably full name and middle initial?) on the Internet and then Internet commenter J Farmer will agree that Sarah Palin isn't an airhead? Not understanding the bid/ask here; maybe hum a few bars and I'll know the tune? Why don't you send me your private e-mail, let me know a little about you and we'll take it from there? I should be reachable via my Althouse log-in.

I think Internet commenter Thorley Winston wants the name of a law firm partner from narciso but I'm not sure I understand what his promise is. The picture of the guy who played Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness gives much hope however.; 3/22/16, 7:23 PM
Unknown said...: Not clear to me what Obama might have done. This is the only one I'm familiar with. Maybe so?; 3/22/16, 7:24 PM
Unknown said...: Awesome picture by the way. I thought Into Darkness was so underrated.; 3/22/16, 7:25 PM
Unknown said...: I love the bit where Kirk is like, "I think we're helping HIM."; 3/22/16, 7:25 PM
narciso said...: revisiting wrath of khan, should have been a hanging offense,; 3/22/16, 7:27 PM
Unknown said...: And when Spock beats Khan's ass at the end with Uhura's help. But of course the transporter can't just beam them both up to the ship. Because they're moving around too much or something. JJ Abrams out!; 3/22/16, 7:28 PM
narciso said...: Obama, appointed the coordinator who slow walked the process, and elton who helped forced her out through lawfare, the name of the firm, is available with a little research,; 3/22/16, 7:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

Nope. You just have to give me an example of a Canadian counterpart to Sarah Palin. Should be pretty basic. Especially for someone who is obviously much more informed of the issue than I. Did all of this occur after the '08 election? If not, why wouldn't Palin's team use these international negotiations to buttress her foreign policy experience? Sounds like a much stronger case than Alaska's geographic proximity to Russia.; 3/22/16, 7:31 PM
Unknown said...: Amen. Kirk dies and Spock's on the other side of the door? Weak. Forced.

Chris Pine however does arrogant starship captain like no one since Shatner. And Quinto is the only young Spock I could see. But script...yikes.; 3/22/16, 7:31 PM
Unknown said...: Nah, this is '06 more or less. By the time you get to open season and formal process a lot of the ngotiation is over. The formal process is the outcome though it sometimes blends over to the negotiations (and it did here). Eventually of course gas price killed (put in a coma?) the whole thing.

Hit my e-mail and convince me you're not a creep for names from 10 years ago - not enthused about putting real people's info on the net. But if you look like Benedict Cumberbatch (sp?) that's in your favor. It would be even better if you looked like Uhura.; 3/22/16, 7:45 PM
narciso said...: they called it media malpractice, but frankly that was too generous,

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

couric's researcher was to lazy to actually too ignorant to turn up her op ed published in the times, re the epa,; 3/22/16, 7:46 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

"Nah, this is '06 more or less."

Sarah Palin didn't take office as governor until December of 2006.

"Hit my e-mail and convince me you're not a creep for names from 10 years ago - not enthused about putting real people's info on the net"

You can't give me the name of a single Canadian government official on the other side of the negotiating table? Why insist on doing it privately via email when you can put it here for other reader's consumption. And why would you need to protect the identity of government officials working in official capacity?

Sorry, don't look anything like Uhura. Frankly, I hated the original Star Trek, though I did admire the way Shatner transformed his terrible acting into ironic hipster performance art. I'm a Next Generation guy all the way, and my favorite character on that show was John de Lancie's "Q."; 3/22/16, 7:54 PM
Unknown said...: I'd add that Palin touted her work on the AGPL extensively as part of her candidacy, but for the most part the media ignored or challenged anything she said about it. Believe there were the usual poorly informed "fact-checks" about it from the usual suspects. She's mainly known for the Tina Fey gag which she didn't even say. And again, I personally think she's a cunt but despite that I can feel first-hand the Gell-man Amnesia effect at work.; 3/22/16, 7:58 PM
Unknown said...: You're right, in '06 it was Murkowski who could sort of deal and in '07 it was Palin who killed the goose with the golden eggs. The formal process kicked off in '07 but I recall it felt dead by then. Like I say, like dealing with a union rep, no sense that you had to split the pie to bake one.

Hit my e-mail on names.

John DeLancie rocks. I even saw him on the soap opera Another World pre-STTNG and he was awesome there too.; 3/22/16, 8:06 PM
Unknown said...: Or was it Days of Our Lives? I seem to recall he was dating a girl named Calliope on the show...memory's not so good these days.; 3/22/16, 8:11 PM
narciso said...: I did see they actually struck oil in the reserve, by another firm that was competitor to transcanada, the one who mike hawker flacked for. which is significant because without further supply, the pipeline falls below carrying capacity, as her testimony in 2009 indicated, and it
has to be dismantled,; 3/22/16, 8:12 PM
narciso said...: that deal was back in 2004, with the seven sisters,; 3/22/16, 8:24 PM
Gahrie said...: if while he was in the Illinois State Legislature, Barack Obama ever voted on a bill that awarded a bid to a foreign company that was responsible for dealing with its own government as part of its bid, he has as much claim to have negotiated an “international agreement” as then governor Sarah Palin.

Since we are talking about Obama...the chances are exceedingly small, and if he did, he did so only because his mentor ordered him to.; 3/22/16, 8:32 PM
J. Farmer said...: @John Constantius:

"I'd add that Palin touted her work on the AGPL extensively as part of her candidacy, but for the most part the media ignored or challenged anything she said about it."

I already conceded that the one area there seemed to be some consensus regarding Palin's competence it was on the issue of oil and gas. If you work in the industry and are willing to vouch for her skills in that area, I have no reason to doubt you. I can happily concede all of that without changing my opinion of Palin as a dunce. You can be a dunce and a good negotiator. Ask a lot of wives in Beverly Hills or the Upper East Side.

"Hit my e-mail on names."

If these are names of people who work for private companies, then I have no interest. I just want one Palin Canadian counterpart. It makes no sense why you would only disclose that via email instead of here.

I stand by my original assertion: Palin has never negotiated an "international agreement." Nothing I have heard from you thus has convinced me that I'm wrong. I'm begging you to prove me wrong. Just give a link to one outside source substantiating these supposed negotiations. That is all I am asking for.; 3/22/16, 8:39 PM
ken in tx said...: Palin is not a 'Wise Latina' therefore she is unqualified to do judge type stuff.; 3/22/16, 9:33 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: But lawyers drink too much, the most of any white collar profession, taking them up to the blue collars; out of the muck of sober, responsible concerns.

The science has been settled and any ignorance therefore is willful fraud, on your part.; 3/22/16, 9:34 PM
ken in tx said...: She's not even a Jew.; 3/22/16, 9:35 PM
Known Unknown said...: I'm just curious as to what the name of the show will be.; 3/22/16, 9:41 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: We ought give credit to the law guild keepers for acknowledging to themselves they need their own specialized barriers to entry otherwise the occupation/job would not drive liquor sales to the extent they do, and liquor production capability is a number one priority in times of war.; 3/22/16, 10:00 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Palin is better than her critics because as they reinitiate their childhood phobias of not being good enough on to her, with pathetic smug signaling, she cashes in: feeling good, snow machine accidents notwithstanding.

Success is the best revenge yet no Palin deriders understand this, as if building wealth and a large family is totally foreign to them. And being attractive inside and out.

For some people (not so) witty internet comments ARE ALL THEY GOT. When your only solution is a keyboard, keep on typing my friend.; 3/22/16, 10:20 PM
Ron said...: I suspect there are a lot of non-lawyers who could do quite well on the court. I also suspect they would likely be given a cold shoulder by the lawyers on the court.; 3/23/16, 12:15 AM
Brando said...: No one has done the "judge show" as well as Judge Judy. There's something about the simmering rage, slowly building as she listens to someone try to BS her, and then the explosion--the only way to improve it would be to uncensor it and let her unleash a stream of curse words (though that would probably take some of the fun out of it as it'd be too blunt). The other shows are just pale imitations.

Palin, though? I just don't think she's cut out as an entertainer or political talking head. Her shows have failed repeatedly. She needs to find a new venue. Maybe a scripted show where she plays a batty politician--like a character arc on Veep.; 3/23/16, 6:34 AM
RonF said...: Hm. I don't know about putting non-lawyers on the Court. Seems like a bad idea to me.

OTOH, there have been plenty of Justices who were never judges, including William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg, etc., etc.

http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

In the interests of diversity, I propose that the next 4 Justices chosen should not have been judges and should not have gone to law school at either Harvard or Yale. In fact, they should not have gone to law school east of the Applachians or west of the Rockies.; 3/23/16, 1:47 PM