Archive for Montana

Montana’s former governor, Brian Schweitzer, will consider campaign to replace Max Baucus

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Brian Schweitzer

As Paddy posted earlier, Max Baucus (D-Montana) decided to retire rather than seek re-election in 2014. Buh-bye now.

And hopefully, hello to former Democratic Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. He told The Hill he’d consider running for Baucus’ Senate seat. However, we’ll have to wait at least a week or two before we know for sure, because he won’t decide until after May 2.

“I’m the kind of guy that, when I see a broke-down pickup, I’ll get out with my tools and try to fix it, and I can tell you looking at Washington, D.C., from Montana, there is no bigger broke-down pickup than the Senate in Washington, D.C.,” Schweitzer said in an interview, when asked if he was looking at a run to replace Baucus, who announced his retirement Tuesday morning.

Spot. On.

I’m not ruling anything out, or anything in, but I can tell you right now I’m focused like a laser … I’m focused on the mine, on climbing that mountain… Then I’ll take a deep breath; I’ll take a look around [at the Senate race]. And when you’re standing on a mountain in Montana, you can see a long ways… You can’t see where I’m leaning. I’m leaning looking out the window here in the mountains.”

Oh come on, rule in! Lean toward a run!

We need someone who would be an improvement over Baucus. (At this point it seems anyone would be.) Remember, ConservaDem Baucus worked with the GOP to co-write the infamous Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription plan.  He also voted against some Democratic social issues, and he was one of only four Democratic “No” votes on the Manchin–Toomey amendment to extend background checks to private gun sales.

Schweitzer’s approvals were good when he left office. Public Policy Polling had him at 56 percent in February, with 37 percent disapproving. He’s our best shot.

By the way, here’s an interesting tidbit from Dave Weigel:

A key Baucus staffer during that race was Jim Messina, better known now as the 2012 campaign manager for Obama-Biden.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Max Baucus (D-Montana) to retire rather than seek re-election in 2014

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

baucus

Don’t let the door hit ya Max. And GO Schweitzer!

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is retiring rather than seek re-election in 2014, according to two senior Democratic strategists familiar with his plans.

First elected in 1978, Baucus has been the top Democrat on the powerful tax-writing committee for more than a dozen years. At times infuriating his Democratic colleagues, he worked with Republicans to co-write the Bush-era tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug plan, but he also served as the lead defender against George W. Bush’s 2005 effort to partially privatize Social Security and played a critical role in writing President Obama’s national health-care plan.

From conservative-leaning Montana, Baucus has voted against Democratic initiatives on some social issues, most recently last week’s effort to create an expanded background check system for gun purchases.

Despite Obama’s double-digit defeat in Montana, Democrats intend to vigorously defend the seat. The leading Democratic candidate is former governor Schweitzer, a popular figure who at times has feuded with Baucus over parochial political issues in the Big Sky state.

The Baucus retirement also could have dramatic policy ramifications. No longer bounded by his own 2014 re-election, Baucus can now push for comprehensive tax reform without concerns about the political ramifications, his allies say.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Montana corporal punishment bill proposed by Republican legislator. Who knew the GOP was into spanking?

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

spank

corporal punishment Montana

Land o’ Goshen, Montana’s getting kind of kinky! Or one of their legislators is, anyway. He’s appears to be into… spanking. Okay, maybe kinky wasn’t the right word. How about misguided? Or just plain nuts?

I mean, come on, flogging is so Les Miz ago.

Memo to GOP: Violence is not the answer. Guns are not the answer. Beating, flogging, spanking, or otherwise harming other human beings: none of these is the answer. Common sense laws are, reasonable punishment is, you get the idea.

The bill proposed by Rep. Jerry O’Neil (R-Columbia Falls) includes the following:

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT ALLOWING A DEFENDANT TO BARGAIN FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN LIEU OF OR TO REDUCE THE TERM OF ANY SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR IMPOSITION; AMENDING SECTION 46-18-115, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.” BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Corporal punishment in lieu of incarceration. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a person convicted of any offense by a court in this state, whether a misdemeanor or felony, may during a sentencing hearing as provided in 46-18-115 bargain with the court for the imposition of corporal punishment in lieu of or to reduce the term of any sentence of incarceration available to the court for imposition.

(2) The court and the person convicted of an offense shall negotiate the exact nature of the corporal punishment to be imposed, which must be commensurate with the severity, nature, and degree of the harm caused by the offender. If the court and the offender cannot agree on the exact nature of the corporal punishment to be imposed, the court shall impose a sentence as provided in 46-18-201.

(3) The imposition of a sentence under this section must be carried out by the sheriff of the county in which the crime occurred if the sentence for corporal punishment reduced or eliminated the term of incarceration in the county jail or by the department of corrections if the sentence reduced or eliminated the term of incarceration in the state prison. Any imposition of sentence pursuant to this section must be carried out within a reasonable time.

(4) For purposes of this section, “corporal punishment” means the infliction of physical pain on a defendant to carry out the sentence negotiated between the judge and the defendant.

No, he’s not kidding.

spanking

Corporal punishment, according to Merriam-Webster:

Infliction of physical pain upon a person’s body as punishment for a crime or infraction. Such penalties include beating, branding, mutilation, blinding, and the use of the stock and pillory. The term also denotes the physical disciplining of children in the schools and at home. From ancient times through the 18th century, corporal punishment was commonly used in instances that did not call for capital punishment, ostracism, or exile. But the growth of humanitarian ideals during the Enlightenment and afterward led to its gradual abandonment, and today it has been almost entirely replaced in the West by imprisonment or other nonviolent penalties.

crazy

H/t: The Lowdown

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Video- DNC Convention: Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer- Mitt Romney ‘Wrong Man To Be President’

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Via.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

“A strong and solid four justices ready to overturn Citizens United.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

at the Election Law Blog has an interesting take on today’s Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign spending law:

By a 5-4 vote, the court’s conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court’s liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

In his post, Hasen makes points that you need to read in full:

I view this as a relative victory for campaign finance reformersTaking the case would have been an opportunity for the majority of Supreme Court justices to make things worse, such as by suggesting that limits on direct contributions to candidates are unconstitutional.  [...]

Justice Kagan appears to be signing on here.  That means a strong and solid four justices ready to overturn Citizens United. [...]

The 2012 election will matter too if the next president gets to appoint one or more Justices to the Court to replace either Justice Scalia or Kennedy. … [I]t is more likely to happen if it is President Romney than Obama.  Decisions like these (and a health care reversal, if that comes), makes it more likely for Obama to make an issue of the Supreme Court

Please follow the link for details.

I’m not as optimistic as Hasen, but I appreciate the post. I fully expected the Supreme Corporate to rule this way and can’t get past how often and appallingly its conservative members have trampled on our rights and politicized the highest court in the land.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Breaking- Supreme Court Overturns Most of Arizona “Papers Please” Law, Except “Papers Please” Part

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Hot from Think Progress. Per Bloomberg News, this is the only decision they will announce today.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To ‘Show Me Your Papers,’ Strikes Down Part Of Arizona Immigration Law | The Supreme Court just announced that parts of Arizona’s harsh immigration law, SB 1070, are preempted by federal immigration law. Significantly, however, the justices did also held that it was “improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released.”

Update

Two significant points about the decision is that the Court voted 8-0 to reject this particular challenge to the show me your papers provision, with Kagan recused. The majority opinion also leaves open the possibility that a future challenge to this provision could succeed, including a claim that the law leads to unconstitutional racial profiling.

More than one decision though-

Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.
By a 5-4 vote, the court’s conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.
The majority turned away pleas from the court’s liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

And=

Life Without Parole for Juveniles?

The Supreme Court has rejected the death penalty for juveniles, and it has said that juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses can no longer receive sentences of life without parole. Now it will address whether juvenile murderers – 13 and 14 year olds – should receive sentences of life without parole.

The court heard two cases regarding sentences of life without parole applied to offenders who were 14 at the time of their crimes. Evan Miller beat a neighbor and then set his trailer on fire so that the man burned to death. Kuntrell Jackson took part in a murder that occurred in 1999 less than three weeks after his 14th birthday. Jackson didn’t pull the trigger, but he was charged as an adult. (Miller v. Alabama, and Jackson v. Hobbs)

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Chief U.S. District Judge sends racially charged email about President Obama

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

So far not a word about any punishment for this bullshit.

HELENA — Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull on Wednesday admitted to sending a racially charged email about President Barack Obama from his courthouse chambers.

Cebull, of Billings, was nominated by former President George W. Bush and received his commission in 2001 and has served as chief judge for the District of Montana since 2008.

I like the way he admits to the email being racist but HE’S not a racist.

The subject line of the email, which Cebull sent from his official courthouse email address on Feb. 20 at 3:42 p.m., reads: “A MOM’S MEMORY.”

The forwarded text reads as follow:

“Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the email joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

Cebull admitted Wednesday to sending the email to seven recipients, including his personal email address.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email