Samantha
Samantha's JournalI love this opinion piece, H2O Man
A really nice read this early in the morning (3:23 am).
The most fascinating fact about this particular election to me is that Bernie Sanders identifies income inequality causation occurring as a result of the top one percent usurping 99 percent of all new income, and the top one-tenth of that one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That very disparity is one of the direct causes of the shrinking middle class and the growth of poverty in this Country.
The salient focus of this contest between Clinton and Sanders for me is the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are in the top one-tenth of that one percent. In other words, they are among the top targets Sanders pinpoints as a huge part of the problem. No one discusses this latter point in election debates. Yet there the elephant in the debate room sits.
What rational person actually thinks that if elected Hillary Clinton will seek to change the formula which has so enriched Bill's, Chelsea's and her lives to establish a fairer distribution of income and wealth to the middle and poor classes of people in this Country?
So Bernie identifies the problem as he sees it, and part of the problem is standing there on the debate platform along side him purloining planks of his platform. Is that not surreal? Obviously, her political cronies know she is saying what she believes she should say to get elected, but if she does in fact prevail, she will take office and do whatever she wants. But voters who support her actually buy what she is selling. What logical explanation is there for that? And additionally, do they not see the elephant?
Sam
Respondeat superior
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/respondeat+superior[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.
The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.
An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.
In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.
I am not going to disagree with you H20 Man, but I am going to add some food for thought. I worked for decades in the legal community in DC, for various law firms, in different support capacities, for some extremely intelligent, successful attorneys. I first learned this phrase from one of those attorneys when one day I said to my boss, "If I have made a mistake, I will take the full responsibility for it." He then quoted that phrase and told me that as his employee, he would be legally responsible for any mistakes on my part. I always remembered that and took extreme care with the work I performed during my employment in the legal community.
This concept leads me to believe that if one of Hillary's assistants is thrown under the bus and Hillary receives simply a slap on the wrist, those responsible for assessing if a crime or crimes were committed, how did it happen, why did it happen, and what harm resulted from these crimes will not feel satisfied with the outcome. Many of us here at DU look at most occurrences through a political lens, but in Washington, the political capital of the world, while politics is all-important, there is one terrain that is more important: national security.
Up until this last week or so, I just assumed this email debacle was a tactic summoned into the public view as an attack on Hillary Clinton's reputation. Then I took the time to read some of the emails, and in all honesty, I was appalled at the content. I thought immediately this will never fly with the Intelligence community, and someone will pay for this breach. I do think Comey is taking a very intense approach into delving into the details, and I see him as a man who is a stickler for playing by the rules.
There are a lot of rumors afloat in DC, and I will wait for the official announcement from the investigation as to what process will ensue.
But politics aside, H20 Man, I honestly do not believe that the Intelligence Community that protects our national security will overlook these events and simply give participants a slap on the wrist; I believe certain individuals will be taking the position that a person who has allowed these type of breaches to happen on his or her watch is not a person who can be entrusted to hold the reins of control over our national security.
In no regard is this an opinion presented to diss Clinton and promote Sanders politically. Sanders will not benefit if Clinton is charged or if she drops out of the campaign as a result of a deal reached with government officials. We will see Joe Biden jump in on the Democratic side of the aisle to take Clinton's place. After all, he supports the TPP and Sanders opposes it ....
With the highest regards,
Sam
This is exactly what I was looking for
I noticed the article didn't mention Independents, and I also know Bernie traditionally has prevailed with the Independent vote thus far. This is very encouraging, and thanks for posting it.
Sam
David Plouffe and the rest of the Third Way Crowd need to form their own party
rather than trying to take over the FDR Democrats in the current party. Those of us who have been Democrats for a long time and support, as Bernie says, the government working for all of the people, will never lie down in the dirt with them. We should start making that statement well known - the FDR Dems and the Third-Way Dems cannot peacefully and rightfully co-exist in the same political party. And we were here first.
Sam
Superdelegates offsetting the results of primaries is unconstitutional IMHO
I had been thinking how can this possibly be legal when the Constitution specifically delegates the right to run Presidential elections to the individual states, not to political parties. I found there were many people who believe kicking aside a candidate who prevails via acquiring the most legitimate votes in primary contests to usher in another candidate better suited to there preferences is unconstitutional.
Here is one example:
Superdelgate Intervention Unconstitutional
Even critics of superdelegate deals tend to underestimate the gravity of the issue. In its very essence, the superdelegate system is unconstitutional. It destroys the right of primary voters to choose their own nominee. It offends the principle of one person one vote. In three primary cases (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927, Nixon v. Condon, 1932, Smith v. Allwright, 1944) the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to vote in a primary (a right which includes the right to be counted and respected), is protected by the Constitution. Officials cannot legally circumvent the vote. These were discrimination cases, but the arguments apply directly to the superdelegate situation in the Democratic primary.
Up to a point, a political party is master of its own house. But no party, or group within a party, can legally tamper with primary results. In Terry v. Adams (1953), the Court ruled against the "Jay Bird Association," a group of powerful white Democrats who tried to create a private enforcement process within the Democratic primary. Justice Clark ruled that "any part of the machinery for choosing officials becomes subject to the Constitution's restraints."
The superdelegate system flouts the very purpose for which primaries were conceived. "Fighting" Bob LaFollette, the Wisconsin progressive who organized the first primaries in 1903, hated boss-controlled conventions. The aim of the primaries is to remove the nominations from the hands of professionals and the wealthy donors whom professionals obey. The superdelegate issue should not be resolved through deals or negotiations. The integrity of elections is not negotiable. The superdelegate system deserves to be abolished. (bolded emphasis added)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/02/18/screw-voters-let-superdelegates-decide
I wonder what Lawrence Tribe would have to say on this subject....
Sam
Footnote: (reposted as a separate thread at the request of another DU'er)
What about this person being nominated for the Supreme Court?
She graduated from Radcliffe College and Columbia Law School. She would be a distinguished choice.
http://www.history.com/topics/caroline-kennedy
Sam
Superdelegates offsetting the results of primaries is unconstitutional IMHO
I had been thinking how can this possibly be legal when the Constitution specifically delegates the right to run Presidential elections to the individual states, not to political parties. I found there were many people who believe kicking aside a candidate who prevails via acquiring the most legitimate votes in primary contests to usher in another candidate better suited to there preferences is unconstitutional.
Here is one example:
Superdelgate Intervention Unconstitutional
Even critics of superdelegate deals tend to underestimate the gravity of the issue. In its very essence, the superdelegate system is unconstitutional. It destroys the right of primary voters to choose their own nominee. It offends the principle of one person one vote. In three primary cases (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927, Nixon v. Condon, 1932, Smith v. Allwright, 1944) the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to vote in a primary (a right which includes the right to be counted and respected), is protected by the Constitution. Officials cannot legally circumvent the vote. These were discrimination cases, but the arguments apply directly to the superdelegate situation in the Democratic primary.
Up to a point, a political party is master of its own house. But no party, or group within a party, can legally tamper with primary results. In Terry v. Adams (1953), the Court ruled against the "Jay Bird Association," a group of powerful white Democrats who tried to create a private enforcement process within the Democratic primary. Justice Clark ruled that "any part of the machinery for choosing officials becomes subject to the Constitution's restraints."
The superdelegate system flouts the very purpose for which primaries were conceived. "Fighting" Bob LaFollette, the Wisconsin progressive who organized the first primaries in 1903, hated boss-controlled conventions. The aim of the primaries is to remove the nominations from the hands of professionals and the wealthy donors whom professionals obey. The superdelegate issue should not be resolved through deals or negotiations. The integrity of elections is not negotiable. The superdelegate system deserves to be abolished.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/02/18/screw-voters-let-superdelegates-decide
I hope Bernie Sanders seeks a Constitutional lawyer's advice on this subject, if he hasn't already.
Sam
This is a such a beautiful, eloquent post
I said at the time I could not support any politician that signed the petition giving Bush the authority to wage a preeminent war on Iraq. I did not believe either him or Cheney on this subject, and I felt if I, a nobody, could see the truth of the whole matter -- it was all about the oil and Bush* wanting to eliminate Saddam for trying to kill George H.W. Bush -- certainly elected politicians should be able to see the hoax as well.
I had never cried at work, but the day our military crossed the desert and I watched those tanks racing across the sand, I watched a large screen in a large conference room display our soldiers heading toward Iraq to invade. I couldn't move, I just stood there with tears coming down my face. Finally, in sadness I walked away thinking that as an American, I too would be seen as responsible for the war, and I just could not handle that. I have always been a Pacifist, and like Bernie, I think war should be waged only as a last resort -- for instance when we were attacked during World War II.
Apologizing for a vote does not erase the horror of what we did to the Iraqi people. There is simply no way to ever make right what we did to that Country and to its people. God forgive us, because we have no right to ask the Iraqi people for forgiveness.
Sam
Some time ago I started thinking what if Will's death had been staged
A "rational" explanation might come from the fact that his death had to happen openly, in public, so there would be no question. Why? Because the FBI was moving him into the witness protection program.
Will had been receiving death threats, and the government thought Bishop was behind them. As Bishop's attorney, Will had a lot of information about the criminal side of his business. Information the government desperately wanted because putting Bishop out of business was a top priority to them. Yes, Bishop came to the firm towards the end of that segment saying he wanted to close out his enterprises to have a regular life for the sake of his son. That was a charade. He knew the government was getting close, and he needed to get out. He also needed to eliminate any evidence and witnesses that could literally "hang" him. Will was one of those people.
Yes, Will was not allowed to reveal what he knew because he acted as Bishop's attorney. But if the threats against his life continued, hanging on to his law license would not be a top priority. Having an opportunity to lead a normal life in the witness protection program, just starting over again and out of Bishop's reach was his top priority. And perhaps that new life could include Alecia if she too were willing to give up everything. After all, her two children were entering college and the damage done to her marriage never really healed. She could join Will if she truly wanted to, and what a wonderful gift that would be to the viewers who have loved this show for years....
Remember her whispered words in that beautiful love scene when she said to him, "This has been the happiest I have ever been" ... words to that effect.
The staged death scene was intended to convince Bishop he had no more worries about what danger Will could do to him. But just as a backup scenario, Will had given video depositions and therefore testimony against Bishop's enterprises. He also turned over other evidence. So the government had what it needed to put Bishop away, but the trade-off was it had to promise Will a safe, long life. Thus the staged death and subsequent witness protection program life.
This is another factor that prompted Kalinda to disappear. She too knew too much about Bishop's business.
The Bishop matter has now been handled, and I think a "stunning" end to this series -- they have announced it will be a "shocker" -- is that Alecia learns Will is in fact alive. One of the last scenes could possibly show just her walking towards him and the ensuing reunion. What happens afterwards, we do not know.
What could be read as a "clue" was recently dropped when Alecia suddenly asked Eli out of the blue what had been in the second recorded message Will left for her on her phone that Eli surreptitiously deleted. Part of the message Eli reported Will had said was that he was ready to give up everything, his current life, his law practice, everything for just the two of them to be together. It was odd this was thrown into that script at that time, but it did remind the viewers just how much Will loved Alecia and what all he was willing to give up to have a life with her.
****************
This is pure speculation. But if the series ends in a fashion that has a "shocking" but wonderful, happy ending that would be an appropriate finale to an outstanding show that for seven years gave us an incredible source of entertainment.
Okay, elleng -- any possibilities, any thoughts?
Sam
For what it is worth, Real Clear Politics latest polling -- NH primary Democrats
If you take a look, please let me know what you are thinking.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html
And here is Nate Silver's:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/
Thanks.
Sam
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 9,314
