Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles

ROMNEY: LIAR, OR MORON?

ROMNEY: LIAR, OR MORON? Maybe it's just me, but the fact that the leading fundraiser among Republican Presidential candidates is either ignorant of the most basic facts about the Iraq War or is a shameless liar strikes me as significant. But hey, that lie worked for the last Republican campaign , so why not? What's more, if you recall from the 2000 campaign, even according to some of our liberal columnists , whether you repeatedly tell bald-faced lies about your policies and your opponent's policies is less important than whether you sigh too much; and pointing out someone else's lies makes you seem like a "know-it-all." So Romney is just playing by the established rules. And it's not like his competition has a better grasp on reality ... UPDATE: Needless to say, the fact that Romney is unfamiliar with even the most rudimentary facts about the most important issue of the day doesn't stop him from being declared the winner by the internet's premier source for political haircut news...

LINE OF THE NIGHT:

LINE OF THE NIGHT: David Weigel in response to staunch advocate of arbitrary executive power Rudy Giuliani touting New Hampshire's state motto: "I have no comment on Rudy's "live free or die" remark. He might ban me from his event tomorrow." -- Scott Lemieux

AGAINST THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

AGAINST THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE. Adam Liptak has an excellent article ( via ) about peremptory challenges and their ongoing use to produce racially unrepresentative juries. Liptak mentions the 2005 Miller-El case, which I discussed here . (Remarkably, despite extensive evidence that created an exceptionally strong inference of unconstitutional race-based peremptories, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist dissented.) This case illustrates, however, the difficulty of proving racial discrimination no matter how overwhelming the patterns of exclusion are, and despite the Supreme Court's invitation state courts are unlikely to supervise procedures very aggressively. Like Liptak, Thurgood Marshall , and Stephen Breyer , I think it's time to do away with peremptory challenges entirely. They aren't constitutionally mandated, and it's increasingly hard to see how permitting the arbitrary exclusion of jurors would lead to fairer trials. Breyer quotes Arthur Goldberg , who noted that "[w]ere it...

BUSH's IDEA OF A FAIR JUDGE.

BUSH's IDEA OF A FAIR JUDGE. Via Matt , an excellent summary of the record of Leslie Southwick , the latest Bush Circuit Court nominee whose primary qualification is a slavish devotion to business interests. Particularly remarkable is the case of Richmond v. Mississippi Dep't of Human Services, in which the Court of Appeals of Mississippi (in an opinion joined by Southwick) upheld the state's decision to overrule a Department of Human Services decision to fire an employee who used a racial slur against another employee. The state's decision is subject to review, and cannot be "arbitrary or capricious." So what were the findings that justified overriding the decision of DHS? As the dissent notes, here was the argument: (1) DHS overreacted; (2) the remark was made in an open meeting with an atmosphere of give and take; (3) the term "good ole nigger" was not a racial slur; (4) calling Varrie Richmond a "good ole nigger" was equivalent to calling her "teacher's pet." Arguing that these...

GUTTING WITHERSPOON. Earlier...

GUTTING WITHERSPOON . Earlier this term the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence because of clear errors of federal law committed by the ultra-reactionary and notoriously hackish Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. What was remarkable was not the outcome, but there were four votes upholding the TCOCA's transparent attempts to evade federal law (with the dissent written by new addition Sam Alito ). Lest this make you optimistic, however, today the Court -- overturning an opinion handed down by the very conservative Alex Kozinski ! -- voted to reinstate a death sentence with an extremely weak opinion. Justice Kennedy, fresh from an embarrassingly feeble opinion upholding a federal abortion statute based on farcically erroneous "fact-finding," today meekly defers to a state court's bizarre interpretation of a voir dire proceeding to uphold a death sentence. Under the Witherspoon precedent a juror cannot be excluded solely because they personally oppose the death penalty (although of...

Pages