Comments on: Sen. Durbin’s “Stand Your Ground” intimidation

By: Bissmich

Bissmich — Sat, 10 Aug 2013 23:03:25 +0000

Hey Dick – how about including this in your hearing:

Since our Justice Department and Executive Branch can now apparently pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, my neighbors and I have done the same. Although ‘Stand Your Ground’ isn’t the law in our state – it is now the law in our neighborhood. Thankfully, here in the country with no police department and the sheriff more than an hour away, we’ve got everybody with an excavator on speed dial. Thieves and other assorted human detritus are nervous.

By: Fox2!

Fox2! — Sat, 10 Aug 2013 05:40:28 +0000

And then there are the entirely fake non-hearing hearings put on by only one side. E.g., Sandra Fluke

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 22:44:49 +0000

Prior, I have watched a few senate hearings and they have been show trials. Either they are softball questions, like Jamie Dimon in 2009 or hectoring, like the oil companies’ CEOs in…. was in 2006?

Bob

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:25:19 +0000

@prior probability… Haven’t seen many congressional hearings, have you? Whatever makes you think that sides inimical to the chairman’s point of view are allowed to testify? They aren’t even invited to attend unless other congressional elements makes a particular stink about it.

Opponents of the official line might — just might — be invited to submit something in writing. They’re certainly not going to be invited to detract from the politicians’ camera time.

By: prior probability

prior probability — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:07:56 +0000

Memo to Cato Institute: I’m no fan of Senator Durbin, but if his threatening letter is so foul, why not just toss it in waste bin (or write back with your own letter calling him out)? His tactics may (or may not) be a form of intimidation, but isn’t this how the game of politics is usually played? Let him convene all the “show hearings” he wants … as long as groups on all sides of the self-defense issue are allowed to testify, what harm is there?

By: Tamara

Tamara — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:05:39 +0000

Mr. Nicholas, if you go to the link in Mr Olson’s post, Mr Shapiro includes a link to a .pdf of Mr Durbin’s full letter.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:03:30 +0000

Somehow I am not surprised, Nicholas, at your finding nothing offensive or oppressive about the Senator's launching an investigation against those who donate or associate with a private group whose views on public policy he finds disagreeable. Or that you would review the whole matter too hastily to note that Cato has indeed "bothered to print the letter" in question, as linked in Ilya Shapiro's Cato blog post on the topic. I will link it here so that you don't need to go to the trouble of linking through.

By: Eponymous Nicholas

Eponymous Nicholas — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:48:10 +0000

It’s hard to judge Durbin’s letter as is offensive or oppressive when Cato can’t even be bothered to print the letter. The two questions they excerpted are totally unremarkable, dry and factual. It is enough to make me think that Cato is trying to pump its donors for money, making a mountain out of a not-even-molehill.

Also, as an amateur grammar nazi I’m wondering what is the problem with the phrasing of the questions? It seems okay to me.