But so far as unconvicted or unindicted felons . . .

Apologies for the sacriligious thought (but then to my way of thinking it's sacriligious to bring G-d into it in the first place), but I guess, to paraphrase someone on TPM, G-d just closed that cracked-open door for the time being.

Good news. If this result holds, it will keep Palin out of Washington for at least a couple years. In the meantime, I am sure she will find it much more difficult being a popular governor with the looming budget problems Alaska will inevitably face with oil down near $50 a barrel.

http://www.youtube.com/v/5nYoahyaPuA&hl=en&fs=1

Too bad the house won't for long.

William Jefferson anyone?

But so far as unconvicted or unindicted felons . . .

Posted by: chascates on November 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Apparently all of that wasn't enough to keep Ted from being re-elected to the House.

Stevens is a typical GOP thug.

But goddammit, if I hear one more person say he has been "convicted" I'm going to go, well, the term used to be "postal." No one is a convicted felon until the legal process is over, i.e., he has been sentenced.

It's about process. Wingnuts don't care about it, but sane people should. What the hell was Padilla about? Seriously.

Argh.

dude08.
The legal definition of 'convicted' is open to interpretation since it has never been challenged in court. Most, but not all, legal scholars don't deem the process a conviction until the defendant is sentenced.

But since most of us aren't legal scholars, I think we can go with the common and accepted use as defined by Websters:
"to find or prove to be guilty"

You may not agree, but arguing that he hasn't been convicted is misleading and it is classic republican semantics.

Would saying he has been found guilty of 7 felonies keep you from going postal ? Suck it, he is a convicted felon.

"You may not agree, but arguing that he hasn't been convicted is misleading and it is classic republican semantics."

No, it's not semantics. Convicted should mean, at a minimum, that a person has been sentenced. Until then, the verdict is open to attack. Numerous times a verdict has been overturned through, for instance, a new trial motion or a motion in arrest of judgment.

And it is ignorance to claim that is a Republican issue. It's about liberty and due process.

Sorry. But principle matters more than Ted Stevens or Republicans.

dude08 @ 2:03 AM:

Until then [sentencing], the verdict is open to attack. Numerous times a verdict has been overturned through, for instance, a new trial motion or a motion in arrest of judgment.

In any event, Ted Stevens has certainly had 12 citizens return a verdict of "guilty". In colloquial parlance -- in perfectly acceptable colloquial parlance, I believe -- he has been convicted by a jury of his peers. I am a process freak and I respect a drive for linguistic accuracy. But to demand he be recognized as unconvicted does strike me as taking refuge in semantics.

(I am a physics teacher. I grit my teeth whenever anyone reports his/her mass to me in kilograms. Weight is measured in newtons, dammit. But I don't explode at them and I don't yell at my TV for using the violation of my jargon.)

My goodness; it looks like that Bridge to Nowhere might actually have a destination.

That's funny; I thought we were talking about Alaska and Ted Stevens. It should be cold, dark, and snowy this time of year---but it's unusually warm right now; there's this orange-ish, flickering glow up ahead of Ted's current location, and...damn---is that really what brimstone smells like? Quick---tell Palin to run on up ahead and peek through that rather garish-looking door at the other end of the Bridge. God wants to "open it for her, too...."

Dude 08: I see no reason to differentiate between Stevens' conviction and that of a poor person convicted and remanded into immediate custody pending sentencing. You can be convicted in traffic court, and you can parse the meaning of a jury verdict if you are a wealthy sitting Senator who took bribes. But both are convicted. Both can appeal too. I feel pretty good about the civil rights afforded the convicted Stevens. . . .

I'm guessing Dude 08 won't be disappointed if Stevens' conviction is overturned on appeal.

Just as long as Guv St Sarah d'Arc doesn't have her pet, Mr McMoose, do the recount. And, who will oversee his stamping in the snow?

The numbers I saw showed Begish ahead by more than 1%. If that holds up will there be a recount?

Mi>If that holds up will there be a recount? - Jose Padilla

Only if someone pays $15,000 for it. I think the threshhold is 1500 votes, but check out "fivethirtyeight.com" for a more complete explanation.

Bernard: "...he has been convicted [of felonies] by a jury of his peers"

Ipso facto, he is a convicted felon.

"...someone on Ted's staff edited an earmark after the law after it was in had been passed in order to direct the money to a freeway interchange in Florida that was wanted by a Stevens' campaign donor but opposed by local officials."

That wasn't Stevens involved in that particular debacle. It was Congressman Don Young.

It is such a pity that Stevens lost.

It allowed the republicans to avoid having to vote for or against a convicted felon.

It takes some of the spotlight off of that hottie in Alaska. After all, the best thing that could happen to the Democrats is to have an ignorant religious nut take over the Republican Party.

"...he has served since the days of the Johnson administration..."

Only because he was appointed to the Senate one month before Johnson left office.

One might as well say Stevens has served in the Senate for two centuries -- the 20th and the 21st!

BTW, my comment at 12:26 AM inexcusably confused Ted Stevens and Don Young.

I meant to make that comment about Representative Young. Unlike Young, he is still just under investigation, not charged and (sorry Dude08) convicted. It is Stevens' son, not Young's who was a member of the "corrupt bastards club".

However, it is Young whose shenanigans in support of the Coconut Road earmark in Florida did more than any other single incident to bring abusive earmarks into the public consciousness at the time. Given that his ability to bring home earmarks for the state of Alaska has been crucial to his electoral success, I hoped the embarassment of that incident would have been fatal to his re-election.

and again:

"Unlike Young, he..." should read "Unlike Stevens, he..."