Makes me proud to be from Missouri

I see that Ike Skelton is doing his level best to remind me that a "D" after one's name is no guarantee of sanity.

Over to you, Ike (via Political Animal):

House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton said Tuesday that his constituents aren't interested one way or the other in the congressional drive to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, but he's going to keep opposing it anyway.

During the congressional recess, Skelton toured his home state of Missouri, made numerous speaking appearances, met with several veterans groups, and only one person even mentioned it ... in passing.

"I was everywhere in my district, everywhere. It just wasn't raised," Skelton said. "There are other things on people's minds, like jobs and the economy."


So why is Skelton so determined to keep the law in place, above the objections of the White House, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, the House of Representatives, and the Senate Armed Services Committee? It's about the kids, apparently.

"What do mommas and daddies say to a seven-year-old child about this issue? I don't know," Skelton said. "I think it would be a family issue that would concern me the most ... What they might see in their discussions among the kids."

Got that, mommas and daddies? Ol' Ike's got your back, so there's one fewer tough conversation you'll have to have with your second-grader about military personnel policy.

Buried in Skelton's thinking, somewhere hidden in the piles of steaming manure, is the implication that voters in Missouri's 4th district don't give a good goddamn about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but by God their children do! And that keeping those poor, innocent brows un-furrowed is more important than letting decorated veterans keep their jobs.

Let's all just pause and reflect that this giant of political thought chairs the House Armed Services Committee.


  1. OMG! Chair of the House Armed Services Committee? Was that with Nancy Pelosi's knowledge and consent? How did that happen?
    Missouri, bring Ike Skelton home!

  2. The Ds on the Senate Judiciary Committee are doing their best to help Mr. Skelton out. Members of the Democratic-controlled committee approved President Obama's nomination of Chatigny, 11-7. Every R voted no.

    You may recall that Chatigny thinks sexual sadism is a *mitigating* factor for confessed murderers, child pornographers, and rapists. So hey, if you are in the 2nd Court's jurisdiction and you want to kill or rape someone, make sure you throw in some sexually sadistic torture. You'll get a shorter sentence. You can thank the Democratic Senators and President Scary-smart (on vacation), because heaven knows there wasn't anyone else qualified for this position.

  3. Nice to have you back, GJ.

    1) Your comment is totally off-topic. It has just about nothing to do with the content of the original post.

    2) I know very little of the case you are discussing, but from the article you linked, it seems there is more nuance to this case than you are admitting in your description. I don't really have a dog in this fight, if you'll forgive the metaphor, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are details you are eliding.

  4. 1) Sorry, I was just giving you a second example of why having a D after a pol's name isn't a guarantee of sanity. Maybe I should have gone with Rep. Hank "Guam" Johnson (D - my old district).

    2) My description is... wait a moment, it is Captain Obvious on the phone... he says there is no nuance sufficient to justify a judge claiming sexual sadism as a mitigating factor. Civilized humans make sexual sadism an aggravating factor in crimes. In any case, the Senate Ds will have every chance to educate us yokels as to what nuance makes sexual torture a factor for lighter sentences. Assuming they are sane. The Democratic Senators, that is.

  5. Nowhere in your linked article do the words "sexual sadism" or "mitigating factor" appear. The judge in question was, from what I can gather in this article, questioning the competence of the convicted man. The details may, in fact, provide a more nuanced picture of the judge's concern than your description thereof. The article goes on the mention that the judge was found to have acted in an appropriate, if unusual, manner when the case was reviewed, so I remain skeptical that the situation was precisely as you depict it.

  6. Those words you quote come straight from 'Judge' Chatigny's lips. the 'Judge' was in a foul mood, since his rulings had been vacated by the Supremes, so he bullied and threatened an attorney, and in doing so, he let slip his beliefs.

    "Looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted," Chatigny said. "Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor."

    BTW, while 'Judge' Chatigny was threatening the attorney of the self-confessed murdering rapist, Richard Blumenthal was going to the Supremes to get the stay of execution lifted. I'd be curious what Senate-candidate Blumenthal might have to say about the 'Judge.' Chatigny seems like he has problems of his own, and there is no way this pervert is suited for the Court of Appeals.

  7. Looks like you've got a case, GJ. (The second citation makes a much stronger argument than the first.) Fair enough. This nomination should be withdrawn.

    Still not on-topic, though.

  8. Sorry Dan, but no, GJ doesn't have a case. For one, to characterize the Judge as a pervert because you don't agree with his own interpretatio of the law is ridiculous. As to myself, I believe it is good to have at least some Judges who will be zealous on the left as it seems perfectly acceptable for Republicans to want to have zealous people on the Right. Don't fall for GJ's ultimate aim. To have lukewarm Democrats and fierce rightwinger Republicans so that the line is forever drawn to the right.

    Now I personally don't know that much about this judge except I know enough to not cherry pick one case and mischaracterize it. This is from Wiki:

    Of the 450-some opinions Judge Chatigny has issued as a federal court judge since 1994, only 16 have been reversed. His 2001 ruling on the issue of due process in online registration of sex offenders was upheld by the 2nd Circuit but reversed by the Supreme Court.

    Three prominent Republican former appointees as U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut wrote in April 2010 that they "support, without any reservation," this nomination. They said, "While each of us has dealt with Judge Chatigny under different circumstances, we have found him to be even tempered, thorough and without agenda. We believe that he is a fair minded and impartial judge, who has appropriate fitness and temperament for the appellate court....

    Don't fall for the dunce of Darkness GJ's simpleminded tricks.


  9. I didn't past all of the relevant parts from wiki:
    New evidence caused Judge Chatigny to convene a teleconference with counsel hours before a scheduled execution in January 2005. When a complaint was filed against him by the prosecution, charges were dismissed in a 45-page decision by the Second Circuit Judicial Council on July 26, 2006. The defense lawyer thanked Judge Chatigny for his intervention[3] and the Council found that his actions "were not motivated by any bias in favor of Ross [the prisoner] or against the death penalty, but only by the judge's reasonable perception that the discharge of his own judicial duty...required that he take forceful steps on Ross's behalf.... While the judge used strong language, there was no misconduct....[I]n the judge's reasonable view, the circumstances thrust on him called for unusual action in discharge of judicial duty to ensure the fair resolution of the important proceeding before him."

    So no, GJ most assuredly doesn't have a case, or much of a brain either but that is besides the point.

    As to the main topic, not much to say except I agree with you.


  10. And the gang's all here.

    Well, let's put it this way. Assuming the quote in GJ's citation is accurate, I will say that describing sexual sadism as a mitigating factor certainly gives one pause. But, as I suggested earlier, there seems to be more nuance than I previously conceded.

    One way or the other, I still think Ike Skelton is an asshat.

  11. It becomes a mitigating factor when it presents clear evidence of mental incapacitation. We do execute the insane in America, of that there is no doubt. You can cheer it as gj does and execute everyone, children, mentally disabled, the insane, even the innocent, (as Scalia himself accepts) or try to act civilized and examine it on a case by case basis. Life in prison without parole is no picnic, contrary to gjs delusions, so lets no emotionalism affect our judgments.

  12. charo, if Judge Pervy had claimed the murdering rapist[0] was incompetent, it would be a very different thing from saying, and I quote him as recorded by a Court Recorder, "his sexual sadism... is clearly a mitigating factor." Anyone who says that is unfit for the bench. I couldn't give a tinker's damn for his record and the fact that he walks old ladies across the street at stoplights. It is outrageous that this man is being nominated for a Court of Appeals.

    As for putting words in my mouth, I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't do that. It is impolite and makes you look bad.

    [0] Although he was mentally competent enough to lure, rape, and murder several young women.

  13. "his sexual sadism... is clearly a mitigating factor." And, as far as I know, it very well might be if it presents clear evidence of mental incapacitation. Neither you nor I are remotely qualified to make that determination since we were not at that trial and do not have the evidence to make that determination. Do you deny that Jeffrey Dahmer was batshit crazy? I am not saying it made him innocent but his clear insanity should be considered a mitigating factor in deciding whether to give the death penalty or life in maximum security (and being that Dahmer was killed there, obviously even that was not maximum enough) not that I care.

    You are acting as though the Judge wanted to give the guy a medal or something, and to label him a perv. is simple slander. And obviously you want to execute the criminally insane. Do you deny this? So how am I putting words in your mouth? What part of "We do execute the insane in America, of that there is no doubt. You can cheer it as gj does" The You is not YOU, otherwise I would have written Gj cheers it and (notice the and, it means in addition to) wants to...
    I listed Scalia as an example of people who are willing to execute that list. Get some reading comprehension skills.

    Good lord, not everytime someone writes you are they referring to specifically you.


  14. One more flog at the deceased equestrian animal...

    The people who were qualified to make the decision disagreed with Judge Pervy and agreed with me. The Supremes disagreed with Judge Pervy and agreed with me. All of these rulings came before Judge Pervy made his moronic statement that by any civilized standard ought to disqualify him for the bench. The defendant he was attempting to shield from Justice raped and murdered, among others, a 14 year old girl. Defend Chatigny if you wish, but his conduct is indefensible to civilized humans. President Scary-schmott, if he can take a break from golfing, ought to get a clue and drop this sick excuse for a judge. If not, the Senate should send him packing.