Thanks for starting a new one, kat. Not only was the old one getting cumbersome, it was loaded with postings from people who couldn't care less about the question under discussion. When I posted to the other one a couple of nights ago, several people were looking for or suggesting answers to the question faced by those of us who want to vote for Nader but who don't want to contribute to a Bush victory. I hope that that particular question will motivate future responses to this thread (I'm beginning to sympathize with Gargoyle here--except that he'd reject this entire thread...but post to it).

Anyway, I'm still as torn as before. I know that one or the other IS going to be president, and Bush is unthinkable. But I don't think Gore's record of support for Clinton's policies or his own voting and fundraising records give us any reason to believe he's any more likely to work to stop the transferrence of power from the people to the corporations than is Dubya. Two nights ago I was sure I was going to vote to send a message to the Dems that they're supposed to be the dems. Tonight I'm not so sure after getting this message from a friend:

Dear Friends... As you know, things have changed: it looks like my man may tip the scales and let Dan Quayle with a Mean Streak in. At one point I was convinced that we had a chance to develop a third party, that may still happen. But I'm afraid of what will happen if the worst

occurs: that we cause the election of this band of capitalist raiders and opportunists, with all the ensuing social repercussions such as:

November 2, 2000

IN AMERICA

Medieval Justice

By BOB HERBERT

When President George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1991, one of the other candidates on the president's very short list was a federal judge from Texas named Edith Jones. Ms. Jones, who sits on the Court of Appeals the Fifth Circuit, is now frequently mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee if George W. Bush is elected president. She is a right-winger in the mold of Mr. Thomas and AntoninScalia, the two justices Mr. Bush admires most.

Like Mr. Thomas, Ms. Jones is controversial. She was part of a three-judge panel that ruled on a gruesome sexual harassment case in 1988. The plaintiff had alleged that her supervisor and others had repeatedly propositioned her, that she was groped and grabbed, that obscene comments about her were played over the company's public address system, that pornography was placed in her locker and she was the subject of obscene graffiti scrawled on the company's walls.

That, according to the plaintiff, constituted a hostile work environment.

Judge Jones seemed to find it significant that some of the plant's employees were blue-collar workers, as opposed to "lawyers" or other "white-collar" workers. "We're dealing with people whose standards are different," she said.

The plaintiff's lawyer noted that her client had complained when "one of the guys pinched her breast."

Judge Jones replied, "Well, he apologized."

There were gasps in the courtroom.

Two members of the panel ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Judge Jones ruled against her.

Last week Ms. Jones was in the news again. On another three-judge panel she ruled with the majority that it's O.K. to execute a man even though his court-appointed lawyer slept through substantial portions of his trial. The decision overturned the ruling of a Federal District Court judge, David Hittner, who said the defendant, Calvin Burdine, was entitled to a new trial. "A sleeping counsel is

equivalent to no counsel at all," said Judge Hittner.

Texas's sleeping court-appointed lawyers have become notorious. George W. Bush was asked about the Burdine case not too long ago. He said the fact that Judge Hittner had overturned the conviction showed that "the system worked."

But Judge Jones and Judge Rhesa Barksdale, in their 2-to-1 ruling last Friday, reversed Judge Hittner's decision. They acknowledged that the lawyer, Joe Frank Cannon (who is now deceased), fell asleep at various times during the trial. But they ruled that there was no way to determine whether that was actually harmful to Mr. Burdine.

One juror testified that Cannon was asleep during "quite a bit" of the trial. And a court clerk testified that she had seen him sleeping "a lot" and "for long periods of time" during the questioning of witnesses.

But Judge Jones and Judge Barksdale said it was impossible to determine just when Cannon was sleeping. Thus, there was no way to know whether anything prejudicial to his client occurred while Cannon slept.

The opinion said: "In sum, on this record, we cannot determine whether Cannon slept during a 'critical stage' of Burdine's trial."

They rejected the idea that when a man's life is at stake, every stage of the trial is critical.

The third member of the Circuit Court panel, Fortunato Benavides, wrote a blistering dissent: "Burdine should be entitled to a new trial with the benefit of counsel who does not sleep during substantial portions of his trial. In my opinion, it shocks the conscience that a defendant could be sentenced to death under the circumstances surrounding counsel's representation of Burdine."

This is like something from the Dark Ages. To execute someone after a trial in which his lawyer doesn't even bother to remain awake is barbaric.

Mr. Burdine's current lawyer, Robert McGlasson, summed the matter up neatly. "Justice asleep is justice denied," he said. He plans an appeal.

Meanwhile, Edith Jones, her right-wing bona fides all but impeccable, is free to contemplate the blissful possibility of joining her judicial soul mates Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia on the highest court in the land. 

So... at the risk of sounding chicken, I will, in all probability, hold my nose and vote for Al, who, after all, is married to Tipper, and is, obviously, a good kisser. Better a goody-goody than a feather-light oil man from Texas. Politics is hell.