Comments on: Even accuser says there was no settlement

By: sunni

sunni — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:07:44 +0000

As evidenced here in this blog, the Republicans will never admit to any real facts. The woman stated on television there was no settlement and both parties agreed to dismiss the suit.

But let’s not let the facts cramp your style and you go right ahead and push for Phill Kline. He is just a poster boy for Bush and company.

By: Ben Huie

Ben Huie — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:31:45 +0000

“Impeach Earl Warren”

I remember seeing billboards with that after Brown v BOE. How times have changed.

By: Vaughn Tolle

Vaughn Tolle — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:29:45 +0000

rm, then I misread your post. Oh, well, it allowed me the forum to pontificate about the operations of the Supreme Court :).

By: rm6046

rm6046 — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:24:10 +0000

Vaughn: I don’t believe I said anything about the U.S. Attorney’s office having political motives…just good sense.

By: Vaughn Tolle

Vaughn Tolle — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:13:20 +0000

Dang it, I knew I hit the post button too quickly.

A famous case where the above procedure resulted in a different conclusion was Brown vs. Board of Education. The sitting Chief Justice at the time, whose name I don’t recall, retired or died, I forget which. Earl Warren was nominated and confirmed by Congress. He ordered a rehearing in the case (which, I have read was a 5-4 upholding Plessy v. Ferguson [separate but equal]), which occurred at the beginning of the next term of the Court. He then cajoled the members of the Court to make the opinion overruling Plessy unanimous.

By: Vaughn Tolle

Vaughn Tolle — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:09:00 +0000

Ben, my hypothesis is that he actually lost the first time; 5-4 preliminary vote to affirm the Kansas Supreme Court. Before opinion could be finalized and announced, Justice Alito was confirmed, allowing Justice O’Connor to retire. Revote was 4-4 tie, Alito not participating, as he had not heard the arguments. Rehearing ordered, on vote after rehearing, 5-4 to reverse, Justice Alito being the deciding vote.

Please note that the Kansas death penalty case was not the only one subject to rehearing after Justice O’Connor’s retirement; and that the procedure briefly set out above is how the Court handles theses cases, that is, all cases heard before a new Justice is confirmed. The ones with a 4-4 vote are reheard, to allow the new Justice to participate.

By: political_mom

political_mom — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:31:07 +0000

If he opposed it publically there should be a record of it then. What was it? Surely there is a way that you can say what it is without giving yourself away. And why is your husband having to recall it instead of yourself?

By: Steven Davis

Steven Davis — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:30:25 +0000

“And I would think that if Kline really did find that a doctor failed to report, that he’d be the first one to bring Tiller in for it.”

Absolutely, political_mom. Failing to report child abuse would be the same as surrendering your license to practice. And while Tiller is probably rich enough to retire, I think he still wants to work. This whole Kline deal was a bunch of B.S.

By: Ben Huie

Ben Huie — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:10:16 +0000

Good point Vaughn. I think that Kline successfully defended the KS death penalty law in front of the SC.

By: Vaughn Tolle

Vaughn Tolle — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:54:33 +0000

rm6046, if one is going to attribute political motives to the U.S. Attorney, I would submit the reason the Cheever case is being dismissed in Federal Court to be prosecuted in Kansas would be to remind the voters that Phill’s office, on rehearing after Justice O’Connor’s retirement and Justice Alito’s confirmation, obtained a reversal from the SCOTUS of the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision holding the Kansas Death Penalty unconstitutional. This allows the death penalty to be imposed by the Kansas courts, which negates the reason prosecution of the case was ceded to the U.S. Attorney to be filed in the U.S. District Court, i.e., to go for the death penalty.

By: rm6046

rm6046 — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:36:29 +0000

Gotta’ go with Ben this time. KSLDY seems to adhere to a theory of “indictment by allusion”. What the hell are you talking about ? It’s no wonder nobody pays any attention to you … you haven’t said anything ! Of course, the Kline AG’s office thrived on innuendo and half-truth.

Is it just a coincidence that the feds turned the Cheever case back to the state now that it looks like Kline and his minions won’t be around to screw it up ?

By: Ben Huie

Ben Huie — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:20:36 +0000

ksldy – here is why your claims will not work. Nobody is coming forward to substantiate them. All we have to look at is an old “allegation” of harassment. I suspect that every one of us here – men and women – have seen both unsubstantiated claims and real claims of such harassment in our own workplaces. We have also seen patterns: “this guy seems to always have problems with women not wanting to work for him.”

It would seem to me that if Morrison “action to prevent the women from participating in an event that he felt was “men only”" we would be hearing about it from more than one source. If “My husband remembers the entire incident” he needs to come forward. I have seen a lot of smoke; what I haven’t seen is any fire. Instead, it only looks like a smokescreen.

IF there is something there then come forward. Otherwise it continues to at least look like there is nothing there.

By: CapnAmerica

CapnAmerica — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:34 +0000

ksldy is PHILL KLINE!

Hi, Phill.

I’m gonna miss you, man.

Like I miss acne . . .

By: steve

steve — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:10:51 +0000

Phil’s not sexist. He says it’s ok for the boy, but the girl is breaking the law.

By: ksldy

ksldy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:19:56 +0000

In a professional environment he took action to prevent the women from participating in an event that he felt was “men only”. He not only tried to prevent it by opposing it publically and administratively but when he lost on that front, he acted like an ass when ALL the other men (who were a large majority) were accepting, civil, and fun. Paul’s actions were mean, directed, and contempuous. He at that time expressed that he was a “man’s man” whatever in the hell that means. My husband remembers the entire incident and remarked that he had never seen anyone so blatantly disgusting about needlessly excluding women and hasn’t seen anything like it since in the private or professional setting.

By: political_mom

political_mom — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:00:16 +0000

I AM for women’s rights. But this one thing I’m not buying it. Tell me something about him other than just your opinion, give me something to actually go on rather than just saying he’s scum. Give some examples.

By: ksldy

ksldy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:56:01 +0000

Thug. You hit it on the nail. Paul Morrison acts like a thug. That is not a 15 yr old malady that he has overcome. He is a thug. Don’t forget he was a Rethuglican as you call them a short time ago. Doesn’t matter what party he is running under, he is still a thug.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:39:15 +0000

The Rethuglicans have to go back 15 years to find something to criticize Morrison about. I can go back 15 days to find something to criticize Kline about.

If Morrison hasn’t done anything wrong in 15 years then that’s a positive endorsement for Morrison from the Kline campaign.

Suck on it Republicans.

By: ksldy

ksldy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:26:07 +0000

For all of you worried about women’s rights: Think about the biggest jerk you have ever known around women. Now go one step worse and that is Paul Morrison. There is nothing good there. Now if it is soooo important to you as a woman to support a candidate over one issue, be well aware what kind of total jerk you are replacing Kline with. Think about your vote and figure out if you are a simple one issue person or a voter that considers character. He was married the whole time I knew him and all I ever felt for that woman was total pity. My objection to him is based solely on his disgusting treatment of every woman around him. My objection to Kline is on one philosophical issue. Philosophy vs reality. I cannot vote for slease like Paul.

By: political_mom

political_mom — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:59:21 +0000

Everyone reads you Meadowlark, but the thing is that nobody listens to you.

By: Ignatiusbrown'sgreatgrandson

Ignatiusbrown'sgreatgrandson — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:57:52 +0000

Vote Ben Huie for whatever he runs for next time. I have been reading him since he incorrectly identified Brown as the Godarchy Line voiceover a few weeks ago and have been impressed with his analysis and perspectives.

And Ben, start your quest for answers by visiting a tort attorney with an office in East Borrough. He may hold the answers you seek. My alter ego truly does not.

By: RD

RD — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:48:15 +0000

Kennedy had charisma. Clinton has charisma. Kline has a dirty mind.

By: KS Meadowlark

KS Meadowlark — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:43:00 +0000

Please come and read my column. Please come and post on our Salia blog. I am sorry I have to come here and bother you. But no one reads me.

By: KS Meadowlark

KS Meadowlark — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:28:40 +0000

Listen to WIBW’s Megan Interview Kelly Summerlin About Paul Morrison

“He game me a week to disappear”

The Kansas Press has not reported the whole story about Kelly Summerlin. Megan from the Megan & Raubin show at WIBW AM 580 in Topeka interviewed Kelly Summerlin today. That interview is now online. Click here http://www.raubinandmegan.com/blog/?p=40 for the MP3 links to listen to Kelly Summerlin in her own words. Did you hear any Kansas news source report what Kelly Summerlin said in this interview?

By: XXX

XXX — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:23:27 +0000

It really doesn’t matter to me because I would never vote for Kline in the first place, but it DOES show what a sleaze-bag the guy is. I’m surprised he didn’t wait till a little closer to the election so there wouldn’t be time to negate the alligation.