I didn't read the article, but is he 'frustrated' that he wasn't assigned the Supreme Court?

No, he's allegedly fustrated that they respect the only so far as it is politically convenient. Read the article.

unrelated but more interesting: massachusetts gubernatorial candidate chris gabrieli is going to propose a plan to spend $1 billion on stem cell research in the commonwealth -- hopefully turning us into the country's (and the world's) leader in the field. not a bad idea; especially given the potential for job growth (in addition to, say, limb growth.)

best of all? yet another giant "fuck you" from the good people of the commonwealth to the piece of shit in the white house.

I read somewhere that ?Romney's? health care for all was actually a bit of a hoax. Short response?

Gay marriage was pretty sweet though.

i don't think romney's ever proposed any kind of reasonable health care plan for anyone.

unless you count his general policy towards the commonwealth of "take care of yourselves."

and yes. at least there's 1 state in this nation that lives up to its responsibilities to all of its citizens.

bay state pride!

Though an unreconstructed New Yorker, after living in Boston three years I heartily agree w/ Bay State Pride!
And about "Romney's" health plan, I've been pretty steamed about how that has been reported; I offer no editorializing on the bill itself, but I followed its development and I do know that Romney fought and dragged his feet on it bitterly. Yet, somehow, inexplicably, CNN has Romney's "leadership" on the bill as the "political play of the week." Without any mention of how the Democratic state legislature rammed it down his throat over veto threats, CNN blithely asserted how it would help his chances as a presidential candidate. (In a sidenote to that, though, I'm pretty sure any mention of "universal health care" would be the final nail in the coffin for his primary run...as if "Mormon" and "Massachussetts" weren't enough.)
-So CrazyMonk, are you suggesting that Bush would attempt to fill a third opening on the court with Mitch MicConnell, thereby elevating our dear friend and former roommate?

Ok, never mind my final sentence...I should probably read the links before weighing in, huh?
But we can all agree, Utah sux

Meh, this is no big story. Luttig was twice passed up for a position on SCOTUS, a seat he thought he had in the bag. Add on top of that the administration's slight in the Padilla case, and I'm not surprised Lutting has seen greener pastures with Boeing. A federal judgeship ($150K/yr, maybe?) with no likely advancement to SCOTUS (even with the most conservative prez since Reagan) seems a raw deal when the corporate positions are paying bank.

What's paul gonna do?

nah, Ben worked for McConnell. Paul's clerking in SDNY.

But we can all agree, Utah sux

Pretty state, though.

do you remember when dennis rodman ripped into the mormons one time when he was playing against the jazz, and it was in all the papers, and someone questioned whether or not rodman actually knew what a mormon was, and suggested he maybe thought it just meant "a person from utah?"

those were funny times.

*sigh*

i hate america.

The Chicago Tribune got majorly scooped on this Luttig story. Nice. I suspect it's some combination of being hamstrung by the administration on Padilla, realizing he's not gonna ascend to the Supremes, and the prospect of a seven-figure salary.

California trumped Mass on stem cells by at least a year. :P Though we have some religious crazies trying to sue it out of existence.

Federal judge is 170,000.

I still don't understand why states are spending any money on stem cell research... not because it's unethical, but becuase isn't this the sort of research that companies will do on their own? Isn't this one of those things where the potentially profits for a cure for _____ are enormous and worth investigating without a governmental shove?

I guess I'm under informed on the issue... why are we publicly funding stem cell research?

1) As I'm sure you know, science takes years to become a product that can show a profit, if it does at all. (This is why name-brand medications are so expensive.) There's also an extremely limited number of embryonic stem cell lines that the feds will allow you to use federal money to experiment with, because of the "culture of life." (Vomit.) The federally allowed ones are also alleged to be tainted. Using state money allows you to experiment on other embryonic stem cells.

The really huge medical companies probably DO have their own research departments working on it. But if you're a university or a start-up, too bad for you. So this allows scientists at, say, the UCLA Medical Center to end-run the federal restrictions.

2) It will be a huge cash cow for California once it gets off the ground. Someone at Stanford did an analysis showing that it will actually pay for itself due to new businesses moving in and things like that. I'm being vague because the concept of stimulating the economy seems rather voodoo-like to me, but according to what I've read, companies have already relocated into California.

"The really huge medical companies probably DO have their own research departments working on it."
-My sources on the inside tell me it's mostly enterprising independent labs at the moment, but I don't know how this relates to funding from big pharma/med companies. Maybe I'll try to get an answer to that.

Well, I'm not sure big pharma does gene therapy at all -- does Pfizer even care about treatments you can't package and sell? My experience with this is all via being a business journalist who's interested in science.

Right, not pharma, "really huge medical companies." I really don't know what I'm talking about.

ps -- i know CA has MA beat on the stem cell thing -- but i want MA to become the leader, as we were in tech before CA beat us on that and took all our jobs.

damn you silicon valley for being so much more glamorous and temperate than route 128!