Most Recent Posts

The email landed in my inbox at 7:01 Tuesday morning.

The subject line read, "NBC News Poll: Christie Trails Clinton In Hypothetical 2016 Match-Up, Faces Divided GOP."

My reaction when I got this breaking news with my first cup of coffee? A big, nonverbal, heavy sigh.

The headline correctly states that this is a "hypothetical" matchup. Oh, and if you are fan of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — not to worry. A different poll came out this week as well. That one has him leading Hillary Clinton 43-42. Within the margin of error, of course.

But neither is a candidate yet. The first contest — if nothing changes — will be the Iowa caucuses, likely in January. Not January of next year or the year after, but the year after that.

And the 2016 general election is more than 1,000 days away.

As for the accuracy of polls taken at such a very early stage? Just ask President Rudy Giuliani. In 2007 he still had high poll numbers due to his time as the take-charge mayor of New York on 9/11. Except he faded quickly once the GOP primaries got underway.

Or you might ask President Colin Powell, or President Mario Cuomo, both of whom decided in the end not to run. Or go ask President Gary Hart, or President Edmund Muskie, or President — well, I could go on.

Now, don't get me wrong. I cover politics full time. I'm fascinated by politics. I love elections, talking to voters, examining strategies. At some point, such polls will be meaningful, and we will study them closely. But I'm a very long way from walking into a diner or a community center in Iowa or New Hampshire and asking, "Who do you like for president, Christie or Clinton?" Or Biden, or Cruz, or Warren, or Santorum, or Paul, or Ryan, or Rubio, or — well, you get the picture.

I'm happy to take a breather for a while. I mean, there's no shortage of other issues to talk about, right?

College basketball seems to get started sooner every year, like puberty in American children. Why does everything have to begin so early now, before you have time to get ready for it?

Things move so fast in college basketball that there are three players this year who are being called "the next LeBron James. " In the NBA, most of the talk is already about where the superstars will be next season.

Because basketball involves so few players, the hot shots are more valuable, so it's like the Kardashians — not whom they're married to now, but whom they'll be married to next.

Click on the audio link above to hear Deford's take on this issue.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in a case this week involving the death penalty in Alabama was not aimed at public opinion, but it could be exhibit A for why the nation's judiciary is falling in the public's estimation.

Sotomayor wrote a 12-page dissent when her colleagues refused to review the state's law that allows judges to overrule jury decisions on whether a defendant should be executed. She called it "an outlier" that might contradict the Constitution.

The Alabama case was concerned with Mario Dion Woodward, who was convicted of murder in 2008. The prosecution asked for the death penalty, but the jury voted 8-to-4 against it — finding that the state-asserted aggravating circumstances did not warrant capital punishment.

In almost every other state, the jury's decision would have been final — but not in Alabama. In Woodward's case, the trial judge overruled the jury and imposed the death penalty anyway, as the law permits.

As Sotomayor went on to point out, since Alabama adopted its current statute in the early 1980s, judges have overridden the jury's decision and imposed the death penalty in 95 cases, while decreasing the sentence to life imprisonment without parole in just 9 cases.

What is more, Alabama is the only state whose judges have used a judicial-override sentencing statute in this way in the past decade. Florida and Delaware have similar statutes. In the early 2000s only one Delaware judge imposed a death sentence. That decision was appealed and reduced to a life sentence.

The worst part - according to Sotomayor - is the reason this only happens in Alabama. "The only answer that is supported by empirical evidence," she wrote, is that "Alabama judges, who are elected in partisan proceedings, appear to have succumbed to electoral pressures."

Those "electoral pressures," she wrote, will lead to "curious and potentially arbitrary outcomes." And the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, the Court has held, offends the Eighth Amendment.

Sotomayor is not the only one who might harbor concerns about elected judges. Thirty-eight states elect their Supreme Court judges, and in a national poll released last month by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center, 70 percent of respondents felt that it was a very serious problem when an elected judge has received a contribution from an "individual, attorney, business, or interest group" presenting a case before them. In fact, 92 percent of respondents felt that judges should step aside in such cases.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has consistently spoken out against judicial elections. Speaking at Fordham Law School in 2008, she said that "you're not going to get fair and impartial judges" if they are elected, and noted that "no other nation in the world" holds judicial elections. In the Justice at Stake poll, respondents ranked impartiality and fairness as the second and fourth most important qualities in judges ("ethical" was first and "nonpartisan" third).

Alabama judges' record on the death penalty may well undermine belief in their impartiality and fairness, showing that they are yielding to electoral pressure rather than simply applying the law.

And, according to Sotomayor, their decisions and comments show that they are using the death penalty as an electoral tool, rather than as "an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct." Only Justice Stephen Breyer joined portions of Sotomayor's dissent.

Florida Rep. Henry "Trey" Radel is being charged with cocaine possession and faces arraignment on Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

Authorities say the freshman Republican was found in possession of cocaine on Oct. 29, a misdemeanor offense, but provided no other details.

NPR's Tamara Keith says the charge carries a statutory maximum sentence of 180 days of imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,000.

Radel, 37, represents Florida's 19th District, which covers parts of the Gulf Coast, Fort Myers and Naples.

He issued the following statement:

"I'm profoundly sorry to let down my family, particularly my wife and son, and the people of Southwest Florida. I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice. As the father of a young son and a husband to a loving wife, I need to get help so I can be a better man for both of them."

"In facing this charge, I realize the disappointment my family, friends and constituents must feel. Believe me, I am disappointed in myself, and I stand ready to face the consequences of my actions."

"However, this unfortunate event does have a positive side. It offers me an opportunity to seek treatment and counseling. I know I have a problem and will do whatever is necessary to overcome it, hopefully setting an example for others struggling with this disease."

"Please keep my family in your prayers."