Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Busy Week
It has been a busy week (thus the lack of posts...) Just wanted to say that I'm leaving my current job and starting a new one next Monday (thus, the busy week). I'm excited to be doing something new, though I do love my current job. It should prove interesting. If I have time (which I may have today or tomorrow), I'm going to post an example of what I consider to be the right-wing induced insanity of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sean Tavis for KS State Rep
Now here is a really interesting web page for someone running for political office, with an interesting strategy - trying to get 3000 people to donate $8.34. It is charming enough it makes me want to vote for the guy and I don't even live in Kansas.
Man Arrested for "Unlawful Photography"
Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars: A man was arrested for "unlawful photography" for taking a picture of a police officer standing by the side of the road while engaged in a traffic stop.
What is interesting to note is that the officer now swears that it was about his fear for being hit with a "laser" and not just about a picture. First, there is no law (and can't be one) against taking a picture of a police officer in public. And second, the picture was taken with an iPhone, which has no laser, no flash, nothing which could be mistaken for a laser. In other words, this officer is full of it.
But this is just another example of how readily one can find police lying their asses off. Imagine all of those instances where it is not so clearly a lie (and where the defendants are poor or otherwise not likely to be believed by authorities). This is just disgusting. If there is any justice, those two officers would be fired, with a public statement from their police department that it was because they were dishonest about official police business and so were not fit to be police officers and could not be trusted to testify truthfully in court. (Thereby killing any chances that they could work as police elsewhere and testify).
This sort of thing just really annoys me. As far as I'm concerned, police need to be held to a higher standard. Instead, they are held to a lower one. People who lie under oath where another person's very freedom is at stake are despicable and ought to be punished severely. Particularly where those liars are police officers.
And (perhaps in homage to the Simple Justice blog), there is already a commenter on the news story who is reminding people that these officers don't really reflect on the police as a whole, they are just "bad apples." And so in my own homage to Simple Justice, I give you:
What is interesting to note is that the officer now swears that it was about his fear for being hit with a "laser" and not just about a picture. First, there is no law (and can't be one) against taking a picture of a police officer in public. And second, the picture was taken with an iPhone, which has no laser, no flash, nothing which could be mistaken for a laser. In other words, this officer is full of it.
But this is just another example of how readily one can find police lying their asses off. Imagine all of those instances where it is not so clearly a lie (and where the defendants are poor or otherwise not likely to be believed by authorities). This is just disgusting. If there is any justice, those two officers would be fired, with a public statement from their police department that it was because they were dishonest about official police business and so were not fit to be police officers and could not be trusted to testify truthfully in court. (Thereby killing any chances that they could work as police elsewhere and testify).
This sort of thing just really annoys me. As far as I'm concerned, police need to be held to a higher standard. Instead, they are held to a lower one. People who lie under oath where another person's very freedom is at stake are despicable and ought to be punished severely. Particularly where those liars are police officers.
And (perhaps in homage to the Simple Justice blog), there is already a commenter on the news story who is reminding people that these officers don't really reflect on the police as a whole, they are just "bad apples." And so in my own homage to Simple Justice, I give you:
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why this election matters: The lower courts
I recently posted about how the Supreme Court is one big reason why this election matters. This article also points out how the lower courts also matter to a great degree, possibly even more so than the Supreme Court on a practical scale for many people. Because the president appoints all federal judges, not just the Supreme Court. And while the really big issues will get taken up by the high court, the vast majority of cases end at the federal appellate courts. This is because after a federal trial, you get one appeal as of right to the relevant Circuit Court of Appeals. And while you can appeal after that to the Supreme Court, odds are very good that such an appeal, which is by leave only, will be turned down. In recent years the high court has heard less than 100 cases (usually more like 80) per year, in years where the cases in the lower courts number in the many many thousands.
So the final word for most people will be at the Circuit Court. And so for most people the judges appointed at that level will be the most important decisive factor for their case.
With the number of (in particular) young judges appointed by Republican presidents over the past decades, those Circuit courts are all dominated by conservative GOP appointees. All have healthy majorities of GOP people, except for the 9th Circuit, which is more balanced. (And of course, which makes the 9th Circuit the whipping judges for complaints about court rulings made by GOP schills).
The Republicans know this, which is why they pick very young, very ideological candidates for these judgeships, with the intention of them sitting on the bench for decades. That's also why they whine when even a single extremist judge is prevented from confirmation. Witness the mantra of how every judge deserves an "up or down" vote and how suddenly the filibuster is an evil thing that is unsupported by the constitution because Senate confirmation only requires a simple majority (forgetting that this is the same rule for approval of legislation). Of course, they are HUGE hypocrites, because when the GOP controlled the Senate while Clinton was in office, they denied "up or down" votes to HUGE numbers of Clinton appointees, not by filibustering (since they didn't need to) but by simply refusing to even schedule hearings about the confirmation.(*) Dozens of judges sat waiting for years like this, a record number, only to be ultimately denied after Clinton left office. So after doing this to dozens and dozens of Clinton appointees, the GOP whined is ass off about a handful of judges being filibustered early in Bush's tenure. What a bunch of shameless assholes. What is sad, though, is that the know-nothing media just repeated the right wing talking points on this and did not provide any context by pointing out the hypocrisy or what the GOP did to Clinton appointees. Even sadder, the Democrats themselves failed to do this effectively.
But I digress. The main point is, who is president matters for these appointments. Obama may not be a leftie, but he sure isn't a neocon, either (though I've seen PUMAs claiming he is - just proving that there are no limits to how far one can be unhinged from reality (or how willing one can be to spew bullshit) in pursuit of power). Just getting centrist rather than far-right ideologues would be a vast improvement in all of the Circuits. It would help at the trial level as well.
It is about transforming (and salvaging) one entire branch of the government out of only three branches that we have. That is damn important. Anyone who dismisses this as some trivial thing (as PUMAs and those like them have done) is, frankly, stupid and shortsighted.
This election (like others before it) isn't just about one branch of government, but is about two. That's something you can NEVER afford to simply cede to the right-wing crazies, not even for four years. Sure, it sucks that the Democrats often don't give us much better on many issues, but better is still better, and on judges, they are WAY better. It will take decades for the tide to be turned back in judicial appointments. It is time to get started.
(*) - I should also note that a lot of the judges Clinton did get confirmed by the GOP Senate went through a process where Clinton would get a list of acceptable candidates to the GOP in advance, so he would know that his appointees would get their hearings and confirmation. This is notable in contrast to Bush, who when he faced a hostile Senate, just kept sending back the same names over and over and never sought to come to any compromise on his appointments with Democratic Senate leaders the way Clinton did. In other words, Clinton acknowledged the power of the Senate as a co-equal branch and worked with it. Bush just pretended he was god and kept trying to shove the same candidates down the Senate's throat with no consultation and then whined when the Senate didn't bow down and surrender (which actually, it generally did, even with his judicial appointments).
Addendum: I want to add that to a certain degree, I think what happened with Clinton and the GOP Senate was a good thing - the two branches (and parties) cooperated in the process of selecting the third branch. That is as the founders intended. That is why the Senate has confirmation power in the first place. The Executive should not just be able to place anyone he or she wants on the bench. The Senate gets the final decision as to whether or not a potential jurist gets the job. It is not the case that the Senate can only reject someone if they are not "qualified" (whatever that means). The Senate can reject for any reason it wants. Including and especially ideology. Just like the President can select based on ideology. Checks and balances.
Where things got out of whack is where only the GOP Senate acts as a check on a Democratic president while the GOP president basically gets free reign from a Democratic Senate. That is wrong and that also leads to one branch having total say in selecting the third. That's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable when Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party. Of course, it concerns me less when it is the Democratic party, mostly because the Democrats are so good at fighting themselves that they hardly need the GOP as a check. When the GOP has control, though, it is open season on all of us as they all march in authoritarian lockstep and the divided Democratic party doesn't even have the will to slow them down. (Not even when they take Congress back). It almost seems like that the ideal "balanced" government is a GOP Congress (narrow majority) with a Democratic president. Except that even with a Democratic Congress, the GOP seems to still get its way anyway much of the time. The Democrats need to grow a f***ing spine.
Because of those whacked-out dynamics of the parties, it is essential that we have a non-GOP president appointing judges. While we may not get anything better than centrists, that is a far cry better than the right-wing ideologues we are guaranteed to get from McCain.
So the final word for most people will be at the Circuit Court. And so for most people the judges appointed at that level will be the most important decisive factor for their case.
With the number of (in particular) young judges appointed by Republican presidents over the past decades, those Circuit courts are all dominated by conservative GOP appointees. All have healthy majorities of GOP people, except for the 9th Circuit, which is more balanced. (And of course, which makes the 9th Circuit the whipping judges for complaints about court rulings made by GOP schills).
The Republicans know this, which is why they pick very young, very ideological candidates for these judgeships, with the intention of them sitting on the bench for decades. That's also why they whine when even a single extremist judge is prevented from confirmation. Witness the mantra of how every judge deserves an "up or down" vote and how suddenly the filibuster is an evil thing that is unsupported by the constitution because Senate confirmation only requires a simple majority (forgetting that this is the same rule for approval of legislation). Of course, they are HUGE hypocrites, because when the GOP controlled the Senate while Clinton was in office, they denied "up or down" votes to HUGE numbers of Clinton appointees, not by filibustering (since they didn't need to) but by simply refusing to even schedule hearings about the confirmation.(*) Dozens of judges sat waiting for years like this, a record number, only to be ultimately denied after Clinton left office. So after doing this to dozens and dozens of Clinton appointees, the GOP whined is ass off about a handful of judges being filibustered early in Bush's tenure. What a bunch of shameless assholes. What is sad, though, is that the know-nothing media just repeated the right wing talking points on this and did not provide any context by pointing out the hypocrisy or what the GOP did to Clinton appointees. Even sadder, the Democrats themselves failed to do this effectively.
But I digress. The main point is, who is president matters for these appointments. Obama may not be a leftie, but he sure isn't a neocon, either (though I've seen PUMAs claiming he is - just proving that there are no limits to how far one can be unhinged from reality (or how willing one can be to spew bullshit) in pursuit of power). Just getting centrist rather than far-right ideologues would be a vast improvement in all of the Circuits. It would help at the trial level as well.
It is about transforming (and salvaging) one entire branch of the government out of only three branches that we have. That is damn important. Anyone who dismisses this as some trivial thing (as PUMAs and those like them have done) is, frankly, stupid and shortsighted.
This election (like others before it) isn't just about one branch of government, but is about two. That's something you can NEVER afford to simply cede to the right-wing crazies, not even for four years. Sure, it sucks that the Democrats often don't give us much better on many issues, but better is still better, and on judges, they are WAY better. It will take decades for the tide to be turned back in judicial appointments. It is time to get started.
(*) - I should also note that a lot of the judges Clinton did get confirmed by the GOP Senate went through a process where Clinton would get a list of acceptable candidates to the GOP in advance, so he would know that his appointees would get their hearings and confirmation. This is notable in contrast to Bush, who when he faced a hostile Senate, just kept sending back the same names over and over and never sought to come to any compromise on his appointments with Democratic Senate leaders the way Clinton did. In other words, Clinton acknowledged the power of the Senate as a co-equal branch and worked with it. Bush just pretended he was god and kept trying to shove the same candidates down the Senate's throat with no consultation and then whined when the Senate didn't bow down and surrender (which actually, it generally did, even with his judicial appointments).
Addendum: I want to add that to a certain degree, I think what happened with Clinton and the GOP Senate was a good thing - the two branches (and parties) cooperated in the process of selecting the third branch. That is as the founders intended. That is why the Senate has confirmation power in the first place. The Executive should not just be able to place anyone he or she wants on the bench. The Senate gets the final decision as to whether or not a potential jurist gets the job. It is not the case that the Senate can only reject someone if they are not "qualified" (whatever that means). The Senate can reject for any reason it wants. Including and especially ideology. Just like the President can select based on ideology. Checks and balances.
Where things got out of whack is where only the GOP Senate acts as a check on a Democratic president while the GOP president basically gets free reign from a Democratic Senate. That is wrong and that also leads to one branch having total say in selecting the third. That's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable when Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party. Of course, it concerns me less when it is the Democratic party, mostly because the Democrats are so good at fighting themselves that they hardly need the GOP as a check. When the GOP has control, though, it is open season on all of us as they all march in authoritarian lockstep and the divided Democratic party doesn't even have the will to slow them down. (Not even when they take Congress back). It almost seems like that the ideal "balanced" government is a GOP Congress (narrow majority) with a Democratic president. Except that even with a Democratic Congress, the GOP seems to still get its way anyway much of the time. The Democrats need to grow a f***ing spine.
Because of those whacked-out dynamics of the parties, it is essential that we have a non-GOP president appointing judges. While we may not get anything better than centrists, that is a far cry better than the right-wing ideologues we are guaranteed to get from McCain.
Very Poor Choice of Headline for Story on Marital Rape
Salon's Broadsheet has an item up about a study on marital rape, a serious topic. As has been recognized for decades in our law, marriage does not immunize a person from being charged with rape for forcing a nonconsenting spouse to have sex. Non-consensual sex is rape, no matter what the relationship between the parties.
Unfortunately, the tagline for the article is horrendous: "You don't feel like it, but you do it for him." It evokes images of the dregs of feminism that equate agreeing to sex after nagging or persuasion as rape, which is one of the most utterly ridiculous things of the many ridiculous things that the dregs of feminism preach. By that same logic, if I have a spouse (or even just a friend) who feels like, say, sitting at home on the couch and then I nag or cajole or otherwise try to strongly persuade said friend to accompany me out to see a movie, sitting in the theater to the end before returning home, and they agree to go, I'd have committed kidnapping and false imprisonment. Uh, yeah.
Unfortunately, the tagline for the article is horrendous: "You don't feel like it, but you do it for him." It evokes images of the dregs of feminism that equate agreeing to sex after nagging or persuasion as rape, which is one of the most utterly ridiculous things of the many ridiculous things that the dregs of feminism preach. By that same logic, if I have a spouse (or even just a friend) who feels like, say, sitting at home on the couch and then I nag or cajole or otherwise try to strongly persuade said friend to accompany me out to see a movie, sitting in the theater to the end before returning home, and they agree to go, I'd have committed kidnapping and false imprisonment. Uh, yeah.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Of Dolphins and Divorces
I just read this article, which speaks for itself: My wife left me because the dolphins at Sea World gave me an erection.
The LW is obviously making it up. But I just thought it was hiliarious for some reason. So now I'm sharing. Funnily enough, the past week's epsiode of Bullshit was about dolphins.
The LW is obviously making it up. But I just thought it was hiliarious for some reason. So now I'm sharing. Funnily enough, the past week's epsiode of Bullshit was about dolphins.
Monday, July 14, 2008
My Ideal Supreme Court
Talking about the Supreme Court, it got me thinking, what is the ideal court? I've thought about this before. Put simply, my ideal court would have two far-right jurists (who still have healthy disagreement with each other), two far-left jurists (who also disagree) and then five centrists with two leaning left, two leaning right, and one leaning neither way. All would have a healthy dose of libertarian in them, probably manifested more economically in the right-wing and more socially in the left, but combined into both in the five centrists.
I would favor this makeup because this would give several voices to each end of the spectrum on the court, which is always important on every case, and yet it would not let either extreme dominate or ever write an opinion without the cooperation of centrists.
What our current court lacks, sadly, is any left-wing jurists. The court is basically made up now of four far-right judges, one right-of-center judge, and then four moderate judges that, at the far end, are only slightly left of center. So basically the court goes from the far right to the center, and that's it. There are no liberal voices to be heard in deliberations. Even were there a single lonely voice there, that could make a lot of difference because at least that point of view would be heard and could give some perspective to the other eight justices. Absent that voice, you have an echo chamber of far-right mixed with the center, which just pushes things further and further right.
My ideal court would have those voices on both sides, but would not allow either side to dominate. I think that would be wonderful if we could get it. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen within my lifetime, given the current makeup of the court. And even with an Obama victory, we'd still not likely get there - Obama will probably appoint center or center-left candidates to replace other center-lefts (Stevens and Ginsburg), leaving the court basically the same. Which is still a far cry better than ending up with six far-right justices and three centrists, still with no liberals. At least that would keep the status quo. There's even a small glimmer of hope that he'd appoint a true progressive or even two, giving that voice back to the court which it has lacked for so long. The court would still be slanted strongly to the right, but at least we'd be one step closer to my ideal.
(One of these days I'll have to post on the Michigan Supreme Court - the most radical right Supreme Court in the country).
I would favor this makeup because this would give several voices to each end of the spectrum on the court, which is always important on every case, and yet it would not let either extreme dominate or ever write an opinion without the cooperation of centrists.
What our current court lacks, sadly, is any left-wing jurists. The court is basically made up now of four far-right judges, one right-of-center judge, and then four moderate judges that, at the far end, are only slightly left of center. So basically the court goes from the far right to the center, and that's it. There are no liberal voices to be heard in deliberations. Even were there a single lonely voice there, that could make a lot of difference because at least that point of view would be heard and could give some perspective to the other eight justices. Absent that voice, you have an echo chamber of far-right mixed with the center, which just pushes things further and further right.
My ideal court would have those voices on both sides, but would not allow either side to dominate. I think that would be wonderful if we could get it. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen within my lifetime, given the current makeup of the court. And even with an Obama victory, we'd still not likely get there - Obama will probably appoint center or center-left candidates to replace other center-lefts (Stevens and Ginsburg), leaving the court basically the same. Which is still a far cry better than ending up with six far-right justices and three centrists, still with no liberals. At least that would keep the status quo. There's even a small glimmer of hope that he'd appoint a true progressive or even two, giving that voice back to the court which it has lacked for so long. The court would still be slanted strongly to the right, but at least we'd be one step closer to my ideal.
(One of these days I'll have to post on the Michigan Supreme Court - the most radical right Supreme Court in the country).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)