Rachel Maddow lets him have it over his cowardice on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
I may be too hard on Barack Obama about this. It might not be cowardice. Maybe he just hates gays, and that’s why he won’t even issue a stop loss order to end the witch hunts.
Obama, Rahm, and the Democratic establishment had better be praying that the Republicans get even crazier over the next 2½ months, because the f%$#ing couch is feeling pretty f^%$ing good under a lot of people’s asses right now.
You are completely batsh%$ insane:
“The 14th Amendment is not something one should play with lightly,” Keyes said in response to a question from ThinkProgress at the Tea Party Express press event today. “Lindsay Graham used the term — as people have carelessly done over the years — referring to the 14th Amendment as something that has to do with ‘birthright citizenship’ and we ought to get rid of ‘birthright citizenship.'”
“Well, let me see,” Keyes added sarcastically, “If citizenship is not a birthright then it must be a grant of the government. And if it is a grant of the government, it could curtail that grant in all the ways that fascists and totalitarians always want to.”
This is like Keith Richards telling you that you do too much drugs.
Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that California’s anti-gay marriage initiative is unconstitutional:
A federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing a temporary victory to gay rights advocates in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban — Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote — and proponents were already promising to appeal, confidently predicting that higher courts would be less accommodating to the other side than Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who issued the ruling.
You can be sure of that last bit.
While I cannot speak to the proclivities of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I know that they are a rather liberal circuit, but that is it, but I am aware of the proclivities of the Supreme Court, and I cannot see this ruling surviving there.
My assesment of the court:
What worries me is that if Roberts has the votes, he will cast the broadest net possible, as he did in the Citizens United and Heller, and so do his level best reinstitute the criminalization of homosexuality, and probably take a big hack at Roe v. Wade.
It’s a good decision, and I support it, but I think that the ratf%$#ers on the Supreme Court will do whatever they can to turn this to evil.
What needs to be done now is to put Scalia on his back heel. He has prejudged the case, and has admitted it in public, so he must recuse himself.
Of course, he won’t, not unless the pressure placed on him forces him to.
We need to go after him the way Scientology went after judges they targeted, though obviously no one should drown his pet dog.
I am saying that it is clear that on numerous occasions, in numerous public events, Antonin Scalia has stated that his mind is made up on gay marriage.
As such any rudimentary understanding of legal ethics mandates that he recuse himself, and that Antonin Scalia does not posses even a rudimentary level of legal ethics, so unless there is a constant drum beat pointing out this fact, he will sit on the case with no intention of reviewing either the facts of the law fairly.
*Proposition 8=H8=Hate, OK?
In addition to increasing deportations of illegal aliens to a pace only dreamed of by the Bush administration, Barack Obama is looking to expand the FBI’s extrajudicial, and much abused National Security Letters beyond what Dick Cheney wanted in his most paranoid fantasies:
Today, The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration wants Congress to expand the type of data that can be gained through the use of National Security Letters:
The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the “content” of e-mail or other Internet communication.
This is on the heels not only of the administration blocking reasonable restrictions on what has objectively been widespread misuse of NSLs, but of the FBI recently beginning to investigate whether or not “hundreds” of agents cheated on the exam meant to “ensure that they could follow aggressive investigative guidelines without intruding on Americans’ privacy rights.” That’s on top of threatening to veto the meager intelligence-oversight reforms being proposed by Congress. As Gene Healy wrote yesterday, “Our interminable war on terror sometimes seems designed to justify every bad thing libertarians have ever said about government.” Having acted irresponsibly with the surveillance power it already has, and blocked reform that would have made the government more accountable, the Obama administration now wants even more power to violate the privacy rights of American citizens. When it comes to national security, there’s nothing like failed government performance to justify giving the government more power.
My sense on these matters is that there are a number of issues which are driving this:
It is really remarkable how despite my low expectations, he continues to manage to disappoint.
To a large degree I blame those who protested the excesses of Bush and His Evil Minions™ who are not largely silent, because Barack Obama is the leader of their party.
The process, intended to prevent the sales of diamonds that are mined by entities, largely guerrilla armies, who systematically violate human rights, better known as “Blood Diamonds.”
Well, the Kimberly Process has now allowed Zimbabwe to sell diamonds from its Marange diamond fields.
Not only has the diamond mining there been rife with allegations of human rights abuses, included killings and forced labor, but the proceeds go directly to support the cronies in Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF:
Zimbabwe has been denied formal approval for its Marange diamond exports since evidence began to emerge around 2008 that the military had overrun the area to take control of the fields and organize smuggling of diamonds across the nearby border with Mozambique. Human rights activists say they suspect that profits are being used to finance the political and military elite around President Robert Mugabe.
Seriously, any certification of diamonds by the Kimberly Process, or the World Diamond Council, are simply not credible.
I must have missed the story earlier, but a Federal Judge has stayed a Nebraska law that requires a psychological evaluation before getting an abortion:
A new law that requires all women to be prescreened for possible mental issues prior to obtaining an abortion has been blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp. The law, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 15th, was challenged by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, who argued that the law was so vague that it would be impossible to correctly adhere to it.
As I’ve said before, notwithstanding the fact that abortion first emerged as a proxy issue about race and segregated private academies, this issue has taken a life on of its own, and we are beyond any compromise on this issue.
*It’s a song by the group Free Hot Lunch.
A panel of the 2dd circuit court of appeals has ruled that the FCC’s indecency rules, calling the vague and a violation of 1st amendment rights:
In a sharp rebuke of the Bush-era crackdown on foul language on broadcast television and radio, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down the government’s near-zero-tolerance indecency policy as a violation of the 1st Amendment protection of free speech.
………
The case was triggered by unscripted expletives uttered by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie on awards shows earlier in the decade, and the court’s decision calls into question the FCC’s regulation of foul language and other indecent content on the public airwaves.
………
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not have the power to strike down the 1978 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the FCC’s right to police the airwaves for objectionable content. But it reversed the aggressive stance the agency took starting in 2004 that found even a slip of the tongue that got by network censors was a violation subject to fines for the stations that aired it.
The court said that policy on so-called fleeting expletives was “unconstitutionally vague” and created a “chilling effect” on the programming that broadcasters chose to air. The court echoed complaints from network executives that the FCC’s standards were nearly impossible to gauge, noting that the agency allowed the airing of the f-word and s-word in broadcasts of the World War II movie “Saving Private Ryan” but not in the PBS miniseries “The Blues.”
Word up.
Now a special master has to be appointed, because when stations appeal fines, because there is always the implicit threat that the FCC will “lose” license renewal applications when the fines are appealed.
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4) has introduced legislation to ban corporal punishment in schools.
In the context of the home, I’m a little bit more ambivalent on the idea of a corporal punishment ban, but in schools, the people most likely to engage in this are going to be be psychopaths who get off by hitting kids.
What’s more the punishments fall disproportionately on minorities and the disabled.
Full press release after the break:
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy Introduces Legislation to End Corporal Punishment in Schools
Tuesday June 29, 2010Washington, DC–Today, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04) introduces the “Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act,” legislation that aims to eliminate the use of corporal punishment in schools.
Data collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights shows that over 220,000 students in 20 states, in schools across the country are corporally punished, and studies indicate that corporal punishment in schools has a negative effect on students. Children of color and with disabilities experience corporal punishment at disproportionate rates. This legislation aims to alleviate this and promote positive school cultures and climates.
Additionally, data shows there is no evidence that corporal punishment is an effective disciplinary tool or that it results in academic success.
“I am introducing this legislation to addresses the damaging use of corporal punishment against our nation’s school children. This bill will eliminate the use of corporal punishment in schools, as well as assist in creating a safer learning environment for every child ensuring that our schools are places that foster students’ growth and dignity,” said Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. “Twenty states still permit corporal punishment in public schools and studies indicate that this type of discipline has a negative effect on students. This legislation amends the General Education Provisions Act so that no funds for programs administered by the Department of Education shall be made available to any educational agency or institution that has a policy or practice which allows school personnel to inflict corporal punishment on a student.”
Congressman Bobby Scott (VA- 03) member of the Healthy Family and Children Subcommittee, and co-sponsor of this legislation highlights that racial disparities do exist with the use of corporal punishment.
“Thirty states across the country have already prohibited corporal punishment,” said Congressman Scott. “Corporal punishment does not work and in fact leads to increased negative behavior and dropout rates. Moreover, the fact that schools are applying school discipline policies in a discriminatory manner based on race, color, national origin, disability, or gender constitutes a civil rights violation.”
Congressman Phil Hare (IL-17) who has been a champion and supporter of innovative programs designed to teach positive behavior as a way to improve school climate, is also a co-sponsor of this legislation.
“Corporal punishment such as paddling and other physical abuse is reprehensible and should be banned immediately. It is time to move away from the old conventional wisdom that threatening and punishing a student will motivate them to achieve. Instead, we should transition to 21st century programs like school-wide positive behavior supports which encourage, reward, and breed good behavior from the beginning,” said Hare.
According to the Department of Education, while African Americans made up 17.1 percent of public school students nationwide, they accounted for 35.6 percent of those who were paddled during the 2006-2007 school year. Similarly, although students with disabilities constituted 13.7 percent of all public school students, they made up 18.8 percent of those who are subjected to corporal punishment. These students are often punished simply for behaviors arising out of their disabilities, such as autism or Tourette’s syndrome.
Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers has been a long-time advocate against the use of corporal punishment in school supports this measure.
“Corporal punishment doesn’t improve behavior or student performance. Rep. McCarthy’s bill would end an outdated disciplinary practice,” said Weingarten.
Spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union, over 80 education and child advocate groups have signed a letter supporting this legislation.
“This important legislation would end the arcane practice of corporal punishment in schools. It is stunning to think children in some states receive greater protections against physical discipline in detention facilities than they do in classrooms,” said Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU Legislative Counsel. “The Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act will help provide the safe, supportive academic environment all students deserve and need to achieve academic success.”
The National Parents Teachers Association (PTA) agrees that corporal punishment does not foster positive environments for students to thrive and grow.“National PTA opposes the use of any violence in schools. National PTA supports federal efforts to abolish corporal punishment in schools and the development of alternative discipline programs, such as Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) to provide for an orderly climate for learning. We applaud the efforts of Congresswoman McCarthy to abolish the use of corporal punishment in America’s schools and stand ready to assist in her efforts,” said Charles J. “Chuck” Saylors, National PTA President.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals says schools should find positive approaches to disciplining children.
“The National Association of Secondary School Principals has a long history of supporting the personalization of the school environment and student learning,” said NASSP President Jana Frieler, who is the principal of Overland High School in Aurora, Colorado and testified before the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee in April. “We believe that school climate must be one that never tolerates violence but instead focuses on each student’s success and how the school can foster a proactive approach to discipline. For this reason, we are proud to support the Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act and will work with Congress to ensure this important legislation is enacted into law.”
###
The areas of the lawsuit were rather specific, and pertained only to couples legally married in Massachusetts, but the the fact that the judge, Joseph Tauro, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the Mass AG and GLAD brought separate suits, is good news.
I’m an engineer, and not a lawyer, dammit, but I think that part of the decision, where the judge found a 10th amendment violation, because, “federal restrictions on funding for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the 10th Amendment,which, “declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states,” is likely to be overturned.
Basically the 10th amendment has not been a big part of jurisprudence since some time in the 1930s, and runs in the face of precedent.
The second decision, in GLAD’s case, is based on the 5th amendment equal protection claims, which I think will go a lot further.
Still, I think that it’s heading to the Supreme Court, and that the decision will be overturned by a 5-4 majority.
If I were an attorney for the plaintiffs, I would be starting to suggest that some of the justices who have already made statements that pre-judge the outcome, most notably Scalia, whose public endorsements of bigotry have been longstanding, recuse themselves.
If you don’t start making a stink about these now, then they will be sitting on the bench with their minds already made up later.
Tony Perkins Christo-Fascist Family Research Council lobbied Congress in support of Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill.
Insert Godwin’s Law comment here.
Anyone here surprised?
Joe.My.God is right when he says, “It’s time for the Southern Poverty Law Center to reclassify the Family Research Council as an official hate group.”
The Defense appropriations bill that recently passed the Senate has a (sort of) repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law.
It also has funding for the F136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the White House opposes, so now the Pentagon staff is throwing around a veto threat on this issue:
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: The Administration strongly objects to provisions of the bill which could limit the procurement of the 42 aircraft requested in the President’s FY 2011 Budget. The onerous restrictions impose unacceptable schedule and budget risks on the JSF program. While the Department believes the restructured development schedule is achievable, failure to achieve any one of the criteria would affect the procurement decision with significant impact on unit cost, production ramp, and TACAIR force structure. The Department’s F-35 procurement request is in line with independent manufacturing studies, risk review recommendations, and the FY11 request reflects an optimized production. If the final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.
(emphasis original)
If Obama is looking for an excuse to kill DADT because of cowardice, this would be it.
If Obama really wants to repeal DADT this year, than he has a decision to make.
So, which is it, the lady or the tiger?
Yes, this is what the cleen ‘Net folks really want.
Cleanternet.org
Julian Assange had his passport confiscated briefly when he visited Australia, and Australian authorities told him that it would be canceled shortly because it was “worn”:
The Australian founder of the whistleblower website Wikileaks had his passport confiscated by police when he arrived in Melbourne last week.
Julian Assange, who does not have an official home base and travels every six weeks, told the Australian current affairs program Dateline that immigration officials had said his passport was going to be cancelled because it was looking worn.
However he then received a letter from the Australian Communication Minister Steven Conroy’s office stating that the recent disclosure on Wikileaks of a blacklist of websites the Australian government is preparing to ban had been referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
So, apparently in Australia, letting people know that the authorities are censoring is grounds for official harassment.
Who do they Australians think that they are? The Obama White House?
One of the peculiarities of Great Britain is that they have no constitution, so they can change what should be inalienable rights with a law.
A few years back, for example, they removed the right to remain silent in a criminal investigation, and so juries can now explicitly use non-testimony against the defendant.
Well, as part of the coalition deal the Tories and the Lib-Dems, they intend to
set a fixed 5 year term for the parliament.
The current state of parliamentary terms is a maximum of 5 years, but new elections can be called before then, and have to be called before then if there is a failure of a confidence vote.
Well, Conservative David Cameron, Liberal-Democrat Nick Clegg have decided to go with a fixed term of 5 years, requiring at least a 55% vote of Parliament to dissolve the institution.
It appears that this was done because Clegg is concerned about getting cut loose as soon as it is convenient for Cameron.
While this is understandable it is a major change in the way British governance works.
In the US, with the exception of the (thankfully rare) impeachment, terms are fixed, and state actors are controlled by checks and balances from competing branches of government.
This is not the case in a parliamentary system. The Prime minister has much greater powers, particularly in the UK, where there is no formal constitution.
What prevents excesses in government by the ruling party is the threat of government turnover at any time: the no-confidence vote can put the shoe on the other foot in very short order.
If you remove that, you remove many of the constraints on the behavior of the executive.
Clegg is being penny wise, and pound foolish.
Obama would only replace him with someone even more hostile to the idea of the rule of law in the pursuit of terrorism cases.*
Money quote:
GREGORY: So, let me– let me unpack that a little bit. What you’d like to see happen is that Congress would pass a law that would say to judges, “Hey, look, in this environment, if we extract information that could be valuable intelligence about another terror plot, about who they’re involved in. Whether they’re connected to the Pakistani Taliban. We want to get all that without them lawyering up and still be able to use that against them in a court of law.” And you need more flexibility to do that, you think?
HOLDER: Yeah, we certainly need more flexibility. And we want the public safety exception to be consistent with– the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st Century, as opposed to the public safety concerns that we had back in the 1980s.
GREGORY: So, that’s news. I mean, that’s an important development. Would you work with Congress to try to get that new law passed?
HOLDER: Yeah, we want to work with Congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible. And again, more consistent with the threat– that we face. And yes, this is in fact the big news. This is a proposal that– we’re gonna be making and that we want to work– with Congress about.
GREGORY: So, a new priority for the administration.
HOLDER: It is a new priority.
It’s clear that Barack Obama has made a purely political decision to ape the worst aspects of the Bush administration, because he thinks that it will defuse criticism from the right, which it clearly hasn’t anyway.
This is venal, craven, and just plain un-American, as well as being stupid, because it does not work from a political perspective.
Would that we had some Democrats who were not a bunch of cowards.
H/t Crooks and Liars
*But remember, the Cossacks work for the Czar.
It’s game over, dude.
In this case, it’s John McCain, who is suggesting that mirandizing the alleged Times Square bomber is somehow evil and wrong, and Glenn Beck, yes, Glen Beck, who is suggesting that we need not shred the Constitution, and give American citizens their constitutional due.
So John McCain is being called a demagogue, by the tag team by Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck.
This is one big shark that he jumped.
With Frikken
Lasers!Jumping C. Megalodon*
*The largest shark, and likely largest predator fish ever. It died out some 1.5 million years ago. The Genus is still in dispute, between either Carcharodon (Great White) or Carcharocles (broad toothed Mako). But in either case, you are jumping C. Megalodon, you have jumped the biggest shark ever.
I tend to be a hard-ass on immigration. I tend to refer to them as “illegal,” not “undocumented,” and I favor strict penalties against those who negligently (the current standard is knowingly) employ illegal aliens/
I also understand the reality of the situation, that about ⅓ of illegals in the US entered illegally and overstayed their visas, which means that they are not the stereotypical Hispanic, and that much of the immigration fraud in the US occurs in things like the H1B and L1A visas, who are overwhelmingly not Hispanic, where a significant proportion of the visas are granted in violation of the regulations.
That being said, Arizona’s new immigration law sucks. (Google news link)
Basically, it’s an excuse for police officers to stop, detain, and arrest people for “driving while Hispanic.”
It’s standard Republican populist bigotry and racism.
He has issued an order directing the Department of Health and Human Services to mandate that hospitals extend visitation rights to gay partners, as well as requiring hospitals to recognize power of attorney for same sex couples.
Of course, the actual rule is still months away, but my guess is that John Aravosis’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Give donor boycott has finally developed critical mass, and the fund raisers are beginning to notice.
So, now we know, that, if absolutely backed into a corner, Barack Obama is willing to take the most timid steps for LGBT civil rights.
3 cheers.
I have been following the comings and goings in Zimbabwe since Tsvangirai’s election, subsequently stolen, as President in 2008.
At first, I did so because I thought that we could see a real game change and a peaceful transition from one of the nastier pieces of work on the African continent, Robert Mugabe.
This has not happened, largely because Mugabe does not care, but additionally because the surrounding community, in particular South Africa and its former President Thabo Mbeki, have been most accommodating to Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party.
I don’t see this changing, and I have been posting about once a month because I feel guilty about not caring any more, which is a silly reason to post.
I have little knowledge of the area, nor of the complex social and political dynamics of the region, and honestly, little interest, just some guilt, so I’m throwing the towel in.
I would suggest the BBC and the Guardian for updates if you want them.
Someone on DU related their experience with reporting someone threatening violence against Obama to the Secret Service: (Click for full size screen shot)
I called the Secret Service on a wingnut threatening Obama
Edited on Fri Apr-09-10 12:13 AM by Jack_Dawson
on his Facebook. “We need to take him OUT! BY ANY MEANS!” he said Friday night at 10:30 (one can only speculate whether alcohol played a factor).
I called my local SS field office on Saturday. Sent them screenshots. They followed up with him, and he mysteriously removed the OP. But that wasn’t good enough for the Secret Service. They called me again today to send them more screenshots – to see if he had redacted his comment. He had not.
Then about an hour ago, he posted this:
“I suggest REMOVING Obama from office through legal, lawful and Constitutional methods ONLY! I DO NOT AND WOULD NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE!
If you see / hear something similar, I suggest contacting your district office. They do follow up.
Indeed. There has been a lot of violent eliminationist rhetoric, and when it devolves to the point of being a specific threat, reporting it to the authorities is a civic duty.
I am not suggesting the sort of reaction that got Richard Humphreys 37 months in the clink for making “Burning Bush” jokes, but when speech becomes explicit threats, or an exhortation to specific violent action, it’s a problem.