A worthwhile op-ed by Miguel Estrada that appeared in Friday's Los Angeles Times on the events taking place in Honduras. He explains how "under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal." To read the article visit http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story. Tweet
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Pope Meets Obama And Lectures Obama On Abortion
The AP reports that "Pope Benedict XVI stressed the church’s opposition to abortion and stem cell research in his first meeting with President Barack Obama on Friday, pressing the Vatican’s case with the U.S. leader who is already under fire on those issues from some conservative Catholics and bishops back home. … Even in his gift to the U.S. leader, the pope sought to underscore his beliefs. Benedict gave Obama a copy of a Vatican document on bioethics that hardened the church’s opposition to using embryos for stem cell research, cloning and in-vitro fertilization. Obama supports stem cell research. 'Yes, this is what we had talked about,' Obama said, telling the pope he would read it on the flight to his next stop, Ghana."
“In the course of their cordial exchanges, the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interest of all and which constitute a great challenge … such as the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience,” the Vatican statement said.
Tweet
Obama Flips On Presidential Signing Statements
The Hill reports that "the House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints. House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support. The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions. They would 'interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,' Obama said in the signing statement."
Tweet
Pentagon Health Experts Urge For Ban On Soldiers Smoking
The USA Today reports that "Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking. Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon’s office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban. The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. 'We’ll certainly be taking that recommendation forward,' Smith says. A tobacco ban would confront a military culture, the report says, in which 'the image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette.'"
Tweet
New Haven Firefighters To Testify At Sotomayor's Hearing
The Boston Globe reports that "Republicans announced yesterday that they plan to call a white firefighter, whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, to testify against her, hinting that they will try to make racial bias a central theme of the confirmation hearings that open Monday. Firefighter Frank Ricci of New Haven, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging his city’s decision to scrap the results of a promotion test because too few minorities scored highly enough to qualify, was one of 14 witnesses on the GOP list. Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic on the high court, was part of an appellate court panel that rejected Ricci’s claim. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling last week.
Tweet
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Pelosi Shuts Down Michael Jackson Resolution
The AP reports that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut the door Thursday to a resolution honoring Michael Jackson because debate on the symbolic measure could raise 'contrary views' about the pop star's life. Lawmakers are free to use House speeches 'to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish,' said Pelosi, D-Calif. 'I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution.'" Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tweet
Top Story On Drudge Report: "Second Stimulus Package!"
Earlier Today the Drudge Report was declaring "Mr. President!", but now Drudge is going for a stimulus pun with "Second Stimulus Package!" as his lead story. Take a look at French President Nicolas Sarkozy smirking away in the corner there.
Tweet
Ninth Circuit Says Pharmacists Can't Refuse To Sell "Morning After" Pill
The L.A. Times reports that "pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the 'morning after' contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills. Family-owned Ralph's Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion. Ralph's owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction. Other constitutional challenges are pending with the district court, which had been waiting for the 9th Circuit ruling on the injunction, said Chad Allred, a Seattle lawyer whose firm represents Stormans and the pharmacists. In anticipation of the injunction being vacated, Stormans and the two pharmacists secured an agreement with the state that it would not pursue sanctions against them until the other issues were decided at trial, Allred said."
The 9th Circuit held that Washington's Pharmacy Board rules are neutral regulations of general applicability that need only meet a rational basis test rather than the strict scrutiny standard used by the district court. But within the very opinion itself the judges seem to contradict themselves on this very point.
The Ninth Circuit stated that the new pharmacy rules are nuetral because they "do not aim to suppress, target, or single out in any way the practice of any religion because of its religious content." The Court said that the regulations are generally applicable because there was "no evidence" that the State "pursued their interests only against conduct with a religious motivation. Under the rules, all pharmacies have a 'duty to deliver' all medications 'in a timely manner'" and the challenged regulations in the case do not apply "to refusals only for religious reasons." Yet the opinion also included the following not long thereafter: "How much the new rules actually increase access to medications depends on how many people are able to get medication that they might previously have been denied based on religious or general moral opposition by a pharmacist or pharmacy to the given medication." In other words, the entire success of the law they declare "nuetral" and "generally applicable" will be determined by its effect on religious people.
The Ninth Circuit itself quotes Supreme Court precedent to support the idea that the district court should not have looked to legislative history to determine whether a law is nuetral. The Ninth Circuit writes that "Justice Scalia, the author of the Smith opinion," one of the main cases the Ninth Circuit relies upon, "explained that the Free Exercise Clause 'does not refer to the purposes for which legislators enact laws, but to the effects of the laws enacted.'” How does that then square with the apellate court's own declaration that the increase in the avaliability of medication "depends on how many people are able to get medication that they might previously have been denied based on religious or general moral opposition by a pharmacist or pharmacy to the given medication"?
Business owners, including pharmacies, should be able to sell what they wish without government intervention forcing them to sell a product they find morally repulsive. When the government forces a religious person in a specific business to sell a specific product, in violation of his legitimate and deeply held religious and moral convictions, then common sense dictates that there may in fact be a serious conflict with the First Amendment's ban on government laws that "prohibit the free exercise" of religion.
Tweet
Justice Ginsburg: When Roe Was Decided I Thought There Was Particular Concern About The "Growth In Populations That We Don’t Want To Have Too Many Of"
Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interviewed by thew New York Times recently. Remember that Ginsburg was involved in legal issues at the time. She had established in 1970 the first law journal exclusively devoted to feminist issues and held a tenured position at Columbia from 1972-80. And her perception of the Court's intent in Roe v. Wade is astonishing. For seven years she though the purpose of Roe was to rid the country of undesirables. She thought this was the case for seven years. And yet I wonder whether she ever spoke up against Roe in those seven years?
The following is the relevant exchange that took place in the interview:
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Here is the link to the full interview: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html
Tweet
Businesses That Win Federal Contracts Must Now Use E-Verify, But No-Match Rule Is Dropped
The New York Times reports that "the Obama administration will require businesses that win federal contracts to use a government electronic database system to verify that their employees have legal immigration status to work in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Wednesday. After a six-month review, Homeland Security officials decided to go ahead with a worker verification plan based on the electronic system, called E-Verify. The system, which the Bush administration sought to put into effect in its final months, is meant to prevent federal contractors from hiring illegal immigrants."
The New York Times reports that at the same time as the e-verify decision, "Homeland Security officials said they would drop another Bush administration proposal that would have forced employers to fire any workers whose Social Security information did not match the records of the Social Security Administration. That measure, called the no-match rule, had been challenged in federal court by immigrant advocates and businesses, who said the Social Security database contained errors that could have cost thousands of legal workers their jobs."
Tweet
G-8 Condemns Iran's "Post-Electoral Violence" And Ahmadenijad's Holocaust Denial, Yet Supports Negotiation And Stops Short Of Sanctions
The AP reports that "Group of Eight leaders said Wednesday that they deplored the violence in the aftermath of Iran's disputed election last month, but added they remained committed to seeking a diplomatic solution to Iran's contentious nuclear program.French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the statement on Tehran by G-8 leaders 'shows the unity of the G-8 against the situation in Iran.' But the leaders stopped short of calling for new sanctions or tougher action." Nonetheless, the "U.S. portrayed the statement as aggressive, even though the leaders took a weaker, compromise approach that specified no potential action against Iran for its post-election crackdown... The statement said G-8 leaders 'deplore post-electoral violence, which led to the loss of lives of Iranian civilians.' They also 'condemn the declarations of President Ahmadinejad denying the Holocaust.' G-8 leaders said they welcomed U.S. President Barack Obama's willingness to engage in direct talks with Tehran. 'We sincerely hope that Iran will seize this opportunity to give diplomacy a chance to find a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue,' the statement said."
Obama's undersecretary of state for political affairs, William Burns, said the agreed-upon language is "a strong statement and it reflects a real sense of urgency."
Tweet
Massachusetts Becomes The First State To Challenge The U.S. Defense Of Marriage Act In Federal Court
The Los Angeles Times reports that Massachusetts "became the first to challenge the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, contending that the 1996 law interferes with Massachusetts' right to define and regulate marriage. The law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, says that the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have wed in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples. "They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight," state Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley said at a news conference. Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa" are the other states where gay marriage is legal. California's Supreme Court legalized it as well, but Proposition 8 reversed the Supreme Court decision.
Recently I read the motion to dismiss filed by the Department of Justice in response to a challenge against the Defense of Marrage Act ("DOMA") from a married gay couple in California. I have adopted many of the points they made in the commentary below so that you can understand why this Massachusetts case should be dismissed out of federal court.
These claims are ridiculous on their face and should be dismissed from court immediately. DOMA is a valid exercise of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Longstanding principles of conflicts of law do not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Longstanding public policy doctrines are clear that out-of-state statutes or acts that are contrary to a different State's policy do not need to be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Further, the courts have historically followed this principle in relation to the validity of marriages. The second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to prescribe "the Effect" the laws of one State should have on another. The power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision of the Constitution.
DOMA does not impinge upon any fundamental right. It therefore cannot be entitled to heightened scrutiny, but rather any court must use a rational-basis review. Federal law failing to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on any rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution. In any event, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court itself dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a "substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
The bottom line is that DOMA satisfies the highly deferential standard of rational-basis review. Congress has long extended certain federal benefits and protections on the basis of only one relationship, that being between a husband and wife (and their minor children). It did not give any benefits to any other in the broad spectrum of human relationships, which can also be founded in affection. Relationships between siblings, cousins, companions, partners, or otherwise are not afforded benefits or protections. DOMA does not mandate state policies regarding marriage, but rather remains nuetral on the federal level while protecting the rights of any state to individually legalize gay marriage and develop its own policy. Federal policies have long sought to promote the traditional uniformly-recognized form of marriage. DOMA recognizes the right of each State to expand the definition of marriage if it so chooses, but it also protects federal taxpayers in other States from being forced to subsidize a form of marriage their own States do not recognize. Recent recognitions of same-sex marriage cannot possibly compel Congress to extend to this relationship the same federal benefits it choses to afford to the centuries-old institution of heterosexual marriage. Equal protection principles do not forbid Congress from allowing divergent state policies regarding marriage to develop in the states under a rational-basis review, particularly on matters of evolving and contentious social policy.
Forcing Congress to recognize and change federal policy so that it comports with state policy on marraige goes up against all constitutional principles and is fundamentally at odds with our federalist scheme. A motion to dismiss must be filed immediately by the federal government and it should be granted by the federal court in Boston.
Tweet
Veteran Democratic Senator Robert Byrd Blasts Cap And Trade
The Wheeling News-Register reports that " U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd is opposing 'cap and trade' legislation pushed by the Obama administration. The 91-year-old Byrd, D-W.Va., was released from an unidentified Washington, D.C. hospital last week after a month-long stay for a staph infection. He expects to return to the chamber before the Senate begins debate on 'cap and trade' - which is tentatively set for this fall, according to Byrd's office."
"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."
Tweet
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Steny Hoyer: “If Every Member Pledged To Not Vote For It If They Hadn’t Read It In Its Entirety, I Think We Would Have Very Few Votes”
CNSNews.com reports "that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it. 'If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,' Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference. Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote."
Tweet
Professor And Nuclear Weapons Expert Keith Payne On Obama's "Arms Control Amnesia"
Mr. Keith Payne is a professor of defense and strategic studies at Missouri State University and is a member of the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, which was established by Congress to assess U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. And op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal that is adapted from testimony given before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on June 24. The article, entitled "Arms Control Amnesia," points out that "the new talks with Moscow could put the U.S. nuclear deterrent in jeopardy." To see the facts for yourself, visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124693303362103841.html#.
Tweet
Congressman Peter King On The O'Reilly Factor On Michael Jackson
To add to the madness KTLA reports that "the money-strapped city of Los Angeles has is asking Michael Jackson fans to help pay for the star's public memorial service. A Web site has been created, asking for donations via major credit cards, Paypal, or by check. All donations are tax deductible, according to the site. The event, held Tuesday at Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles, was said to have cost the city upwards of $3.8 million. Some 3,200 Los Angeles police officers were deployed for public safety efforts during the events of the day. The police response was said to have been larger than that of the 1984 Olympics and the recent Lakers Championship celebration. The debate over who should pay for Jackson's public memorial is causing a rift between City Councilmembers. Los Angeles City councilman Dennis Zine says A.E.G., which owns Staples Center, should foot the bill. 'Condolences to the family and friends of Michael Jackson, but the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible,' he said."
Tweet
ACLU Of Kentucky Sues To Remove 10 Commandments Monument
The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that "the courthouse in Jackson County should have to take town several copies of the Ten Commandments because they are an improper governmental endorsement of religion, a federal lawsuit argues. The lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and a county resident, Eugene Phillips Jr., seeks a ruling that nine copies of the biblical laws on the courthouse walls in McKee are unconstitutional. It also seeks an injunction ordering the county to take down the copies. The lawsuit is the latest fight over copies of the Ten Commandments in government buildings in Kentucky, which has been a key battleground on the issue."
10 commandments monuments at court buildings or elsewhere in no way violates the Establishment Clause. In his dissent in the 2005 Supreme Court case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, another 10 commandments case that the secular crusaders of the ACLU got all the way to the high court, Justice Antonin Scalia rightly explains that "that the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false." To read the full dissent visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html. I suggest you read the opinion in full to fully understand why this is the case, and why 10 commandments monuments are not unconstitutional.
Here, however, are some key excerpts from Scalia's dissenting opinion in that case:
George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words "so help me God." The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God." President Washington offered the first Thanksgiving Proclamation shortly thereafter, devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people “to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be,” thus beginning a tradition of offering gratitude to God that continues today. The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.
These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The “fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.” President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Thomas Jefferson concluded his second inaugural address by inviting his audience to pray:
“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”
James Madison, in his first inaugural address, likewise placed his confidence “in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.”
Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto “IN GOD WE TRUST.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952).
With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between … religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor . . . adherence to religion generally” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words. Surely not even the current sense of our society, recently reflected in an Act of Congress adopted unanimously by the Senate and with only 5 nays in the House of Representatives criticizing a Court of Appeals opinion that had held “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Nothing stands behind the Court’s assertion that governmental affirmation of the society’s belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court’s own say-so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say-so of earlier Courts going back no farther than the mid-20th century. And it is, moreover, a thoroughly discredited say-so. It is discredited, to begin with, because a majority of the Justices on the current Court (including at least one Member of today’s majority) have, in separate opinions, repudiated the brain-spun “Lemon test” that embodies the supposed principle of neutrality between religion and irreligion. And it is discredited because the Court has not had the courage (or the foolhardiness) to apply the neutrality principle consistently.
What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that–thumbs up or thumbs down–as their personal preferences dictate.
...
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. The Thanksgiving Proclamation issued by George Washington at the instance of the First Congress was scrupulously nondenominational–but it was monotheistic... Historical practices thus demonstrate that there is a distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion... Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population–from Christians to Muslims–that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.
...
As bad as the Lemon test is, it is worse for the fact that, since its inception, its seemingly simple mandates have been manipulated to fit whatever result the Court aimed to achieve.
Tweet
Obama Says There Is "Absolutely Not" A Green Light For Israel To Attack Iran
The Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama "said Tuesday that his administration had 'absolutely not' given its blessing for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Obama said that although Israel had the right to defend itself, U.S. officials had emphasized the need to avoid 'major conflict in the Middle East.'"
Asked in a CNN interview Tuesday whether the U.S. was giving Israel "a green light" to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear sites, Obama replied, "Absolutely not."
Tweet
Budget Battle Devolves Into Food Fight
CBS13 reports that "seven days after the new fiscal year began, the state of California still appears to be far from a budget solution" as lawmakers bicker "about fruits and juices. A war of words developed between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers over the fruit-related focus of three new bills. 'The governor is not against condiments. The governor's not against fruits of any kind,' said spokesman Aaron McLear. 'But he believes we ought to be focused on solving our budget crisis first and foremost.' Assembly bill 606 creates a commission to serve the marketing interests of the blueberry industry. Another bill defines 'honey' to mean the natural food product resulting from the harvest of nectar by honey bees, and a third bill adopts regulations establishing definitions and standards for 100-percent pomegranate juice. 'Look, we're pro-condiment, we're pro-fruit, but the focus needs to be on the budget crisis, McLear said."
First cow tails, then Chinese workers in the 19th century, then fruits and jucies. This is a parody of a legislature, and would be laughable if it were not tragic. That California's lawmakers cannot even get to work on solving the huge budget crisis the state faces and instead focuses on unimportant distractions is pathetic. It is a sad portrait of a reckless liberal legislature.
Tweet
Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen: "Iran Is Very Focused On Developing This [Nuclear] Capability"
The Jerusalem Post reports that "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen spoke Tuesday about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon in rare comments by a US official, acknowledging the possibility that Iran will succeed in acquiring a capability America has long termed unacceptable. 'I believe Iran is very focused on developing this capability, and I think when they get it, or should they get it, it will be very destabilizing,' Mullen told the Center for Strategic and International Studies Tuesday, in an address on military challenges in the Middle East, sponsored in connection with the embassy of the United Arab Emirates. Mullen said that an attack on Iran would be similarly destabilizing, as in both cases, 'there are unintended consequences that are very difficult to predict in a very volatile, highly volatile part of the world.' He specifically warned about the Iranian response, indicating that he worried about 'the vulnerabilities that regional countries have, who are great friends of ours, their populations' and whether retaliatory violence would spread throughout the region and potentially to other parts of the world. Yet while Mullen backed the Obama administration's approach of dialogue with Iran, he refused to rule out the use of military strikes despite the potential negative effects, saying, 'There is a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the engagement, and I think we need to do that with all options remaining on the table, including, certainly, military options.' Even so, he expressed concern about the 'very narrow space that we have to work towards an objective of not achieving that capability.'... Mullen noted that Israel saw the issue as an 'existential' one, and that he had been in close contact with his counterpart, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, on the subject."
Tweet
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Opie & Anthony Blast Sharpton For Exploiting Jackson Death
WARNING: Very Graphic language content.
Tweet
Washington Not At Work: So Many House Staffers Watching MJ Memorial That House Internet Starts Running Slowly
Politico reports "that the Committee on House Administration's House Technology Director sent out the following email message to House staffers: 'Just as an fyi the internet is slow as a result of the MJ Memorial Service. A notice will soon be posted on Housenet.'"
Tweet
Al Gore Compares The Battle Against Climate Change With The Struggle Against The Nazis
The London Times reported that "Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis. The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change. … Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: 'Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.' He added: 'We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.'"
Tweet
Former U.S. Delegate To The U.N. Human Rights Commission On "Obama And Palestine"
Jeff Robbins served as a United States Delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva during the Clinton Administration. He writes that "the refusal of Palestinian politicians, academics and clerics to stipulate that they accept a permanent Jewish state existing next to a Palestinian state is, of course, at once a dirty little secret and the 800 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to the debate over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict... The Administration's purposeful distancing of itself from Israel is likely to empower those who have always believed, and who continue to believe, that in the fullness of time, American support for Israel can be degraded, and with it Israel's ability to survive. Those in the Arab world who have counseled that that is the case—and there are many of them—will take the Administration's insistence that it wishes to be "an honest broker" as evidence that, at long last, American support for Israel has begun to erode, and that it is only a matter of time before it is no longer necessary for them to pretend that it is a two-state solution in which they are interested. If this proves to be the case, the Obama Administration, while intending to be helpful, will have inadvertently dealt whatever prospects exist for Middle East peace a serious blow."
Read the full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124693682423904037.html?mod=googlenews_wsj to get a full picture of how the Palestinians have refused to even recognize the right of a permanent Jewish state in the Middle East.
Tweet
Congresswoman's Ridiculous Resolution To Honor Michael Jackson Referred To House Foreign Affairs Committee
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Hill reports on its online blog that "the full text of that resolution has been published, and it's…long. The legislation lists Jackson's accomplishments in endless detail, from his #1 hits to the details of his charity work." After concluding the litany of Jackson's accomplishments, and notably making no mention of the less than stellar chapters in his life, the legislation resolves that Congress "(1) recognizes Michael Jackson as a global humanitarian and a noted leader in the fight against worldwide hunger and medical crises; and (2) celebrates Michael Jackson as an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security." To read the full text of the resolution visit http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.600:. This resolution would be in addition to the moment of silence the House already held for Jackson.
It is amazing that the seat of America's government has given a moment of silence, in essence extolling the virtues, of an undeserving figure. It is the symbolism of the act that is bothersome, and that politicians felt it was necessary. Did the House give a moment of silence when John Wayne died? Bob Hope? Have celebrities that lived lives that did not make them a living circus act get moments of silence as well? If this is a common occurence, then perhaps Jackson getting his would be less troublesome, though not all together excusable. Now a Congresswoman plans to add to the already excessive lionization of this freakish figure with a joke of a resolution.
People need to remember that in the early '90s Jackson paid millions of dollars worth of hush money to keep a family from going to trial on child molestation charges. This did not end the child molestation charges. He was later accused of molesting another child, though this second time he went to trial and was acquitted by the jury. He was disturbed on many levels and in no way deserves the over the top media attention that he is getting, the moment of silence in the House of Representatives, or the proposed House resolution. Even CNN's Howard Kurtz said the coverage of Jackson's death was "out of control" and "embarrassing" to the news business. STEVELACKNER.COM therefore expresses a widely held yet unheard sentiment, the sense of disgust about the unending coverage of the death of this human deformity.
We know for a fact that he thought it was perfectly fine to share his bed with children and that he did so. He dangled a baby from a hotel window. He surgically mutilated himself. He erased any sign of his race. This is a disturbed person, not somebody that should be suddenly lifted up as some role model, as some great American hero, or as someone deserving of this absurd amount of attention.
What does it say about our society and culture that Michael Jackson is attracting this kind of attention? It's actually sad. People should be mourning the death of the media before our eyes, not Jackson. The death of a society with any sense of priority and values, not Jackson.
Clearly Jackson means a great deal to lots of people, but that in and of itself is somewhat disturbing because he is not deserving of that kind of adulation. Even if he does mean a great deal to lots of people, that is no excuse for the nonstop media coverage, especially cable news. If ratings alone determined the news, they should be showing topless women wrestling in jello on the news channels. It is a disgrace to the news business. It is concerning that every other story has taken a back seat to Jackson. When the media as a whole displays a complete lack of responsibility in reporting the news it is the job of good citizens to voice opposition.
The point is that so many, especially the media and politicians, are glorifying this man when he is completely undeserving. This is media malpractice, the unending coverage of Michael Jackson's death, as if nothing else is going on in the world of greater importance. Jackson died on June 25th, and it is now July 7th and all we hear about is Jackson, Jackson, Jackson. And the fact that the House of Representatives gave him a moment of silence is, as Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth from Kentucky said, "close to nauseating" and "outrageous."
I support more men in Washington and elsewhere raising their voices, as Republican Congressman Pete King already has, to condemn the excessive media attention and the glorification by political leaders of Michael Jackson. I don't advocate outside control of the media, but I do condemn the lack of responsibility the media itself has displayed.
Feel free to leave your comments.
Tweet
Sarah Palin Media Appearances Regarding Her Resignation
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tweet
Monday, July 6, 2009
Dennis Prager: "Whether The Movement Toward Left-Wing Authoritarianism Is Finally Defeated In A Latin American Country Is Extremely Significant"
Talk show host Dennis Prager writes an article on the situation in Honduras that is worth reading. To read the article visit http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/07/obama_is_in_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_action_is?page=full&comments=true.
Tweet
South Carolina Republicans Vote To Censure Sanford
Fox News reports that "After a 3 hour marathon meeting, the South Carolina Republican party leadership voted to officially admonish, or censure, GOP Governor Mark Sanford over his affair with his Argentine mistress Maria Belen Chapur This is the first time in history that the South Carolina Republican party has voted to censure an elected party official... 'Hopefully, we can move on,' the SC GOP leader said."
Tweet
Preacher Abd Al-Jalil Al-Karouri Calls On U.S. "President Hussein" To Acknowledge That The Jews Carried Out 9/11 In Friday Sermon On Sudan TV
In a Friday sermon at Khartoum, which aired on Sudan TV on June 5, 2009, Sheik Abd Al-Jalil Al-Karouri called on President Obama "to examine publications issued in America, casting doubt on whether it was the Arabs and Muslims who attacked the two Manhattan buildings... We consider this to be a Jewish conspiracy. 4,000 Jews were absent from work in this usury center – these two buildings in Manhattan were the World Usury Center. 4,000 Jews were absent from work, so that 4,00 Americans would die. The [Americans] must study the issue of 9/11, so they can apologize for it, just like they apologized for the invasion of Iraq."
To watch the full Middle East Media Research Institute video visit
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2166.htm.
Tweet
Former Jordanian Prime Minister Abd Al-Raouf Al-Rawabdeh: "Israel Is A Cancerous Body" That Must Be Eradicated
The following is an excerpt from a speech delivered by former Jordanian prime minister Abd Al-Raouf Al-Rawabdeh, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on June 27, 2009:
"Israel is a cancerous body. This is agreed upon. Usually, you confront a cancerous body in one of two ways: If you have the power, you use it to eradicate the cancer. But if you don't have the power, you try to contain the danger, until you obtain the power you need in order to eradicate it."
To see the video for yourself visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2167.htm.
Tweet
Wall Street Journal Interactive Graphic Provides Key Events Leading To Former President Manuel Zelaya Being Removed From Office
If you are not aware of the background to what is going in Honduras and would like the key events leading to this showdown between the current interim government of that country and the entire international community excluding only Israel and Taiwan, visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689010867200773.html#project%3DHonduras0906%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive.
Tweet
State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly: "I Certainly Would Not Want To Give A Green Light To Any Kind Of Military Action" By Israel Against Iran
The AFP reports that "the Obama administration poured cold water Monday on any notion it is giving Israel the green light to attack Iran or that it is reconsidering plans to engage diplomatically with the Islamic republic. Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview broadcast Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its dealings with Iran's nuclear ambitions. But State Department spokesman Ian Kelly rebuffed suggestions from reporters that Biden could be seen as giving the Jewish state a green light to attack Iran, which it views as an existential threat. 'I certainly would not want to give a green light to any kind of military action,' Kelly said, repeating Biden's point that Washington considered Israel a 'sovereign country' with a right to make its own military decisions. 'We're not going to dictate its actions,' Kelly added. 'We're also committed to Israel's security. And we share Israel's deep concerns about Iran's nuclear program,' the spokesman said. He also refuted any idea that President Barack Obama's administration would drop its policy to engage diplomatically with Iran."
Tweet
Washington Examiner: Government-Forced Contracts Are Card Check's Real Threat
F. Vincent Vernuccio writes in the Washington Examiner that "the Employee Free Choice Act includes a Card Check section to eliminate the secret ballot in union organization elections. The outcry against this antidemocratic process may result in its removal. But even with Card Check removed, the most insidious section of the bill will still remain. Card Check's third section, innocuously called 'Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements,' would go much further than simply 'facilitating.' It would allow the government to impose a contract on many businesses and workers who would otherwise negotiate terms for themselves." To read the full article visit http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Government-forced-contracts-are-Card-Check_s-real-threat-7905737-49532997.html.
Tweet
Top KGB Defector Says U.S. Still Target For Moscow
Obama has returned to the 1980's Democrat idea of nuclear disarmament. The AP reports that "Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev confidently committed to a year-end deal to slash nuclear stockpiles by about a third on Monday, but the U.S. leader failed to crack stubborn Kremlin objections to America's missile defense plans - a major stumbling block to such an agreement."
Tweet
As California Burns, Lawmakers Apologize To Chinese Workers Of The 19th Century
Last week California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized the legislature for debating cow tails while the state went bankrupt. Apparently they did not heed his advice and get to work on the pressing issues that face California. The Sacramento Bee reports on the legislature passing a resolution apologizing for the treatment of Chinese workers in the 1800s, writing that "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 42 calls for an apology for forcing the Chinese to pay higher taxes on gold than whites; barring them from holding certain jobs, owning property or testifying in trials; and segregating them and forbidding them from marrying whites or bringing family from China. California politicians, the authors also note, were instrumental in persuading Congress to pass the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred more Chinese immigration."
Nobody denies that the Chinese and others were treated poorly in the 19th century, but now is not the time for lawmakers to be debating cow tails or passing symbolic resolutions. The living citizens of the Golden State elected their legislature to deal with today's problems, and California has no shortage of very big problems. If they were going to apologize, these lawmakers should be apologizing to their constituents for the utter incompetence they continue to display. The California legislature is the perfect picture of the completely dysfunctional liberal legislative body.
Tweet
Hillary Clinton To Meet With Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya This Week
The AP reports that "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet with deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this week as the Obama administration weighs responses to his ouster. The talks planned for Tuesday would be the administration's highest-level contact with Zelaya" since the Honduran army removed him from power on orders from the Supreme Court, allowing the head of the Congress to become the interim president. The AP reports that "Zelaya met with two senior U.S. diplomats in Washington on Sunday after the Organization of American States suspended" the membership of Honduras in that body. Zelaya got as close as several hundred feet above the Tegucigalpa airport on Sunday but had to turn away because of obstacles placed on the runway on orders of the interim government. Zelaya was in Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua on Monday after a late Sunday news conference in El Salvador in which he urged world leaders to return him to power.
The U.S. has already limited military-to-military contacts with Honduras and frozen programs that directly aid the Honduran government. The Obama administration has so far not yet triggered an automatic suspension of all non-humanitarian American assistance to Honduras.
Tweet
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Announced That They Have Taken Control Of All State Security Functions
The Los Angeles Times reports that "the top leaders of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard publicly acknowledged they had taken over the nation’s security and warned late Sunday that there was no middle ground in the ongoing dispute over the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a threat against a reformist wave led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the elite military branch, said the Guard’s takeover of the country had led to a revival of the revolution and clarification of the value positions of the establishment at home and abroad.' … Jafari’s comments came the closest yet to publicly acknowledging what government supporters describe as a heroic intervention by the Revolutionary Guard and critics decry as a palace 'coup d’etat' instigated by military elites loyal to Khamenei. But instead of bowing to such pressure, opposition figures and protesters are preparing for massive nationwide rallies called for Thursday, the 10th anniversary of a 1999 attack by pro-government militiamen on the dormitories of Tehran University that led to weeks of political unrest."
Tweet
Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies At 93
The Washington Post reported on its website that Robert McNamara died in his sleep at his home in Washington. McNamara was defense secretary under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1968, when he became president of the World Bank, a post he held until 1981.
Tweet
Sunday, July 5, 2009
NY Times: "Most Important Group Of Religious Leaders In Iran Called The Disputed Presidential Election And The New Government Illegitimate"
The New York Times reports that "the most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment. A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult — if not impossible. 'This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,' said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. 'Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.'"
Tweet
The London Times Claims The Saudis Would Allow Israel To Use Its Airspace To Attack Iran
The London Times writes that the "head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites. Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility. The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials. 'The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,' a diplomatic source said last week."
Tweet
Honduran President Roberto Micheletti: Nicaraguan Troops Are Gathering At The Border
Reuters reports that "Honduras' interim President Roberto Micheletti said on Sunday Nicaraguan troops were moving to the mutual frontier and urged Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to respect Honduran sovereignty. He gave no further details about troop movements in Nicaragua which shares a border with Honduras to the southeast of the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa. His comments came as ousted President Manuel Zelaya attempted to fly home a week after he was ousted in a coup. Zelaya is a left-wing ally of Ortega and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez." The AP reports that Zelaya said he could not land at the main Honduras airport because soldiers were blocking the runway with several military vehicles. The pilot of his Venezuelan plane circled around the airport and decided that landing is "totally impossible" because of the trucks in the way.
Tweet
Honduras Defies International Community: Loses Membership In OAS And Keeps Zelaya From Landing In Honduran Airport
The AP reports that "ousted President Manuel Zelaya insisted on coming home to reclaim his post, urging his supporters to mass at the airport for a showdown with the interim government in power" since the army sent him into exile under order of the Honduran Supreme Court a week ago. The AP reports that "the interim government said it ordered the military to prevent the landing of a plane carrying Zelaya or any unidentified plane... In Washington, the Organization of American States suspended Honduras as a member late Saturday. Micheletti preemptively pulled out of the OAS hours earlier rather than comply with an ultimatum that Zelaya be restored." Reuters reports that this "was the strongest move yet by foreign governments to isolate the caretaker government."
The Wall Street Journal's reporting is one of the most clear on this story. It does not mindlessly declare the events in Honduras "Central America's first coup since the Cold War era," as does Reuters. Rather it explains in its news article that "Mr. Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum on whether voters wanted to change the constitution. The vote was declared illegal by Honduras' Supreme Court, but the president vowed to press on. Last Sunday, the day the referendum was set to take place, soldiers stormed the presidential residence and seized the leader at gunpoint. Congress later swore in Roberto Micheletti, the president of Congress."
"The government of President (Roberto) Micheletti has order the armed forces and the police not to allow the entrance of any plane bringing the former leader," the foreign minister of the interim government, Enrique Ortez, told The Associated Press on Sunday. "I have given orders that he not be allowed back. We cannot allow recklessness," he told local radio.
Tweet
Top Aide To Iran’s Supreme Leader Calls Mousavi A U.S. Agent Saying He Should Be Tried For Crimes Against The Nation
The Associated Press reports that a "top aide to Iran's supreme leader called the country's main opposition figure a U.S. agent and said in an editorial Saturday he should be tried for committing crimes against the nation. While hard-line figures had previously demanded Mir Hossein Mousavi to be prosecuted for describing Iran's June 12 elections fraudulent and leading demonstrations afterward, the editorial was the first public declaration that the opposition leader was a foreign agent."
"It has to be asked whether the actions of (Mousavi and his supporters) are in response to instructions of American authorities," said Hossein Shariatmadari in the editorial. He added that Mousavi was trying to "escape punishment for murdering innocent people, holding riots, cooperating with foreigners and acting as America's fifth column inside the country." He called for Mousavi and former reformist president Mohammad Khatami to be tried in court for "horrible crimes and treason," adding that there were "undeniable documents" proving Mousavi's foreign links.
The AP also reports that "on Friday, another powerful hardline cleric said that Iran would put detained local employees of the British embassy on trial for being involved in the demonstrations, in a further effort to prove foreign elements were behind the unrest... There have been no street protests since Sunday, but Mousavi has maintained his opposition to the results, issuing a defiant statement on Wednesday that he considered the government illegitimate and demanded political prisoners be released."
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)