IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID

Bush signs anti-abortion law November 5, 2003. photo White House.

“I TRUST WOMEN.”

Say it with me. I know you can.

How hard was that?

The below article is true.

I wrote it eight years ago as an op-ed for the Seattle Times which danced around putting it up and then didn't.

The incident happened to my then best girl-friend.

This is the horror men whom have never been in the same room with a woman who has aborted her own fetus without benefit of medical help, would visit on us all.

“You belong to the State, bitch, and so does the fruit of your loins.”

Steve published this November 10, 2006 in The News Blog. It was the first time I'd been front-paged and I was over-joyed. Thank you Gilly.


IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID

August 10, 2000
Seattle, Washington

George Bush and Dick Cheney would let my best friend die.

Melinda’s my best friend* – Twenty-nine, married, two-year old son, five months pregnant, works at Boeing.

When a routine screening test for neural tube birth defects came back positive, her doctor did a special ultrasound. Melinda’s five-month fetus is missing its abdominal wall, and basically has no viable organs below the heart and lungs – no kidneys, no liver, no stomach, no intestines, no sexual organs, no bladder, no pancreas, no gall bladder.

There is no chance this baby could live. There is no chance this baby could be delivered alive. Sometime during the pregnancy, this fetus will inevitably die. If this were forty years ago, Melinda would also die.

Dick Cheney has voted against abortion no matter what – rape, incest, even to save the life of a mother. George Bush and Dick Cheney have made it clear they plan to stack the United States Supreme Court with anti-abortion justices.

Bush/Cheney and the GOP support a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. And even though there is absolutely no hope for Melinda’s child to be born alive, a Bush/Cheney Supreme Court would let the states make laws which would have my best friend die instead of allowing her an abortion – as a matter of moral principle.

By the time you read this, Melinda will no longer be pregnant. Tomorrow morning, August 11th, her physician will perform a late-term Dilation and Extraction, the so-called “Partial-Birth” abortion. By removing a fetus with no chance for survival, a mother’s life will be saved.

Melinda has this choice because the United States Supreme Court says she does. But what the Supreme Court gives, it can take away. Because Melinda still has a right to choose today, tomorrow a two-year old boy will still have a mother, a husband will not be a widower, and a grandmother won’t be grieving over the death of her daughter.

A large majority of US citizens support abortion if necessary to save the life of the mother, with only the real zealots disagreeing. And a majority of citizens support a women’s right to choose an abortion during the first trimester. But a majority of state legislatures do not. All that is stopping them from outlawing abortion is a 5-4 United States Supreme Court, with at least two of the majority justices likely retiring during the next presidential term.

This election is not about our thriving economy, and it is not about Bill Clinton. It is about the Supreme Court and the direction of the United States for the next twenty-five years.

If Bush and Cheney are elected, abortion will become a felony in states throughout America, because Bush’s appointments to the Supreme Court will make it so. And as the religious right rejoices over another fetus saved, families throughout America will grieve as their loved ones die from the complications of pregnancy and back-alley procedures – all in the name of a loving God.

I understand many people believe abortion is morally wrong. I also understand many people want abortion to remain legal, yet still have qualms about late-term procedures.

What I don’t understand is how anyone could condemn Melinda to death, in the name of respect for life, in the name of God, to uphold a principle.

But then what do I know about principles? I’m just someone who loves my best friend.

* Not her real name

There's more...

Electronic Search and Seziure at the Border

Ironkey secure flashdrive.

What is this Fourth Amendment You Keep Talking About?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April, all your electronics belong to us.

Seriously.

Your laptop, your flash drive, your PDA, your iPod. Fourth Amendment? We don't need no stinking Fourth Amendment. We're the United States Customs. This is no-man's land, buddy-boy. We own your ass.

We can search you without reasonable cause or warrant. Strip-search you, x-ray you, and make you poop into a bowl.

As of April, Customs can take every electronic device you have.

Newsweek

Returning from a vacation to Germany in February, freelance journalist Bill Hogan was selected for additional screening by customs officials at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. Agents searched his luggage, he said, "then they told me that they were impounding my laptop."

Shaken by the encounter, Hogan examined his bags and found the agents had also inspected the memory card from his camera. "It was fortunate that I didn't use [the laptop] for work," he said, "or I would have had to call up all my sources and tell them that the government had just seized their information." When customs offered to return the computer nearly two weeks later, Hogan had it shipped to his lawyer.

How common Hogan's experience is remains unclear. But an April ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Customs and Border Protection, does have full authority to search any electronic devices without suspicion in the same way that it can inspect briefcases.

But congressional investigators say that copies of drives are sometimes made, meaning customs could be duplicating corporate secrets, legal and financial data, personal E-mails and photographs, along with stored passwords for accounts with companies ranging from Netflix to Bank of America.

The practice of storing and duplicating material might be something that both opponents and supporters of seizure could agree to regulate, says Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, an otherwise staunch supporter of customs' authority. Larry Cunningham, an assistant district attorney from New York, told the hearing: "I am aware of no authority that would permit the government, without probable cause to believe it contains contraband, to keep a person's laptop or to copy the contents of its files."

Customs insists that terrorism and child pornography are sufficient justification for electronics searches. And even civil libertarians agree it makes sense for customs to search luggage, which could pose immediate dangers to aircraft and passengers. But, says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, "customs officials do not go through briefcases to review and copy paper business records or personal diaries, which is apparently what they are now doing in digital form. These pda's don't have bombs in them."

Customs doesn't make copies of the files in your briefcase. For them to copy the files on your computer is to turn over one's life to the government.

“Stop! In the Name of Law” -- All crimes against the Constitution can be justified by The Four Horsemen of the Internet:

• Terrorism
• Drugs
• Child Porn
• Racism & Hatred

Rip the Bill of Rights up. We're making a safer world for the Children.

What can you do?

Take only a clean laptop and an encrypted flash drive through Customs. Be prepared to lose them forever. Send any data you care about over an encrypted channel before you cross the border.

Until the Judges currently on the Bench are replaced with ones who respect the Constitution -- a thirty year project, which will only come to pass once we have a progressive President elected, and guess what kids, Obama ain't him -- there isn't much we can ultimately do. A netroots caucus in Congress would help. Specific laws about this would help.

Ultimately what is needed is to shift the country back to a deep respect for the Constitution. Searching every electronic device, keeping them and rifling through them... obvious bullshit. Yet here it is, real as $140 oil and climbing (before we're formally at war with Iran.)

Obviously the Bush administration came up with this steaming crock of cow dung. What amazes me is the Ninth Circuit went along.

h/t Crooks and Liars.

There's more...

Breaking: Heller Affirmed

Glock 19.

People have an individual right to have a gun.

Justice Scalia writes for the majority.

SCOTUSblog

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

More follows...

They are going APESHIT at the NRA today.

This is their goddamn dream.

Quotes from the majority Opinion.

SCOTUSblog

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

Read that last graph again...

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

No machine guns (the Gatling Gun wasn't invented till 1861), no military-grade weapons.

Read literally, the majority says, yes, individuals have an individual right to the weapons ‘in common use at the time.’ At the time of the revolution? Or now?

I need to read further, but I think -- these are originalists after all -- they mean the weapons in use 220 years ago. Heh.

Wouldn't that just frost the NRA's chops?

The good news is, weapons for everyone.
Bad news is, black powder single shot smooth bore.

*laughs*

There's more...

Breaking: California Upholds Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court of California Approves Gay Marriage (4-3)

The 172 page opinion is here. The first 11 pages contain the flavor of the ruling.

1. This ruling is from the Supreme Court of California. It can not be over-ruled by any other Court. It is law, as of now, in California.

2. GLBT folk in California may go get married. Right now.

Well, probably in a day or so. The bureaucracy must be properly (and officially) notified of this ruling. But then. And it will be a legal marriage.

3. There will be an initiative in California this fall to amend the Constitution to prohibit Gay Marriage. The initiative has enough votes to get on the ballot. This is going to drive turn-out. Gov. Arnold has already said he opposes the initiative.

4. The Court ruled on equal-protection grounds. That classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is a protected class (such as race or gender) and therefore must be subject to strict scrutiny. That is, the State must a) demonstrate a compelling Constitutional requirement to do what it is doing, and b) that the way in which it acting is necessary. The State of California's law as written, was neither. Therefore, FAIL.

Welcome to the family of marriage, my sisters and brothers.

Today is a joyous day.

There's more...

The Rule of Law

Supreme Court Strikes Down Challenge to Washington State Elections

Good for the Supreme Court.

Some of my liberal colleagues are up in arms about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling (7-2) in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, which said that, at least for now, the top two vote-getters in Washington State's primary election, regardless of political party, will advance to the general election.

My liberal colleagues are upset because they see this as the Court giving the finger to a political party's ability to control who its members are.

That is not what has happened.

The Supreme Court is acting precisely how we as progressives, committed to restoring the RULE OF LAW in the United States, should want them to act.

The Justices -- with all four of the "liberal" Justices in the majority -- did precisely what high school civics classes, back when we had high school civics classes, told their students is the role of the Judicial branch: ruled narrowly, only on the issue in front of them, and avoided making sweeping constitutional pronouncements when there was a way to avoid doing so (and there was.)

The job of the Judicial branch is to let the Legislative and Executive branches do their job, and to step in only when the law needs interpreting, to rule as narrowly as possible, and then to get back out of the way.

This is precisely what The Supreme Court did yesterday. Under Chief Justice Roberts we should expect to see this more often.

Good.

The key distinction in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party is FACIALLY v. AS-APPLIED.

• Facially means the law as written, i.e.: Black-letter law, e.g.: Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
• As-applied means the law as implemented, e.g.: Washington Administrative Code plus how the law works in practice in the lives of real people.

The Justices are saying they are unwilling to consider if the law is unconstitutional on its face (as written), because it has never been implemented. The Supreme Court says it is not the place of the Judicial branch:

• to decide if the Legislative branch has made a mistake,
• absent the Executive branch implementing the law in a way in which real people are harmed,
  
• unless the law clearly violates the written Constitution/Amendments or a previous (Constitutional) ruling of the Court, e.g.: imposes prior restraint on free speech, or imposes restrictions on abortion in the first trimester.

Otherwise, the Court is unwilling to rule against a law simply since someone says someday, somehow, the law might violate the Constitution if implemented poorly.

As this law has not yet been implemented, the Court says, we know our Constitutional role and refuse to over-reach. If once the law has been implemented, you believe you are harmed, make your case then. We have not ruled on the fundamental claim you are making as a constitutional issue; you have not been harmed and possibly never will be. We have said only that we will not reach your core claim today, and -- which is why we refuse to go further -- perhaps it will not ever be necessary to reach to the constitutional claim.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
(The Steel Seizure Case)

Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Concurring

The Framers, however, did not make the judiciary the overseer of our government. They were familiar with the revisory functions entrusted to judges in a few of the States, and refused to lodge such powers in this Court. Judicial power can be exercised only as to matters that were the traditional concern of the courts at Westminster, and only if they arise in ways that to the expert feel of lawyers constitute "Cases" or "Controversies." Even as to questions that were the staple of judicial business, it is not for the courts to pass upon them unless they are indispensably involved in a conventional litigation -- and then only to the extent that they are so involved. Rigorous adherence to the narrow scope of the judicial function is especially demanded in controversies that arouse appeals to the Constitution. The attitude with which this Court must approach its duty when confronted with such issues is precisely the opposite of that normally manifested by the general public. So-called constitutional questions seem to exercise a mesmeric influence over the popular mind. This eagerness to settle -- preferably forever -- a specific problem on the basis of the broadest possible constitutional pronouncements may not unfairly be called one of our minor national traits. An English observer of our scene has acutely described it:

At the first sound of a new argument over the United States Constitution and its interpretation, the hearts of Americans leap with a fearful joy. The blood stirs powerfully in their veins, and a new lustre brightens their eyes. Like King Harry's men before Harfleur, they stand like greyhounds in the slips, straining upon the start.

The Economist, May 10, 1952, p. 370.

The path of duty for this Court, it bears repetition, lies in the opposite direction. Due regard for the implications of the distribution of powers in our Constitution and for the nature of the judicial process as the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution, has not only confined the Court within the narrow domain of appropriate adjudication. It has also led to "a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision." Brandeis, J., in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 341, 346. A basic rule is the duty of the Court not to pass on a constitutional issue at all, however narrowly it may be confined, if the case may, as a matter of intellectual honesty, be decided without even considering delicate problems of power under the Constitution. It ought to be, but apparently is not, a matter of common understanding that clashes between different branches of the government should be avoided if a legal ground of less explosive potentialities is properly available.

Bravo. This is the Rule of Law.

For seven long years we have watched the criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration refuse to enforce the law, and the Republican Party turn away.

Yesterday, The Supreme Court said, this Court stands for the rule of law. All four liberal Justices agreed, just as they did in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

I am shocked this decision was not 9-0. Even Justice Thomas understands one of the central functions of the Courts is, when it is possible to not reach to an answer, it is necessary to not reach to an answer (with rare exceptions.) This is called judicial restraint. It is a fundamental part of how our Courts, the law, and the Separation of Powers work. If the Courts did not so restrain themselves, soon the Courts would be interjecting themselves into every damn thing willy-nilly, and the last bastion of freedom from tyranny we have would be lost to politics.

My deep congratulations to the Supreme Court for demonstrating that -- at least when it isn't fractured along political lines -- the Court can still be trusted to follow the Rule of Law.

There's more...

Rejecting the Rule of Law: Part 1

Michael Mukasey. Official photo.

U.S. Attorney General Refuses Congressional Contempt Citations

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to refer two contempt citations from the United States House of Representatives to a Grand Jury for their consideration of criminal charges, saying a current and former aide to President Bush had done nothing illegal.

Associated Press

Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers were right in refusing to provide Congress White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Mukasey for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking seeking enforcment of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers.

Mukassey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush's instruction.

Let's review.

Here is Speaker Pelosi's letter to Mukassey.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi Letter to Attorney General Mukasey on Contempt Citations of Miers and Bolten

Washington, D.C. – Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, informing him of the enclosed referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor on contempt citations of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Taylor is required by law to bring the matter before a grand jury. However, Mukasey has indicated that the Justice Department intends to prevent Taylor from complying with the law.

“There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury,” she wrote…”I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim.”

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 979, which holds Miers and Bolten in contempt of their subpoenas.

Below is a text of the letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor:

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In accordance with 2 U.S.C. § 194 and the attached House Resolution 979 (adopted on February 14, 2008), I have today sent a certification to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, advising him of the failure of former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to appear, testify and produce documents in compliance with a duly issued subpoena of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and of the failure of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff and custodian of White House documents, to produce documents in his custody as required by a duly issued subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee.

Under section 194, Mr. Taylor is now required “to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The appropriate grand jury action is a criminal charge for violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which provides: “Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” and shall be subject to a fine and “imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that “enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his… not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents.” Hearing on Oversight of the Dep’t of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a “long line of authority,” but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will “act promptly” to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

Thank your for your prompt consideration and attention to this matter.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

Enclosure

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney
District of Columbia

The undersigned, The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, pursuant to the attached House Resolution 979, One Hundred Tenth Congress, hereby certifies to you the failure and refusal of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, to appear, testify, and furnish certain documents in compliance with a subpoena before a duly constituted subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. The undersigned further certifies to you the failure and refusal of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to furnish certain documents in the custody of the White House in compliance with a subpoena before said committee. These failures and refusals are fully shown by the certified copy of the House Report 110-423 of said committee which is also hereto attached.

Witness my hand and seal of the House of Representatives of the United States, at the City of Washington, District of Columbia, this twenty-eighth day of February, 2008.

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House of Representatives

Attest:
LORRAINE C. MILLER
Clerk of the House of Representatives

The Attorney General didn't take a week to get back to the Speaker.

This is the same Attorney General, whom when he went before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, swore on penalty of perjury he was a good honest law-respecting man, NOT the evil sniveling suck-up ass-kissing torture-loving Constitution-shredding weak man for whom authority matters more than physical truth in the holy tradition of Reverend Father Fra Vincenzo Maculano, O.P., Commissary General of the Holy Office.

The AG's office was a national disgrace. Something, anything, desperately needed to be done.

A nation operates by rule of law or by force, fraud, and resort to power. With all accountability of the Article II Executive being blocked by the Republicans in the Article I Congress, it truly was a national emergency that our federal law enforcement be placed in proper order. The house need to be cleaned.

Michael Mukasey was nominated to replace Alberto Gonzales, whom it was clear to everyone with his "I don't remember," "I can't recall," "I don't recollect," "Huh," "Duh," & “¡No habla ingles! ¡No habla ingles!” had to fucking go.

Plus the ultimate cock-block: License to Lie.

Gonzales was not only done, toast, dangerous, damaged goods, and a goddamn danger to the integrity of the nation, but worse... He was a lousy liar and making everyone look bad.

Gonzales was obviously actively running interference for the lawless Bush administration, helping them commit crimes, failing to order criminal investigations into felonies and patterns of criminal acts. RICO shit if done by anyone other than the Bushes plus their tame prosecutors. Hell, RICO shit anyway, but if the AG's office refuses to do anything you're pretty well hosed, not to mention the possibility of three-letter agencies saying “Howdy.”

Worse, Gonzales appeared to be committing crimes himself: tampering with elections through political influence on Attorneys General, bringing political hit jobs for Karl Rove on sitting Democratic Governors (paging prisoner Siegelman, prisoner Don Siegelman), and felonies for authorizing torture.

Worst of all, Gonzales was a shitty liar and thus liable to bring the whole damn White House down on the Big Enchilada plus Shotgun Guy, if the little fat Tex-Mex fuck wasn't hustled out of town pronto before he could be hauled in front of a Grand Jury, or worse, Congress again. Jesus. His own staff had prepped him but his Congressional testimony was the most unconvincing performance since Barry Bonds denying steroids. Worse.

Gonzales either had to go or find a sidewinder in his mailbox. Which would be a mite conspicuous in D.C. But could be arranged from some folks out of Colorado Springs as a last resort, praise Jesus.

Mukasey was vouched for as a man of the law, a man whom, although partisan, would, he swore before God himself, put the law before the Bush administration.

Yeah.

Right.

Except that during the nomination hearings, Mukasey refused to say water boarding was torture. Refused to say water boarding, torture under Geneva to which the United States is a signatory, water boarding, a crime under several Federal laws and the law of every State in the United States, the prospective Attorney General of the United States, under oath, refused to call water boarding torture.

The U.S. Senate confirmed him anyway.

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”. (Hosea 8:7)

Today, the hope for fixing the catastrophe which has been federal law enforcement made his position clear. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to pass along Congressional contempt citations for two senior Bush aides to a Grand Jury.

Mukasey sent the Speaker a letter explaining his acts. I'll translate:

“Fuck the rule of law. IOIYAR”
(It's Okay If You're A Republican.)

Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Conyers are furious:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

“By ordering the U.S. Attorney to take no action in response to congressional subpoenas, the Bush Administration is continuing to politicize law enforcement, which undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system.

“Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.”

House Judiciary Committee (Chairman John Conyers, Jr.)

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) reacted to the Justice Department's decision not to present contempt citations against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to a grand jury, despite a statutory obligation to do so:

"Our investigation into the firing of United States Attorneys revealed an administration and a Justice Department that seemed to put politics first, and today’s decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the US Attorney firings hidden. In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the committee's subpoenas.”

There's more, but churn this around, get your stomach bile flowing.

An Attorney General who swore as a nominee to clean house, refusing.

A Senate who shouldn't have confirmed; water boarding is torture.

And a Speaker of the House with a problem.

What next?

More in our next installment -- Rejecting the Rule of Law: Part 2

There's more...

Judge Allows Arizona Anti-Immigant Law To Go Active

Staunch Republican Judge throws out Temporary Injunctions

U.S. District Court Judge Neil Vincent Wake just ruled against both requests for temporary injunctions in the Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., et al. v lawsuits. (US District Court, Arizona. Decision #1. Decision #2.)

The New York Times

A new Arizona law considered among the nation’s toughest against employers who hire illegal immigrants will go into effect on Jan. 1 after federal judges on Friday refused to block it.

Both a United States district judge in Phoenix and a federal appeals court in San Francisco, ruling on separate lawsuits by business and civil rights groups, declined to stand in the way.

The law calls for suspending the license of an employer found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker, and revocation for a second offense.

First, Judge Neil Vincent Wake of Federal District Court in Phoenix issued a sharp defense of the rights of lawful workers and said the law would not burden businesses in the short run.

Then on Friday night, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deferred a decision on an injunction until after a hearing by Judge Wake on Jan. 16, provided a “decision is reached with reasonable promptness.”

Judge Neil Vincent Wake was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.

While certainly not every Judge is a right-wing ideologue, in the years immediately after 9/11 the Democratic minority was not positioned -- nor frankly, did it even try -- to prevent the Bush administration with stacking the courts. And we know from experience, the kind of horror judges who rule based on politics instead of law give us. Don't we Judge Bates, you fucking tool?

Judge Wake before he was on the bench, was a right-wing tool of the highest order. The first case of his I pulled up had him representing Paula and Alan Sears against the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on the grounds that:

Las-Vegas Review Journal

...their children, who go to school in Scottsdale, would be exposed to bad influences if casino gambling is permitted nearby.

Seriously.

He won, too. (At least as of that moment. Don't know how it ultimately turned out.)

The moralistic anti-gambling forces say, I should be able to force my world-view on you such that because my sweet little innocent children go to school within miles of your den of iniquity, Jesus must throw out the money-changes from the temple.

Worse -- it might lead to dancing.

Since Judge Wake has become a judge, he has suggested that gays have no constitutional right to equal protection under the law, even in prison where the State obviously has a legal obligation to make certain homophobia doesn't lead to attacks.

Not our Judge Wake, the right-wing homophobe:

Lesbian Gay Law Notes (Page 9)

Ruling on an apparently routine summary judgment motion in a pro se ex-prisoner case, U.S. District Judge Neil Vincent Wake made the startling assertion that for purposes of an Equal Protection claim, “Homosexuals are not a protected class in the Ninth Circuit.” Sotelo v. Stewart, 2005 WL 2571606 (D. Ariz., Oct. 11, 2005) (unpublished disposition). What he should have said, of course, is that “sexual orientation” has not yet been recognized as a suspect classification, but that would not, of course, deprive the court of jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 to consider whether prison officials had a rational basis to treat a gay prisoner less well than a non-gay prisoner, an inquiry supported by Supreme Court precedent in Romer v. Evans.

Wake’s brief dismissal misses the point and is clearly erroneous in light of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), which held at least that a state violates the 14th Amendment if it discriminates against gay people without a rational justification. In the context of a prison, had Sotelo alleged with sufficient specificity that he suffered discriminatory treatment because he was gay, the prison would have to show a penological reason for treating gay prisoners differently from others. More fundamentally, the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not classes.

In Romer, of course, section 1983, a jurisdictional statute, was irrelevant because the case was brought in state court and went to the U.S. Supreme Court directly from the Colorado Supreme Court on the federal constitutional question, but Romer clearly establishes the principle, binding on the 9th Circuit and its district courts, that sexual orientation discrimination is actionable under the 14th Amendment.

That's fancy legal talk for, "God Hates Fags."

Against gambling and fags.

Want to bet he's against teh sex and the abortions, the wine, women and song? And in favor of big corps?

Every case of his I found was moralistically based, or on behalf of a big corporation, white boy style. (Anti-women, anti-poor, anti-labor, anti-Indian, "Fuck you; I've got mine.")

You can see why the Bushies wanted his ass on the bench.

Part of the major damage of the Bush administration is they've corrupted much of our legal system. Even the judges who don't rule overtly politically like this asshole, aren't favorable. And then you have entire government entities attacking and ripping apart or turning over to corporate pirates the very institutions they should be protecting: the FCC, NLRB, FDA, SEC, USDA, and more.

Our legal system assumes good intent. It is not set up to protect itself against an insider attack from people in power. This is something we progressives need to fix once we take over.

Th Arizona law has undocumented workers fleeing the state in fear, and employers checking the documentation status of current workers, even though the black letter law makes clear people only have to use the system when hiring people.

Why is everyone running? Because the sheriff in Phoenix has a history of using immigration laws illegally to come after anyone he wants. A culture of lawlessness and distrust prevails against a background Republican/libertarianism "I've got mine so fuck everyone else" which pervades much of the fundamentalist (and to a lessor extent, the Mormon) portions of the West.

I can't say I blame the Ninth Circuit for failing to override Judge Wake. Had they, I have little doubt the Supreme Court would have overturned, 5-4. And again we're back to the long-term damage done to our country by the stacking of the courts.

There'll be a hearing on the case in January, where I have no doubt Judge Wake will, yet again, rule against undocumented workers and for this horrid cruel law. His current rulings make his January hearing pretty damn clear.

Arizona is cutting its own throat, economically, socially, culturally, genetically.

Stupid, stupid Republican legislators.

There's more...

Cats v Rats

Feline Domesticus v Genus Rattus

• Rattus adustus
• Rattus annandalei
• Rattus argentiventer
• Rattus baluensis
• Rattus bontanus
• Rattus boulos
• Rattus burrus
• Rattus colletti
• Rattus elaphinus
• Rattus enganus
• Rattus everetti
• Rattus exulans
• Rattus feliceus
• Rattus foramineus
• Rattus fuscipes
• Rattus giluwensis
• Rattus hainaldi
• Rattus hoffmani
• Rattus hoogerwerfi
• Rattus jobiensis
• Rattus koopmani
• Rattus korinchi
• Rattus leucopus
• Rattus losea
• Rattus lugens
• Rattus lutreolus
• Rattus macleari
• Rattus marmosurus
• Rattus mindorensis
• Rattus mollicomulus
• Rattus montanus
• Rattus mordax
• Rattus morotaiensis
• Rattus nativitatis
• Rattus nitidus
• Rattus norvegicus
• Rattus novaeguineae
• Rattus osgoodi
• Rattus palmarum
• Rattus pelurus
• Rattus praetor
• Rattus ranjiniae
• Rattus rattus
• Rattus sanila
• Rattus sikkimensis
• Rattus simalurensis
• Rattus sordidus
• Rattus steini
• Rattus stoicus
• Rattus tanezumi
• Rattus tawitawiensis
• Rattus timorensis
• Rattus tiomanicus
• Rattus tunneyi
• Rattus turkestanicus
• Rattus villosissimus
• Rattus xanthurus

The media frenzy shown in the video above happened on February 23, 2007 in New York City.

What would you do if you had a small store and the choice was keep a tabby -- against the rules of the Health Code -- or be overrun with rats?

The New York Times

Amid the goods found in the stores, there is one thing that many owners and employees say they cannot do without: their cats. And it goes beyond cuddly companionship. These cats are workers, tireless and enthusiastic hunters of unwanted vermin, and they typically do a far better job than exterminators and poisons.

When a bodega cat is on the prowl, workers say, rats and mice vanish.

But as efficient as the cats may be, their presence in stores can lead to legal trouble. The city’s health code and state law forbid animals in places where food or beverages are sold for human consumption. Fines range from $300 for a first offense to $2,000 or higher for subsequent offenses.

“Any animal around food presents a food contamination threat,” said Robert M. Corrigan, a rodentologist and research scientist for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “And so that means anything from animal pieces and parts to hair and excrement could end up in food, and that alone, of course, is a violation of the health code.”


















Mr. Corrigan did concede that some studies have shown that the smell of cats in an enclosed area will keep mice away. But he does not endorse cats as a form of pest control because, he explained, the bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites and nematodes carried by rats may infect humans by secondary transfer through a cat.

Still, many store owners keep cats despite the law, mainly because other options have failed and the fine for rodent feces is also $300. “It’s hard for bodega owners because they’re not supposed to have a cat, but they’re also not supposed to have rats,” said José Fernández, the president of the Bodega Association of the United States.

There's more...

The picture above is a rat-catching-cat named Oreo, perched in a deli in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Oreo looks so... satiated.
photo Richard Perry/The New York Times. Click photo to enlarge.

Well?

The rats?

Poison?

Or the cats? *waves to Oreo* *Oreo ignores me with dignity*

There's more...

Oh Santa, I'm So Naughty

Jake Gyllenhaal photo François Duhamel/Jarhead

Woman Charged With Groping Mall Santa:
'I Did Not Do Anything Wrong.'

Arrested several hours after she either did or did not sit on Santa's lap, and did or did not grab him in a very so-called naughty place, depending on whom you believe, a 33 year-old woman was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault.

NewsTimes

The woman accused of groping Santa at the Danbury Fair mall denies she even sat on the man's lap.

"I don't know what's going on. I don't know if he was confused, it was a false report," Sandrama Lamy, 33, said this morning.

Lamy said she was window shopping at the mall Saturday with a friend when she decided to get a picture with a man playing Santa Claus.

A woman -- apparently working with the mall Santa -- made a comment after the picture was snapped, Lamy said.

"I did not sit on his lap. A woman there said 'Be careful, that's my husband.' I said 'What does that have to do with the picture?'" Lamy said. "That's all I said, and I left."

"A couple of hours later," security officers stopped Lamy, who was still in the mall.

"Why would I do this? There were so many people there. If he (Santa) needed a few extra bucks I would have given it to him," Lamy said. "I've never been involved in a crime or anything. This is shocking to me."

Santa and the police tell a different story... when you can get them to say anything.

NewsTimes

Sandrama Lamy, 33, of Danbury, is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, according to Danbury Detective Lt. Thomas Michael.

Two messages seeking comment were left on Lamy's answering machine.

Details leading up to the alleged fondling are sketchy.

"I don't know what the deal was. It was just bizarre," the mall Santa told a reporter, referring all other questions about the incident to Cherry Hill Photo, the company that runs the Danbury Fair mall Santa photo setup.

Cherry Hill Photo did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

According to information provided by the Danbury Police Department, officers were dispatched to the mall Saturday at 8:45 p.m.

The mall Santa told police that Lamy touched him inappropriately while sitting on his lap.

"The security officer at the mall said Santa Claus has been sexually assaulted," Michael said.

Lamy was also charged with breach of peace.

"She must have caused a commotion over there," Michael said.

Either they've got this on video or they don't.

Eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of testimony there is.

Juries in today's media-driven CSI and Law & Order world, expect a case laid out for them as if it's television. The mall ownership are fools if they don't have five or six cameras trained on Santa, up high, down low, in tight, so no matter what happens, they've got coverage.

If Santa's joint was grabbed -- given I read in comments at the NewsTimes he's a 65 year old man -- he absolutely should press charges if he wants to. That's a personal call and I'd never tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. Me personally - probably not. But I'm not shy about telling people "No" and making it stick.

If this is a jealous wife forcing Santa to file charges about a misunderstanding of what she saw, then I hope Ms. Lamy ends up owning both half the mall and Mrs. Santa's retirement fund. Every time someone files charges or makes unfounded accusations they poison the environment for every legitimate claim for every woman and man struggling to decide if they dare trust the system to be fair with what happened to them.

I hate people who file false charges with a passion reserved for almost no one.

In the meantime, enjoy Jake as Santa from Jarhead.

There's more...

German Official: Scientology Should Be Banned

photo Benoit Doppagne AFP/Getty Images

Contends Scientology Violates Human Rights

This week in Germany, Hamburg's Secretary of the Interior, Udu Nagel, plans to ask his counterparts in the 16 other German States, to agree to ban Scientology nation-wide.

Associated Press

The German government considers Scientology a commercial enterprise that takes advantage of vulnerable people. During the summer, it initially refused to allow the producers of a movie starring Scientology member Tom Cruise as Germany's most famous anti-Hitler plotter to film at the site where the hero was executed, although it did not expressly state Scientology as its reason.

If all 16 states agree to the proposal to ban Scientology, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble would be asked to initiate proceedings against it, Sweden said, confirming a report by Focus magazine.

The report quotes Nagel saying that Scientology pursues "anti-constitutional goals in an aggressively fierce" manner that run counter to human rights and dignity.

This is not the first time Scientology has run into trouble at the national level.

In Belgium, Scientology has been recommended for prosecution.

ABC News

The Church of Scientology has been branded a criminal organization by a Belgian prosecutor, who has recommended it stands trial for fraud and extortion.

His investigation concluded that the church's Europe office, based in Brussels, and its Belgian missions, conducted unlawful practices in medicine, violated privacy laws and used illegal business contracts.

A spokeswoman at the Federal Prosecutors Office, said: "They also face charges of being ... a criminal organization."

Investigators have spent a decade trying to determine how far Scientology went in recruiting converts after numerous complaints were filed with police by former members claiming they had been the victims of intimidation and extortion.

There is history going back decades of practices condemned in U.S. courts.

Scientology's "Attack the Attacker" policy has been known to have a chilling effect on publishing negative articles about them. I personally know someone who was attacked by these folks. (A Federal Judge agreed.)

Why then, am I putting it up? It's news.

Comment away.

NO calling anyone a cult. Belgium is trying to take Scientology to trial for being a criminal organization; that's different from being a cult, which has a very specific technical meaning. Seriously -- we're not going there; the legal liability is too great.

Otherwise, have fun. (But play nice.)

There's more...

U.S. Claims Right to Kidnap Any Foreign Citizen

The ensemble of idiot lawyers appointed by the head chimpanzee Bush are making more friends internationally.

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it. --timesonline.co.uk

Whats the phrase? Imperial Hubris? What these stupid monkey's don't get is that besides the fact that there are more than a few countries that are going to have a BIG problem with this, they are opening the door for the kidnapping and imprisoning of U.S. corporate executives abroad. Not that I give a damn considering what they are stating here.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

It's just that I presume the U.S. Titans of Industry© are also going to have a problem with this. Bush Co is basically funneling corporate money to the Democrats.

These guys are really trying to take us back to the 1800's.

UPDATE: Dr Cole lists a report from Baghdad:

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that al-Mashhadani objected that US officers in Iraq do not have the prerogative of arresting a member of parliament without being ordered to do so by the Iraqi prime minister. (Parliamentarians have diplomatic immunity unless shown to have committed crimes).

My guess is that they don't know about how the U.S. is now the supreme legal authority everywhere on planet earth... Mars Bitches!

There's more...

Not Everything Is A Republican Conspiracy

poster: The Secret Diagrams by Gerhard Seyfried (Click for LARGE.)

Karl Rove Isn't Behind Everything

I hate circular firing squads.

They serve no one but the enemy. And as Democrats, much more so than Republicans, who'll let Ann Coulter speak for them without saying anything, inviting her back over and over again, we of all people should perhaps learn not to shoot our own people over trivia.

The problem I have today, is I have a profound respect for the law. And a blog I actually like, even with their rhetorical excesses, ran a post last week, which is unmitigated crap. No one else called them out, so, I'm going to do it.

DownWithTyranny suggested that a recent D.C. Court of Appeals decision recently profiled in the Washington Post, was rigged so as to pay off for Republicans:

DownWithTyranny!

Bush's incompetent and overly partisan appointments to the courts have ruined the entire justice system of the United States and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is now an outgrowth of the neo-nazi outfit known as the Federalist Society. They are making it impossible to prosecute the overt criminal activities of bribe-taking congressmen by abusing statutes "intended to protect legislators from intimidation under civil or criminal law."

The Federalist Society court has ruled the Justice Department can't use evidence against the crooked Republicans that was obtained through court-approved wiretaps, searches of home offices and voluntary interviews of congressional staffers. Of the 10 current members of the court, seven are rabid right wing fanatics appointed by Reagan, Bush, Sr and, mostly Bush, Jr, who allowed the Federalist Society to dictate each nominee, none of whom faced any serious opposition from a collaborationist Senate.

Wow, just reading this, one could almost believe the Federalist Society has taken over the D.C. Circuit, and this particular case was rigged.

Turns out not to be the case. (Go back and read The Washington Post article to grasp the actual issue.)

First however, let me just suggest we reserve calling anyone a "neo-nazi outfit" be reserved for people whom, like, are? Say the KKK, or the Aryan Brotherhood. Not a group of distinguished attorneys and judges, no matter how much you or I may hold many of their political views in contempt.

Second, learn to tell your judges apart. I went digging, and where I didn't know the answer, I wrote a letter and asked questions, dug around. This is one of those times I wish I could mention whom I spoke with, because I admire her/him a lot, as a distinguished legal scholar. But it was all off the record.

I'm going to paraphrase what my unnamed distinguished legal source told me on Thanksgiving Day:

It's a joke to think for a moment the D.C. Circuit decision was written for the benefit of Republicans. The author of the opinion was Judge Judith Rogers, nominated by Clinton, probably the most liberal member of the court. Judge Henderson who concurred, but refused to agree with the speech and debate clause part which is causing all the trouble for the DOJ, was nominated by Bush (41), and is moderate-conservative. It is almost certain the breakdown of the court's vote not to review the panel decision also did not break ideologically, given who was on the original panel. The very thought of Judge Rogers writing a decision to benefit Republicans is ridiculous, doubly so when a GOP-nominated judge went the opposite way. As is the thought of any judge on the court writing a decision to benefit corrupt politicians. These are judges.

Again; this is my paraphrase of my source, not a precise quote. And while I would have loved to have given credit, my original letter asking for help promised to keep her/his name off the record.

I agree with this assessment. I just didn't know the breakout of the judges, and while I could have looked them up, I didn't know how they might have, um, drifted... over the years. Which is why I had to go ask someone who knows them.

With all respect, the DownWithTyranny post was an idiot thing to write, and an embarrassment to liberalism.

It was stupid to write, because simple fact checking would have revealed the writer of the majority opinion was a Democrat, and the writer of the swing vote concurring with the majority but against the whole speech and debate clause section which is the problem for the Justice Department, was a Republican.

It embarrasses liberalism because it sticks us with goofy conspiracy nuts who see 9/11 in every government degree, voter fraud in every movement of a ballot box, and Karl Rove behind every reverse of every liberal idea everywhere. Sometimes, we just have our facts wrong, and we need to try very hard to not do that.

Will this ruling make things harder for the DOJ? Yes, most likely. That is why they are strongly considering appealing. But that is how rulings go sometimes.

The facts are, a Judge (nominated Democratic), expanded a privilege which may or may not be upheld at the Supreme Court level, if it gets that far. It was a close vote, and a Judge (nominated Republican) voted against expanding the critical part of expanding the privilege. Both of which are the precise opposite of how they would have voted if they were voting ideologically. The remainder of the Court split on non-partisan grounds as well.

There are enough actual attacks on our liberties, that we serve no one when we insist on inventing conspiracy theories everywhere.

Or as I was taught as a young paramedic student learning how to diagnose patients: "When you hear hoof beats outside your window, think of horses, not zebras."

There's more...