Supreme Court kills overall limits on individual political campaign donations

This is from the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.

Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court's conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.

Under those limits, donors could give up to $5,200 to any individual candidate for Congress per election cycle, and no more than $123,200 to all candidates and political party committees put together.

Acting on an appeal from the Republican National Committee, the high court left the individual candidate limits intact but declared the overall limit unconstitutional.

As a result, individuals will be able to give the individual maximum to every candidate for Congress, either directly or through contributions to a political party. That in effect raises the new maximum that can be given to candidates and party committees during a two-year election cycle to $3.6 million.

We now have the very best political system that money can buy.  If you have $3.6 million dollars, you can give to every candidate and through both political parties to make sure that your political viewpoints are heard above everyone else.  Toss in the practically unlimited corporate campaign contributions of Citizens United,  and you can pretty much purchase your own congress-critter.  It seems like we're moving away from a one man / one vote, to a $1 / one vote.  What choice is there between corporate and ultra-rich sponsored Candidate A, and corporate and ultra-rich sponsored Candidate B, when both candidates have pretty much the same political opinion on business regulations, environmental regulations, labor, wages, and economic issues?  When both candidates support big business and the ultra-rich? 

Supreme Court hears arguments in Hobby Lobby case for corporation's religious rights

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, where Hobby Lobby is challenging the Affordable Care Act's insurance coverage for birth control is violating the religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby, and that the company should be exempt from this birth control requirement.  This is from CBS News.com:

Two privately-held, for-profit companies -- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. -- are suing the United States government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to offer their workers comprehensive health coverage, including contraception, or pay a fine. Hobby Lobby's owners, David and Barbara Green of Oklahoma, say they have strong objections based in their Christian faith to providing health care coverage for certain types of contraception. The Pennsylvania-based Hahn family, the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, have the same complaint.

For Christian conservatives, the cases represent the threat of government overreach.

"This case will decide whether a family gives up their religious freedom when they open a family business," Lori Windham, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing Hobby Lobby, told CBS News. "The question here is whether the Green family can be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious conviction as a consequence of the new health care law."

Reproductive rights advocates, meanwhile, consider the notion that some businesses could pick and choose which contraception methods to cover "out of touch [and] out of line," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told reporters.

Contraception is "integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime," Hogue said. "We've had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being... Our bodies are not our bosses' business."

The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called "wars" on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt "a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment," David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.

That shift in thinking could open the floodgates for unprecedented protections for corporations that some say amount to a license to discriminate. The ramifications could be felt nationwide, in states that are enacting laws to shield businesses from regulations that may violate their "religious beliefs." Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., last month vetoed one such bill, which would have allowed Arizona businesses to refuse to serve gays on religious grounds. A number of other states across the country have been considering similar legislation.

The ramifications could theoretically go further than that. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in a brief to the court that siding with Hobby Lobby "would entitle commercial employers with religious objections to opt out of virtually every statute protecting their employees" -- such as laws that ban gender discrimination, minimum wage and overtime laws, the collection of Social Security taxes, or mandated health coverage for vaccinations.

This case certainly worries me.  The big question I would have to ask is, who defines a corporation's religious belief?  Hobby Lobby is a privately held company,  so I can see the Green family's religious argument against providing birth control.  But who defines a publicly-held corporation's religious belief?  The CEO?  The Board of Directors?  The shareholders?  Will such religious beliefs have to be placed up for a shareholder vote on the next shareholder meeting?  How does such religious beliefs in God, Satan, Original Sin, birth control, relate towards selling of shoes by Nike Corporation?  Wait--Jesus Christ wore shoes.  How does religious beliefs relate towards the selling of  iPhones and iPads by Apple Computer Corporation?

There have been a lot of arguments that I've read criticizing Hobby Lobby, and their arguments for corporate religious beliefs--Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, Daily Kos has multiple postings on their site, and Americablog has four postings.  What worries me is that if the Supremes rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, then we may see that floodgate of corporate protections on taxes, discrimination, exemption on regulations on everything--all based on religious beliefs.  Corporations only believe in one God--and that is the God of Money!  They will say anything and do anything they can to accumulate even more of their God. 

And one more thing, the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote.  Because corporations are people too, my friend.

Appeals Court rules DOMA Act unconstitutional

This will soon go to the Supreme Court. From MSNBC News:

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.

I'm thinking for the Supreme Court, it becomes a question of looking at this case from a social issue, or from a benefits issue. The social issue would be that marriage is a religious pact between a man and a woman. The benefits issue are insurance, visitation, and tax benefits that federal and state governments provide for married couples. Conservatives are arguing this is a social and religious issue for heterosexual couples--no gay couples allowed! Gay couples are demanding they should have the same benefits that married couples enjoy. With the Court so evenly divided, it becomes a question of how will Justice Anthony Kennedy decide?

This also brings gay marriage in the front of the presidential elections. Whoever will be elected president this November, will probably select one or two Supreme Court slots in the next four years. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will obviously choose a hard-line conservative to the Court. President Obama will probably choose a moderate-conservative to the Court. So it becomes a question of how far right will the Court be tilted in the next four years?

Ginsberg's cancer brings up speculation of Obama court make-up

Two days ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went into surgery, after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. From MSNBC News:

Ginsburg, 75, had the surgery at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She will remain in the hospital for seven to 10 days, said her surgeon, Dr. Murray Brennan, according to a release issued by the court.

In 1999, Ginsburg had surgery for colon cancer and had chemotherapy and radiation treatment. The only woman on the court, she has been a justice since 1993.

The pancreatic cancer was discovered during a routine, annual exam late last month at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

If there was one issue that was overlooked in the 2008 elections, it was the Supreme Court. Ginsburg is just one of the four justices in the Court's liberal wing--with justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens being the other three. Ginsburg is 76 years old, and has told law clerks that she intends on serving the Court until her 80s. If Ginsburg's cancer forces her to step down from the court, it will be Barack Obama--and not John McCain--that would be responsible for selecting her replacement. If John McCain were sitting in the Oval Office, he could replace one of the four liberal justices with a conservative justice, forcing the Court into a more conservative stance. Remember, Ginsburg is 76 years old, Breyer is 71, Souter is 70, and Stevens is 89 years old! Compared to the Courts conservative justices ages where justices Anthony Kennedy is 73, Samuel Alito is 59, Chief Justice John Roberts is 54 years old, Justice Antonin Scalia is 73 years old, and Justice Clarence Thomas is 61 years old, three of the conservative justices are still below retirement age. We are going to see at least one Supreme Court justice being replace over the next four years. I'm guessing it will be John Paul Stevens, considering he is currently 89 years old--he will be 93 years old at the end of Obama's first term. Of course this is pretty much a given. After that, we've got a number of justices in their 70s--Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, and Scalia. There may be retirements from any of them over the next eight years. This is why it was so important for the Democrats to take control of the White House, to maintain the ideological status quo of this Court.

Which brings us to the speculation of who Obama may choose for his first Supreme Court justice selection? According to this MSNBC News story:

President Barack Obama took office with a strong prospect that his first four years in office could bring two or more openings on the high court, though he may well be replacing aging liberal justices with younger ones.

Barring the unexpected, the court's balance of power — four on the left, four on the right, one in the middle leaning right [Kennedy is the swing vote] — is not likely to change significantly.

[....]

Chances are, Obama's first appointment will be a woman — especially if it's to take the place of Ginsburg, the only woman on the court. And, like Ginsburg, she will be liberal leaning.

Like every sitting justice, she also probably will be a federal appeals court judge. Obama has a number of options along those lines, including these five:

* Judge Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
* Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
* Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
* Pam Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University.
* Judge Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

Either Wardlaw or Sotomayor would be the court's first Hispanic justice.

So it will certainly be interesting to see who Obama may select for his first appointment. A first Hispanic judge would be an impressive achievement to add to Obama's presidential legacy. But the important factor here is that the Court will maintain its balance between the liberal and conservative ideologies. Obama will select at least one justice in the four, or eight, years he will be president. It is just a matter of time.

Presidential election to determine Supreme Court's future path

If there is ever one important aspect of this current presidential election that has really been ignored, it is the issue of the U.S. Supreme Court. From The Washington Post:

For much of its term, the Supreme Court muted last year's noisy dissents, warmed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s vision of narrow, incremental decisions and continued a slow but hardly steady move to the right.

But as justices finished their work last week, two overarching truths about the court remained unchanged: It is sharply divided ideologically on some of the most fundamental constitutional questions, and the coming presidential election will determine its future path.

A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

"If there's one thing you can see about this court, it is that it still sits on a knife's edge," said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor who argued three cases before the justices this year.

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court has four liberal justices with John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and four conservative justices with Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The swing justice here in Antony Kennedy. It is usually Justice Kennedy that is providing that tipping vote in the 5-4 Court decisions--the other justices might as well go home!

The issue with the presidential election is that if there are any justices that will be retiring, they will probably be the liberal justices. Justice Stevens is 88 years old and one of the oldest and longest serving members of the Court. Justice Ginsburg is 75 years old. If John McCain is elected president, he will have the opportunity to shift the court to the extreme right, if he is given the opportunity to nominate one or two justices. In other words, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned, civil liberties will probably be curtailed, and the federal government will be given more power to domestically spy on its citizens. These are just some extreme examples of what a McCain-stacked court could do to this country.

Is this the direction you want the U.S. Supreme Court to be heading?

Supreme Court ruling limits suits on pay disparity

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court has given employers a back-door right to discriminate against women. This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, May 29 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

From 2001 to 2006, workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination cases. Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Workplace experts said the ruling would have broad ramifications and would narrow the legal options of many employees.

In an opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority rejected the view of the federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that each paycheck that reflects the initial discrimination is itself a discriminatory act that resets the clock on the 180-day period, under a rule known as “paycheck accrual.”

“Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination,” Justice Alito said in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas once headed the employment commission, the chief enforcer of workers’ rights under the statute at issue in this case, usually referred to simply as Title VII.

Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the commission actively supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration disavowed the agency’s position and filed a brief on the side of the employer.

In a vigorous dissenting opinion that she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority opinion “overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.” She said that given the secrecy in most workplaces about salaries, many employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had received a lower raise than others.

An initial disparity, even if known to the employee, might be small, Justice Ginsburg said, leading an employee, particularly a woman or a member of a minority group “trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment” to avoid “making waves.” Justice Ginsburg noted that even a small differential “will expand exponentially over an employee’s working life if raises are set as a percentage of prior pay.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined the dissent.

Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues. But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40 percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286.

A jury in Federal District Court in Birmingham, Ala., awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, which the trial judge reduced to $360,000. But the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, erased the verdict entirely, ruling that because Ms. Ledbetter could not show that she was the victim of intentional discrimination during the 180 days before she filed her complaint, she had not suffered an “unlawful employment practice” to which Title VII applied.

Several other federal appeals courts had accepted the employment commission’s more relaxed view of the 180-day requirement. The justices accepted Ms. Ledbetter’s appeal, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, No. 05-1074, to resolve the conflict.

This is what happens when Bush selected Samuel Alito to the court--we have an ideological conservative justice legislating from the bench. Only in this case, Alito has decided that companies have the right to discriminate pay against women employees after the first six months of employment. Because that is how long a woman will have to file a pay discrimination case in the first six months of employment--after that, she's SOL! Even worst, companies can maintain a equal pay scale between women and men for similar positions during the first six months of a woman's employment, and then reduce the pay scale for women over the longer term by providing women smaller raises than that of their male counterparts. In a sense, it becomes the women's fault for their employer's discrimination against her. And to top it off, this court decision was decided by five male, conservative justices--Alito, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Scott Lemieux provides and interesting comment on this decision over at the American Prospect:

The effect of Sandra Day O'Connor being replaced by Alito is particularly stark in this case. O'Connor -- who was offered only secretarial jobs after graduating third from her Stanford Law class -- had a good record on gender discrimination, while Altio's record on both gender issues and civil rights claims more broadly is atrocious. The useful idiots who claimed Alito was a moderate notwithstanding, his vote in this case was inevitable; I held out a shred of optimism that Thomas and Scalia might defer to the EEOC based on the former's opinion in the Morgan case, but this was apparently hopeless optimism. Although these kinds of cases flay under the radar, this is a major way the Alito-fied Court will work to advance bad outcomes. Republicans don't have to modify or repeal civil rights legislation, and the Court's needn't strike it down; the courts and/or the executive branch can just gut the legislation by making it difficult to enforce in ways that don't attract public attention.

Thoughts on Supreme Court ruling on "partial-birth abortions"

On Wednesday April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a total ban on "partial birth abortions." Here are the details on this story through MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority upheld a nationwide ban Wednesday on a controversial abortion procedure in a decision that sets the stage for additional restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's liberal justices, in dissent, said the ruling chips away at abortion rights.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

[....]

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."

[....]

"Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the court's liberal bloc. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Now I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether this latest Supreme Court ruling is right or wrong, or whether Roe verses Wade should be overturned or not--there are plenty of bloggers that have posted their opinions on this issue from both the liberal and conservative side. And I will also say that for my own personal opinion on abortion, I am pro-choice.

My interest in this latest abortion debate is the political aspects of this Supreme Court ruling. Look at the MSNBC story again, and note which justices voted in favor of this ban--Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy. Justice Alito replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. O'Conner was the swing vote in deciding the Court's abortion decisions. According to Ezra Klein:

Abortion is probably the best fitting nutshell you'll find for O'Connor. She preserved the right while offering partial concessions to conservatives. She ended a bright line rule and replaced it with a vague and problematic test. in short, she let the Court swerve right while moderating how sharply it turned, and did so by reformulating the the answer so as to attract centrist support. In short, she legislated the issue out, giving everyone something but nobody much, and standing against radical change.

President Bush replaced O'Conner with a radical conservative in Justice Alito.

This brings us to the real danger on Roe verses Wade. We now have a Supreme Court that has tilted 5-4 in allowing nationwide restrictions on abortion, thus chipping away at the abortion right, and perhaps overturning Roe. Look at who the dissenting justices are on this ruling--Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. This is essentially the court's liberal wing. Justice Ginsburg is now 74 years old. The oldest Supreme Court judge is Justice Stevens, who just turned 87 last Friday. If one of these two justices die in office, or announce their retirement during the Bush administration, you can bet that President Bush will replace them with another hard-lined, conservative ideologue. It will be enough to tip the Court to the right at the point where Roe could be overturned. What is even more important is the results of the upcoming 2008 presidential elections on the Supreme Court. The 2008 presidential elections are not only about Iraq, but also the Supreme Court. The presidential candidate who succeeds George W. Bush will have the opportunity to possibly select replacements for both Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, considering that this candidate will be re-elected in the 2012 elections. If the 2008 elections are won by a Republican candidate, then you could see a Republican president replacing both Stevens and Ginsburg with hard-lined conservative ideologues, thus sending the Court to the far right where Roe would be overturned by a 7-2 vote.

I will admit that this is all speculation, but it is frightening. Remember that the Republican Party is still controlled by an alliance of PNAC neoconservatives, Religious Right evangelists, and corporate interests. The Religious Right evangelists control the social issues that make up the Republican Party's platform, and they will never approve of a pro-choice presidential candidate. The GOP presidential candidate front-runners have already praised the Court's decision to ban partial birth abortions. According to The Hill:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who in the past has supported a woman’s right to a form of late-term abortion, Wednesday joined in the chorus of Republican presidential candidates hailing the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban of the procedure.

“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5–4 decision. “I agree with it.”

When Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure.

Now, with social conservatives believed to be a major factor in the GOP primary, Giuliani joined the other top-tier Republicans in applauding the court’s ruling.

“Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said. “This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.”

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) hailed the decision as “a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary.” The senator added that the ruling also “speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict-constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures.”

Giuliani is suppose to be a pro-choice Republican presidential candidate, and yet he is approving of this nationwide abortion ban? If Giuliani becomes president, do you really expect him to appoint a pro-choice Supreme Court justice--especially when the Religious Right folks, such as James Dobson, will be demanding that Giuliani appoint an ideologue who will overturn Roe? The U.S. Supreme Court has been tilted to the conservative side. What the 2008 presidential elections will decide is just how conservative the Court will become. The 2008 presidential elections will decide the fate of Roe verses Wade--the fate of abortion, and the fate of a woman's right to choose.

That is what this election will be about.

Supreme Court orders EPA to regulate car emissions

This is a major case. From The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court today ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, narrowly siding with 12 states and various environmental groups in a battle with the Bush administration over global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled after a four-year court battle that the EPA has "a statutory obligation" under the Clean Air Act to regulate cars' emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It said the agency based its refusal to do so on "impermissible considerations" in an arbitrary and capricious way and that it must take a fresh look at the issue, grounding its reasons for action or inaction on the law.

The ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA represented a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, which has steadfastly resisted mandatory limits on greenhouse gases on grounds that such restrictions would harm the U.S. economy. The administration has also disputed scientific evidence that global warming is a largely man-made phenomenon, contending that the jury is still out on the extent of the role that natural factors are playing in the current climate change trend.

In reaching its decision, the court's majority ruled that carbon dioxide and other emissions that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere fit the definition of "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act and that the government thus has the authority to regulate them.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Joining him were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Dissenting were the four most conservative members of the court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

What is important about this case is that it forces the EPA to set standards for regulating "greenhouse gases" emissions on the auto industry. The Bush administration has been hiding behind two arguments in resisting such greenhouse gases regulations--that such regulations would harm the U.S. economy, and that there is no scientific evidence supporting greenhouse gases as causing global warming. The Supreme Court has rejected the EPA, and the Bush administration's, arguments on this environmental issue. Now the EPA is being forced to set standards on these gases, thus requiring the auto industry to develop technologies reducing such gases to be incorporated into new cars for sale in the U.S. Now the Bush administration's EPA will probably set the most lax standards they can for curbing greenhouse gases on the auto industry. But if a Democratic president is elected in 2008, then you are going to see an EPA that will institute much stronger standards for curbing greenhouse gases on the auto industry. This is going to force the auto industry to develop new technologies to make their cars more environmentally friendly.

This is going to be interesting to watch.

Should we appoint the Seven Dwarfs to the Supreme Court?

The United States Supreme Court

All I can say here is that this is truly scary. More Americans can name the seven dwarfs than they can name the Supreme Court justices:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three quarters of Americans can correctly identify two of Snow White's seven dwarfs while only a quarter can name two Supreme Court Justices, according to a poll on pop culture released on Monday.

According to the poll by Zogby International, commissioned by the makers of a new online game on pop culture called "Gold Rush," 57 percent of Americans could identify
J.K. Rowling's fictional boy wizard as Harry Potter, while only 50 percent could name the British prime minister, Tony Blair.

The pollsters spoke to 1,213 people across the United States. The results had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.

Just over 60 percent of respondents were able to name Bart as Homer's son on the television show "The Simpsons," while only 20.5 percent were able to name one of the ancient Greek poet Homer's epic poems, "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey."

Asked what planet Superman was from, 60 percent named the fictional planet Krypton, while only 37 percent knew that Mercury is the planet closest to the sun.

Respondents were far more familiar with the Three Stooges -- Larry, Curly and Moe -- than the three branches of the U.S. government -- judicial, executive and legislative. Seventy-four percent identified the former, 42 percent the latter.

Twice as many people (23 percent) were able to identify the most recent winner of the television talent show "American Idol," Taylor Hicks, as were able to name the Supreme Court Justice confirmed in January 2006,
Samuel Alito (11 percent).

And while we're at it, here's the latest promotional pic to Walt Disney's upcomming remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Where is this country heading to....

Supreme Court blocks Gitmo war tribunals

Graphic showing the breakdown of today's decision by the Supreme Court against the Bush administration's desire to try Gitmo suspects by military tribunals. From New York Times

This is a big setback for the Bush administration. From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that the military tribunals it created to try terror suspects violate both American military law and the Geneva Convention.

In a 5-to-3 ruling, the justices also rejected an effort by Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And the court found that the plaintiff in the case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, could not be tried on the conspiracy charge lodged against him because international military law requires that prosecutions focus on specific acts, not broad conspiracy charges.

President Bush today said that he would comply with the ruling and would work with Congress "to have a military tribunal to hold people to account'' that would meet the Court's objections.

The majority ruling was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined in parts of it by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel J. Alito Jr. dissented. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not take part in the case, since he had ruled in favor of the government as an appeals court justice last year.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan is seen in this undated file photo. (AP Photo/photo courtesy of Prof. Neal Katyal)

This is a huge setback for the Bush administration. The administration had originally wanted to strip all civil and legal rights away from these prisoners--first by declaring them "enemy combatants" of which they claimed were not prisoners of war, and thus not protected under the Geneva Conventions. In other words, the administration wanted to lock up these "terror" suspects and throw away the key. If the administration was legally forced, by the Supreme Court, to provide some type of trial or hearing for these terror suspects, they wanted to concentrate that hearing within the executive branch with these military tribunals, of which they can control these hearings, and control the "evidence" presented at these hearings. The Bush administration wanted to circumvent the judicial branch by keeping these terror suspects out of the court system, where these suspects would have greater legal rights of counsel, and the legal ability to confront and question the evidence presented against them--no executive excuses of denying to present evidence against the suspects on the grounds of "national security," or that such presentation would divulge "intelligence-gathering" assets.

So what is next here? Consider this from The Washington Post:

About 450 detainees captured in the war on terrorism are currently held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Trying them before military commissions would place them under greater restrictions and afford them fewer rights than they would get in federal courts or regular military courts.

According to Hamdan's military lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, he now must be tried either in a federal court or before a properly constituted court martial.

Swift told reporters that the ruling demonstrates the ruling demonstrates the strength of the U.S. justice system. "It makes us unique, it makes us stronger, and it means that we will ultimately win every struggle," he said.

"I am ready to defend [Hamdan] in a fair trial," Swift said, adding that he has no preference on whether it takes place in federal court or a court martial. If the government wants to pursue a conspiracy charge, a federal court would be the proper venue, he said. "If they want to charge him with a war crime, I'm ready to defend him in a court martial."

In this January 2003 US Navy file photo, Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (AFP/HO/File/Shane T. McCoy)

President Bush has basically four choices here for Hamden, and for the rest of the Gitmo detainees. He can try Hamdan in a federal court. He can also try Hamden in a military court martial. Either of these trials will provide Hamdan with greater legal rights than under the military tribunals. President Bush may attempt to introduce legislation into Congress, giving him the authority to create these military tribunals for Hamdan and the Gitmo detainees. However, Congress will never be able to pass such legislation during this midterm election year, and if any such legislation is introduced, it could be met with strong Democratic opposition--perhaps to the point where the Democrats would filibuster this legislation. The fourth option is that the Bush administration would be forced to release Hamden and the rest of the 450 Gitmo detainees.

The ball is back in the Bush administration's court.

Supreme Court Refuses to Review Padilla Case

This is disgusting. From the Washington Post:

A divided Supreme Court handed the Bush administration a significant victory today when it decided not to review, for now, the federal government's powers to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants.

The court, with three dissenters, acted in the case of Jose Padilla, who was held for more than three years in a military brig as an alleged "dirty bomber" after he was seized by authorities in Chicago.

Because the government recently transferred Padilla to a regular prison and charged him with conventional crimes, the detention issue is now "hypothetical," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, taking the unusual step of explaining the court's reasons for avoiding the matter.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, said the case was of "profound importance" to the nation and should have been resolved a long time ago.

It appears that the court has decided not to hear Pdilla's case, since the White House decided to transfer Padilla from a military prison to a civilian prison and charge him with a crime. Talk about giving a break to the Bush administration. Continuing with the background:

The saga of Padilla began with his arrest in Chicago in 2002 for allegedly plotting to detonate a radiological device. Padilla was locked up in a military brig for three years and denied access to a lawyer until the administration, under pressure from the courts, finally relented.

His lawyers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which rejected his argument that his confinement without trial was unconstitutional. That opinion was written by J. Michael Luttig, a conservative judge often mentioned as a possible Bush administration Supreme Court appointee.

As Padilla pursued his case to the Supreme Court, the administration abruptly changed course, charging him not with being the "dirty bomber," but with being part of a conspiracy to send money overseas for violent purposes. The administration then had him moved to a federal detention center in Miami and asked the Supreme Court to declare the case moot.

In reaction, the 4th Circuit, with Luttig again writing, castigated the government for attempting to dodge what might have been an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling.

While the action today does not resolve the critical underlying issue of the government's detention powers, it leaves intact the 4th Circuit ruling.

That is the problem right there. The administration knows that they cannot simply throw an American citizen into jail indefinitely without due process. They knew that if Padilla's case ever came up to the Supreme Court, it would have been thrown out. So the administration has been playing legal "footsies," in shifting their legal arguments regarding Padilla's case, moving the case to the 4th Circuit so that their star conservative judge Luttig can maintain the administration's unconstitutional powers, and now shifting the case to a civilian court and charging Padilla with a crime when it appeared the case would go to the Supreme Court. This is a delaying tactic--at least until the Bush White House can get a couple more hard-lined conservatives on to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration had gotten a favorable ruling from Luttig and the 4th Circuit, the ruling does not address the underlying issue of the government's ability to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants. The only way for the Bush White House to cement this goal is to continue to pack the Supreme Court with hard-lined conservatives, who would accept this administration's argument.

Luttig to the Supreme Court anyone?

Church fires photog over Scalia picture: Freelancer pays for ‘right thing’

The front page photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in yesterday’s Boston Herald.

This story has just taken a turn into The Twilight Zone. This is from The Boston Herald:

A freelance photographer has been fired by the Archdiocese of Boston'’s newspaper for releasing a picture of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making a controversial gesture in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday.

Peter Smith, who had freelanced for The Pilot newspaper for a decade, lost the job yesterday after the Herald ran his photo on its front page. Smith said he has no regrets about releasing it.

Smith wouldn'’t give up the photo earlier this week but chose to release it when he learned Scalia said his gesture had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald. Smith, who was standing in front of the judge, said the Herald "“got the story right."”

Scalia's famous gesture. (Herald exclusive photo by Peter A. Smith)

The simple fact of the matter here is that Scalia screwed up. He made an obscene gesture at the reporters who were asking questions to him. He got a little hot, and then said something he shouldn't have. Okay, that's understandable--we all make mistakes. At this point, it is not a big story. Yes, the press will probably print a small story in their papers, and there is plenty of liberal blogs that will make a big deal of it. If Scalia had simply admitted his mistake and apologized for his behavior, the whole thing would have blown over in two days. Even if he ignored it, it may have blown over, considering his past behavior with the press. And you know what? The picture would have never have been published.

But Scalia didn't admit his mistake. He didn't ignore it. He decided to fight it by sending a letter to the Herald, providing some long-winded explanation that his gesture was not obscene, and that the Herald's staff was watching too many episodes of the Sopranos. This was hubris coming out of Scalia's mouth. And it was this hubris that forced freelance photographer Peter Smith to publish that photo. We also learn that not only did Scalia make such a gesture, but that he also said a rather obscene Italian word as he was performing his gesture. That's not something you want to do Mr. Scalia.

Now for the Archdiocese of Boston'’s newspaper The Pilot, and the subsequent firing of Peter Smith. My first question would be, why did they fire him? From the Herald's story:

Smith wouldn'’t give up the photo earlier this week but chose to release it when he learned Scalia said his gesture had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald. Smith, who was standing in front of the judge, said the Herald "“got the story right."”

Smith said the Pilot had an obligation at that point "“to bring some clarity to it."

"“I felt that same obligation,"” Smith said. "“I had to say what I knew and come forward with it.."

The weekly Catholic newspaper made a "“journalistic decision"” not to run or release the photo, said Archdiocese spokesman Terry Donilon. "“Because he breached that trust with the editor, we will no longer engage his services as a freelance photographer,"” Donilon said.

"“It'’s nothing personal,"” added Pilot editor Antonio Enrique. "“I need to try and find people I can trust."”

While news outlets from across the country sought Smith'’s photo yesterday, the archdiocese said there'’s no proof that Scalia uttered an obsenity in the church. Smith said Scalia said, "“To my critics, I say, "‘'Vaffanculo,' "while making the gesture. That'’s Italian for (expletive) you.'"

Because he breached that trust with the editor? This is a complete cop-out by both the Archdiocese, and the Pilot! Smith was not willing to release the photo to the public. It was only until after Scalia sent his letter, practically accusing the Herald of making this story up, that Smith decided to release it. Scalia was lying in this case--lying to cover his ass on something so trivial and stupid. What is more amazing is that the Archdiocese, and the Pilot newspaper, are willing to side with Scalia here, and force Smith out for exposing the truth. The Pilot newspaper is willing to breach the public's trust, and their own journalistic integrity, in order to save their political standing with a Supreme Court Justice. And all this talk by the Pilot's editor Antonio Enrique of Smith breaching the trust with the editor is pure baloney. Smith didn't sell his photos of Scalia to the National Inquirer. He was willing to keep those photos private, even though every newspaper in the country was clamoring for them. He only released them after Scalia publicly lied about the incident. There was no breach of trust here. This is just an excuse by the Archdiocese, and the Pilot, for punishing Smith due to his exposing Scalia's lies.

Another though had just occurred to me. What if Scalia was also putting political pressure on both the Archdiocese, and The Pilot after discovering his mug shot plastered on the front page of the Herald? Who did Scalia talk to in the Church’s hierarchy, after Smith published his picture? This is just an off-the-wall conjecture here, considering Smith was immediately fired after the picture was published. I have no evidence or proof to back this conjecture up. It may be that Scalia didn't talk to anyone within the Catholic Church's leadership regarding this scandal. But it is an interesting thought.

I doubt that there is any loss to Peter Smith, since now he can take his pick on the freelance photo jobs, and perhaps get hired to any newspaper in the country. How much do you want to bet that The Boston Herald would snatch him up for future freelance work?

Photographer: Herald got it right

First, here is the famous Scalia pic:

Antonin Scalia gestures inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. (Herald exclusive photo by Peter A. Smith)

Now for the story. This is from The Boston Herald:

Amid a growing national controversy about the gesture U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the freelance photographer who captured the moment has come forward with the picture.

"“It'’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment," said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.

Despite Scalia'’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper "“got the story right."

Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese’s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship.

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

Tony....Tony....Tony--what were you thinking of? You've insulted the Church, you've insulted the photographer, and you've insulted the American people with your innocent Sicilian gesture. You screwed up Tony--screwed up big time! What is even more funny is that you know you screwed up, otherwise, why would you have asked for the photographer not to print that picture? All you had to do was to be courteous to the reporters, smile, and keep your mouth shut. But I guess you couldn't do that. Even after this controversial mess started, you still had to flap your mouth by accusing the Boston Herald staff of watching too many Soprano episodes? Tony, you've insulted the Sopranos now--and that's not good for business. Keep this juvenile behavior up, and you're going to be paid a visit by a couple of traveling shoe salesmen, offering you a free sample:

We'd like you to try on this pair of cement shoes here....

Courtesy of the Sopranos.

Scalia seeks Justice over gesture

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's letter to the Boston Herald. (From the Boston Herald)

This is too much! This is from the Boston Herald:

Famously feisty Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday denied that he made an obscene gesture Sunday inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, accusing the Herald staff of “watching too many Sopranos episodes.”

In a letter to the editor, an almost unheard-of step for a Supreme Court justice, Scalia said a reporter misinterpreted the gesture he made when she asked whether his participation in Sunday’s special Mass for lawyers might cause some people to question his impartiality in matters of church and state.

“Your reporter, an up-and-coming ‘gotcha’ star named Laurel J. Sweet, asked me (o-so-sweetly) what I said to those people. . .,” Scalia wrote to Executive Editor Kenneth A. Chandler. “I responded, jocularly, with a gesture that consisted of fanning the fingers of my right hand under my chin. Seeing that she did not understand, I said, ‘That’s Sicilian,’ and explained its meaning.”

In his letter, Scalia goes on to cite Luigi Barzini’s book, “The Italians”: “ ‘The extended fingers of one hand moving slowly back and forth under the raised chin means: “I couldn’t care less. It’s no business of mine. Count me out.” ’ ”

“From watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene - especially when made by an ‘Italian jurist.’ (I am, by the way, an American jurist.)”

Unlike most of his colleagues, Scalia is not shy about taking on the media, and has a penchant for doing so in a way that has caused some critics to question his decorum, if not his maturity.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denied making an obscene gesture. (Boston Herald File Photo)

It is amazing--the more Scalia flaps his mouth, the more trouble he gets into. Now he's attacking the Boston Herald staff, claiming they've been watching too many Soprano episodes? Gee Scalia--who are you suppose to be? Tony Soprano? If you can't use your Sicilian hand gestures on Boston Herald reporters, then what else can you use--a 9mm Beretta?

Here's the link to Scalia's letter.

Justices Hint That They'll Rule on Challenge Filed by Detainee

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, March 28 — As the justices of the Supreme Court took their seats Tuesday morning to hear Osama bin Laden's former driver challenge the Bush administration's plan to try him before a military commission, one question — perhaps the most important one — was how protective the justices would be of their jurisdiction to decide the case.

The answer emerged gradually, but by the end of the tightly packed 90-minute argument, it was fairly clear: highly protective.

At least five justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens — appeared ready to reject the administration's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act, passed and signed into law after the court accepted the case in November, had stripped the court of jurisdiction.

It was less certain by the end of the argument how the court would then go on to resolve the merits of the case, a multipronged attack on the validity of the military commissions themselves and on their procedures. Lawyers for the former driver, a Yemeni named Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is charged with conspiracy, also argue that he cannot properly be tried before any military commission for that crime because conspiracy is not recognized as a war crime.

Now I'm not going to try and make any guesses as to how the Supreme Court will rule in this case. But I do find it interesting that Justice Kennedy my be filling Sandra Day O'Conner's shoes as the crucial swing voter in these close decisions. If the court does rule on the detainee matter in this way--with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens striking down the law, while Thomas, Scalia, and Alito could rule to uphold the detainee law, Chief Justice Roberts will abstain from ruling, since he was a member of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court that rejected Hamdan's challenge to the military commissions last July. If the ruling goes this way, then Kennedy is going to have enormous power in shaping the decisions for this court. Kennedy will become the most scrutinized justice for the Roberts Court, just as O'Conner was scrutinized during the Rehnguist Court.

According to the Post, here is what Kennedy had questioned:

Justice Kennedy was questioning Mr. Clement on the government's position that even if the court had jurisdiction, it should abstain from ruling on the validity of the military commission until after Mr. Hamdan's trial.

Justice Kennedy said he found the argument troubling, pointing out that Mr. Hamdan was arguing that because the commissions lacked the procedures required by the Geneva Conventions, they were invalid. "The historic office of habeas corpus is to test whether or not you're being tried by a lawful tribunal," Justice Kennedy said. "And he says, under the Geneva Convention, as you know, that it isn't."

Mr. Clement replied that Mr. Hamdan could raise that argument later, before the military commission itself. He predicted that the argument would fail and said that in any event, there was no reason "why that claim has to be brought at this stage."

This is going to be an interesting Supreme Court decision.

Justice Scalia flips the finger in church

This is off the United Press International:

BOSTON, March 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

He was attending a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and afterward was the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers' Guild luncheon.

This is completely uncalled for--even for a Supreme Court Justice! Scalia could have simply brushed the reporter's questions aside with a "no comment," but NO! He had to use an obscene gesture regarding such questions. An even more, this gesture clearly shows Scalia's philosophical views regarding the separation of church and state--this is a big "screw you" towards the American people regarding this issue. How can we expect Scalia to be impartial towards these constitutional issues?

I sincerely wish that this photographer would publish the photo of Scalia flipping off the Herald reporter. That way, the American people can see what a fine, upstanding, and impartial justice that Antonin Scalia has become.

Report: Scalia Criticizes Europe on Gitmo

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners held at America's military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia also told the audience at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland that he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to the prison, said this week's issue of Newsweek magazine.

The comments came just weeks before justices were to take up an appeal from a detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

Justices will hear arguments Tuesday on Salim Ahmed Hamdan's claim that
President Bush has overstepped his constitutional authority in ordering a military trial for the former driver of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, held at the prison for nearly four years.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees could use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Scalia disagreed with that ruling, and in the recent speech repeated his beliefs that enemy combatants have no legal rights.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying in the speech. "Give me a break."

You know, when regarding these cases, I always thought that Supreme Court judges are suppose to be impartial in weighing the evidence and legal precedents within the Constitution. And yet here we have Scalia flapping his mouth about how "enemy combatants" have no legal rights. Consider this quote:

Newsweek said Scalia was challenged by an audience member in Switzerland about whether Guantanamo detainees have protection under the Geneva or human rights conventions. He shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy," Newsweek said.

And Scalia is going to provide an impartial judgement on Salim Ahmed Hamdan's case this Tuesday? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban

So you want to know the consequences of Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court? Well, here it is. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a new-look court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion.

Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war."

Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal.

The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

A judge in Lincoln, Neb., ruled the law was unconstitutional, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed last summer, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. Federal judges in New York and San Francisco also declared the law unconstitutional and appeals courts agreed.

"Every court considering this ban has found that it lacks the necessary protections for women's health," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

Fifteen states urged justices to review the case: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

There is really not much to say about this story. The court will probably uphold such a ban--even though the ban does not provide a provision to allow such an abortion in case of the mother's life or health is at risk. This is what happens when you place two hard-lined conservatives on the highest court in the land--you are going to see Roe being chipped away with restriction after restriction. Now I'm not so sure I'd care much for this type of abortion rather late in the pregnancy. But what angers me is how the right-wingnuts want to restrict any right of abortion for any reason--including the life and health of the mother. It is as if the fetus has greater legal rights than that of the mother, within the wing-nuts convoluted view.

What is even more amazing is how simple this issue can be resolved. Uphold the ban with the exception of the mother's health or life is at risk. It is that simple. Keep it as an option if there are medical complications that endanger the mother. The problem is that the wing-nuts refuse to accept any compromise. To them, abortion is murder and any abortion--regardless of whether it can save the mother's life--is considered illegal in their views. Abortion becomes a religious issue to them, and there is no compromise within their religious beliefs. And so, the wing-nuts will continue to legally fight and chip away at abortion--pushing to get more hard-lined ideologies on the judicial bench, until the Supreme Court finally overturns Roe. That is the holy grail for the religious wing-nuts.

And they are closing fast on their grail.

Roll Call of the Cloture Vote

This is from the Washington Post:

The Associated Press tallied the 72-25 vote:

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the debate and a "no" vote was a vote to filibuster the nomination.

Voting "yes" were 19 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 24 Democrats and one independent.!

Democrats Yes

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bingaman, N.M.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Conrad, N.D.; Dorgan, N.D.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.

Democrats No

Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Boxer, Calif.; Clinton, N.Y.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Menendez, N.J.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Obama, Ill.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Harkin, Iowa.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

None.

Republicans Not Voting

Ensign, Nev.; Hagel, Neb.

Others No

Jeffords, Vt

So now we know who the 19 Democrats are that voted down the filibuster.

Senate Moves Alito Close to Confirmation

Talk about hypocrisy. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Monday all but guaranteed Samuel Alito's confirmation as the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice, shutting down a last-minute attempt by liberals to block the conservative judge's nomination with a filibuster.

Republican and Democratic senators, on a 72-25 vote, agreed to end their debate, setting up a Tuesday morning vote on Alito's confirmation to replace retiring moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

With at least 57 votes committed to Alito — 53 Republicans and four Democrats — approval by majority vote in the 100-member Senate seemed assured.

A bloc of Democrats, led by Massachusetts Sens. Edward Kennedy and
John Kerry, unsuccessfully tried over the weekend and Monday to persuade other senators to use a vote-delaying filibuster to stop Alito, a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Appeals Court and a former lawyer for the Reagan administration.

"It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country," said Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee.

O'Connor has been a swing vote on abortion rights, affirmative action, the death penalty and other contentious issues.

Alito's supporters needed 60 votes to block the filibuster, and they were joined by 13 Democrats who have announced they will vote against confirming his nomination.

Well, America--you've gotten what you asked for. You now have a wing-nut who will tip the balance on the Supreme Court, who will vote to give President Bush greater powers to domestically spy on you, rule in favor of big corporations over individual citizens, and turn civil liberties back to the 18th century. You can bet Alito is going to overturn Roe--the wing-nuts have gotten their Supreme Court now. We will soon watch as more of our civil liberties and protections are eroded away--heck, this court might just rule in favor of suspending the 2008 presidential elections and keep George Bush as president, if another terrorist attack occurs this October. You've wanted a fascist dictatorship, you are on the road to have one now.

How long will it be, before the American public wakes up from this nightmare? I can't say.