Chief Justice Roberts Ready To Rule For Exxon

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Victim
Alaska. Dead Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) dead in the snow died of toxic pollution from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Not only have 20% of the people who sued Exxon for the Valdez oil spill 19 years ago died in the meantime, it looks like our Rethug-dominated Supreme Court will rule against the Alaskans. Because what can what one of the richest corporations in the world do to prevent oil spills? (Double-hulled ships, anyone?) The lawyer who argued the case before the Court had some ideas, but they didn't go over well:

Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.

Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

Moral of this story: Not only do we need more Democrats, we need better Democrats. Here are the 22 supposed "Democrats" who voted to put the archconservative Roberts on the Court for the rest of my life:

* Max Baucus (D - MT)
* Jeff Bingaman (D - NM)
* Robert Byrd (D - WV)
* Thomas Carper (D - DE)
* Kent Conrad (D - ND)
* Christopher Dodd (D - CT)
* Byron Dorgan (D - ND)
* Russell Feingold (D - WI)
* Tim Johnson (D - SD)
* Herb Kohl (D - WI)
* Mary Landrieu (D - LA)
* Patrick Leahy (D - VT)
* Carl Levin (D - MI)
* Joseph Lieberman (D - CT)
* Blanche Lincoln (D - AR)
* Patty Murray (D - WA)
* Bill Nelson (D - FL)
* Ben Nelson (D - NE)
* Mark Pryor (D - AR)
* Jay Rockefeller (D - WV)
* Ken Salazar (D - CO)
* Ron Wyden (D - OR)

Thanks a lot, DINOs. I'll give money to any progressive who challenges any of you.

Chief Justice John Roberts Suffers Seizure

Chief Justice John Roberts, pictured 16 July 2007, was out of danger and unharmed after a fall Monday near his vacation home in the US state of Maine, the Supreme Court said in a statement.(AFP/File/Stephane De Sakutin)

Yesterday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had a seizure while vacationing in Maine. He is only 52 years old. Roberts suffered a previous seizure in 1993 at age 38. There was no public testimony about his seizure during his confirmation hearings, although Senator Spector said yesterday that senators were informed about it.

What does this mean for the future of the court? Probably nothing. His doctors will probably place him on anti-seizure medication. The HuffPo outlines the medical situation thusly:

Medical opinions differed on just what Roberts' seizures mean.

Someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is determined to have epilepsy, said Dr. Marc Schlosberg, a neurologist at Washington Hospital Center, who is not involved in the Roberts' case.

Whether Roberts will need anti-seizure medications to prevent another is something he and his doctor will have to decide. But after two seizures, the likelihood of another at some point is greater than 60 percent. "When it's going to occur, obviously nobody knows," Schlosberg said.

The National Institutes of Health's Web site says that "only when a person has had two or more seizures is a person considered to have epilepsy."

Epilepsy is merely a term for a seizure disorder, but it is a loaded term because it makes people think of lots of seizures, cautioned Dr. Edward Mkrdichian, a neurosurgeon at the Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch.

Still, Mkrdichian said anyone who has had two otherwise unexplained seizures is at high risk for a third, and that he puts such patients on anti-seizure medications.

"Having two seizures so many years apart without any known culprit is going to be very difficult to figure out," agreed Dr. Max Lee of the Milwaukee Neurological Institute.

I think the guy is a disaster for the Court, but I want him to go out old and bitter, outflanked by all the Democratic appointees to the Court, not to some medical condition.

Supreme Court Guts Brown v. Board of Education

Today, the headline would read "Supreme Court Used to Ban Segregation in Public Schools"
When I wrote "Supreme Court Overturns Brown v. Board of Education" yesterday, I knew that technically that wasn't true. The decision only guts Brown. That's the practical effect. Segregation is de facto OK under the new ruling. So I was overstating the case, just a tad.

But I knew I was on to something when I read this headline in the Wall Street Journal today: Race and the Roberts Court: Brown v. Board of Education has not been overturned. If the cretins writing editorials for the Journal felt the need to write that piece with that headline, you know that the opposite is true. (It's like Bush talking about progress in Iraq. Every time he opens his mouth, you know he's lying.)

And I'd like to pat myself on the back, because I saw this coming two years ago when I wrote this:

Leahy, Kohl and Feingold (D - Spineless) Vote for Roberts (September 22, 2005)

Senate Panel Endorses Roberts's Nomination as Chief Justice

Dear Senators Leahy, Kohl and Feingold:

F**k you. When "Justice" Roberts starts eroding civil rights protection and votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, it's your fault. Spineless bastards.

Sincerely,

truth

And with this post, I'd just like to extend a hearty FUCK YOU to all 22 Democrats who voted for Chief Injustice Roberts, the author of yesterday's horrible decision:

* Max Baucus (D - MT)
* Jeff Bingaman (D - NM)
* Robert Byrd (D - WV)
* Thomas Carper (D - DE)
* Kent Conrad (D - ND)
* Christopher Dodd (D - CT)
* Byron Dorgan (D - ND)
* Russell Feingold (D - WI)
* Tim Johnson (D - SD)
* Herb Kohl (D - WI)
* Mary Landrieu (D - LA)
* Patrick Leahy (D - VT)
* Carl Levin (D - MI)
* Joseph Lieberman (D - CT)
* Blanche Lincoln (D - AR)
* Patty Murray (D - WA)
* Bill Nelson (D - FL)
* Ben Nelson (D - NE)
* Mark Pryor (D - AR)
* Jay Rockefeller (D - WV)
* Ken Salazar (D - CO)
* Ron Wyden (D - OR)

Dumbasses.

Supreme Court Overturns Brown v. Board of Education

George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, congratulating each other, following Supreme Court decision declaring segregation unconstitutional (wikipedia)

Segregation is back. Today the Supreme Court ruled that cities cannot address segregation within their school systems by taking race into account in assigning students to schools. Here's the opinion (pdf file, 185 pages)

In other words, separate is equal. Again.

Chief Injustice Roberts says in his opinion that he's not overturning Brown. Right.

Here's (part of) what Justice Breyer had to say, in dissent:

These cases consider the longstanding efforts of two local school boards to integrate their public schools. The school board plans before us resemble many others adopted in the last 50 years by primary and secondary schools throughout the Nation. All of those plans represent local efforts to bring about the kind of racially integrated education that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), long ago promised -- efforts that this Court has repeatedly required, permitted, and encouraged local authorities to undertake. This Court has recognized that the public interests at stake in such cases are "compelling." We have approved of "narrowly tailored" plans that are no less race-conscious than the plans before us. And we have understood that the Constitution permits local communities to adopt desegregation plans even where it does not require them to do so.

The plurality pays inadequate attention to this law, to past opinions' rationales, their language, and the contexts in which they arise. As a result, it reverses course and reaches the wrong conclusion. In doing so, it distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools, it threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of racerelated litigation, and it undermines Brown's promise of integrated primary and secondary education that local communities have sought to make a reality. This cannot be justified in the name of the Equal Protection Clause.

Justice Stevens:

There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice's reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin." This sentence reminds me of Anatole France's observation: "[T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions....

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision.

The sound you just heard was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court in 1953, rolling over in his grave.

SCOTUSblog: Court strikes down school integration plans, ends Term

I hope that the 22 Democrats who voted to put Roberts on the court are sick to their stomachs today.

There's a Shock

Fat cat
Kiplinger.com: Roberts Court Proves Good for Business
Business has a lot to cheer about as the Supreme Court term enters its final month.

Business boasts seven wins and only two losses after the June 4 ruling in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr decided together with GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Edo, which limited the ability of consumers to sue under a credit-reporting law and came just a week after the court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Inc. In that case, the justices reversed decades of practice that allowed people to file complaints years after the initial event by insisting on a tight, 180-day timeframe for filing pay discrimination complaints under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which covers employment decisions based on gender, race, religion, national origin, etc. The decision is likely to make it harder to press pay discrimination suits because employees often don't know for several years that other workers are being paid more.

Environment 5, Bush Administration 4

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases, pursuant to its statutory authority to regulate pollutants. Hurrah!

Already the decision has had ramifications, as today EPA reopened the state of California's petition for an exemption from the Clean Air Act so that it can reduce tailpipe emissions by 25%. The petition has been sitting in limbo for two years.

Massachusetts et al v. Envivonmental Protection Agency et al, No. 05-1120 (pdf file)

For the environment:

John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court [appointed by Gerald Ford]
Stephen G. Breyer [appointed by Bill Clinton]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg [appointed by Bill Clinton]
Anthony M. Kennedy [appointed by Ronald Reagan]
David H. Souter [appointed by George H.W. Bush]

For the Bush Administration:
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the dissent [appointed by George W. Bush]
Samuel A. Alito Jr. [appointed by George W. Bush]
Antonin Scalia [appointed by Ronald Reagan]
Clarence Thomas [appointed by George H.W. Bush]

The decision begins,

"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species--the most important species--of a "greenhouse gas."

WaPo: High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions
Critics of Bush Stance on Warming Claim Victory

The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.

WaPo: The Case of the Term Goes Against the White House

Driving While Democratic

I received this in email:

These bumper stickers were compiled by Jerry Paull, a former Methodist minister in Lakeside, Ohio, who writes: The following actual bumper stickers are now on cars. I didn't write any of them. I'm only the messenger. If they make you laugh, good. If they make you cry, good. If they make you angry, that's good too. If you don't want to read them, hit the delete button.


BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM


IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION


IF YOU SUPPORTED BUSH, A YELLOW RIBBON WON'T MAKE UP FOR IT


POVERTY, HEALTH CARE & HOMELESSNESS ARE MORAL ISSUES


OF COURSE IT HURTS. YOU'RE GETTING SCREWED BY AN ELEPHANT


BUSH LIED, AND YOU KNOW IT


RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM: A THREAT ABROAD, A THREAT AT HOME


GOD BLESS EVERYONE
(No exceptions)


BUSH SPENT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY ON HIS WAR


PRO AMERICA, ANTI BUSH


WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?


IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH'S WAR, WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? SHUT UP AND SHIP OUT


FEEL SAFER NOW?


I'D RATHER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO SCREWED HIS INTERN THAN ONE WHO SCREWED HIS COUNTRY


JESUS WAS A SOCIAL ACTIVIST - THAT IS A LIBERAL


MY VALUES? FREE SPEECH. EQUALITY. LIBERTY. EDUCATION. TOLERANCE


IS IT 2008 YET?


DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM -- Thomas Jefferson


DON'T BLAME ME. I VOTED AGAINST BUSH -- TWICE!


ANNOY A CONSERVATIVE; THINK FOR YOURSELF


VISUALIZE IMPEACHMENT


HEY BUSH! WHERE'S BIN LADEN?


CORPORATE MEDIA = MASS MIND CONTROL


STOP MAD COWBOY DISEASE


GEORGE W. BUSH: MAKING TERRORISTS FASTER THAN HE CAN KILL THEM


KEEP YOUR THEOCRACY OFF MY DEMOCRACY


DEMOCRATS ARE SEXY. WHOEVER HEARD OF A GOOD PIECE OF ELEPHANT?


ASPIRING CANADIAN


CORPORATE MEDIA: WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION


DON'T CONFUSE DYING FOR OIL WITH FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM


STEM CELL RESEARCH IS PRO LIFE


HATE, GREED, IGNORANCE: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


HONOR OUR TROOPS; DEMAND THE TRUTH


REBUILD IRAQ? WHY NOT SPEND 87 BILLION ON AMERICA?


FACT: BUSH OIL
1999 - $19 BARREL
2006 - $70 BARREL


THE LAST TIME RELIGION CONTROLLED POLITICS, PEOPLE GOT BURNED AT THE STAKE


I'LL GIVE UP MY CHOICE WHEN JOHN ROBERTS GETS PREGNANT


SUPPORT OUR TROOPS; IMPEACH BUSH


HOW ON EARTH CAN 59,411,287 PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?

Know Your Friends

John is a synonym for toilet
I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies all right. But my damn friends... they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!
- Warren Gamaliel Harding

An open foe may prove a curse, but a pretended friend is worse.
- Benjamin Franklin

I've always said that in politics, your enemies can't hurt you, but your friends will kill you.
- Ann Richards

If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
- Woodrow Wilson


So last night, I'm surfing the web, and on AMERICAblog -- a blog I like and have linked to often -- I found the following post:

GOP Senator Pat Roberts is a big girl
by John in DC - 5/19/2006 03:00:00 PM

Of course that title pissed me off. Why oh why do people think it's acceptable to call someone a coward by calling them a girl? So I left this somewhat hysterical post (OK, I was mad, steam coming out of my ears mad).

Oh jesus fucking christ could we STOP thinking calling some[one] FEMALE is an INSULT?

Why don't you just call him, i don't know, testically challenged. insult his manhood. don't insult me. I'm sick of it. Just stop it, now.

quit hitting the tar baby of gender insults.

I'm a girl and i could kick your ass, john aravois, you name the time and the venue.
truth | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 10:34 pm | #

But the whole issue was still on my mind, so I went back and left this somewhat more considered comment:

I can't stop thinking about this. This is the second time in a week I've had to respond to a male blogger trying to insult someone by calling them female. The other one called someone a pussy, and I can't even remember the blog, but it just pisses me off no end. They weren't trying to say the guy was a cat. They were saying he was somehow less than, and therefore calling him female was the appropriate insult.

Female is not a synonym for 'less than'.

Let's say that again.

Female is not a synonym for 'less than'.

Just because male homosexuals commonly use the term 'big girl' in that way does not make it acceptable.

How would it look if I, a straight woman, called people I didn't like homos or queers, because that was common use in my community? Would that then be OK? Hell, no.

And you know what? I'm a true progressive, and I'd NEVER insult anyone by group affiliation like that.

The worst insult I have ever called anyone in my life is Bush Republican. Now that's an insult.

Why piss on your friends, for no reason?

John? John? Plate needs stepping up to, please.
truth | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 11:38 pm | #

Well, this morning I woke up to find that my comments had been deleted. That pissed me off, too, so I found a site that had archived the comment thread and re-posted them. But, you guessed it, they were deleted a second time.

Big year for me -- I've been deleted from the Washington Post blog and from AMERICAblog. (I wonder what blog will delete me next so I can hit the 2006 delete trifecta?)

So the whole kerfuffle got me interested, and I googled John Aravosis, the guy who runs the site & used the term "Big Girl". I love google, even if they are censoring shit in China. And now they own blogspot, so am I getting back at their censoring asses with my free blog? Conundrums.

Anyway, back to google.

Wow, I did not know anything about John Aravosis.

I knew he was a lawyer. I did not know that from 1989 to 1994 he was a staff attorney for .... wait, this is good .... Ted Stevens of Alaska. Mr. Pork himself! And since Stevens is a Republican -- so was Aravosis, until ... well, this is not clear. Not much biographical information about Mr. Aravosis on the 'net.

Here's his SourceWatch bio:

John Aravosis, who operates the AMERICAblog.org web site, is a "Washington DC-based writer and political consultant, specializing in using the Internet for political advocacy. He is the creator of StopDrLaura.com, Matthew Shepard Online Resources, and DearMary.com, among other activist Web sites.

"John has a joint JD and MSFS from Georgetown, where he studied under former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. He is an avid writer, and in addition to writing THE LIST (http://www.gayadvocacy.com/subscribe.html), he has worked as a stringer for the Economist magazine, and for years was the US Politics Guide at About.com.

"John's policy experience includes stints in the US Senate, the World Bank, and the Children's Defense Fund. John is also an occasional TV pundit, having appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, ABCNews World News Tonight, CNN, and more. John speaks five languages and has visited or worked in 28 countries." [1]

Speaks five languages, visited 28 countries, sounds very civilized and urbane, no? This afternoon John Aravosis of AMERICAblog posted this:

Guys, anybody who isn't happy, please leave this blog and don't come back. I'm serious. Get out.

Our Constitution is on life support and you freaks, a very vocal minority of the people who visit this site and comment, have spent over 24 hours worrying about two words in a title, and you're still obsessed with it. None of us have the time to deal with your weekly fit of hysterics, whether it's over Katherine Harris' photo, Cynthia McKinney being a wackjob, commenter Miles being upset that I "made a big deal" about a hate crime that almost killed a gay couple, you being upset that I criticized Howard Dean for his insensitivity to gay issues (which I was proved right on a week later), and on and on and on.

It took me a while to realize it, but there are a minority of my readers who are never going to be happy. Rather than fight our common enemy, you'd rather sit here and beat me up because somehow you get off on that. That's fine. You're no longer welcome. Please leave. And spare me the emails about how you used to love the blog. The blog is the same it's always been. You however have become increasingly nasty and shrill. And in any case, the majority of our readers are normal people who are actuall worried about their country and want to make a difference. Please stop bothering them with your weekly crises.

I choose to spend my time fighting the enemy. You choose to spend your time fighting friends. Well, you do that. On someone else's blog. You're no longer welcome here, so get out so the rest of us, the majority of our readers and evoted advocates, can get on with trying to fix this country. JOHN
John Aravosis | 05.20.06 - 3:19 pm | #

So, I can take a hint. I removed AMERICAblog from the blogroll. I'll take his words with a healthy grain of salt from now on -- I'm a big girl, after all. I'll only call Aravosis the worst epithet I know of -- Republican. The guy was a Republican for a significant part of his conscious life. How stupider can you get than that?

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
H.L. Mencken

Ethics, Schmethics

Surprise, surprise. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has already made up his mind about the Guantanimo Bay enemy combatant cases. And he's in favor of lifetime detention without the right to counsel. How constitutional.

WaPo: No Legal Rights for Enemy Combatants, Scalia Says
'War Is War,' Justice Tells Audience

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the Constitution does not protect foreigners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

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

New Chief Justice John Roberts has already recused himself from the cases, as he was a member of the federal appeals court panel whose decision is under review.

Odds of Scalia recusing himself from hearing these cases, about which he has already made up his mind and announced his position publicly? That would be about a gazillion to one. Sheesh, Scalia didn't even recuse himself from the case involving Cheney's secret energy task force meetings after he went duck hunting with Dick Cheney. (He's lucky he's still alive, but that's a separate matter. Or is it? Maybe he didn't recuse because Big Time threatened to give him the Harry Whittington treatment. Hmmmm.)

Ethically, of course, he should recuse himself.

U.S. high court judge said to slam detainee rights

Ethics experts said the impression that Scalia had already made up his mind before the hearing should mean that he will voluntarily drop out of the proceedings. However, Newsweek said he did not refer specifically to this week's case.

"He should remove himself when there is a reasonable doubt of his impartiality," said Father Robert Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University and long-standing human rights campaigner, who teaches judicial ethics.

"It should logically be a reason for his recusal but I don't think he'll do it ... he's so stubborn" said Drinan.

[]

"A judge has to have an open mind; when he hears the articles and reacts to briefs. If he's made up his mind on a particular issue, he shouldn't be sitting (in)," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"Here he has publicly said that this is what my position is, before the arguments ... It's really stacking the deck," Ratner said. CCR has argued for Guantanamo prisoner rights.

The Right to Die With Dignity Upheld

The Supreme Court today upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law by a 6-3 vote.

Justices Uphold Oregon Assisted-Suicide Law
In a Blow to Administration, Ruling Paves Way for Other States to Follow Suit

Text of Court Ruling

It was a 6-3 decision, with new Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia and Thomas in dissent. No surprise that Roberts joined the two most conservative members of the court in opposing assisted suicide. You wonder what Rehnquist would have done. Normally he was a reliable conservative vote. But after suffering for over a year during his thyroid cancer treatment, and after watching his wife's long battle with ovarian cancer (she died in 1991), I wonder if he might have ended up with the majority on this one.

I've represented people with cancer for years. Often they are in horrible, intractable pain from either the disease or the treatment. Pain that leaves them drawn, exhausted, barely able to think. They fight bravely but eventually come to that point where the pain is more than they can bear. I believe strongly that the individual should be able to make the decision to end the suffering. It's true freedom, the freedom to make decisions about your own body, about when you are ready to go.

I tell my friends, help me when I need it. Don't leave me to suffer in a hospital bed tied up with tubes. Make sure I have some good meds & let me go happy.

This was the right decision by the Court.

King George Goes to Cronys-R-Us To Celebrate Abramoffakuh

From the White House website:

Personnel Announcement

President George W. Bush today recess appointed the following individuals:

Floyd Hall, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the AMTRAK Reform Board.

Enrique J. Sosa, of Florida, to be a Member of the AMTRAK Reform Board.

Nadine Hogan, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation (Private Representative).

Roger W. Wallace, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation (Private Representative).

Gordon England, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Benjamin A. Powell, of Florida, to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Ronald E. Meisburg, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.

Julie L. Myers, of Kansas, to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Tracy A. Henke, of Missouri, to be Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security.

Arthur F. Rosenfeld, of Virginia, to be Federal Mediation and Conciliation Director at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Ellen R. Sauerbrey, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of State (Population, Refugees, and Migration).

Dorrance Smith, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs).

Robert D. Lenhard, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

Steven T. Walther, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

Hans Von Spakovsky, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

Peter N. Kirsanow, of Ohio, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board.

Stephen Goldsmith, of Indiana, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

I googled all of them except for Myers and Sauerbrey, who had made previous appearance on this blog in "The Incompetence, The Corruption, and The Cronyism" posts. Couldn't find anything of note on Nadine Hogan. Most of the linked material is from sourcewatch.org. These were appointments that are on hold for specific reasons. Lawyers who advocated for torture; AMTRAK board members who've never ridden a train; just your typical Bushco appointees meant to kill the governmental entity to which they are being appointed.

And hey, who needs the Senate and all that pesky Advise and Consent stuff when you've already declared "ah'm a wahr prezident"?

Update: Firedoglake points out that

Amongst them -- Hans von Spakovsky, who was in large part responsible for the purge of mostly Democratic, mostly African American and mostly legitimate people from the Florida voting lists in 2000.

Another payback for the stolen 2000 election, a la John Roberts.

I Wish These Pictures Were Out BEFORE He Got Confirmed

Did John Roberts help prevent the counting of legitimate votes in Florida in 2000? Danny Schector (The News Dissector, I remember listening to him when he was on WBCN radio here in Boston decades ago) has pictures from the Florida recount debacle which appear to be Roberts.

What Did Roberts Do in Florida?

Definitely the same hairdo, but the guy in the pictures looks a little thinner. Come to think of it, I look a little thinner in 5 year old pictures, too.

At least my senators voted no. And Jack Reed of Rhode Island, too, a smart guy and a lawyer, he voted no.

Another payback appointment. Cronys-R-Us.

RIP Constance Baker Motley, American Hero

Constance Baker Motley, Civil Rights Trailblazer, Dies at 84

Constance Baker Motley, a civil rights lawyer who fought nearly every important civil rights case for two decades and then became the first black woman to serve as a federal judge, died yesterday at NYU Downtown Hospital in Manhattan. She was 84.

The cause was congestive heart failure, said Isolde Motley, her daughter-in-law.

Judge Motley was the first black woman to serve in the New York State Senate, as well as the first woman to be Manhattan borough president, a position that guaranteed her a voice in running the entire city under an earlier system of local government called the Board of Estimate.

Judge Motley was at the center of the firestorm that raged through the South in the two decades after World War II, as blacks and their white allies pressed to end the segregation that had gripped the region since Reconstruction. She visited the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in jail, sang freedom songs in churches that had been bombed, and spent a night under armed guard with Medgar Evers, the civil rights leader who was later murdered.

But her métier was in the quieter, painstaking preparation and presentation of lawsuits that paved the way to fuller societal participation by blacks. She dressed elegantly, spoke in a low, lilting voice and, in case after case, earned a reputation as the chief courtroom tactician of the civil rights movement.

Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama and other staunch segregationists yielded, kicking and screaming, to the verdicts of courts ruling against racial segregation. These huge victories were led by the N.A.A.C.P.'s Legal Defense and Education Fund, led by Thurgood Marshall, for which Judge Motley, Jack Greenberg, Robert Carter and a handful of other underpaid, overworked lawyers labored.

In particular, she directed the legal campaign that resulted in the admission of James H. Meredith to the University of Mississippi in 1962. She argued 10 cases before the United States Supreme Court and won nine of them.

Now this was a woman who should have been on the Supreme Court. She never worked for the powers that be. She worked for justice. No one ever wondered if she had a heart. She would not have denied the positions she took for her clients were her own. She believed in everything she ever did or said. The contrasts to the reptilian John Roberts loom large for me tonight.

When I was in law school, a friend clerked for Senator Ted Kennedy (Uncle Ted, as my friend called him). We had many discussions as to who the Democrats should nominate if Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan resigned or died. (We were sure we'd win the 1988 election -- wrong.) I mentioned Constance Baker Motley, and when my friend looked her up he was blown away by the breadth of her accomplishments -- and that somehow, he'd never heard of her. But by then (20 years ago) she was almost too old to be nominated -- Presidents love to appoint 50 year olds who can dominate the court for decades.

We've lost another of the great ones.

Federal Judge Constance Baker Motley Dies

(Yes, I keep bumping this post to the top. She deserves the attention far more than moral cretin Tom Delay.)

Those Reptilian Eyes

Judge Roberts, Reptilian?

Glad to know I'm not the only one thinking "reptile" when I look at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

Let's Stop Pretending: Roberts is a Far-Right Republican

Why haven't I blogged on John Roberts' confirmation hearings?

Because you know all you need to know about the guy is who he worked for.

Injustice Rehnquist, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Hogan & Hartson.

Ronald Reagan did not have a bunch of closet liberals or even libertarians sitting in his US Attorney's office sending out blizzards of compassionate memos.

He had hardcore right wing fanatics like John Roberts. John Roberts, to the right of Ted Olsen, Robert Bork and Strom Thurmond.

So, I gotta say, I knew who this guy was from the minute I read his resume. To pretend that he may undertake any confirmation or post-appointment conversion is a hollow and ultimately empty hope.

The corporate media keeps up the pretense that Roberts is a mystery:

From the Washington Post: E.J. Dionne: The Case For a 'No' Vote on Roberts

New York Times editorial: Too Much of a Mystery

Hang Down Your Head, John Roberts

This is the opening line in the New York Review of Books article about Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee John Roberts:

John Roberts: The Nominee

The most intriguing question about John Roberts is what led him as a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lacked his advantages.

John F. Kennedy, Democrat:

For of those to whom much is given, much is required.

Wait Until He Finds Out He Was On Vacation

from Talkings Points Memo: Bush to lead investigation into his own failure ...


from truth: I can see the interview next year with Diane Sawyer, Diane leaning forward, lips parted, vaseline on the camera lens, breathlessly asking, "What do you say to the American people, what went wrong, Mr. President?"

And he'll lean forward and give her that faux-earnest empty-headed grin, and say "Diane, nobody knew enough to call me and tell me a hurricane was comin! Nobody knew me taking a month of vacation would affect the government response to a catastrophe! Nobody knew I was on vacation!

"And then when I came back on Wednesday, cuttin my vacation back by two days I might add, heh heh, lot to ask of a sitting president, president needs balance in his life to lead effectively, well when I come back folks expected I would take charge! And that's not what this President does, Diane! I sit back and let the good folks I appointed do their jobs! My job is to get the right people in the right places and let 'em do their jobs. So my good friends Brownie and Mikey C were handling this crisis, and they were doin' a wonderful job. Great job. We had all kinds of aid lined up to go in to New Orleans at that point.

"So I took all that aid with me on Friday when I went to the Gulf Coast. Regular convoy, you saw the pictures on TV, right? I mean, this was only 5 days after the hurricane! Only 4 days after the levee filled New Orleans with water! It was hard work getting all those supplies together, hard work! Brownie and Mikey did an excellent job, excellent job.

"And you know the result of the investigation I headed, you know I announced the investigation only 8 days after the hurricane! 8 days! It was a bipartisan investigation I might add, got those good ol' boys Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, good ol'boys both, helped me put John Roberts on the Supreme Court, good men, both of them, well, they said that nothing better could have been done! We got those good folks supplies as soon as humanly possible. Only thing they could find wrong was all those folks in my administration who didn't know I was on vacation. Those good folks shoulda been informed.

"So we're gonna fix that. Next time I go on vacation, I'm gonna send out a memo to all my cabinet secretaries, you know, so something like this never happens again. Because that's what this administration is about, responding to the needs of the people.

"Hey, it's time for 4 hour mountain bike ride, wanna come along Diane! It'll be fun."

Dave Rossi is Right On

When I was a kid we got the Binghamton Press thrown on our porch by the newspaper boy every afternoon. It was a crappy newspaper, usually only 8 full pages long plus grocery inserts. But it had one redeeming value: Dave Rossi, a liberal columnist with a pointed wit.

He's still at it! I got my daily email from commondreams.org today, and lo and behold, there was an article by David Rossi:


Published on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 by the Press & Sun-Bulletin (NY)
Court Nominee Lets Rove Hide in Back Pages

Barring disclosure that he is a closet transvestite with a penchant for setting fire to nursing homes, John Roberts appears certain to be confirmed as an associate justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. But even if he should fail, he will still have performed yeoman service for the Cheney/Bush administration.

By agreeing to have his name put forward to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court, Roberts enabled the embattled Karl Rove to escape from our television news programs and the front pages -- and inside pages for that matter -- of our daily newspapers.

**********

Bush could no more fire the loathsome Rove than a blind man could fire his seeing eye dog.

**********

Last Friday, The New York Times, which has addressed this issue with all the enthusiasm of a man attempting to defuse a bomb, returned to its coverage, which has consisted mainly of rambling interviews with anonymous sources bent on portraying Rove and his accomplices as sympathetically as possible. The Times' reporters appear to have access to several leakers of grand jury information, all of them, not surprisingly, eager to portray Rove as favorably as possible. And in what may be a late addition to The Times' stylebook, any sentence that contains a reference to Wilson, his wife and Rove must contain the notation that Rove didn't mention Wilson's wife by name in outing her.

Of course, Wilson had only one wife working at the CIA as far as we know, but every little bit helps when you're trying to stay on the good side of this administration, as The Times has labored mightily, not to mention slavishly, to do.

A closet transvestite with a penchant for setting fire to nursing homes. I'll never be able to think of Roberts any other way.

SCOTUS Nomination is Payback for Florida 2000

Roberts had larger 2000 recount role
The role of U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in the 2000 election aftermath in Florida was larger than has been reported. Roberts helped prepare the Supreme Court case.

TALLAHASSEE - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts played a broader behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election than previously reported -- as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job.

Ted Cruz, a domestic policy advisor for President Bush and who is now Texas' solicitor general, said Roberts was one of the first names he thought of while he and another attorney drafted the Republican legal dream team of litigation ''lions'' and ''800-pound gorillas,'' which ultimately consisted of 400 attorneys in Florida.

Until now, Gov. Jeb Bush and others involved in the election dispute could recall almost nothing of Roberts' role, except for a half-hour meeting the governor had with Roberts. Cruz said Roberts was in Tallahassee helping the Bush camp for ''a week to 10 days,'' and that his help was important, though Cruz said it is difficult to remember specifics five years after the sleep-depriving frenetic pace of the 2000 recount.

Steal me the Presidency, win a prize! I still will give anyone who can produce a picture of John Bolton & John Roberts together in Florida a handsome reward. Except for the poor grooming and bad mustache, they're the same guy. Right Wing Nutjobs 'R Us.

Maybe SCOTUS Nominee has a Nanny Problem?

White House To Withhold Nominee's Tax Returns
Document Release Excludes First Bush Administration

The Bush administration will not give Senate investigators access to the federal tax returns of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., White House and congressional officials said yesterday, a break with precedent that could exacerbate a growing conflict over document disclosure in the confirmation process.

Although nominees to the high court in recent decades were required to provide their three most recent annual tax forms, the administration will neither collect such documents from Roberts nor share them with the Senate Judiciary Committee, the officials said. Instead, the Internal Revenue Service will produce a one-page summary.

The White House yesterday began releasing the first of 75,000 pages of documents stemming from Roberts's service as a lawyer in President Ronald Reagan's administration two decades ago but refused to release papers from his time as deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993. These papers, Bush aides said, concern internal executive branch deliberations that remain privileged.

Senate Democrats and liberal interest groups immediately assailed the decision to withhold the more recent files, sharpening a dispute over the nominee's record.

Many a rich person has faltered at the Senate confirmation door for failing to pay Social Security taxes. I remember my public schoolteacher parents struggling with the SSA and IRS paperwork for the neighbor who cleaned our house once a week during the school year. They felt it was important that she get credit with the Social Security Administration for her work, so she would get the largest social security benefit possible. Now that's a family value. Caring about your neighbors and the people who work for you.

I have no idea why they're not releasing Roberts tax returns. Maybe they're thinking about their next nominee (Gonzales?) and some issue on his tax return. Just sounds fishy to me.

You heard it here first: It's a nanny.