The Actvisit Right Wing Court: Welcome Home, Girlfriend. You're Dead.

 In 2000, for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 222 women were murdered in handgun homicides.

                           - Violence Policy Center.Org (click here for link)

Republican rightists are obsessed when it comes to labeling liberal justices "activists" while they dance about like sugarplum fairies on Xtasy when portraying right wing radical judges as "originalists," or "strict constructionists."

The radical originalists, really fundamentalists with serious deficiencies in common sense, have come down firmly on the side of the gun-peddling death merchants and their acolytes in Congress. (As for intelligence, I, for one, am tired of reading and hearing about the brilliance of Scalia's and Alito's opinions, both of whom hide behind needlessly complicated, dissembling, Jesuitical, sophomoric analysis of law better suited to dorm rooms than the halls of the highest court in the land. They may be bright boys, but boys nonetheless. Bachelors as Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist. See the closing of this post below.)

The gun nuts (and their marionettes on the Court) believe that keeping a loaded piece in the house protects them from gun violence. How much more wrong could they be?

Women, in particular, are subject to enormously high rates of gun violence in the home, exactly where the right wing court's recent ruling is aimed. 

From 2000 to 2007, nearly approximately half of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner and of those, 3/4ths of those female victims of intimate partner homicide were killed with a gun. As an abused spouses advocate said to me, "You can at least run from a fist or a knife, but you can't outrun a bullet."

A 1997 study found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 3.4 times more likely to be the victim of homicide perpetrated by anyone (stranger or acquaintance). 

Additionally, when looking at whether a woman would be killed at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative, the authors found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide. 

In March, NY Liberal State of Mind expressed fear about the impending ruling in a posting entitled "Guns and Judges." (click)

The post closed with a quote by Oliver Twist's Mr. Bumble that bears endless repeating:

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
 . 

9th Circuit's Prospective Justice Goodwin Liu - Smoke From A Distant Fire

Heard of Goodwin Liu yet?

He is in Senate confirmation hearings for a seat on the liberal bastion 9th Federal Circuit Court in San Francisco. The hearings (or delays of the hearings) are the current edition of the "Phony War" conducted during the early phases of World War II after the Nazi invasion of Poland.

Tactics will be tested, media weapons deployed, the enemy's weaknesses will be probed, buzz and spin words will be thrusted and be parried. All in anticipation of the real war, the one that will be waged over the vacancy created by the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Is Liu the proverbial coal mine canary? Maybe. Maybe not. He may be something else altogether.

One source in Senator Charles Shumer's New York office we spoke with said that Liu, in fact, might be the ultimate red herring, a liberal who is so dedicated to the cause that he is willing to fall on his sword and return to teaching if it results in a true liberal reaching the Supreme Court. Politics and poker. But you read it here first in case it's an accurate prediction.

Regardless, here are Liu's credentials without prejudice:

A graduate of Stanford, Rhodes Scholar to Oxford, and Yale Law School graduate who clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I know if I were Liu, I'd be polishing up my badge big time.

Here come the flash points:

That Justice? Ruth Bader Ginsburg (first red cape waved in front of the right wing bull).

He is an Associate Dean as well as a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law (second red cape waved in front of the right wing bull).

Liu is only 39 (third red cape waved in front of the old, grumpy right wing bull).

He is intensely anti-capital punishment, mildly on the side of affirmative action, pro-choice, and against unrestrained capitalism. Red capes are now flapping everywhere like laundry snapping on a clothesline in a stiff breeze. The Republican extremists are snorting and pawing the ground.

Speaking of the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Mr. Liu said words Roberts often uses such as "'free enterprise,' under-regulated 'private ownership of property,' and 'limited government'" are "code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections."

He also criticized Justice Samuel Alito in full-throated prose: "Judge Alito's record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse; where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance . . . where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man . . . and where police may search what a warrant permits, and then some."

The hypocrites from the right have already speciously attacked Professor Liu, playing the "experience card" as a tool for twice postponing open, honest hearings by the Judicial Committee.

The Wall Street Journal this past Saturday wrung its greed-grimed hands and said: "Mr. Liu has never served as a lower court judge and has limited experience arguing cases before the federal courts."

It just so happens that each of the current Supreme Court Justices – with the exception of liberal Justice Sotomayor – lacked state or federal judicial experience prior to his or her appointment to a federal appellate court.

So? Where was the radical right when its favorite court Dobermans were being nominated and confirmed? (Probably the same place they were when George W. Bush was ruining the American economy.)

In strange counterpoint, Liu has gained the endorsement of the fallen Ken Starr, and Richard Painter, the "ethics adviser to the Bush Administration" (an oxymoron beyond satire, parody and laws of the known universe).

Goodwin Liu has been on the boards of directors of the ACLU of Northern California, the National Women's Law Center, the Public Welfare Foundation, and Chinese for Affirmative Action. He's also a long-time member of the American Constitution Society, which is devoted to helping to place liberal lawyers in positions of power in government and in the judiciary.

So, we know the hostility is not about Liu's competence or his experience, which is all that should matter. But the radicals - the Republican Party as a whole - have a different agenda.

Stop anything Obama wants. Demonize the left as if it were actually totalitarian. And, finally and most nefariously, take aim at whomever might be nominated to the Supreme Court vacancy.

...

The Supreme Court, Religion, and Ideology

Deconstructionists would have a field day with the current composition of the Supreme Court vis a vis religious affiliation. The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens focuses the spotlight on the quirkiness of religion and the Court, and on deep-seated prejudices still at large in the land.

For most of its history the Court was dominated by white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, although as early as 1777 there were Catholics, Roger Taney being the first. Lewis Brandeis became the first Jewish Justice in 1916.

Today, Justice Stevens is the lone Protestant member. There are currently 6 Catholic and 2 Jewish members.

Conspicuous by their absences are Atheists/Agnostics/Non-Religious, Muslims, Mormons, Pentecostals, Orthodox Catholics, Baptists, and Buddhists.

The Non-Religious population in the United States (atheists, agnostics) number between 28 and 34 million people, more than all other non-Christian groups combined, and more than any other single group except Catholics and Baptists (57 million and 36 million respectively). Many experts claim the number of affirmed Non-Religious is much higher than surveys allow, since in many regions there is still a stigma attached to declaring "I don't believe in god."

There are between 5 and 7 million Muslims in the United States (figures estimated by US News & World Report and Council on American-Islamic Relations). This is about the same number as Jewish people in the country.

There are about 3 million Mormons, 6 million Pentecostals, 2 million Greek and Eastern (Russian, Ukrainian etc.) Orthodox, and 2 million Buddhists.

It is difficult to discern whether or not theology bears on decision-making on the bench. There are, for instance, 4 radically ultra-conservative Catholics, one moderate, and one liberal Catholic serving now. In general, Catholics, like Baptists, are anti-choice.

Jews have been very liberal historically.

The Non-Religious population according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) identifies almost universally with liberal political ideals.

What are the odds that a non-Catholic, non-Jew, non-Protestant will be nominated and appointed? What are the (longer) odds that a Non-Religious/Atheist/Agnostic will be appointed?

No need to dial (702) L-A-S-V-E-G-A-S. The chances are slim to none that any of those 50 million plus Americans falling outside the Catholic-Protestant-Jewish pale will ever be called, let alone chosen.

Guns and Judges

Link to LA Times Article Concerning The Supreme Court and the Lifting of Gun Control Nationally

There is a vast problem with the interpretation of law in our land and the current Supreme Court is leading the charge to the rear. Sometime in the next 6 weeks, they will vote to allow a revolutionary loosening of state and local gun carry laws. Some of these restrictions have been in place since the Civil War. Most date to the 1920s into mid 20th century America when guns became commodities in the eyes of the murder-mongering makers of firearms.

There is no commonsensical reason to allow this. And the fundamentalist law upon which you can be sure the Court will base its decision is shaky in the best of circumstances. In a nutshell, the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for a few understandable, if now outmoded, reasons.

First, to maintain a well-regulated (state) militia to countervail any future strength of the national government. Thus, keeping arms was a civic obligation rather than a "personal right." No attendant obligation adheres today, just the ghost of the Outlaw Josey Wales.

Second, guns legitimately used for hunting purposes.

Third, guns used in self-defense, which in the immediate post-colonial period usually meant against Native American Indians, highwaymen, or the specter of resurgent Tories based in Canada.

Fourth, there was an anti-royal, anti-establishment sentiment embedded in the 2nd Amendment. In England, and all of absolutist Europe, there was a fear of "the commoner" owning arms because revolution would be a constant threat. Paranoia - well-founded as it turned out in the case of the War of 1812 -  was rampant. American citizens knew it was much easier for all the king's men to deal with pitchforks and wooden staves than with muskets.

Moreover, the bearing of arms was seen as a professional right back in Europe, a guild if you will, and the tools of that trade were weapons. Other guilds and professions were just as jealous of their right to, say, keep and bear hammer and anvil, or grinding mills, or bread ovens, or amputation saws. The spirit of freedom in America was to be a leveler and keeping guns was part of this process.

Finally, even in America's biggest cities there was no effective police force until the late 19th century.

We live in a different age now than the one that spawned the 2nd Amendment.

You wouldn't think of strapping on a cutlass to go waltzing into the local Stop N Shop, would you? Or carrying a net and trident when picking the kids up from little league practice? Alas, if the central power of the federal government is the issue, we might expect that citizens should be permitted the flying of Stealth fighters above Scarsdale, or ownership of unmanned drones at their summer cottages on Lake Placid. You know, just in case health reform passes and the government has to be slapped down.

Hunting seems to be a settled issue. Humaneness and safety have to be kept by steady vigilance, but hunting is on the books as an accepted arena for guns.

So, that leaves crime prevention and self-protection.

The risk of being murdered is by far highest in the South (high gun ownership rates), moderately high in the Southwest (high gun ownership rates), and lowest in the North (low gun ownership rates). Poor Americans experience the highest murder rate, but even middle-class and affluent Americans run a much greater risk of being murdered than do people in other affluent democracies. Such high homicide numbers today make it hard to believe that America’s homicide rate was once the lowest in the Western world.

Ironically, although the Supreme Court can't seem to get it into their law-thickened puddings, the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest gun death rates.

These are, from lowest: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

The states with the highest gun death rates are: Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Mississippi.

An anomaly lies in two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire, which have very loose gun control laws AND low gun death rates. However, it should be noted that neither has a major city within its borders. Similar anomalies lie in north central farm states such as North Dakota.

The Supreme Court, though, seems to ignore the very visceral effects of gun control laxness. New York City, after all, is not Rapid City. The idea that open carry permits could be issued to all 6 million adults in the 5 boroughs would be cause for knee slapping if the possibility weren't about to become reality through the reliance on effete theory the Court seems hellbent upon.

As Voltaire said, "Common sense isn't so common." The lack of horse sense is particularly irksome coming from men on the bench who actually believe they are well-educated when, in fact, they know next to nothing about the way real human beings live and want to live. They might as well be disputing the number of angels that can fit on the firing pin of a gun.

In case you want your meal in fact-filled bites, chew on this: gunshot wounds cost the American financial system about $6 billion per year. 67% of the cost is borne by either taxpayer money or private insurance, which is a cost spread among us. (About $4 billion per year, or $13 for every man, woman and child.)

I leave you with this thought from Oliver Twist, the core quote of which is well known:


“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

Don't Go Near The Water - Pollution and Natural Rights

Watch: Don't Go Near The Water by the Beach Boys (1971)

Think quickly: to whom do public waterways, lakes, wetlands, and ponds truly belong?

Nominally they belong to the famously elusive “We the people.” Federal, state, county and municipal governments own millions of square miles of waterways; that is to say, we own them collectively. Private individuals "own" hundreds of thousands more waterways. Corporations "own" yet others. But, only the people can truly own such a resource.

Some waters are useful for drinking, some for recreation, others for aesthetic reasons. But all fit into an overall ecosystem that provides each of us with a safe, “big picture” environment.

Healthful drinking, bathing, cooking, and swimming; safe fishing and hunting; visual delight, and overall good health are collective, natural rights of all human beings.

Currently, arguments that wended their way through the Supreme Court over 5 or more years ago quibble about the phrase “navigable waters,” and have left gaping holes in the EPA’s jurisdiction over polluters of various states.

For nigh unto 40 years, “navigable waters” was correctly interpreted by regulators and courts so as to include many large wetlands and streams that connected to major rivers, and thence to the oceans. Essentially all waters were covered throughout the country. Polluters, essentially misguided, greedy misers, challenged that idea.

The two Supreme Court decisions suggested that waterways entirely within one state, creeks that sometimes go dry, and lakes “unconnected” to larger water systems may not be “navigable waters” and are therefore not covered by the act — even though pollution from such waterways can make its way into sources of drinking water well beyond artificial state borders. Everything is connected and the Earth is small.

If pollutants make their way into drinking water, you can bet your last dollar they are making their way into fish, animals, and crops, and thence into your and your children’s fatty tissue, creating the perfect medium for cancers and other illnesses.

By what right do polluters act in such irresponsible ways? Simple. They hold to property rights as described by antique thinkers from Locke and Madison to Hegel, and finally to today’s radical libertarians. The writings of these mindless property advocates has to be discarded now and forever, and the stronger notion of the common wealth has to replace their destructive philosophies.

Polluters may be industries that dump everything from radioactive materials to heavy metals like zinc, copper, chromium, cadmium, etc., into our collective waters. The polluters may be cities and towns that do not properly treat sewage and storm runoff from roads. Untreated insecticides, paint, solvents, spilled motor oil and gasoline, bacteria and pathogens wash into our ground water, into streams and rivers and eventually into drinking water supplies.

Farms, even “organic” farms, contribute mightily to the problem. Food factories – pig and chicken farming, in particular – discharge antibiotics and hormones. Manure fouls groundwater supplies and now washes 60 percent more nitrogen into waterways than it did in the '70s, creating 230 dead zones like those in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

But, because of the absurd theories offered by polluters, namely that ground water or waters contained within one state are not covered by the clean water efforts of the federal government, the EPA finds itself not able to mount costly counter arguments to establish prosecutorial jurisdiction against polluters in the individual states. 

The Supreme Court right wingers, stuck in backwards notions of 18^th and 19^th century property rights, acting fittingly like chickens with their heads cut off, ignore the intent of the clean water legislation of the last four decades and commit instead to polluters. 

Just who has the right to water? 

“We are, in essence, shutting down our Clean Water programs in some states,” said Douglas F. Mundrick, an E.P.A. lawyer in Atlanta. “This is a huge step backward. When companies figure out the cops can’t operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in a nearby creek.”

A Corporation Running For Congress?

Yes! Murray Hill Inc., a liberal public relations firm, recently announced that it planned to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. NYTimes Link to full story click here The Times link has a great mock-TV spot for the Corporate Candidate.

Here are some other ideas:

Corporations could become priests and nuns; however they would not be allowed to marry.

Corporations could be small family farmers, so we can at last do away with that blasted "locavore" concept. Who wants pure food delivered fresh with a minimum of pollution-causing shipping anyway? People must be crazy.

Let's encourage corporations to become telegenic media personalities. Give the red carpet at events some unusual pizzazz. (Bulky, but with the convenience of having personality and sponsorship in one grand package.)

Ditto for, say, footballs players. Google and Microsoft playing on rival teams as quarterbacks. Chrysler at wide receiver going out for a long pass and never coming back? Haliburton at middle guard doing a little eye-gouging in the pile-ups!