I’d actually halfway finished a blog on a different subject today, when I was spun in a different  direction. Thursday night I had done something I never do and watched the Republican Debate in Florida. It was frighteningly enlightening to say the least, but what stood out for me was Newt commenting that our President was a disciple of Saul Alinsky. I thought then “How many people today know who Saul Alinsky was and what he represented?” On last nights Bill Maher’s show, Bill asked the question “Who was Saul Alinsky?” as part of his New Rules segment. This morning in HuffPost, Frank Mankiewicz addressed a variant of the same question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-mankiewicz/america-meet-saul-alinsky_b_1238953.html

The idea of following heroes to me has always seemed silly, yet there are people whose lives and work I deeply admire and to some sense try to emulate. My first was Clarence Darrow and it is therefore no coincidence that I am a denizen of this blog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Darrow .  Clarence Darrow’s picture is used above because it is in the public realm, while mysteriously Saul Alinsky’s isn’t. Obviously, Saul Alinsky is another person whose life I admire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky  Alinsky was a radical in his methods, but one who eschewed the doctrinaire self assurance of an ideologue. When asked if he ever considered joining the Communist Party he famously replied”

“Not at any time. I’ve never joined any organization—not even the ones I’ve organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as ‘that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.’ If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”

His was a belief that has resonated with me since those radical days in the 60’s, with the Movement, when I was surrounded by and courted by various ideologies, mostly Marxist whose rigidity of thought and party line belief, actually disgusted me. Yet there was Alinsky, the man who literally wrote the book on community organizing, who felt similarly towards ideological rigidity. He was truly an America Patriot, whose guiding idea was to assist downtrodden people to gain power over their lives and give them a chance to decide their fates. Alinsky was a man who achieved great success, if you define success as achieving ones goals. The disdain and demonization again being heaped upon him today comes from the very real threat his methodology has towards the 1% elite and curiously that aim of his was the reinstatement of “The American Dream” of freedom, equality and social justice.

The current conservative obsession with Alinsky comes from the fact that Barack Obama was supposedly an Alinsky disciple because of his community organizing work in Chicago:

“Biographer Sanford Horwitt has claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt furthermore has asserted that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky’s teachings.”

Adding to their “Alinsky disdain” is that:

“Hillary Clinton‘s senior honors thesis on Saul Alinsky, written at Wellesley College, noted that Alinsky’s personal efforts were a large part of his method.”

Thus we see two villains of the extreme Right Wing of the Republican Party, being linked somewhat to Alinsky, makes bringing him back into play as a “bogeyman” fitting. In truth one of the things that swayed me to support Obama in the first place were his ties to Alinsky, via his community organizing work in Chicago. For these extremists, however, the fact that Alinsky died when Obama was ten years old, is irrelevant. The President and Hilary, to their minds, have been polluted by Alinsky’s teachings. Why one would ask are the teachings of someone who was not a Marxist, not specifically anti-capitalist and believed that people should have the freedom to make up their own minds politically, be so damned threatening to the Extreme Right?

My take on the “why” is twofold. The first is that Alinsky believed in “empowerment” of those like Blacks, Stockyard workers and the poor in general. His methods, though non-violent, were disruptive of the status quo. He became so effective in organizing protests that sometimes just the threat of a protest led to negotiation with “the powers that were”. Take a look at this particular tactic and smile:

“After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence, God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York, Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, “FIGHT’s increasingly gaseous music-loving members would hie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds.”^[9] Satisfied with the reaction to his threat, Alinsky would later threaten a “piss in” at Chicago O’Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O’Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, the threat alone was sufficient to produce results.^[9]”

The elite of his time were infuriated that he had the temerity to disrupt their privileged existence. They insisted that by his not working through the “system” he was destroying our ordered way of life. The fact for instance that Blacks in the South had no system to work through, was irrelevant to those conservative forces reaping the “systems” benefits.

“In Alinsky’s opinion, new voices and new values were being heard in the U.S., and “people began citing John Donne‘s ‘No man is an island,’” he said. He observed that the hardship affecting all classes of the population was causing them to start “banding together to improve their lives,” and discovering how much in common they really had with their fellow man.^[4] He stated during an interview a few of the causes for his active organizing in black communities:

“Negroes were being lynched regularly in the South as the first stirrings of black opposition began to be felt, and many of the white civil rights organizers and labor agitators who had started to work with them were tarred and feathered, castrated—or killed. Most Southern Democrat politicians were members of the Ku Klux Klan and had no compunction about boasting of it.”^[4]”

The second reason Alinsky is anathetimized is because his tactics work so damn well that people actually gain empowerment from them. This works in tandem with the fact that it is non-ideological, so it works to blur divisions between class, race and religion. The American Elite has always made its’ mark by sowing division among the 99%. This is in fact the entire operating structure that has kept the power structure in place. It to me it is little coincidence that the real opposition to MLK  outside the South, came at a point when his organizational effort went beyond Black Civil Rights and began to display opposition to poverty and the Viet Nam War. In the South post-bellum, the average White, while still suffering under the economic oppression of the South’s Elite, under a deeply unfair economic system, nevertheless could be comforted in their poverty by the fact that their status was higher than Blacks.

What is too madly ironic to be funny is that we see today the Ultra Conservatives utilizing Alinsky’s techniques to further their ends:

“Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization’s tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, “his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective.” Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.^[19]”

Below you will find a link to an illuminating debate between Alinsky and William F. Buckley. There are only five minutes video to be seen of this hour long “Firing Line” episode, but it is highly instructive. From this link you can also obtain a PDF link to a transcript of the entire debate. In both the Buckley salvos and the Alinsky responses you can see the essece of the men. Buckley, limited in tangible argument turning again and again to his huge vocabulary to throw up the smokescreen that he is actually making telling points. Alinsky, surprisingly (for political debate), honestly exposing himself as a human being, while demolishing Buckley’s false charges that would make Alinsky a threat to American Democracy.  http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=99

Looking at the Occupy Wall Street Movement I have no proof, but little doubt, that its organizers have been highly influenced by Saul Alinsky. In my opinion we all need to brush up on the Alinsky methodology today as our only way out of the dawning of an age of Corporatist Fuedalism. Voting can only be used to stave off the potential disasters that await the 99%, if the direction of this country doesn’t change. So in answer to my posed question: “Who in Hell is Saul Alinsky”, he is one of the great minds of the Twentieth Century, when it comes to finding non-violent means of developing a more humane society. I believe that putting his concepts into use by those who truly love this country can finally bring about the changes that will save America from becoming just another Third World Nation under the rule of a monied elite.

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

]]> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/who-in-hell-is-saul-alinsky/feed/ 22 jonathanturley 433px-Clarence_Darrow http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/bullies-with-badges/ http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/bullies-with-badges/#comments Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:35:55 +0000 jonathanturley http://jonathanturley.wordpress.com/?p=44601 ]]> -Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

That was the description of four East Haven, Connecticut, police officers who were arrested after a federal grand jury returned an indictment containing charges of conspiring to violate, and violating, the civil rights of members of the East Haven community. All four have pleaded not guilty in Federal District Court and three have been released on bail, ranging from $100,000 to $300,000; the fourth is awaiting completion of his paperwork.

The indictment alleges unreasonable searches and seizures, the use of unreasonable force, false and misleading police reports, and harassment and intimidation of victims, witnesses, and outside investigators. All four are facing potential jail sentences of 10 years or longer if convicted.

The four officers were protected by a higher-up in the East Haven Police Department referred to, in the indictment, as co-conspirator-1. The name of co-conspirator-1 is known to the grand jury, and if any of the four officers decides to make a deal, another indictment may be forthcoming.

The long list of abuses of power were often directed at Latino drivers and businesses, and the victims reported the abuse to Father James Manship of the St. Rose of Lima Church in Fair Haven. Manship started his own investigation and, in 2009, got himself arrested while video recording two of the officers. In the police report, one of the officers wrote that he saw an “unknown shiny silver object” that Manship had “cupped” in his hands. However, in the video below, the officer clearly refers to the “shiny object” as a camera.

The arrest of Manship prompted the investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

This case demonstrates the importance of not outlawing the recording of police officers in public performing their duties. The courage of Manship should be an inspiration to all of us to not back down when confronted by bullies.

H/T: Radley Balko, New Haven Independent, DoJ, New York Times, WTNH.

Click to enlarge. Solution below the fold.

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner is one of America’s most lauded judges and legal thinkers. An economics degree from Yale, president of the Harvard Law Review, and clerk to Justice William Brennan, Posner has the brains and the pedigree to move American jurisprudence. And move it he has. A conservative in reaction to his experience on the Supreme Court he’s drawn the ire of this blog for insensitvity to Constitutional rights of citizens. In addition, he’s one of the main proponents of the “law and economics” movement which advocates the analysis of law using economic principles. As you guessed, he’s no enemy of big corporations and business in general. 

You’d think a practitioner of the “dismal science” would be pretty dry in his legal opinions. Not so. Judge Posner has drawn fire for his use of web-snatched images amid the text of his legal analysis. In one instance depicted above, he used an image of an ostrich doing what ostriches are famous for to chastise a plaintiff’s lawyer who ignored a precedential case in his brief. In another, he incorporated an image of dreadlocked reggae singer, Bob Marley, to graphically illustrate his opinion in a dispute involving religious expression by means of hair style for a federal prisoner.

The practice has drawn judicial complaints from the plaintiff’s lawyer chastised as an ostrich and charges of copyright violation, all to no avail. Posner remains nonplussed as a dedicated “cut and paster.” Posner said it was the first negative feedback he’d received for an image. “I’m sorry he [the plaintiff's lawyer] was upset by it,” he said. Posner also defended his use of artistic license, saying photos embedded in his opinions “couldn’t conceivably be hurting the copyright holder.”

Proof, I suppose, that the digital age is coming even to the tradition-laden chambers of appellate judges.

Source: Reuters

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

We present for your listening enjoyment, The Four Seasons in glorious STEREO!

There is no question that the photos appear similar and that a similar technique was used. The Defendant indeed tried to vary the pictures. The fact that the defendant wanted to avoid confusion between the pictures was used as evidence against it:

It is quite obvious that in no sense has any photocopying style reproduction taken place. The defendants’ work was created from photographs Mr Houghton took himself. It is also quite obvious that the point of the exercise was to avoid infringing. Mr Houghton was clearly trying to avoid infringing. His and his company’s case is that the claimant cannot use copyright law in effect to give them a monopoly in a black and white image of the Houses of Parliament with a red bus in it. He clearly knew about the claimant’s work when the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendants had used.

Then there is the key similarity (beyond the fact that it is a London bus):

Although the images undoubtedly differ in their composition, elements of the overall composition of the claimant’s image have been reproduced. The bus is a Routemaster, driving from right to left with Big Ben on the right of the bus. The riverside facade of the Houses of Parliament is part of the image. The bus is on Westminster Bridge (albeit in a different place) in both images. This is obvious in the claimant’s image and can be seen from the presence of the balustrade on the left in the defendants’ image. There are some people visible but they are small (and in different places). There is no other obvious traffic. The edge of Portcullis house is visible on the right. Running from top to bottom, there is a substantial amount of sky in the picture (albeit more in the claimant’s) and the top of the bus is roughly the same height as the facade of the Houses of Parliament.

This is new precedent that will likely to cited widely inside and outside of England. Part of art is imitation. New painters or photographers introduce new techniques or perspectives that are then picked up by others. Clearly, the subject of this picture is the same, but it is an iconic image of London. The ruling against this company can be extended to a host of different areas where new techniques or imagery are adopted by others. I can understand the concerns raised by these photos. It does appear to be an effort to capture the same imagery and effect. However, this is a picture of a public space. It is hard to see how a person can claim a public image like a sunset when reproduced with a particular lens or process. These laws have now flipped the purpose of the laws, which were meant to foster creative expression by protecting artistic products. The judge notes “I sympathise with Mr Houghton in his wish to use an image of London landmarks. He is free to do so. There are entirely independent images of the same landmarks available to be used which predate publication of Mr Fielder’s picture. But the defendants do not want to use those, no doubt for their own good reasons.” One reason may be that they want to take this picture and use a popular technique for its reproduction.

As I noted, this does raise some close questions. For example, if someone reproduced Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe, it would raise a series infringement claim. His addition of color and scheme was unique. This case raises some of the same issues but sweeps too broadly. The Court notes “[a]lthough the techniques used by Mr Fielder to achieve the effect he did may have been simple, the result has an aesthetic quality about it which is the product of his own work.” That however would make any public image a form of private property even when produced with simple techniques. There is no limiting principle. Is it simply because Fielder’s image is iconic? What about less iconic photos by countless other photographers. If I use the same simple technique and take thousands of photos around London, do I now own those images — even against images produced independently against others? I admit it is a tough question but I cannot see how the ruling can be easily limited. If it cannot be so limited, it creates a chilling effect on creativity.

The question is when will the public organize itself, as it did over SOPA/PIPA, to demand a change in these laws which now inhibit creativity and free expression. There may be a way to accommodate the concerns raised in this case in such laws, but the current laws appear to be exponentially expansive.

Here is the opinion with the photos in the exhibits: London Bus Opinion

Source: Amateur Photographer

Here is letter by Sen. Levin this morning:

In his Jan. 15 Outlook commentary, “Ten reasons we’re no longer the land of the free,” Jonathan Turley mischaracterized a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 that reaffirms the authority of the military to detain individuals who join al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, and who attack the United States.

Mr. Turley disputed the Obama administration, which said that, with regard to U.S. citizens who fall in that category, “this provision only codified existing law,” i.e., it does not add new law to that issue. But Mr. Turley omitted the language in the act itself, which expressly states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Carl Levin, Washington

The writer, a Democrat from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

There are a number of problems with this objection. First, the column that was printed noted that “While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court.”

Second, the language cited by Levin has been ridiculed by civil libertarians as meaningless rhetoric designed to give members political cover after various members denounced the legislation as allowing indefinite detention of citizens. Without repeating the prior analysis, Levin (who assures that the law will be followed “whatever it is”) personally noted that the Administration demanded that there be no exception for citizens from indefinite detention. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

The fact that the Senate put a clear exemption in the mandatory detention provision for citizens but opted not to simply include the same provision in the discretionary detention provision reinforces this meaning. Moreover, the same Senators who voted to deny any exemption proceeded to vote for this language — clearly indicating that it did not offer such protection for citizens.

Most importantly, Levin and others are seeking to deny the authority that the President just acknowledged in his signing statement. Obama stated “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He does not deny that he has such authority . . . only that he does not intend to use it.

The only thing more disturbing than the provision itself is the effort of members to avoid responsibility for the provision — arguing that the civil liberties community and a wide variety of experts (as well as dozens of members of Congress) simply did not read the bill. The power, he suggests, was not given to the President despite the President’s assurance that he will not use it.

Notably, the earlier version of the column did not quote Levin on this point. I added the language before it went to print because Levin donors sent me a fax sent out by his office advancing this argument. The entire premise of both the early version and published version is that the effort to protect citizens was defeated by the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier, I often agree with Levin. However, the letter continues an effort to suggest to readers that this question is expressly answered in the bill. The clear effort is to dismiss the view of civil libertarians and members as ill-informed and portray the concern over civil liberties as baseless. I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.

Bastrop Police Chief Michael Black says that Bartlett admitted that he caught the cat, named Moody, when he was trying to get rid of cats. He left Moody in the back of his truck for three days because he allegedly “forgot” it. He then brought it to the police who noted that the claimed “feral” cat had a name tag including the phone number of Moody’s owners, Sarah and Eddy Bell, on its collar. The officer said Bartlett promised to return the cat to the owners, but it was found later that day on the bank of the Colorado River below a bridge. It turns out that the same animal control officer called to the scene happened to be the one who had assisted Bartlett earlier that day and recognized the cat.

Sarah Bell says that the crime has destroyed her daughter’s faith after learning the preacher allegedly committed the crime. When Bell told her that Moody was in heaven now, her daughter responded “I don’t believe in Heaven anymore, Moody’s just dead.”

Bartlett faces a charge of animal cruelty which could result in a $4,000 fine and a year’s imprisonment.

Source: KVUE as first seen on Reddit

The FBI arrested Nash with the help of a paroled killer who came forward with a bizarre tale of how Nash wanted to abduct, extort and electrocute a wealthy lawyer who was interested in Nash’s wife.

According to the criminal complaint, one plot involved kidnapping the lawyer, getting him to withdraw a large amount of cash from the bank, and then electricuting him in a jacuzzi with a radio. He was going to then spread kitty litter around the crime scene to implicate the cat.

Police say that Nash was arrested outside of a Kmart in Granite City shortly before the crime was to take place. Nash reportedly told the snitch that he had only $300 in the bank and needed about $37,000 to avert foreclosure. However, he also allegedly said that he previously used his wife, a former exotic dancer, to lure wealth men to hotel rooms and then photograph them for the purposes of blackmail. The wife has not been charged and the cat is believed to be innocent.

Nash is now charged with attempted extortion, by use of threats of violence, under the Hobbs Act. He is facing 20 years in prison and a life being pursued by the cat people.

Below is the agent who uncovered the plot but he has had problems printing out the criminal complaint:

Source: CBS

The bill states that “[t]he governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” The language appears to be an effort to circumvent the holding in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), where the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools in 1987. The Court stressed that “[w]e do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” The Court added that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” (emphasis added)

This law could force a reexamination of that caveat and the overwhelming view of scientists that creationism is a religious not a scientific theory. Notably one of the two dissenting justices was Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Other states like Tennessee have moved to re-introduce creationism in schools as a “controversy” in science. Louisiana itself has used this approach to circumvent the precedent that it created in Edwards.

This legislation could lead to another major decision if it were to get to the Court, though Scalia would find new allies in jurists like Clarence Thomas. The Court held that it was unconstitutional when “pre-eminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.” On his official legislative site, Kruse has highlighted his work with such groups as “Child Evangelism Fellowship of Northeastern Indiana,” “The Gideons International,” “Northeast Indiana Youth for Christ Board, Chairman,” “County Line Church of God,” and other such groups.

Another supporter, Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, said that “many” scientists agree with creationism and asked “[w]hat are we afraid of? Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?”

Just to be clear, the fear is not that evolution could not hold its own as a scientific theory but that we are suggesting to students that creationism has a scientific basic. Beyond the “Creation Science boards, “many” scientists are not supportive of creationism and that suggestion by Schneider shows how “facts” are invented to suggest a scientific basis for creationism. According to a 1991 Gallup poll, only 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, even this small number was questioned since it included those with training outside biology.

Notably, these schools could take the lead from Governor Romney who has stated that evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is a philosophy. In Iowa, he explained:

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.”

For academics in Indiana, this must be a particularly low moment. Indiana is a state with terrific institutions of higher learning. This bill looks like an appeal from The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes — 87 years too late.

Source: Courier Journal

The charges include stealing from a client and taking money for legal services not rendered. Before his appointment in May, Taylor served as juvenile court judge. He insists on the Ten Commandments allegation that “All money raised in support of the Foundations Display (Citizens Heritage Display) was given in a cashier’s check to a member of the American Legion, along with a list of people who had made contributions.”

Taylor is up for reelection in March. He may quietly want to lose since some if not all of these charges may be dropped if he were not on the bench. His bio states the following:

Judge Taylor graduated from East Tennessee State University, in 1994, with a degree in Political Science. He graduated from Mercer University School of Law, in 1997, and was admitted to practice law that same year. Taylor was appointed in 2011 as the Judge of the General Sessions Court of Hawkins County, after having been elected as the Judge of the Juvenile Court in 2006. He has been a speaker and instructor on a variety of legal topics, including being selected by the State of Tennessee to train the clerks of courts on juvenile law and procedure.

Judge Taylor and his wife, Julia North Taylor, of The Redeemed Southern Gospel Singing Quartet, have two sons, Cross and Luke. The Taylor family lives in Hawkins County, Tennessee. Taylor is a member of Spires Chapel Baptist Church where he is the Youth Leader and a Sunday School teacher. Having come from a family of pastors, and having his father-in-law serve as pastor of his church, Taylor’s life and interests revolve around his church and family. His grandparents had a powerful and spiritual influence on his life, and Taylor’s life has been largely guided by Papa Best’s advice: God has given each of us a special talent and gift; prayerfully find yours, and then serve God with it.

Source: TimesNews as first seen on ABA Journal.

Santorum explained to an enraptured audience in Naples, Florida how “the left” long ago took over universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of “holding and maintaining power.” It was all part of the plan of the liberal overlords, he suggested, and “we’ve lost our higher education, that was the first to go a long time ago.” Now, Obama is pushing college which Santorum portrays as a type of entry drug to liberalism:

“It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college,” said the former Pennsylvania senator. “The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure that there wasn’t one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right? . . . If they taught Judeo-Christian principles in those colleges and universities, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it.”

Santorum, therefore, called on true Republicans to stop giving money to colleges:

“I’ll bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology. And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it.”

It was a truly Palinesque moment of attacking those who would challenge GOP positions with facts or history. Now the race to the bottom is complete with a call to just say no to education and to embrace doctrine as truth. Of course, this is not a new idea. Mao Zedong launched a Cultural Revolution based on the same notions:

Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and endeavour to stage a comeback. The proletariat must do just the opposite: It must meet head-on every challenge of the bourgeoisie in the ideological field and use the new ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the proletariat to change the mental outlook of the whole of society. At present, our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority . . . and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure  . . .”

Now this is not meant to accuse Santorum of plagiarism: you would only learn about the Cultural Revolution in those colleges that he wants us all to avoid. I can deal with the re-education camps, but I am a bit afraid of what Santorum will select as his Little Red [State] Book. If it is Sarah Palin’s America by Heart : Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, I will be the first to turn in my colleagues hiding in the attic.

Source: CBS

Republican leadership is calling out ranking establishment figures to question everything from Gingrich’s electability to his morality to secure the nomination for Romney. Elliott Abrams, however, shows how deep they are going in the GOP bench. You may recall Abrams from a little criminal affair called the Iran-Contra scandal. Abrams ultimately pleaded guilty to crimes of withholding information from Congress which included two years probation. He was then pardoned by President George H. W. Bush, in December 1992. Then on February 5, 1997, Abrams was censured by the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly for giving false testimony on three occasions before congressional committees. At the time, three judges wanted to not just impose the censure but to suspend him from practice.

As previously discussed in a column, many of these dark figures from the Reagan years were brought back into government by President George W. Bush, an early indication of the Administration’s approach to the rule of law. Abrams considers himself so rehabilitated in the public eye that he feels entirely comfortable in denouncing Gingrich for statements against Reagan that include criticism over . . . yes guessed it . . . Iran-Contra.

Abrams offers a rather cheerful account of his role, which led to his criminal plea. He accuses Gingrich of saying mean things about Reagan and “predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.” Of course, Iran-Contra was not exactly a roaring success.

Yet, Abrams notes that he and others were fighting “vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts.” You may recall that Congress limited funds to the Contras through the Boland Amendment. Abrams notes the Gingrich did in fact vote for the Administration, but said negative things about Reagan. His “best” example was on March 21, 1986.

“This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: ‘Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.’ Why? This was due partly to ‘his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail’; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which ‘have no strategies to defeat the empire.’ But of course ‘the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.’ Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were ‘pathetically incompetent,’ so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan ‘contra’ rebels ‘are fundamentally right.’

So, Gingrich is unacceptable because he criticized a criminal conspiracy that ultimately landed the Reagan administration into a quagmire of criminal investigations and convictions, including Abrams’ own admission of criminal conduct. This is a lot like a bank robber singling out a witness as unreliable and disrespectful for not remaining silent.

I previously called Abrams part of the Bush Bada Bing club – men who earned their bones by showing their willingness to violate the law. I am no fan of Gingrich, but this pile on is becoming truly Felliniesque.

Next I am waiting for James Watt to come out with his anti-Gingrich column on how Gingrich was not sufficiently supportive of his efforts to influence peddle at the Department of Housing and Urban Development — leaving to his own guilty plea.

It is hard to see how a Republican can purge himself of having spoken ill of the Gipper. The secret purging ceremony has only been witnessed by the Republican National Committee members. It involves the Souix ritual of having one’s pectoral muscles pierced and eagle’s talons are drawn through the wounds and tied to leather thongs from which the Republican hangs until purified. That may take a bit longer for Gingrich . . . at least until after the Florida primary.

Update: Other Republicans are now challenging Abrams on his account.

Source: National Review

The good news is that 90 percent of Germans recognized the name but the shocker came with the polling of the 21 percent of 18-29 year olds.

Moreover, nearly a third of the 1,002 people questioned did not know that Auschwitz was in today’s Poland.

The anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops is on January 27, 1945.

Source: Hurriyet

Greenwald said that she held the teen at gunpoint after he rang her bell three times. However, the teen’s family say that Nolan LeBlanc, 17, was walking home after watching the Giants game.

Greenwald is quoted as saying “It was just kid [expletive] . . . . He thought it was a Barbie gun. I wanted to show him that it was loaded.”

She certainly did that and she is now charged with second-degree menacing, reckless endangerment and unlawful use of a weapon. She added “He was scared s–tless. That kid laughed because it’s a pink gun. He didn’t laugh after I fired it.”

Police also allege that Greenwald changed her story to police after further questioning.

Source: NY Post

Dhillon argues that the joke and image created libel on its face that exposed Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt and ridicule by portraying the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh. That would be ridiculous on its face and presumably will prompt a filing for sanctions as a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit.

In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court voted unanimous 8–0 to reject a libel claim based on an obvious joke. Hustler ran a parody in poor taste that suggested Falwell had an incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. The court not only applied the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard, but held that, even when the joke is meant to harm the image of the target, it can be protected:

“The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. . . Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.”

What is astonishing about this lawsuit is that no reasonable person would view this picture as defamatory or harmful to any individual, let alone to a group — even if it were ever taken seriously.

The Sikh litigants in this case have joined Muslim litigants in showing as little sense of law as they do a sense of humor. In the United States, it is extremely difficult to maintain a “group libel” case even when there is jurisdiction. One of the leading cases occurred in 1952 in a New York lawsuit. In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait, 13 FRD 311 (SDNY 1952), employees of that high-end story sued the author of a book titled “U.S.A. Confidential.” The book claimed that some of the models at the store and all of the saleswomen in the Dallas store were “call girls.” It further stated that most of the salesmen in the men’s department were “faggots.” The issue came down to the size of the group. With 382 saleswomen and models, the court found that the group was too large. However, with the 25 salesmen, the court found that an action could be maintained.

Dhillon uses the lawsuit to complain about Leno’s past statements regarding Sikhs: “Previously, in 2007 he called Sikhs ‘diaper heads.’ In 2010, he remarked, falsely so, in his monolog that President Obama could not visit Sri Darbar Sahib because of requirements of wearing a turban. Clearly, Jay Leno’s racist comments need to be stopped right here.”

As reprehensible as such comments can be, the torts system is not designed to correct sectarian or religious sensibilities.

Dhillon however is not alone in being humor-challenged. Vayalar Ravi, the visiting affairs minister for non-resident Indians, has called on the government to crackdown: “I believe the person who has shown [it] is not that ignorant. The American government should also look at this kind of thing.”

In the interests of legal clarity, below are the summer homes that I have purchased with the copious advertising revenue from this blog:

Source: Daily Mail

Here is the exchange:

John King, CNN: “You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “Let me just say this. That will never happen.”

King: “Why?”

Pelosi: “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”

King: “Why are you so sure?”

Pelosi: “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

Once again, it should be Democrats who denounce this type of politics. It should not fall to either Gingrich or Republicans. What is really astonishing is that I would think that the Democrats would be dying to have Gingrich nominated and offering Obama a target-rich environment. Regardless of the political wisdom, it is wrong to constantly claim to have dirt on a politician . . . while promising to reveal it later.

Update: As on the earlier occasion, Pelosi has sent out aides to say that she was merely referring to things in the public record. After the prior incident, I was contacted by Pelosi aides who wanted to make the same point. Yet, here again, Pelosi comes forth and makes the same type sinister suggestion. She is not a stupid person and she knows how such comments will be interpreted — particularly after being criticized on the earlier occasion. This is precisely why Congress is now as unpopular as ebola.

Source: RealClearPolitics

Garth argued that he had a handshake agreement to name a women’s center in honor of his late mother. When given The Cold Shoulder and told that no wing would have his mother’s name, Garth basically said “Do What You Gotta Do” but that he “Ain’t Goin’ Down.”

The oral agreement made for a difficult breach-of-contract lawsuit, but Garth said that I’d Rather Have Nothing than have his money dispersed among different projects. Fortunately, the jury agreed with Brooks and rejected the testimony of the hospital’s president, James Moore, that no such understanding was reached. Instead, the hospital wants to just spend the money on various construction projects. It was a remarkably ill-conceived position for the hospital that poisoned the water for future donors. The man gave you half a million dollars for God’s sake — fulfill his wishes. Instead, the hospital spent a load of money on lawyers and told future donors that they better bring their own counsel when trying to give away money to the hospital.

Of course, the hospital could say that it named a wing after the mother of “Chris Gaines.”

Shortey has yet to come up with an example of the growing cannibal problem in U.S. food supply or a study that supports the need for a prohibition. Indeed, he admits “I don’t know if it is happening in Oklahoma, it may be, it may not be.” Well, that seems pretty solid to me.

In one interview, Shortey says that he found “suggestions online.” There is a great deal of suggestive material online of course, but U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Pat El-Hinnawy responded to questions by saying that the “FDA is not aware of this particular concern.”

Featured today on the Oklahoma GOP site, Shortey is described as someone who “worked as an oil and gas production consultant . . . he and his family have been living on savings since he filed for office in June.” Before cannibalism, his main issue was illegal immigration: “[The voters] want something done about illegal immigration and they want something tough.” This may be related in that companies could be smuggling in illegal immigrants through our food supply.

Of course, the cannibal apologists are all over Shortey. Powerful restaurants like Big Boy and Kenny Rogers Roasters, of course, are staying behind the scenes despite their obvious advertising enticing customers with human food symbology. What are you eating when you order a Jack in the Box, I ask you.

Shortey is one of the few who will stand firm and say “you want a piece of me? Come and try.” Thank you Senator Shortey and God’s speed.

Source: Think Progress

Frankly, listening to the cellphone left me equally shocked by the callous attitude of the people speaking as by the film itself.

The man clearly was a danger to the officer with a 3-foot pipe. However, he was only responsible for property damage at that point and the police could have backed away and tried to continue to use the tasers as well as the dog. The man’s resistance to the taser is a classic indication of being on drugs, particularly Phencyclidine (PCP) or “angel dust.” Given the man’s turning toward the officer, it is likely to be viewed as a justified use of force under police guidelines since he had a weapon. I am not convinced however that this shooting was necessary. It looks from this video that police could have avoided the shooting that further endangered people in the area. The officers also fired an excessive number of bullets, including one that almost hit a woman standing underneath a nearby sign. She was injured by the failing glass and debris.

A typical police manual stipulates that “[a]n officer may use deadly force in the circumstances permitted by this policy when all reasonable alternatives appear impracticable and the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary.” It would seem that there were reasonable alternatives here, including backing away and isolating the man with the dog or non-lethal force. Nevertheless, it would fit the current interpretation of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

When automatic and semi-automatic Glock 9mm weapons were introduced in the police force, many experts expressed concern over the ease of firing the weapon and its large number of rounds in its standard clip (often 30). The concern was that it would increase the number of rounds fired in such incidents and thereby increase the likelihood of fatalities, including to bystanders.

Once again, while police have threatened or arrested citizens videotaping them in public, this video is another example of its value to the public.

Source; Youtube and ABC

If the cannon was in fact designed to fire a .50-caliber round, there is the question of whether it should have been treated as a firearm and whether it was defectively designed. However, Utah laws are silent on replica firearms and antique firearms.

Product manufacturers are liable for “foreseeable misuse.” The question is whether such a device should have had some safety feature. Obviously, the parents would hold the clearest responsibility in protecting children from this risk — as they would a loaded gun in the house. Notably I was able to find various cannons that fire a .50 caliber round. The products do not come with any warnings. Indeed, one such product says that the cannon can help you “[s]tart a new family tradition, celebrate a holiday or just have fun with friends by firing off this historic-looking replica cannon. This .50 caliber has the look and feel of a working piece of artillery.” However, that product comes with the following warnings:

I could not find any law in Utah requiring safety locks on firearms. Utah does have a few limitations on minors using firearms but it does not appear that this replica would fit the definition of a firearm.

So, if Utah does not require any permit for such a product, can it be viewed as defective absent safety features? If a gun is not required to have such safety features, why would the toy cannon? What do you think?

Source: Deseret

Notably, the town council disbanded the Norway police department last year. In January, Preacher told the city that he should be paid $32,000 a year as constable but that he would not demand the payment.

Preacher says that he was pursuing a car that he thought was involved in a burglary when pulled over.

He also says that his son Jamie is working for $400 a month to assist with the water and sewer department for the town, which is in obvious financial distress.

Previously, Preacher was accused of breaking into the town hall but insisted that he had a smaller man go through a window when he found he could not get in — but declined to identify the man. He took the action after winning the office but having a dispute with the outgoing mayor — who called the police on the break in and demanded a charge of burglary. Cindy Williams insisted that she had more time to serve a mayor.

It appears that Norway, South Carolina is a previously unknown treasure trove of controversies. We are considering opening a satellite office in Norway for the blog. I am looking at who among our guest bloggers will be dispatched to the location.

The alleged violations were found by a man taking aerial photographs of the river.

The Texas Environmental Crimes Task Force is focusing on a a secondary pipe not connected with the waste water system where the blood appears to have been dumped into Cedar Creek and then into the Trinity River.

The plant has been in repeated legal problems including citations in 2008 and 2009 for inhumane treatment or slaughter of animals.

What is interesting is that the Trinity empties into the city’s new whitewater kayaking area. So Texans have been recreating in water possible saturated with pig blood and toxic chemicals from the plant. Not only would most people find swimming in pig blood rather offensive, but some people of the Jewish and Muslim faith would find such exposure to be emotionally distressing. They could argue that the exposure constitute battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress. It would make for a fascinating case, particularly on the question of damages. The company could argue that the exposure does not mean that the blood was actually digested — reducing the possible distress damages.

Restaurants have been sued for unknowingly serving prohibited foods like beef to Hindus. Another such lawsuit involved serving pork to a Muslim. Actually swimming in pig blood would seem to raise some obvious problems for civil lawsuits in addition to the environmental criminal allegations faced by the company.

Source: CBS

Germany took the same approach to denying the Holocaust as the display of Nazi symbols. I have always disagreed with that approach. It has not stopped the existence or extremism of Nazi groups. Instead, it gives them a claim to be victims of government coercion. The best way to be rid of extremist and racist ideas is with more not less speech.

While the sponsors insist it is meant only “to honor the memory of genocide victims and struggle against hate speech,” it does so dishonoring a basic civil liberty. Other sponsors are a bit more honest. Critics have charged the that drafter Valerie Boyer, the senator from Sarkozy’s UMP party, is just playing for votes among the 500,000 Armenians who live in France. Boyer responded simply “That’s democracy.” Perhaps but it is not liberty. Indeed, a pure democratic model was rejected by James Madison in writings like Federalist No. 10 in this country due to the need to temper passions through a representative democracy. Madison noted “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.”

Various respected academics have supported the claim of genocide by Turkey despite the denials of that country. However, this debate is not won by forcing those who disagree into forced silence. It is anti-intellectual. It is anti-free speech. It is wrong.

We previously heard of Boyer in her campaign against airbrushing of photos as a way to safeguarding history. Yet, it appears that shutting down speech entirely about history is fine.

Source: CBS

We have faced our own challenges as Disney tried to convert our history into amusement parks over the objections of academics and historians. We have also faced repeated efforts by companies like WalMart and other companies to destroy sacred battlefield areas. However, this plan by Jégo would make Robespierre blush.

Jégo has suggested reenacting the Battle of Waterloo and creating a water show featuring the 1805 Battle of Trafalgar. “Other curious potential attractions include a ski run through a battlefield “surrounded by the frozen bodies of soldiers and horses” and a recreation of Louis XVI being guillotined during the revolution.” Jégo insists that “It’s going to be fun for the family.”

Since Jégo is hellbent to commercialize French history, he might want to add Gen. Blücher’s Wild Ride featuring a ride that decapitates infantry soldiers or It’s A Small World featuring burned out fields and buildings stretching from Toulon to Moscow.
Before the French allow this P.T. Barnum to trivialize their history, they should consider the huge cost to their cultural legacy.

Of course, Jégo can quote Napoleon for support in saying “History is a set of lies agreed upon” and “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon,” few people would agree on this particular lie in the making. France has faced many threats to its existence and culture. Sometimes, however, the greatest threats come from within.

Source: Telegraph

Slavin was nailed by a police informer and could have faced 30 years in prison. Slavin deserves the jail time, but the absurd potential sentence in this case is an example of how prosecutors can force pleas from people who are unwilling to risk an effective life sentence. Slavin knows that better than most people. He has handled cases as a prosecutor in Sarasosta and then later represented people charged with trafficking oxycodone, possessing marijuana and doctor-shopping.

Slavin was fired in 2002 after he was accused of obstructing a DUI investigation. He was a passenger in the car and told a friend how to answer questions from the officer and advised him to refuse a breathalyzer test. He was then hired by the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office.

According to news reports, police received a tip that Slavin was accepting drugs as payment. What I find intriguing is that, if Slavin had done this before, I assume that he or his wife were trafficking in drugs rather than just consuming all these pills themselves. However, no such charges were brought against him or his wife. If he was a drug user, one would expect that to have been mentioned as part of sentencing, including a drug rehabilitation program.

Slavin continued to represent defendants in oxycodone drug cases while he awaited his own trial. Ironically, he could have represented another attorney. Byron T. Christopher of St. Petersburg, was charged last year with trying to bring oxycodone pills into the Pinellas County Jail.

Slavin graduated from the University of Maryland College Park and earned his law degree from the University of Miami School of Law.

The next step for Slavin will likely be a bar proceeding if he does not surrender his license voluntarily.

Source: Tampa Bay as first read on ABA Journal

In my prior column, I discussed the limits of the Katz test created in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Much of the debate between the justices focuses on this test and its progeny.

The Court divided between a majority opinion penned by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, concurrences by Associate Justice Sotomayor and Associate Justice Alito.

Scalia emphasizes that privacy protections are broader than the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test:

The Government contends that several of our post-Katz cases foreclose the conclusion that what occurred here constituted a search. . . . But as we have discussed, the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test. The holding in Knotts addressed only the former, since the latter was not at issue. .

It is that reliance on the common-law trespass cases that causes one division on the Court. The application of what the concurrence called “18th-century tort law” is contested by Scalia as “a distortion. What we apply is an 18th-century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted. The concurrence does not share that belief. It would apply exclusively Katz’s reasonable-expectation-
of-privacy test, even when that eliminates rights that previously existed.”

Notably, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined Alito not Sotomayor. They were right to do so. Alito’s opinion suggests that Scalia’s logic comes uncomfortably close to the old trespass doctrine as the basis for the Fourth Amendment — a concern that I agree with and previously wrote about in the column. Indeed, Alito expressed the same concern over how Katz could lay the seeds for privacy’s destruction:

Dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes. New technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, and many people may find the tradeoff worthwhile. And even if the public does not welcome the diminution of privacy that new technology entails, they may eventually reconcile themselves to this development as inevitable.

Alito questioned Scalia’s reliance on the original intent when applied to such a modern context for surveillance. However, Scalia responded:

JUSTICE ALITO’s concurrence (hereinafter concurrence) doubts the wisdom of our approach because “it is almost impossible to think of late-18th-century situations that are analogous to what took place in this case.” Post, at 3 (opinion concurring in judgment). But in fact it posits a situation that is not far afield—a constable’s concealing himself in the target’s coach in order to track its movements. Ibid. There is no doubt that the information gained by that trespassory activity would be the product of an unlawful search—whether that information consisted of the conversations occurring in the coach, or of the destinations to which the coach traveled.
In any case, it is quite irrelevant whether there was an 18th-century analog. Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our task, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a “search” within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionahas undoubtedly occurred.

Alito has the better argument here though he does not truly plug the holes in Katz much as simply recognizing those holes. Unfortunately, Sotomayor gives Scalia the fifth vote to make his analysis the majority opinion. Previously I raised objections to Sotomayor’s nomination due to her views on privacy and free speech. What is strange is that her concurrence has language that recognizes the problems identified by Alito but still concurs with Scalia.

Here is the opinion: 10-1259

What is fascinating is the change in the language of intolerance. I have been critical of the Obama Administration’s work with Middle Eastern countries on establishing the basis for prosecution anti-religious speech. Recently the Administration got these extremist countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. These cases show the mentality of countries pushing for a “balance” between free speech and religion. It also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Here Latif insisted that prosecution is necessary because such readings may “provoke people,” warning “it is responsibility of police, administration and organisers to ensure that no such things happen in the event but it is unfortunate that the banned book was read.”

That is how imminent “imminent lawless action” plays out in nations enforcing blasphemy values.

Source: Outlook India as first seen on Reddit.

The Top 500 Lawyers again includes many familiar names from Carter Phillips to David Bois to the current members of the United States Supreme Court. This year also includes two other academics: Harvard’s Elizabeth Warren and California Irvine’s Edwin Chemerinsky. Warren however is listed as “government/academic” due to her run for the Senate.

Thanks again to LawDragon and congratulations to everyone who made the list this year.

Adler listed three options for Israel to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons in his weekly newspaper last Friday. The first is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah. The second is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then there is the third option:

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

A bit hard to peddle back from that. The readers of the Atlanta Jewish Times will hopefully use this disgraceful column as a vehicle to reexamine the rhetoric and extremism displayed by Adler and others in today’s political discourse. An apology for such a hateful and extremist column falls a bit short of convincing. It comes off as an “I should not have put it in print” apology.

Source: Gawker

“Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director for the New York-based group has warned that “Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy (in Iraq), the reality is that it left behind a budding police state.” This includes the torture or abuse of dissidents, journalists, and activists. It also included secret detention centers where people are tortured or simply disappear without access to the courts. Of course, we were accused of the same practices so they may have learned too well from the mentors in the creation of democratic free society. It appears that they have mistaken American exceptionalism to Iraqi exceptionalism.

Source: Washington Post

For those of us critical of the faith-based politics of both parties and the erosion of the separation of church and state, Dozier is a perfect nightmare.

Dozier previously announced (below) that “The Tea party is a Godly ordained party.” He added “[i]f not for the Republican party, and the Tea Party, the Negro would be a slave. The best thing to happen to the Negro, is the Tea Party”-

I can live with the sermon on God’s view of the tax code and the Tea Party. However, I assured that that is a Cincinnati Reds hat and not a Bears hat. This season has been bad enough. We don’t need to add Dozier.

Dozier has been a guest of George Bush at the White House and says that he was previously under contract with NPR.

When he is not rallying people to join “God’s party,” he is attacking homosexuals whom he declared as responsible for “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”

While most people would not want to be in the same room with such a person, Santorum was not satisfied with just an endorsement and instead made him his honorary Florida campaign chairman. He is now campaigning by Santorum by reminding Christians that Romney is a Mormon and is thus unacceptable for faith-based voters. Now, I cannot speak for God, but such an association would challenge the intestinal fortitude of many voters.

Source: Mother Jones

Fortunately, Kristin Chenoweth restored the dignity of the nation by singing at the Giants-49ers game. It was hard to tell it was the same song. I am a big fan of Chenoweth from her legendary performances in Wicked. For Broadway musical fans, she is a standout talent and she thrilled the crowd with an awesome performance. I was very sad for the 49ers on the loss (which looked a lot like the loss by the Bears to the Broncos with an disastrous fumble in overtime). It is incredible that people have made death threats against Kyle Williams for his fumble . Bears fans know how disappointing such moments can be but I saw the play and only felt bad for Williams. He was going all out to try to gain yards for his team. However, Chenoweth left millions with a wonderful musical memory that cleared the palate for those of us coming over from the Patriots game.

I have never watched American Idol (a commitment I hope to carry with me to the grave), but I fail to see how Tyler can cast judgment on others when offering such a dismal performance. What I cannot understand is how the organizers would pick Tyler over a Vaudeville one-man-band or twenty trained barking dogs.

You can compare the two below:

[Update: Concordia denies that it made the discount offer]

In addition to the insulting offer, the cruise line has been having employees call victims to ask if they are suffering from nightmares or sleepless nights. Since experts say that such questioning can actually trigger sleepless nights, the motivations could be viewed as more legal than therapeutic. The effort would create a record of the most likely form of damages for passengers beyond any injuries in the crash — emotional distress.

The calls have followed a worsening legal position for the company as accounts stream in of the bizarre conduct of the Concordia’s captain, Francisco Schettino, who is accused of “showing off” by going too close to an island and then abandoning ship hours before the last passenger was rescued.

The company could claim that it is only trying to determine who needs assistance with experts and therapists, but Jennifer Wild, of Oxford University and King’s College London, says in the article below that repeatedly asking victims if they were having nightmares is considered the wrong approach by mental health professionals. What could be interesting is whether the calls could then be raised in court as part of the mental health trauma — and suggest a more cynical purpose of the calls and even include the offer of a discounted cruise in the future.

Source: Telegraph

I just hope that they do not move on to a horse as their next object in Central Park.

We have all certainly heard of the important Freedom of Speech cases that the Roberts led Supreme Court has decided.  Citizens United is probably the most prominent one that comes to my mind.  Of course, the Citizens United case promoted the ability of corporate entities to enjoy full Free Speech rights. Other important Free Speech cases that were decided by the Roberts Court include the military funeral case of Snyder v. Phelps, et al,(131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) ) and the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants case (131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011) ) in California which overturned a California law which required parental consent for minors to rent or buy violent video games.  Because of these decisions and others, some scholars and constitutional law experts make the claim that the Roberts Court is the most pro-free speech Supreme Court in history!

I think that the attempt by some to put the Roberts Court on a pedestal when it comes to free speech cases is a bit premature and possibly misleading.  As Dean Erwin Chemerinsky suggests, the Roberts court has been less than friendly to employees and students making free speech claims. “Based on these cases, it is tempting to generalize that the Roberts Court is strongly protective of speech. In fact, I recently heard Baylor University President Ken Starr proclaim that this is the most free speech Court in American history. As is often the case with generalizations from a small sample, this one is inaccurate and hides the reality: the Roberts Court frequently rules against free speech claims.Part I of this Lecture looks at the Roberts Court’s dismal record of protecting free speech in cases involving challenges to the institutional authority of the government when it is regulating the speech of its employees, its students, and its prisoners, and when it is claiming national security justifications.”  Arizona Law Review

Let’s take a closer look at just one of the areas where the Roberts Court has not been the bastion of Free Speech.  As Dean Chemerinsky suggests the Roberts Supreme Court seems to forget about whose speech it is protecting when it comes to what I consider some of the groups who need the protection the most.  One case that Dean Chemerinsky reviewed really jumped off the page when I read it.  The case in question was Garcetti v. Ceballos, (547 U.S. 410 (2006) ).

The Garcetti case involved a District Attorney who believed that one of his witnesses may have lied in court and he wrote a memo to the Defense attorneys under the belief that he had a Constitutional duty to inform them of these facts and concerns.  Needless to say, his employer, The County of Los Angeles was not happy that justice may have triumphed and denied him an expected promotion and transferred him to a less than desirable position.  The Roberts Court in a 5-4 decision decided that government employees have no freedom of speech rights when it comes to their duties on the job.

“The issue before the Court was whether Ceballos’s speech was protected  by the First Amendment.  Although the Court has long held that there is constitutional protection for the speech of government employees, it ruled against Ceballos. The Court drew a distinction between speech “as a citizen” and speech “as a public employee”; only the former is protected by the First Amendment.  Justice Kennedy stated: “[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”  The Court expressed great concern about the disruptive effects of allowing employees to bring First Amendment claims based on their on-the-job speech.  Justice Kennedy wrote that allowing such claims “would commit state and federal courts to a new, permanent, and intrusive role, mandating judicial oversight of communications between and among government employees and their superiors in the course of official business. This displacement of managerial discretion by judicial supervision finds no support in our precedents.”  The Court observed that civil service protections provide safeguards for employees against retaliation for their speech.”  Chemerinsky

The Roberts Court in the Garcetti case severely limited speech by government employees even though by doing so it would be limiting speech which they have stated in the Citizens United case would do disservice to Free Speech rights. “The case’s premise that the First Amendment protects only speech “as citizens” has no foundation in other case law. For example, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court protected the speech of corporations even though they, of course, are not citizens.29 The explicit premise of Citizens United is that more speech is better whatever the source;30 the effect of Garcetti v. Ceballos is that there will be significantly less speech. Moreover, government employees do not lose their citizenship when they walk into the government office building.” Dean Chemerinsky

Due to space and time constraints, I cannot review all the cases that suggest that the Roberts Court was not a champion of Free Speech.  Dean Chemerinsky also discusses cases related to students and prisoners and how the Roberts Court has not championed Free Speech for those groups.  I highly recommend that you read the Arizona Law Review article that is linked here.  The author, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues that the opposite might be true.  He asserts that when government interests and corporate interests are involved, Free Speech by employees and citizens is not so well protected by Roberts and his associates on the Court.  If more speech is what the Court states is the goal of the Freedom of Speech, why should it matter who is doing the speaking?

If whistle blowers do the right thing and speak up and disclose an injustice being done by or allowed by the government or corporations, why should their Free Speech rights be left outside the building?  Doesn’t this type of decision actually defeat the real purpose of the Freedom of Speech as outlined by the Roberts Court in the Citizen United (130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)) case? How useful and effective can Freedom of Speech be if it is limited to cases that are obvious and preferred by the government and corporate interests?  Wouldn’t it be in society’s best interest that the truth is actually disclosed in a criminal case?  Let’s hear what you think?

LINKS:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Snyder v. Phelps, et al

Brown, Governor of California, et al, v. Entertainment Merchants Association, et al

Garcetti et al,  v.  Ceballos

For the first time I am writing a guest blog with a blatant message supporting a cause that you might say is near and dear to my heart.  I hope Professor Turley excuses this personal usage of my guest blogging
privileges, as hopefully will my fellow guest bloggers. Here is my pitch. Some regulars here at the Turley blog know that I am a heart transplant recipient. I received my new heart in October 17, 2010, two days after the birth of my third grandchild. I am, needless to say, an extremely lucky man. My nuclear family all had heart issues. My parents both died at the age of 54 from heart attacks (Myocardial Infarctions {MI’s} as they’re known in the trade). It was my mother’s fourth or fifth and came as a result of her third stroke. When my father died, the requisite autopsy found that this was actually his second MI. My older brother has also had a severe stroke and an MI, but thankfully he is doing quite well today at age 75.

The main reason I am alive today, beyond the fact of my heart transplant, is because my wife during the worst stages of my illness, literally saved my life four times. Her love, care-giving, watchfulness and fierceness in ensuring my medical care, pulled me through very difficult times. We married thirty years ago when I was thirty-seven and six months later I suffered a massive MI, literally destroying one of my three main arteries. Unlike me, she had never experienced the severe illness of someone close, so this transition was obviously shattering but she saw me through. I guess you could say that there is a certain resiliency about me because I was to have two more MI’s at five year periods and yet was able to recover from them and work productively. However, seven years ago at age sixty, in the prime of my profession; I developed Congestive Heart Failure (Cardio Myopathy) and was forced to retire.

What I had was a progressively degenerating condition, where my heart was gradually becoming too weak to be able to pump my blood. Yet by losing weight and living healthy I was able to stave off the inevitable until the winter of 2009. My Cardiologist let me have it straight and told me I’d better get on a heart transplant list, or I wouldn’t have much time left. I was first seen at The University of Miami/Jackson Hospital in March of 2010. Two months later I was hospitalized with Ventricular Tachycardia (VTac) after flat-lining in my living room. I recovered after three weeks hospitalization and on June 1^st, 2010 I was officially put on the UNOS Heart Transplant List.

UNOS is the organization that deals with all transplants country wide and ensures that the organs are distributed fairly to those in need. However, by August I was dying. I had no strength and I kept losing weight no matter what I did to keep it on. I was scheduled to go into the hospital to get what is known as an LVAD (Left Ventricular Assist Device). Since the left ventricle of my heart was virtually dead, this device replaced its function and kept me alive. Coincidentally, Dick Cheney received the exact same device, the HeartMate II LVAD about two weeks prior to this time. Given my distaste for him, it was yet comforting to know that he had gotten it, because obviously he receives the best medical care.

With the device implant scheduled for early August I was told to sign into the hospital a few days before the scheduled date and surprisingly was told the next day that a heart was available. I was prepped for surgery and for the next fourteen hours my wife and I waited expectantly for the operation, hope, fear, tension and anxiety making us emotionally exhausted. The operation had been scheduled for 8:00 AM, but that time came and went with no word. Finally, at 11:00 AM, we were told that the operation was not to be for technical, legal reasons dealing with the donor. The effect upon us was devastating, but I have to honestly say that feeling the worst of it fell to my wife, my love and my caregiver. You can’t understand unless you’ve experienced it, that being on the verge of death from non-traumatic causes is modulated by a state called “reverie” where your mind slows down. This could be due to lack of oxygen, or some other physical means that is hardwired into us. Given this, the burden of this sudden disappearance of hope fell on my wife and I can’t even begin to imagine what she went through, yet while at the same time being able to look after and minister to me.

The LVAD was implanted a few days later and for the rest of the month I was in the hospital rehabbing and learning to live with this device. With a LVAD there is a power cord in your abdomen that must either be connected to an external powering device, or to a set of heavy batteries. You literally can’t live without external power. Give my extremely physical weak state prior to the operation, rehab was not an easy process. Learning to switch to batteries and back within a two minute window is hard and initially fills one with dread. Nevertheless, my wife and I mastered the process, which included her learning to change my dressings over the abdomen tube regularly to prevent infection. I made it home by September and must admit that as the days passed I began to despair about ever receiving a transplant.

I was approaching age 66 rapidly, utilizing the LVAD was difficult (imagine the process of going to the bathroom in the middle of the night attached to a 10 foot cord in your belly) and  despite my wife’s best efforts, I was feeling uncharacteristically depressed.  Miraculously in mid October we were awakened by a call from The University of Miami/Jackson Transplant Center and told there was a heart available for me. We needed to be in Miami in two hours and the drive itself is one hour at full speed. Since I hadn’t been allowed to drive since my condition had deteriorated in May, my wife had driven there and back too may times to count. We made it and the following day I received my heart transplant, recovery from which is no walk in the park. In fact after I came out of the operation I was in a psychotic state induced by one of the medications used during transplant, combined with morphine for the pain. I couldn’t speak because I was Enturbated and my wife and daughter had to deal with my psychotic belief that the hospital staff was trying to murder me, after they had just saved my life. When I refused pain medication after two days, the psychosis abated and I could begin to let some of the joy of my new life begin to take effect.

I’ve far simplified the experiences I’ve gone through; to really detail it might well take a book. Today, I am healthier than I’ve been in perhaps 20 years. My wife and I have recovered somewhat from the PTSD like state that people normally get going through an experience like this and our lives get progressively more fulfilling than they’ve been for years. My gratitude to my magnificent Heart Surgeon Dr. Si Pham, Chief of the UM/Jackson Heart Transplant Center is boundless. He is perhaps the most unpretentious, yet powerfully charismatic human being that I have ever met. He is quintessentially all that we hope for in a Physician. His 5:00 AM calls to the intensive care nurses for his patients vitals, giving followup instructions based on the results, even when on vacation, indicates his dedication to his patients and his work. I would say categorically that he is perhaps the most impressive human being I have ever met. I feel the gratitude also to the entire staff of the University of Miami/Jackson Transplant Team, that are as good as in any like facility in the nation statistically, but don’t get the equal credit that other more prestigious institutions receive.

The overwhelming bulk of my gratitude must go to the unknown donor and his family, whose strong heart now beats within me. I know nothing of this donor save that he was a 26 year old man, of approximately my height and build. I am working through an agency that will anonymously contact his family to see if they are willing to receive my personal letter of gratitude, now that some time has passed for them to begin to have processed their own heavy grief. That he and they were willing to allow this life saving donation, at a time for them which must have been tragic, is a testament to their humanity. It is to recognize that humanity, coupled with my own blessings, that I am impelled to find some way to pay back for the gift I’ve received. This post is but a beginning. Below there are links that first give a excellent, short presentation of the case for you to designate yourself as a organ donor and following it are links that will allow you to do so.

As someone who has both commented frequently here through the years and is a guest blogger, many of you know who I am. If in any way I have connected with you on any level, even if it was in disagreement, please understand that I would have been dead a year and a half ago without the blessing of this donation. I implore you the to consider putting yourself on the list as a potential organ donor and perhaps save someone’s life. It could well be the ultimate gift of your life.

An excellent video briefly explaining the need for donors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifyRsh4qKF4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 Other links that can help you get involved in this.
 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OrganTransplanInitiative/?ref=ts
 https://www.facebook.com/bobsnewheart?ref=ts
 http://bobsnewheart.wordpress.com/
 Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

The vote in South Carolina has propelled the lazy paced Republican race for its presidential nomination into high-gear. Gingrich’s convincing win against Romney has made what appeared just a few days ago as a Romney coronation into a two-horse race. Written off for dead last summer when his staff unceremoniously quit and the money dried up, Gingrich supporters are justifiably giddy by winning this ultra-conservative state, which has an undeniable track record of picking the eventual Republican candidate for the nation’s biggest political job. What makes this an even more impressive win is Gingrich’s lack of boots on the ground in these primary races and an almost indifferent attitude toward campaign infra-structure. Gingrich did say he was running a new kind of campaign, but what candidate hasn’t?

What accounts for this win against all odds?  Many surmise it’s Gingrich’s appeal to the firebrand tea party-types disenchanted with  the perceived socially moderate politics of Mitt Romney.  They also assume it’s Newt’s snarling antagonism against the left  proven by his stance against liberal intellectuals and particularly those in the media. CNN’s John King’s provided Gingrich a crucial chance in the most recent Republican debate to flex his intellectual populism with a searing attack on the media when questioned about charges of “open marriage” made by his ex-wife. But is Gingrich really a combatant in the war against thinking or is he simply unflichingly opposed to what he considers the wrong kind of thinking and committed to perservering against any obstacle to ovecome it?

The record is mixed. Gingrich himself says that ideas are the essence of his campaign.“One of the Republican weaknesses is that we rely too much on consultants and too much on talking points, and we don’t rely enough on actually knowing things,” he said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. “If you’re going to lead the country and change history, you better know a heck of a lot before you start, because there’s not much time for learning on the job.” He finds an endorsement for his intellectualism in no less a person than liberal icon (and another apparent serial philanderer), Bill Clinton. “The one thing that makes it very hard to count him out is he’s always thinking. He’s always got a bunch of new ideas and some of them are pretty good.”

Columnist Kathleen Parker, herself a victim of Palin-inspired anti-intellectualism, agrees with Clinton’s assessment.

[T]here are signs that the GOP is recognizing its [anti-intellectual] weaknesses and is ready to play smarter. To wit: The sudden surge of Gingrich, who, whatever his flaws and despite the weight of his considerable baggage, is no intellectual slouch. Whether he can pull off a victory in Iowa remains to be seen, but a populist professor — a bombastic smarty-pants Republicans can call their own — may be just the ticket.

But as we all know, in politics talk is cheap and, to bastardize another popular cliché, past performance really is an indicator of future success. Steve Benen, writing in the Washington Monthly, notes that Gingrich has led a consistent and aggressive attack on scholars and intellectuals.

We’ve seen this with Gingrich’s attack on the federal agency in charge of medical effectiveness research and the elimination of Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment in the 1990s, and last week, we saw it again when Gingrich announced his intention to eliminate the Congressional Budget Office. The Republican presidential hopeful described the non-partisan budget office as a “reactionary socialist institution” — and he wasn’t kidding.

Many believe the antipathy stems from Gingrich’s desire to remove objective information from the public debate on issues, and to substitute Republican numbers justifying its positions. There is some historical evidence for that position. When Gingrich took over the Speaker’s job in 1995, he slashed the budgets and staff of committees that employed many professionals and policy wonks that comprised much of the institutional memory of the House. There’s nothing new about taking the prerogatives of the victor and firing opposing party staffers. What makes Gingrich’s spoils system approach unique is his failure to replace the Democrats with Republicans. The net effect was to deprive members of professional and objective information in the judgment of legislative issues.

In my judgment, Gingrich is no enemy of ideas. In fact he seems to relish his adherence to them. He recently told the New York Times, “The Republican establishment is anti-intellectual and anti-change. They’re for winning as long as it’s meaningless. But meaningful victory would mean really big risks. I’m running because I want to change the old order.” To that extent the new Newt is merely a poished version of the old bomb throwing Newt. He is a “true believer” as Eric Hoffer might say, in the far right-wing ideology that was mouthed by Bush & Co. to his base but rarely put into practice.

Hoffer postumiously offers an opinion on the Gingrich attitude:

It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.  (True Believer, 1951, p. 78)

What makes Gingrich attractive to the far right is not his hostility to ideas, but his utter adherence to them and the perception that he would follow them no matter the cost or the countervailing evidence. The far right seems to recognize only one capital offense — flip-flopping. Or ,as I might say, changing your mind in the face of new information. In this regard, Newt is pristine. He appears to be a true believer and willing to simply ignore or stifle information contrary to his confident ideology.

It is sometimes said that “it takes a lot of man not to know when to quit.” That is what accounts for Newt’s sudden rise, and what makes Gingrich so thoroughly dangerous.

Source: Washington Monthly

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Cheryl Jones was attending services at the Disciple Fellowship Christian Church of East St. Louis, Illinois, when a female parishioner received the Holy Spirit. When she fell, she knocked over others in a domino effect. Jones was knocked to the floor and several people fell on top of her. Jones alleges she suffered injuries to her head, neck, back, and buttocks.

Jones’ lawsuit notes a failure to ensure that ushers were standing by to catch any parishioners when the Holy Spirit enters and they lose consciousness. Jones is seeking at least $50,000 in damages.

Even with the absence of “catchers,” a jury may find it unforeseeable that Jones would be injured by the domino effect of falling parishioners.

These “swoon and fall” lawsuits are not uncommon. In a Michigan case, Judith Dadd received a combined judgement of $317,255.68 when she fell and struck her head on the floor. On appeal, only the $40,000 claim for negligence was affirmed.

In Beaverton, Oregon, a “catcher” was injured when a parishioner fell on Shin Lim Kim causing a lumbar spine compression fracture at L-2. Her lawsuit asserts that the church should have provided multiple “catchers” and mats to cover the floor. The suit also names the falling parishioner as a defendant for “failing to control her body” when she was “slain in the spirit.” Kim was seeking $125,000. However, an Oregon jury found the church was not liable for injuries to a “catcher.”

From a scientific point of view, and by that I mean a reality point of view, since nothing actually enters the parishioner’s body, this is entirely a self-inflicted injury. Whether or not this can be used as a viable legal defense, the defendant (church) is likely to perceive such a defense as self-defeating.

H/T: Legal Blog Watch, On Point News.

In memoriam: we present Johnny Otis in glorious STEREO!

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Last December, the NAACP released a report titled Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America. The report reveals “direct connections between the trend of increasing, unprecedented African American and Latino voter turnout and an onslaught of restrictive measures across the country designed to stem electoral strength among communities of color.”

Benjamin Jealous, NAACP President and CEO, said, “It’s been more than a century since we’ve seen such a tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote. Historically, when voting rights are attacked, it’s done to facilitate attacks on other rights. It is no mistake that the groups who are behind this are simultaneously attacking very basic women’s rights, environmental protections, labor rights, and educational access for working people and minorities.” He added, “Voting rights attacks are the flip side of buying a democracy. First you buy all the leaders you can, and then you suppress as many votes as possible of the people who might object.”

I should add that African American and Latino voters aren’t the only people who are being targeted by the “block the vote” effort. Young people and the elderly in some states may also face hurdles if they hope to exercise their right to vote in the November elections.

From the NAACP report:

 “The heart of the modern block the vote campaign is a wave of restrictive government-issued photo identification requirements. In a coordinated effort, legislators in thirty-four states introduced bills imposing such requirements. Many of these bills were modeled on legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—a conservative advocacy group whose founder explained: ‘Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.’”

In a Nation article titled The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy, John Nichols addresses the issue of ALEC’s involvement in the “block the vote” effort:

For the Koch brothers and their kind, less democracy is better. They fund campaigns with millions of dollars in checks that have helped elect the likes of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich. And ALEC has made it clear, through its ambitious “Public Safety and Elections Task Force,” that while it wants to dismantle any barriers to corporate cash and billionaire bucks’ influencing elections, it wants very much to erect barriers to the primary tool that Americans who are not CEOs have to influence the politics and the government of the nation: voting.

That crude calculus, usually cloaked in bureaucracy and back-room dealmaking, came into full view in 2011.

Across the country, and to a greater extent than at any time since the last days of Southern resistance to desegregation, voting rights were being systematically diminished rather than expanded.

ALEC has been organizing and promoting the assault, encouraging its legislative minions to enact rigid Voter ID laws and related attacks on voting rights in more than three dozen states.

With their requirements that the millions of Americans who lack driver’s licenses and other forms of official paperwork go out and purchase identification cards in order to cast ballots, the Voter ID push put in place new variations on an old evil: the poll tax.

Some states are becoming extremely selective about the types of voter ID’s that they will accept at the polls. Take Texas, for example: In the Lone Star State, you’ll be allowed to vote if you present a military ID or a concealed-gun license—but not if you present your college ID.

Democrats have argued that the enactment of these new restrictive voter laws was politically motivated.  They have claimed that groups that tend to vote Democratic—the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor—include many people who lack photo ID’s.

Last October, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University released a report about the new voting laws and how they could affect the 2012 elections. Here is an excerpt from the report’s summary:

State governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have. Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting.

These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

• These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
• The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
• Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

Is this what our legislators and others who have been elected to represent us should be working on—writing and enacting laws that will make it more difficult for some citizens to vote?

From the ACLU’s Oppose Voter Registration Fact Sheet:

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE

• Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote.
• The right to vote is protected by more constitutional amendments – the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th – than any other right we enjoy as Americans.
• There are additional federal and state statutes which guarantee and protect voting rights, as well as declarations by the Supreme Court that the right to vote is fundamental because it is protective of all our other rights.

We have heard a lot about voter fraud in the past couple of years. So…one has to ask: “How big a problem is voter fraud in this country?” An editorial that appeared in the New York Times last fall says that there is actually little voter fraud in America—and that “none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases.” The Times editorial also suggested that Republicans are passing these restrictive voter laws in order “to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes”

Would you describe these attempts by politicians to disenfranchise voters in this country as un-American? Do you think it’s an attack on democracy?

SOURCES

Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America (NAACP)

A Report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. & the NAACP (PDF)

Block the Vote: How the Koch-Backed American Legislative Exchange Council Aims to Keep You from Voting (AFL-CIO)

NAACP Denounces Role of ALEC in “Jim Crow, Esquire” Voting Laws (PRWatch)

Voting Law Changes in 2012 (Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law)

The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy (The Nation)

ALEC Exposed: Rigging Elections (The Nation)

The GOP War on Democracy: How Conservatives Shamelessly Disenfranchise People Who Vote Democrat: Across the country, state legislatures and governors are pushing laws that seek to restrict access to the voting booth (Alternet)

New Hampshire GOP Speaker Discourages Students From Voting Because They’ll Vote ‘Liberal’ (ThinkProgress)

Students hit by voter ID restrictions (Politico)

GOP War on Voting: AG Holder Joins the Fight (Rolling Stone)

The Myth of Voter Fraud (New York Times)

“There Is Almost No Voter Fraud in America.” (ACLU)

Oppose Voter ID Legislation – Fact Sheet (ACLU)

Who Stole the Election?: Dominating many state legislatures, Republicans have launched a full-on assault on voting rights (Prospect)

This week I’m presenting something a little different as a blog. I’ve just read an incredibly interesting book that I was turned onto by either or both, Dredd and Anon Nurse. This book has added scientific clarity to a phenomenon that I’ve noticed for many years, with dismay. Why is it that some people, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, doggedly hold onto beliefs that they can’t logically defend? We can all agree that there are some issues that simply do not lend themselves to being categorized into absolutes of right and wrong. However, I will let the reader catalog those issues mentally, since there will be some who would no doubt take umbrage from any examples I would personally present. Yet I assert that there are some issues where despite probable protests, are not open to rational dispute. One of these is the age of the Earth and the Universe. The Earth is far older than Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates would set at six or seven thousand years. This is proven fact. I note that there are many religious people who accept this scientific fact and yet still believe in a creator and while not by any means a fundamentalist, I do believe that there is a creative force that informs the Universe. Whatever that force may be, it did its thing multiple billions of years ago.

I presented the above to illustrate the difference between a proven fact and an as yet, if ever, provable belief. The book “The Authoritarians” was written by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Professor Altemeyer has spent more than forty years doing research as a Social Psychologist into the parameters and root causes of authoritarian behavior in human beings. John Dean, of Watergate renown, made Bob semi-famous by using Bob’s work as a framework for his book “Conservatives Without Conscience”. I call Professor Altemeyer “Bob”, not out of personal familiarity, but because one of the joys of this book is that though it is a serious socio-psychological work, it is written by a man who doesn’t take himself too seriously, while presenting a very serious subject. My original intent in writing this piece was to present my conclusions, using the book as backup. However, the book, though well-documented, is only 262 pages and at the end of this piece will be a link that allows you to download it for free and read it. Bob presents this important topic far better than I could ever condense it. I’ll just give you a taste, hopefully whetting your appetite and then let you read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

This book was written before the 2008 elections and yet it is even more current today as we see the Republican Party in the hands of the most radically conservative factions of the last 80 years and the Democratic Party decidedly right of center. Bob writes this:

“But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you’ll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack–and by the American government no less!

The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence.

The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark?”

Though this book was written more than five years ago, how descriptive of the Campaign of 2012 is it? I think it sums up what we have been seeing politically and presents reasons for this phenomenon of seeming insanity that has overtake our politics. Incidentally, this book in describing the effect of the authoritarian personality on politics, does not limit the authoritarian personality to Republicans and/or Conservatives. An authoritarian personality is one that submits to authority in both thinking and actions. As we have seen in this past century communists, creatures of the far left, also share authoritarian personalities. I believe that a percentage of Democrats also have authoritarian personalities, but to a lesser degree than their political opposites.

“Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

 1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;

2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and

3) a high level of conventionalism.”

I can immediately see an objection raised in the minds of some readers regarding Authoritarians supporting established authorities including government officials. They might well think well the ultra-Conservative Movement is anti-government, so how could they be Authoritarian in personality? The answer is I think easy. ”Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders.”  To many Authoritarians FOX News represents an established authority. The whole movement about Obama’s birth certificate was at base a means to reject the legitimacy of his authority as President. The power of fundamentalist religious leaders in Republican politics and politics in general is undisputed.

 “[A] right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey. 

 You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other”

Like Professor Altemeyer, in the 60’s and 70’s I was quite familiar with Left Wing Authoritarians of this sort. They were every bit as wrong and as exasperating as their counterparts on the Right. In fact should they ever gain control of a society, such as happened in the USSR and China, the results would be equally disastrous as anything produced on the Right. As to whether this book is a partisan screed I would submit that John Dean, is a lifelong Republican Conservative and Professor Altemeyer considers himself middle of the road. This is about the kind of submission to “authority” that has allowed unscrupulous leaders throughout human history to turn masses of people into pitiless killers.

 “Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their religious beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general. They are more likely than most people to think that, since airplane crashes sometimes occur when the pilots’ “biorhythms” are at a low point, this proves biorhythms affect our lives. They buy the argument that if skeptics have introduced controls against cheating in ESP experiments, and no ESP appears, that proves skepticism interferes with the ESP powers. They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work. True, they are less likely to believe in Bigfoot than in the Shroud of Turin. But they do not in general have a very critical outlook on anything unless the authorities in their lives have condemned it for them. Then they can be extremely critical.”

This book spends a good deal of time discussing the effects of religion onto Authoritarian Personality types. By accepting fully the preaching’s of their religious leaders, millions of people have been killed in the name of one God or another. Via documented experiments this book documents these tendencies and even supplies well grounded reasoning on how they begin in individuals. Bob links fundamentalist religious belief to ultra-conservative beliefs via persuasive studies. Most astounding of all his finding to him and to me is that perhaps 20% of the religious fundamentalists he’s studied have read their entire bible.

“The Most Amazing Discovery of All (to me, anyway). Isn’t there something profoundly strange about the fact that so many fundamentalists have apparently skipped over so much of the Bible? Wouldn’t you read the Bible, cover to cover, over and over, until the end of your days, if you really thought this was the revealed word of God? Let’s remember who that is: GOD, damn it all, the almighty, eternal, omnipresent–not to mention all-knowing–creator of the universe. What else could you read that would be as important as God’s message, if you believed that’s what the Bible is? What could be one-zillionth as important? What on earth is going on? Don’t the fundamentalists themselves believe what they preach to everyone else?”

Religious Authoritarians apparently don’t read their holy books for themselves but accept the words of their leaders and read only the passages that their leaders direct them to. It is so easy for many of us to decry the “insanity” of Islamic Fundamentalists following their Mullahs. Indeed, I would think that if Bob studied Muslim’s he would find equally that many have never fully read the Koran. To be Authoritarian is to unquestioningly accept the preaching of those one sees as their “legitimate leaders”.  The certainty that pervades their thinking, often is not eve backed up intellectually by a full familiarity with the holy books proclaimed as “God’s Truth”.

Two psychology professors Felicia Pratto of the University of Connecticut and Jim Sidanius at UCLA, developed the Social Dominance Orientation Scale in 1994. This was a test to measure which individuals tend to dominate in social situations, or who crave to dominate.  Sam McFarland at the University of Western Kentucky followed up using that scale and others to show the scales’ validity. Professor Altemeyer followed up on their work adding in the years of research he had done. It turs out that people who tend to dominate and lead those with authoritarian personalities are much less than “true believers”. They are in fact imbued with one basic belief and that is to get to the top of the pyramid.

“Persons who score highly on the Social Dominance scale do not usually have all the nooks and crannies, contradictions and lost files in their mental life that we find in high RWA’s [Rightwing Authoritarians]. Most of them do not show weak reasoning abilities, highly compartmentalized thinking, and certainly not a tendency to trust people who tell them what they want to hear. They’ve got their head together. Nor are most of them dogmatic or particularly zealous about any cause or philosophy. You have to believe in something to be dogmatic and zealous, and what social dominators apparently believe in most is not some creed or cause, but gaining power by any means fair or foul. The “soundness” of their thinking hardly means you can believe them, however”

If the above studies are valid, doesn’t America’s currently insane political situation begin to make some sense? In this respect can’t we see how Newt Gingrich could proclaim himself a champion of “family values” or in fact our President who ran on “change” having changed so little? Mitt Romney, a formerly “Centrist” governor, now proclaims himself the “true” conservative in the race for the nomination. And please don’t get me started on Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

It’s my hope in this highly favorable “review”, more aptly exhortation, that you will click on the link below, download this book and read it. There are solutions offered and there is far more content condensed in this book than I could have done justice to in this rather long blog post. I believe that this book contains information vital to us all if our vision of America is to survive, along with our freedom and that of our descendants.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

In a recent full-page paid advertisement in the Washington Post, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and dozens of leaders of Catholic organizations voiced their opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule which they describe as forcing private health providers to provide “preventive services.” The HHS plan mandates, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible, the provision of FDA-approved contraception methods. The advertisement claims these drugs may cause abortions which, by their definition, includes any single-celled  fertilized egg that doesn’t implant.

The ad claims that following the HHS rule would violate their religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Upon closer examination, their claims are based on dubious assumptions. Consider the claim that the rule would “forc[e] almost all private health plans” to provide a particular coverage. The implication is that the government would force private insurers to provide this coverage, against their will. I am skeptical that the USCCB has surveyed insurance providers to support this claim. It is reasonable that insurance providers would see preventative measures as a cost-effective tool to reduce payouts. Many more insurance providers would provide contraception coverage were it not for pressure brought by these organizations. The HHS rule would give those insurance providers, who want to provide contraception coverage, the freedom to do so without fear of harassment or boycott.

An employer who provides workplace health insurance can, based on religious beliefs, coerce female employees to sign up with an insurance plan that does not cover contraception. An employee, who may not share the employer’s religious beliefs, is denied her right to contraception as found in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.

In a news release from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the state provides a compelling rationale for the rule:

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women.

Health care providers have a professional responsibility to their patients that transcends personal convictions. The duties of a health care professional are based on the best available science and are not there to be molded to fit their personal preferences.

The HHS rule includes a waiver that allows certain nonprofit religious employers to opt-out of the preventative services requirement. Other nonprofit employers who, because of religious convictions, do not provide preventative services in their insurance plans will be given one year to comply with the new rule.

The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. Those who often decry governmental intrusion in our lives are the first to support governmental intrusion into our sexual choices.

H/T: Sarah Posner.

American novelist Ilka Chase once wrote that, “Among famous traitors of history one might mention the weather.” Now it seems unauthorized  predictions about the weather are getting the traitor treatment, too. A proposed South African law would make any weather forecast about severe weather or air pollution not authorized by the government-funded South African Weather Service (SAWS) subject to five years in prison and a $630,000.00 fine. The law would affect TV weather forecasters, online services like Weather.com, and community based weather services. Talk about a government sponsored monopoly.

And a monopoly with a purpose. Only SAWS generated text message warnings and radar images are approved, and, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, these are available to the public only after paying a subscription fee. Given South Africa’s arid climate and its summer’s fast-moving thunderstorms, this information is vital to the farm and the business communities.  The information now comes with a government set price tag. I’d call it a weather tax.

Any organization wishing to publish weather warnings will need to get written permission from SAWS to do so. One of the community-based weather organizations that would be affected by the bill is the  South Africa Weather and Disaster Observation Service (SAWDOS). It’s founder, Johan Terblanche pointed out that, ”Experience has taught us that to get permission from any institution takes time — that is if you can get hold of the designated person.” So South Africans in the path of  severe weather will either have to buy the SAWS subscription service or hope their community-based service gets to the right person in time for the warning.

Another lesson in the “We’re from the government and here to help you” playbook.

Source:  Mother Nature Network

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

In memoriam: we present Etta James in glorious STEREO!

Various countries, including our own, are constantly complaining about the use of diplomatic immunity to shield diplomats from liability. While this is often brazen traffic and driving violations, it can include more serious crimes.

While the Germans punish this offense with as much as two years in jail, the ambassador continued to fish before the policemen in mocking silence.

For its part, the North Korea press did report a notable occurrence in Berlin this week: the “natural wonder” of a small songbird landing on the entrance of the embassy and staying for an hour after the death of leader Kim Jong-il: “It seemed that upon hearing the sad news of the demise of the outstanding great man, the bird flew to the mourning station to express condolences and flew away after standing vigil.” That is right up there with snow in the winter as evidence that Nature is grieving the loss of the Dear One.

Next Si Hong Ri will go on North Korean television and proclaimed “I caught a fish THIS BIG after the Dear One died.” For an entire nation built on fish stories, it would be the perfect send off for the Dear One. After all, his parting gift to the nation he starved and oppressed was a truckload of fish.

Source: Spiegel

The program New Star was informed of the decision this week and barred from holding the competition. One of the complaints is that women appeared in sleeveless dresses. That’s right, sleeveless.

It does appear however that there was a Biblical Idol show that was also a problem back in the day. After all Abraham busted up idols and asked “why worship idols?”

However, “Hamas permits male barbershop style singing groups that do not use musical instruments and sing of the glory of Islam and to fighting Israel.” The image of a barbershop quartet singing about destroying Israel is a bit hard to imagine. Of course, those signing barbers are subject to arrest if they cut female hair.

However, the dark side of barbershop quartets has been seen in this country. Indeed, this act might play well at the Hamas political convention:

Source: Washington Post

Dharmasraya Police Chief Sr. Comr. Chairul Aziz stated that Alexander, 31, a civil servant in West Sumatra, is charged with blasphemy. He said that it was better for Alexander to be in police custody anyway given the threats against his life and that he is being advised by “the West Sumatra Coordinating Agency to Supervise Religion and Beliefs (Bakorpakem) as well as the Ministry of Religious Affairs.”

Alexander was previously attacked after he wrote that “God does not exist” on “Ateis Minang” (“Minang Atheists”), his Facebook site. There is no word on any arrests of the attackers but they did arrest the atheist.

The violence against atheists is encouraged by Western leaders and religious figures who have denounced them as akin to terrorists or simply a threat to humanity. Atheists are now ranked with rapists in polls.

As the Obama Administration continues to work with such nations to develop speech codes vis-a-vis religion, these cases show the mentality of countries pushing for a “balance” between free speech and religion. It also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence.

Source: Jakarta Globe

Bailey said the term makes it sound like their mascot is a sexually aggressive middle-aged woman. Of course, a few people might conclude that it is one of the “mountain lions inhabit territory all across Utah.” A search on the Internet shows dozens of schools on every level, including Brigham Young University, with the cougar as their mascot. It is shocking to learn that they are all rooting for Courteney Cox (above).

Of course, even if the students meant the mascot to refer to human cougars, it may make for an apt mascot. They are aggressive, cunning, and have a habitat stretching around the world.

Returning to that other cougar, I fail to see why the entire Puma concolor population should be converted into a dirty word simply because of a slang term. I also fail to see how these officials assume a dirty meaning when they live in an area with cougars. They should reverse this decision before the students propose the former mascot of the Colorado School of Mines . . . the Jackass. It could be viewed as an insensitive reference to local school officials.

Source: CBS

The Court supplied an account of the failure of Sullivan and Cromwell in the case:

In 2002, while Maples’ state postconviction petition was pending, Munanka and Ingen-Housz left Sullivan & Cromwell. Their new employment disabled them from representing Maples. They did not inform Maples of their departure and consequent inability to serve as his counsel. In disregard of Alabama law, neither sought the trial court’s leave to withdraw. No other Sullivan & Cromwell attorney entered an appearance, moved to substitute counsel, or otherwise notified the court of a change in Maples’ representation. Thus, Munanka, Ingen-Housz, and Butler remained Maples’ listed, and only, attorneys of record.

The trial court denied Maples’ petition in May 2003. Notices of the order were posted to Munanka and Ingen-Housz at Sullivan & Cromwell’s address. When those postings were returned, unopened, the trial court clerk attempted no further mailing. Butler also re- ceived a copy of the order, but did not act on it. With no attorney of record in fact acting on Maples’ behalf, the 42-day period Maples had to file a notice of appeal ran out.

About a month later, an Alabama Assistant Attorney General sent a letter directly to Maples. The letter informed Maples of the missed deadline and notified him that he had four weeks remaining to file a federal habeas petition. Maples immediately contacted his mother, who called Sullivan & Cromwell. Three Sullivan & Cromwell attor- neys, through Butler, moved the trial court to reissue its order, thereby restarting the 42-day appeal period. The court denied the motion. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals then denied a writ of mandamus that would have granted Maples leave to file an out-of- time appeal, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.

Both the federal court and Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of relief.

Notably, the majority (in an opinion by Associate Justice Ginsburg) sets out with criticism of the Alabama system noting the state’s “low eligibility requirements for lawyers appointed to represent indigent capital defendants at trial” and that “[a]ppointed counsel in death penalty cases are also undercompensated.” The court then adds “[n]early alone among the States, Alabama does not guarantee representation to indigent capital defendants in postconviction proceedings.” Alabama should be ashamed of such an inimical position in our legal system.

Alabama succeeded in largely uniting a divided court by its draconian approach to criminal justice (Alito filed a concurrence). The court held:

“The cause and prejudice requirement,” we have said, “shows due regard for States’ finality and comity interests while ensuring that ‘fundamental fairness [remains] the central concern of the writ of habeas corpus.’” Dretke v. Haley, 541 U. S. 386, 393 (2004) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 697 (1984)). In the unusual circumstances of this case, principles of agency law and fundamental fairness point to the same conclusion: There was indeed cause to excuse Maples’ procedural default. Through no fault of his own, Maples lacked the assistance of any authorized attorney during the 42 days Alabama allows for noticing an appeal from a trial court’s denial of postconviction relief. As just observed, he had no reason to suspect that, in reality, he had been reduced to pro se status. Maples was disarmed by extraordinary circumstances quite beyond his control. He has shown ample cause, we hold, to excuse the procedural default into which he was trapped when counsel of record abandoned him without a word of warning.

While Scalia expressly “agree[s] with the Court’s conclusion, ante, at 15, that Maples’ two out-of-state attorneys of record, Jaasi Munanka and Clara Ingen-Housz, had abandoned Maples,” he still would leave the death-row inmate without judicial relief because he believed the Maples was still technically represented in the case.

. . . if the interest of fairness justifies our excusing Maples’ procedural default here, it does so whenever a defendant’s procedural default is caused by his attorney. That is simply not the law—and cannot be, if the states are to have an orderly system of criminal litigation con- ducted by counsel.

Scalia dismisses the confusion and lack of involvement of the attorneys who tried to retrieve Maples’ procedural rights. However, once again, procedural requirements must be tempered by some notion of basic justice and fairness. The jurisprudence of these justices appear to be impenetrable by such values. It is the triumph of procedure over justice. The record demonstrates that a gap occurred in representation and that he had been denied effective counsel for all practical purposes –or, as the majority found, “he had been reduced to pro se status.” Note: none of this means Maples will wi — only that he will be able to present his appeal to a higher court.

The question is whether the Alabama bar will use this stinging indictment of their legal system to advocate for reforms to bring the state on par with other states in the Union.

Here is the opinion: MAPLES v. THOMAS