Uneducated GOP Attack on the Courts

As the Iowa caucuses draw near it is time to look at the troubling positions on the judiciary taken by some of the Republican candidates. I will look at the more vocal attackers of the federal judiciary and the failings of the arguments and their lack of understanding the Constitution and its separation of powers.  One of the strongest parts of the Constitution is the independence of the judiciary.  Once appointed as an Article III judge there is life tenure subject to removal for committing high crimes or misdemeanors through the Impeachment process.  This has only been done fourteen times since the adoption of the Constitution.

People seeking to be the Republican nominee for President seem to be unaware of this process and have other ideas about federal judges.

Newt Gingrich, the historian [?], believes that the executive and legislative branches have ceded supremacy to the courts and seems to think that it is ok to call a federal judge before congress to explain a decision that he does not like.  Let’s start with the first complaint.  A review of recent history will show how false this claim is.  In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 550 U.S. 618 (2007) the Supreme Court severely limited the rights of people who have been discriminated in their employment to be able to bring a law suit for damages.  The second law enacted by the 111^th Congress modified the law to make it easier to bring employment discrimination cases.  The enactment of what is commonly known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 shows what the executive and legislative branches can do when faced with a decision of the courts that they disagree with.  When faced with an unpopular interpretation of the Constitution (as opposed to a statute) the other two branches can take the initial steps to amend the Constitution.  When the Supreme Court decided that burning the flag was protected by the First Amendment multiple proposals to amend the Constitution were introduced in both houses of Congress.  However, none of the proposals ever were passed by the House and Senate and sent tote h states for ratification.

Mr. Gingrich also wants to require federal judges to appear before Congress to explain their decisions.  Having read thousands of court decisions over the years, I have yet to read one decision that did not explain the basis for the decision.  If Mr. Gingrich wants to understand how a judge ruled the way they did, I suggest that he just read the decision.

Next up, Michele Bachmann.  In the debates she speaks about how she believes that activist judges are enacting laws.  There are 51 separate Titles in the United States Code.  However, despite numerous times making this claim she never once says what law was ever enacted by a judge.  She claims to be a constitutional conservative (is that like a compassionate conservative?) but fails to understand the same things that Newt Gingrich does not understand that the courts are not the final arbiter of the laws of this country.  A court may say what a certain law means (because the legislature that enacted it was less than crystal clear as to what certain provisions of a law mean) but the executive and legislative branches can make that interpretation null and void as described above.

Rick Perry does not like activist judges.  However, he does not name any current judges that ate activists.  At least he understands that after a Supreme Court decision that interprets the Constitution in way in that he disagrees with, that there is a way to amend the Constitution.  He wants to amend the Constitution to allow prayer in public schools.  What he does not realize is that there is already prayer in the public schools.  The Supreme Court only outlawed, under the First Amendment, organized prayer in the public schools in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).  As Barry Goldwater is reported to have said, as long as there are math tests there will be prayer in the public schools.  This type of unorganized prayer has never been banned by the Court.

I only discuss the three candidates above because they have been the most vocal in attacking the judiciary.   However, the hypocrisy of the Republicans running for President and screaming for States’ Rights (we will not discuss the racial overtones of this phrase here) is unbelievable.  Every Republican running screams for States’ Rights under the Tenth Amendment.  However, when every Republican other than Willard M. Romney and Ron Paul failed to get on the primary ballot in Virginia they have sued Virginia in federal court.  So the Republicans, led by Rick Perry, who could not comply with a state law, are seeking to overturn that law in federal court; Priceless.

Left is Right - Liberals and Progressives Stage a Comeback

Well Election Day 2011 has come and gone.  This year was a much better year for the American people and workers than Election Day 2010.  It seems that America is more progressive and left leaning than the GOP believed it to be.

The people of Ohio have voted to repeal a law, pushed by Governor John Kasich and passed by their legislature, which sought to take away the right of collective bargaining for public sector employees.  The measure was repealed by over 60% of the voters.  I guess the people of Ohio like having unions in place to stick up for their rights.  Andrew Cuomo in New York State showed that you can still bargain collectively with unions (CESA and PEF) and get what are perceived to me need cuts.  Although his actions have been heavy handed he was still able to negotiate with public sector labor unions and get the savings he wanted.

Mississippi voters rejected a proposal that would have greatly limited the rights of women to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion.  Again more than 60% of the voters rejected the proposal.  I guess the people in Mississippi believe in protecting what the constitution protects, the right to choose.

The Republicans in Maine sought to end the right of residents to register to vote on Election Day.  The people of Maine have been able to do this since 1973.  Republicans claimed that this led to voter fraud.  That was a bogus charge that is being used across the country in an attempt to make it harder for Democratic leaning voters to vote, thereby creating better chances for Republicans to win.  The Republican sponsored bill has been rejected by nearly 60% of the voters in Maine.

Voters in Arizona have for the first time ever recalled an elected official.  They have recalled the main sponsor of the Arizona immigration bill and State Senate President Russell Pearce.  He has been replaced by Jerry Lewis, not this one.

Overall it was a good night for progressives and liberals.  While conservatives seem to have overplayed the hand they thought they were dealt in 2010.  Hopefully, this portends well for the reelection of Barack Obama in 2012.

If You Blame Obama When Oil Goes Up Where is the Praise When the Price Drops?

As oil prices rose after last summer the right wing media blamed President Obama for the fact that the price of oil was rising.  The Washington Times did it here.  Eric Bolling of Fox Business Network can be seen blaming Obama for "pain at the pump,"  Not to be omitted from this chorus is the constantly misinformed former half Governor of Alsaka, Sarah Palin.  Others making the claim include David Limbaugh, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, Tammy Bruce and Sean Hannity.

As of early October 4, 2011 the price of oil is now down to $76.35 a barrel.  That is down $5.38 over the last year.  It is also down nearly one third from its high earlier this year.  So with President Obama still in office and oil prices going down where is the praise from the right wing media?  If the right wing media was right that the president caused oil prices to raise because of his polices then those policies can also bring the price of oil down.

The praise for the president from the right is missing because all they can do is blame him for what is going wrong and never praise him for what is right.

Do Not Expand Wild Card

For starters the wild card is just a way to make more money for baseball.  There was no need for it and lessens the regular season.  There was no excitement in the Yankees and Red Sox this year because both teams were going to make the post season.  A similar scenario was taking place in the National League as the Braves were a lock for the wild card.

However, as the regular season comes to an end tonight "excitement" is back in baseball.  The Red Sox and Braves have played horribly for the month of September and allowed the Rays and Cardinals to catch them in the wild card race.  After 161 games the Red Sox and Rays and the Braves and Cards are where they were the morning of opening day, sitting with identical records.

Baseball is now thinking of adding one extra team to the mix in each league.  All the excitement that exists because the Red Sox and Braves have collapsed would be gone.  If the fifth team in each league was in effect this year the games on the final day of the regular season would have no meaning because everyone would be back the next day for the play in games.  Just as the Yankees and Red Sox were boring from April through August, so too would tonight.  Regardless of winning and losing combinations the teams would be back at it tomorrow for the play in game.  The only good thing that would hve come from this is that the Red Sox game could be called without a wait until midnight to resume the game.

No more teams should be added to wild cards so that there will be some type of a pennant race possible.  Also while they consider adding the extra wild card teams (which should be rejected) they should enter inter-league play.  It makes scheduling impossible as teams only visit cities once a year if there are any rain outs.  Outside of New York and Chicago and may be the Bay Area does it really create more excitement and draw extra fans anymore?  People I am sure just cannot wait for a Houston Seattle series.

Troy Davis RIP

Another horrible day for America as the Machinery of Death marches forward, probably killing another innocent man.  Even if Mr. Davis was not innocent of the murder he was convicted of does the United States want to be in a group of nations like the People's Republic of China, Iraq and North Korea in using such a vile form of punishment.  Even Russia has abolished the death penalty.

Twenty three words was all the Supreme Court thought this case was worth.  They did not want to even see what was going to be in the appeal.  The nine Justices did no Justice tonight.

This is just another example of why the death penalty should be abolished in the United States.  Even if the United States Supreme Court will not reconsider Gregg v. Georgia, Congress and the states should abolish this repugnant type of punishment.

DADT Finished - America Still Safe

Don't Ask - Don't Tell has been repealed and gays can openly serve, just like heterosexuals, in the military.  America is still safe and the military is not in a shambles.

Next up should be the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and federal recognition of gay marriage for tax and all other purposes.  I think the country will survive.

Rick Perry and Economics

So Rick Perry is criticizing the economic policies of the Obama Administration.  He is also standing by his statements and his book Fed Up that the Social Security system is a Ponzi scheme.  I am not exactly sure where Gov. Perry learned his economics.  In college at Texas A&M he received a "D" in basic economics.  It was the only class in economics that he took.  He also only managed to get a "B" in US History and in American National Government.

Nobel Laureates have clearly indicated that Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme.  Even the Social Security Administration explains the difference between a Ponzi Scheme and the pay as you go system that is Social Security.

Gov. Perry's obvious deficiencies in economics are nothing compared to his lack of understanding of the hideousness of the death penalty.  More on that later.