Thursday Open Thread
The top political news today is the looming showdown as White House refuses to answer subpoenas .
Iraq is still a sectarian mess. 20 beheaded bodies were found in Iraq and another 25 were killed in car bombs.
(Although I am guilty too), if we can we should start smaller topic diaries rather than creating our monster Open Threads if possible. Thanks.
Submitted by Specter on Thu, 2007-06-28 08:50
Tags:
Comments :
As far as the supeona's issued yesterday go
we all know it's going to eventually end up at the Supreme Court. This Administration wants no oversight what so ever and they are going to pursue a run out the clock strategy. On that front, they'll probably win as I don't see it reaching the SCOTUS till late next year at the earliest.
But it's still an important constitutional issue that needs to be addressed so that future administrations can't pull these stunts.
Then again, with the current make up of the court, who knows what kind of a 5-4 decision they'll reach.
I say....don't wait for the courts. Stock up on pitchforks, rope and torches now.
Who here knows who Jonathan Turley is?
He's a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and he appeared frequently on TV during President Clinton's legal troubles, usually bolstering Ken Star's moves.
Yesterday on KO's Countdown, Jonathan said these things:
(speaking about the warrantless wiretapping issue)
"there is one thing that might concern them about the court, and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. ... If we're right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense."
"Both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don't want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, we're investigating a potential crime."
"The position adopted by Mr. Addington and Mr. Cheney, to put it bluntly, was absurd. ... In past administrations, if someone like Mr. Addington made such a moronic argument as this one, they would be out of a job the next week. ... I think that what it really shows is the lack of sort of adult supervision within the administration."
"This administration, I have to say, has a certain contempt for the law,"
The video clip is in the link above. Can anyone here start thinking the words Chimpeachment?
I'd rather...
...think "war crimes trial." Bush will be out of office before any impeachment could wind its way through the system (even if successful which is questionable). But once he's no longer president he doesn't have immunity to prosecution and he can't pardon anymore.
I think an all expense paid trip to the hague for Bush, Cheney, Rummsfeld, Yoo, and maybe a few others would be quite nice.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why are the pilots for Northwest Airlines calling in sick?
NWA has emerged from bankruptcy and a 'looks good on paper' restructuring.
Overworked Pilots objecting to the low staffing levels say that it is becoming a safety issue.
"Fly safe. Fly the contract. Don't fly sick. Don't fly fatigued. Don't fly hungry,"
Here is some Insight from the Employees
who from Northwest Airlines about what is really going on down in the trenches.
This is what is happening to our country while we have been distracted by the sexy sexy Iraq War.
Can you treat employees like dirt and expect them to offer service with a smile? Next up retrain your replacement from India who has an one of those worker visas, or else you won't get your four week severance package.
It's the little things.
It is the economy, stupid.
Senate obstructionism
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11270.html
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The Cruelest Irony
the new ruling by the Supreme Court rewrites history.
To stop discriminating on the basis of race we have to stop discriminating on the basis of race, says Justice Roberts.
All those white children struggling to attend black schools can no longer rely on Brown for special favors.
The Cruelest Irony
I imagine southern conservatives are thrilled by this decision. This should do much to soothe the aches and long held resentment that the federal government has no right to interfere and force people with a federal mandage to integrate schools.
It is the economy, stupid.
Different Times
George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, congratulating each other, following Supreme Court decision declaring segregation unconstitutional
photo from wikicommons
I wonder what their faces would look like today, upon the news of this ruling by the Roberts court.
The history of Brown v Board of Education
As a sidenote the Washington Posts excellent expose on Cheney's power, noted that Cheney reviewed, oversaw and directed the picks for Supreme Court nominee into Bush's vision, in each case giving him the selection to pick from.
It is the economy, stupid.
Here's a smorgasborg of what others think:
TalkLeft's BTD (you remember him)
is not a happy camper.
Adam B of Dkos
thinks segregationists are celebrating big time.
Christy H Smith at FDL
is extremely disturbed by the verdict.
On the other side of the fence:
Michelle Malkin has decided to free one of her
slaves, oh excuse me, one of her undocumented unpaid "guest workers" in celebration of the decision.
Hindrocket is so happy he's thrown himself into his normal late night bondage play early today
. Here's a money quote: "I'm tied up now, but hope to comment later in the day." uhhh John? I don't really want to know what you do for your kicks. You scare me enough as it is.
And lastly, Rightie Legal "Genius" Ann Althouse
wants to marry 5 of the Supreme Court's Justices.
I'm not gonna link to Pam "AtlasJuggs" because she's just too freaking off her med's for me.
Enjoy.
I knew when bush43 was handed the job by the Supreme
Court back in '00 that he'd shred a significant amount of progress the country had made on issues such as pollution, water use and simply fairness in general. My biggest fear was what he would do to the nations courts.
It was my biggest fear because his maximum damage to the United States would be limited to 8 years max. But the judges he would put in would have his imprint for many years beyond that.
I'm sorry to say that my fears have come to realization even before the bushco administration is out of office. And to top that off, he's blazed ahead with a scorched earth policy on the area's I was less afraid of....area's like clean air, clean water, citizens rights and government's limits.
When the boy king dies (and his evil overlord Darth) I'm going to have a kegger some night by their grave sites so that I can be sure to have enough ammo to pee on their graves to my hearts content. Sorry if some of you find that rude. But hurting them physically while they live would be wrong and I won't do that.
I think the court took a very narrow view
It sounds like the majority (especially Kennedy) tried to walk a fine line between when taking race into account is necessary to correct past injustice and when it's an attempt to socially-engineer a better society.
I don't see why it's so hard to distinguish as a matter of law between plans that promote segregation and plans that combat de-facto segregation. I completely agree with you that Breyer makes a critical point that Roberts simply glosses over.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You must have
a great legal mind, because Stevens used almost your exact line:
He said:
Pew Global Atttitudes Project
The latest Pew Global Attitudes report has been published.
The not new news: President Bush remains unpopular
The odd news: Russian approval of President Bush has doubled between 2003 and 2007.
And they still generally like our movies, music, and TV shows. Go figure.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Hollywood...
remains our most powerful tool.
It's too bad the right can't seem to understand that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The Immigration Bill
is dead.
We will hear a lot more about this issue, but one of Bush's last chances for a legacy (except the changing face of the SCOTUS) is slipping away.
I'm glad
The bill was atrocious.
IN light of all the changes to our country and its 'new unaccountable' govt lately......... *sigh*.
I offer the opinion that the best way to combat all this foolishness is to once again emphasize "It's the economy stupid."
It is the economy, stupid.
RE: I'm glad
I agree the bill was atrocious. It was a (sh)amnesty bill and should be defeated. If this was Bush looking for a legacy, this is a legacy that he is better off without.
Well, even though those who oppose amnesty had their amendments go down in defeat, they tried, and in the end they prevented an amnesty from being passed. A clear victory.
So who was defeated? Primarily the President and, in this case, his Democratic accomplices in the House and Senate. It was kind of funny how they tried to portray this as a "Republican Bill" (implying widespread Republican support) just because the President put it forth.
So, let us not forget that it was the Republicans who primarily opposed the amnesty and the Democrats who tried to push this through over the objections of the American people.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Serious balls
I'll give the GOP this, they have serious balls when it comes to playing the martyr.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003555.php
Accusing the judicial committee democrats of stonewalling after Bush refuses subpoenas is impressively audacious. It earns Cannon the "Congressional Douche of the Day" award.
Congressman Cannon, your award:
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I share your frustration.
It is the economy, stupid.
WSJ Walkout: Free Marketeers Go On Strike
I love this story.
The WSJ the prime arbiter of free market=free people principle ...... as in let the markets do the work...... have balked at the market forces, by walking out of the newsroom in protest of Murdochs free market bid to buy the Journal.
..... and then they came for me.
Delicious
Getting rid of health care for the elite WSJ journalist crowd. Asking them to take a cut in pay. Surely this only happens to the laboring work force. Not to the WSJ elites.
Why are the WSJ journalists trying to punish Murdoch just because of his success?
Don't they believe in capitalism and free market principles? I guess its that old saying...... it doesn't matter when it affects others, but then they came for me.
Bawahahahahaha!
It is the economy, stupid.
Nice list
The WSJ complains about the free market
Robert Bork files a frivolous lawsuit
GOP congress critters fillibuster everything in sight
Its almost as if the modern right had no actual principles they really stuck by.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I hope that Murdoch loses
and the WSJ crew stays on to write another day and from a whole different perspective.
It is the economy, stupid.
People with no principles...
...don't really learn lessons. Intellectual honesty springs from the very principles these hacks lack.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well I don't think they are all hacks.
I have slightly more faith in humanity.... ! Or I am more naive.:+)
It is the economy, stupid.
I have great faith...
...in what humanity could be.
I have no faith in what we are.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Isn't that contradictory?
It is the economy, stupid.
Why? -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
IN order to be what we could be
there has to be a seed of that could be in what we are now.
There are some might fine folks in this world. And I have met plenty of em.
World leaders...... a different story.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yeah
but I see nothing contradictory in the statement "I love oaks, but boy do I hate acorns."
The two are closely related but not identical. I am very awed by our potential and thoroughly disgusted at our blatant waste thereof.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The voice of experience on intellectual honesty ... :)
and the lack of principles associated therewith. I assume you are speaking from personal experience and self-awareness of the issues?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You know, it could be worse
It really could. We think our politics gets rough. Thank goodness we are not Polish. We could have stuff like this on our newstands.
Via Mark in Mexico
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
no thoughts on todays
SC rulings? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You mean the ones about education?
I was reading about that over a liberty papers.
Very sticky stuff.
It's tough when both sides of the argument have a point. It's even worse when decisions are 5-4. It shows there's more than simple constitutionality (or lack thereof) at play. Ideology shouldn't rule the roost.
even though both sides
might have a point, there is only one constitutional solution imo. The SC moved well towards it today.
But yes, as I was driving today and listening to analysis of how often the Court splits along "party" lines, it struck me at how ideological both sides are nowadays.
Mind you, I've agreed with pretty much every single Conservative majority victory.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Reading about it
I understand the ruling and agree with the conservatives (this time).
I think the liberal argument was subjective and using Brown vs. Board of education was poor reasoning.
My (slow) comment o' the day
SCOTUS channels a great one:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Do you think that
de facto segregated schools will encourage a race blind society?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What is this "race" of which you speak?
I don't see race. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
mhmmm
I thought there were no races...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm not speaking for Maddy but this is my take
You are asking the wrong question. The problem we have that prompted this case is a direct result of the geographically based base enrollment system we have. Where you live determines where you go. And it stinks.
Perhaps the school system needs to change (as I agrued in a diary) but advocating cohersion on the basis of race is not the answer. Such advocacy is what one of the Justices of the winning view called "a cruel irony" because a dissenter used Brown vs. BoE as a basis for his view.
Brown being rules correctly doesn't make the dissenting view here correct. In fact, it contradicts it (irony)!
Besides, such mandates would not and does not make people race blind...it only makes them race aware.
RE: I'm not speaking for Maddy but this is my take
What you want is school vouchers so that the geographic limitations can be dissolved. Tax people at a state level, put the money into a big pot, then divide it equally amongst the students and give them a voucher. Then they can select whatever school that they want, including religious ones if that is their preference, and everyone gets to go to the best school option for them personally.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
fully agreed there n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This sounds great
But how does that not just result in the poor going to the cheap schools and the rich going to the expensive schools (since the wealthy can monetarily supplement the vouchers that are "divided equally amongst the students")?
And if this is to be taxed at the state level, are you suggesting a federal mandate that all states must enact a voucher system?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's what happens now anyway
That's what we have...only it happens thru geography. Think about it, Lefty. Come on, the system causes this! It needs to change...but it has to change the right way.
At least the way GoRight (and I) describe gives kids a chance to make a CHOICE.
I hate the irony in our schools.
Correction. It gives the PARENTS a choice.
The kids don't have the legal right to decide.
It is the economy, stupid.
so?
no kidding... Your correction almost sounds like you disagree.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Imagine that!
It is the economy, stupid.
Same difference, most parents take
their kid's views into account on these things.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The first grader tells his parents
where he wants to go to school?
It is the economy, stupid.
RE: The first grader tells his parents
Sure. They say something like "I want to go to school with my friend Jimmy or Janey." :)
Obviously the viewpoint of a first grader will not be taken into account to the same degree as, say, a ninth or tenth grader would be. But I suspect that you knew that already, silly girl.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fair enough
I was (honestly) hoping someone would have an answer to that question, in which case I'd be more likely to support vouchers. (I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or the other.) So it doesn't solve the problem of poor kids getting stuck in crappy schools, it just gives them a choice of which crappy school they want to go to?
I guess I don't see how a voucher system will actually do anything to improve public schools. Would it, in your opinion? How?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
RE: Fair enough
I don't think vouchers are intended to be way to improve public schools, but rather a means for students to be able to escape those public schools which are failing them (as opposed to all public schools).
This may have an indirect influence on the worst schools by sending them a wake-up call to do better in a substantive way. But that is not the direct intent. The intent is to offer those people who feel that their respective local school is failing their kids a way out.
It is about NOT keeping kids trapped in ineffective schools.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: This sounds great
Who said anything about federal manadates? Keep them out of it and let the states decide for themselves. I was merely articulating a mechanism which I would like to see implementated at the state level.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Federal mandates
Mostly I threw in the line about federal mandates because I knew you'd reply to it! I'm not trying to be difficult, just fishing for more information. One question, as things stand now, are there any federal roadblocks to the mechanism you're talking about? If a state decided that they wanted to implement a voucher system, could they do it? The only state I could find that has tried it was Florida, and apparently that got struck down by the state Supreme Court. I imagine it had something to do with tax money going to religious schools, but I don't know the details. I suspect that might be one of the more difficult aspects of the plan to sell, particularly to all the atheist commie religion-hating left-wingers about. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
RE: Federal mandates
Already addressed by SCOTUS:
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1179#comment-49644
But your assessment of this being a major barrier from the left is still correct, in spite of what the SCOTUS says, I guess.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
exactly, GoRight.
Did you read my diary on education?? LOL.
Sorry, no I didn't.
But if it is pro vouchers I'm with you. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do the schools select them?
Presumably many of the better schools have more applicants... and if they happen to select the people who are "Their type" who is to complain?
Oh, and the wealthy who can drive their kids rather than making them bus an hour for the good schools will all congregate.
How do you propose to solve these issues?
RE: Do the schools select them?
And this is different than how colleges operate today? Apply whatever safe guards are in place at the college level to the public school level. Simply right into the law that they can't discriminate based on any of the protected groups.
This doesn't seem to have been a problem with my son's current school. All of the surrounding public school districts provide bus service to his school for kids within their districts to the private school. The private school also provides a bus service for those students who are not otherwise covered from specific pickup points throughout the city.
Of course anyone who can afford to drive has that option, but the school buses aren't exactly empty by a long shot.
If you think that the education provided by a particular school is worth it, is a ride on a school bus too much to expect?
First, it's not really my problem. Every family has their own unique constraints and so no one solution exists. That having been said, none of these are insurmountable problems.
A general response would be: take a portion of the common pot and set aside sufficient funds to cover these or any other comparable needs and implement solutions which are fair to all before doling out the vouchers.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Boost test scores at no extra cost
with economic integration
:
Yes, it's better to base the assignment algorithm on income than race, but let's not pretend they aren't correlated in many locations across America. Guess who objects?
Sorry, but while I understand the legal arguments behind striking down the race-as-tiebreaker systems, I don't think it's going to benefit the students. I find it odd that a system that is mandated to reverse segregation suddenly becomes unconstitutional once we decide schools are integrated enough.
You're mixed up, Stevens referred to the majority's invocation of Brown as a cruel irony. That the majority Justices cannot legally distinguish between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate is rather disappointing.
Sure, geographic enrollment sucks. As soon as you use another criteria as part of the assignment process, somebody will sue. Let's see how long economic integration stands up in court.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Please
read the opinion.
And note, the Justices are not supposed to figure out what the best result would be, and then ignore the law to reach it.
Best procedure:
1) Read the opinions and dissents.
2) THEN talk about the opinions and dissents.
3) Ignore secondary sources.
4) Trust yourself. Trust that you can read and understand. Trust that you can put aside your prejudices. otherwise, "one" ends up searching around for items that fit with one's prejudice, and that is a frellin' waste of time.
(Note: Pop culture reference included just for fun.)
Madscientist's rule: If you had a reaction to the decision when you heard it, you should say nothing until you cleanse your mind, and read the actual decision.
Always ask" what are the legal questions?" not, "What are my goals for society and does this decision help them out?"
I've been following
this issue for quite some time
. I'm not analyzing the decision, I'm giving an opinion on what I think the best result should be.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sorry
to hear that.
From the decision:
Concerns about the Seattle
system being too crude with respect to definitions of race were raised a long time ago (e.g., see the link I gave). Certainly they could have done a better job, and in some sense this ruling reflects on their specific implementation.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That's what it is
all about.
To find out what this ruling "reflects on," I suggest simply reading the ruling.
You chose an odd way
to introduce a discussion of the precise specifics of the Seattle plan, using the quote “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Some might take that as an invitation to general discussion on race and education today. My comments were pretty clearly, I think, along those lines.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Scroll back up
You were referring directly to the decision in this sub-thread.
btw,I sent the stuff.
I hope it works for you. Got me high as a kite.
Read what I said
about the decision.
A careful parser such as yourself should appreciate the scope of my comments =)
Thanks for the articles!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Here it is
You're mixed up, Stevens referred to the majority's invocation of Brown as a cruel irony. That the majority Justices cannot legally distinguish between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate is rather disappointing.
Was the legal basis of the "majority's" decision dependent in any way on distinguishing between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate? In fact, I'm reading about such arguments right now! btw, Roberts just takes Breyer to school. Breyer got served, man.
btw, I know that because it is in the decision.
No, that's the point
The invocation of Brown illustrates that the majority Justices [edit: you want me to say Roberts?] cannot (meaning, either choose not to or believe it is legally impossible to) distinguish between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate, which (I personally think) is rather disappointing.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
See
what happens when you don't read the opinion.
What Roberts wrote was a direct quote from the decision as to means, but it is not the base of the argument, it's more of a "hark back," like, "even in Brown we said."
The fact is, the legalities themselves do not
distinguish.
You know, it is not as if the Court hasn't been down this road before. The question is just when is it right to use race as a sole criterion upon which to make decisions to reach a goal.
I think that's basically what I said...
That the reference to Brown suggested this ruling was consistent, in that both prohibit explicit consideration of race. To which my reply, it's too bad that they couldn't pay a little more attention to the context, and make a point of distinguishing between attempts to integrate and to segregate. That's what prompted Stevens' remark.
Kennedy did:
I guess I could have been more clear, said Roberts instead of majority, etc, but really, I don't know what is driving your quibble here.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Quibble?
The remark is nonsensical. As is explained in the decision. (You realize that everyone sees everyone else's opinions before finalizing his own.)
Brown and nearer precedent are clear that it can't be a case of ends justify the means. There are two justifications for using race to achieve some goal, like racial balance, and rules for when race can be used even in those two circumstances. One circumstance is to redress past racial discrimination, the one used most often. But it applies in neither of these cases.
In this case, the Court can't say, "well, we know it's unconstitutional, but it's for a good cause, so...."
But that is exactly what people want them to do!
All I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is a Judicial body whose concerns are as laid out in the Constitution. They are involved in deciding legal issues. They are not some quasi-legislative body which is charged with remaking the social landscape in America.
So far, the negative arguments on this opinion have entirely missed the legal issues, and spoken to the social issues, mostly wrongly, with great assumptions.
I also believe those arguments are important, and that is why we have the other two branches of government.
Remember, those who brought Brown did not argue it on social grounds; they argued it on constitutional grounds.
There is also the common bugaboo of "equality of result" here. It is one thing to argue for equality of education, but normally the argument is that if the schools are not racially balanced, the education is unequal. this is extremely bad reasoning.
So the only real question here is where was Robert's wrong on the legal matters. You know, it's not as if this was unanimous. You would think that people who were wont to make a case against it because their senibilities are disturbed would go to the dissents for legal arguments.
Instead of just whining. Fact is, from the facts, I think that overall, this decision will stop some real pain, and if it had gone the other way, it would have done nothing to help anyone. But, of course, that isn't even the issue.
It's legal.