This video provides some of the reasons the Memorial Cross should go from the ACLU’s perspective:

Hard to believe this is all the result of just one person, isn’t it? All the way to the Supreme Court? And yet, that is the case. Arguments were heard on Wednesday. I received this in an email from the ACLU on this topic:

Last week, the Supreme Court heard argument in Salazar v. Buono, an establishment clause challenge to the federal government’s display of a Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve.

The Court’s questions focused largely on esoteric procedural doctrine, and while it’s always risky to predict the outcome of a case based on an oral argument, it seems unlikely the Court will rule on the broader constitutional issues in the case — namely, whether the plaintiff, a devout Catholic and former National Park Service employee, had standing to challenge the display of the cross; and whether, before it tried to transfer the cross to a private party, the government violated the First Amendment by displaying the sectarian symbol on federal land.

While the Supreme Court ultimately may pass on the loftier constitutional questions in this case, Wednesday’s argument had some dramatic moments. In the most heated exchange of the morning, Justice Antonin Scalia peppered Peter Eliasberg, the ACLU attorney arguing for the plaintiff, with questions about the significance of the cross. Justice Scalia bristled at Eliasberg’s suggestion that a World War I memorial featuring only a Christian cross sends a message of exclusion and religious favoritism, asking, “The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war?” After Eliasberg responded that the cross “is the predominant symbol of Christianity,” Justice Scalia pushed back, suggesting that there was no constitutional problem with the display because “the cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.” Eliasberg resisted, explaining that “the cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians.” “I have been in Jewish cemeteries,” continued Eliasberg, the son of a Jewish World War II Navy veteran. “There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”

The notion that a war memorial featuring a stand-alone Latin cross serves to honor only Christian war dead — a notion Justice Scalia called “outrageous” — was echoed in a series of amicus briefs filed in the case by various veterans groups.

However the Buono case is resolved, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to convince many non-Christian veterans that an isolated, freestanding cross expressly recognizes their service to the country. And Congress’s designation of the Mojave cross as one of only 49 national memorials (and the only one commemorating World War I), joining such iconic symbols as the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore, only compounds the problem. As one retired Army brigadier general recently put it, “The cross is unquestionably a sectarian religious symbol that, as a congressionally designated national memorial to veterans, would convey the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian war dead over those of service members belonging to other faiths.”

Hmmm. Interesting take there on the non-Christian veterans. I would love to hear what those veterans think about this (and I say that as someone who isn’t a Christian, either. Not that I don’t appreciate who Jesus was, or his words of peace and love. I grew up as a devout Christian, actually, an very much appreciate the message of Jesus. But enough about me.).

The decision of the Supreme Court will surely have long reaching effects. So, what do you think – should the Memorial Cross stay, or should it go?

Rather, the point of the Editorial has to do with an upcoming Supreme Court decision:

The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending their money on federal campaigns since 1947, and corporate contributions have been barred since 1907. States have barred corporate expenditures since the late 1800s. These laws are very much needed today. In the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. That dwarfs the $1.5 billion that Federal Election Commission-registered political parties spent during the same election period, or the $1.2 billion spent by federal political action committees.

Uh, okay. Is it really possible that the Editors are unaware just how much money Obama spent to buy the White House in the last election? Are they unaware that he violated one of his campaign promises to forego Public Financing? Did they even BOTHER to look up just how much money Obama GOT from corporations?? Evidently not. Hence their outrage at this possibility. And it goes on:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the limitations on corporate campaign expenditures. In 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and again in 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, it made clear that Congress was acting within its authority and that the restrictions are consistent with the First Amendment.

In late June, the court directed the parties to address whether Austin and McConnell should be overruled. It gave the parties in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a month to write legal briefs on a question of extraordinary complexity and importance, and it scheduled arguments during the court’s vacation.

All of this is disturbing on many levels. Normally, the court tries not to decide cases on constitutional grounds if they can be resolved more simply. Here the court is reaching out to decide a constitutional issue that could change the direction of American democracy.

The Editors are sure right about that – it IS “disturbing on many levels.” I just don’t get why they didn’t get so exercised about this say, oh, two years ago. I guess I’m just nitpicky that way.

And their concern continues:

The court usually shows great respect for its own precedents, a point Chief Justice John Roberts made at his confirmation hearings. Now the court appears ready, without any particular need, to overturn important precedents and decades of federal and state law.

The scheduling is enormously troubling. There is no rush to address the constitutionality of the corporate expenditures limit. But the court is racing to do that in a poorly chosen case with no factual record on the critical question, making careful deliberation impossible.

Most disturbing, though, is the substance of what the court seems poised to do. If corporations are allowed to spend from their own treasuries on elections — rather than through political action committees, which take contributions from company employees — it would usher in an unprecedented age of special-interest politics.

Corporations would have an enormous say in who wins federal elections. They would be able to use this influence to obtain subsidies, stimulus money and tax loopholes and to undo protections for investors, workers and consumers. It would take an extraordinarily brave member of Congress to stand up to agents of big business who then could say, quite credibly, that they would spend whatever it takes in the next election to defeat him or her.

The conservative majority on the court likes to present itself as deferential to the elected branches of government and as minimalists about the role of judges. Chief Justice Roberts promised the Senate that if confirmed he would remember that it’s his “job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

If the court races to overturn federal and state laws, and its well-established precedents, to free up corporations to drown elections in money, it will be swinging for the fences. The American public will be the losers.

Well,I don’t know about you, but this seems just a tad disingenuous to me. They are railing NOW about the money corporations can spend? Do you think they gave a crap that Goldman Sachs, yes, I said, GOLDMAN SACHS, gave Obama almost $1 MILLION dollars? How about Time Warner giving him almost $600,000? The list goes on and on, which is what makes the outrage of the Editors ring just a bit hollow to me. How about you?

I think of this exchange:

Charlie Young: [telling the President that he has to practice throwing a baseball with a bullet proof vest on before throwing the first pitch out at a baseball game] Sir, everyone agrees.
President Josiah Bartlet: Like who?
Charlie Young: Leo, Josh, CJ, your wife, the Notre Dame athletic department…

Maybe Obama should have practiced more, too, since he barely made it to the plate – oh wait, the announcer doesn’t mention that. Good thing there is THIS video that shows the entire pitch:

And he gives himself a little fist pump for barely making it to the plate, too!! Perhaps that’s why some people are booing him? Oh, no wait – it started before he threw out the pitch. Funny, the announcer doesn’t mention that, either. Did you notice the driver of the golf cart in the first video barely shook Obama’s hand? Interesting commentary there, too, I think.

Since I mentioned the “West Wing,” and since we are in the midst of hearings for a new Supreme Court Justice, how about this classic clip regarding nominees for the Supreme Court:

Ah, the politics involved in selecting the next Supreme Court Justice…

By the way, in response to my post recently on the grave robbers, a number of people mentioned that Michelle Obama’s father was buried in Burr Oaks Cemetery, too. As it turns out, that was not true. Apparently, Michelle Obama’s Communications Director put that out there without bothering to check the facts first (oh, now THERE’S a surprise – hahahahahaha), and has now had to retract that statement. Turns out, her father is not buried there after all. Gee, it is a little hard not to be too cynical about that revelation…

And while this is going on, there has been something else going on in Obama’s hometown, Chicago. Maybe it was because I was on vacation last week, but I had not heard anything about this until Disturbed mentioned it at No Quarter in my “For Some Peaceful Reflection” post. And that is the grave robbing going on in the Burr Oak Cemetery. This is an African American cemetery, and as I understand it, seven thousand families have now filed reports. It is a tragic story, one best told by my favorite Chicago writer, John Kass. He does so poignantly in this article, “The Dead Don’t Deserve This; Nor Do The Living“:

The disinterred bodies were in weedy mounds a short bus ride away, lumpy in the dirt, in a back section near the fence at Burr Oak Cemetery.

There were broken caskets and concrete grave liners in the mounds, too, and detectives said that when the grave robbers got tired or sloppy they just dumped the bodies on the ground.

So there were human teeth and leg bones, hips and finger bones scattered out there in the weeds.

Charles Taylor didn’t want to see them and neither did I.

“What kind of person does this? I’ll tell you,” said Taylor, a retired child-welfare worker, one of the anguished people in the cemetery on Thursday, each desperate to learn if the graves of their dead were among those that had been pillaged by the grave robbers.

“It’s the kind of person who breaks into a church and steals the cross of gold and sells it. And people ask, ‘Who could do something like that?’ But they know.

“A thief breaks into the church. A thief pulls bodies out of the graves for cash money and dumps them in a pile. That’s what we have here. Thieves of bodies.”

This is just beyond sad. The disrespect, of both the living and the dead, and all for money:

Those bodies once belonged to the dead. But the grave robbers stole more than that. They stole peace from the dead and from the living and they stole dignity and memory. They plunged every survivor in that cemetery on Thursday into despair.

There were hundreds and hundreds of people, all of them African-Americans, at the cemetery that predates the end of segregation. Each one was heartbroken. Some were guilty about not having visited their family plots sooner. Others were people, women mostly, who visited the graves at least once a month, with flowers and tiny pinwheels and watering cans.

Yet whether they provided constant vigil or offered just a thought from a distance, every one had been violated.

“I came here to visit my grandmother’s grave a couple months ago, and it didn’t look right, it looked like there was fresh dug dirt next to it,” said Precious Hicks, 21. “And the cemetery people wanted me to leave. You know what they told me? They said it was wild coyotes.”

Oh, my. So lies on top of theft, while looking these people in the face. That takes a helluva lot of nerve, to put it mildly. Kass continues:

Surely you haven’t missed the story. Up to 300 bodies, and perhaps even more, were torn out of their graves, allegedly by a gang of gravediggers and a cemetery official. The open graves were resold for cash, and the bodies that had been in those graves were dumped onto those terrible mounds.

The cemetery boss is suspected of taking the cash and driving out to the gambling boats, and the gravediggers received overtime for plucking bodies from graves, sources familiar with the investigation said. It worked like this for years.

Sometimes they just pushed the new ones on top of the old.

“They smashed the old ones down,” said Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, whose office and investigators broke the case. The investigation is being run by the head of the financial crimes and public corruption unit, Jack Steed.

“This is sickening,” Dart told me. “All the people here, you look into their eyes, and you see pain.”

My heart just breaks for these families, who have endured so much at the hands of a few, at the hands of those who had been entrusted to care for their loved ones in death. Those who abused that trust from their own greed. These families, alive and dead, do not deserve this. One can only hope the grave robbers get their comeuppance:

Later, Dart and Cook County State’s Atty. Anita Alvarez held a news conference off to the side, and Dart explained the scheme, while Alvarez explained the charges.

The FBI brought in a forensics team, some of whom had worked sifting through the mass graves in the Balkans, and it will take months to sort it out, and match bone to bone.

With Alvarez and Dart there, I thought I might see another prominent politico with 19th Ward Democratic organization connections: Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes.

A few years ago Hynes campaigned on cemetery rip-offs and made news splash after news splash about abuses in what he calls the “death care industry.” He vowed to fight them. His Web page is full of such vows.

Though Hynes’ office is responsible for the oversight of privately owned cemeteries like Burr Oak, he wasn’t at the news conference. His office said he has oversight but little legal authority to enforce cemetery upkeep.

Perhaps Hynes was busy making plans to get into the U.S. Senate race. Sen. Roland “Tombstone” Burris, who cozied up to disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich for the Senate appointment, has apparently decided to drop out of politics.

It’s too bad Dan Hynes wasn’t there.

But Rev. Jesse Jackson was at the news conference. He terrified funeral directors by asking if any of them had ever resold used coffins through Burr Oak.

“There are prominent people buried here,” Jackson said, of civil rights martyr Emmett Till, and old Negro League baseball players, and entertainers and champion prizefighters.

“But everybody here is special. And those grave robbers deserve a special place in hell,” Jackson said. “How far did this scheme go? That’s what we want to know.”

As the politicians made speeches, Robert Gardner, 73, a retired steelworker, waited to speak with investigators about his father-in-law, Johnny Marks, buried in 1982.

“This is worse than bad,” said Gardner, pointing toward the death mounds out back. “All those people turned out of their graves, left out there. They get no peace. Neither do we.” (jskass@tribune.com)

“Worse than bad,” indeed. Here is a video on this issue, too:

There are more videos and related articles at the link above for Kass’ article.

Whatever one believes happens after death, whether the body is just a vessel, or that the soul is still there, this is just horrendous. The grave robbers have shown tremendous callous disregard for these people, for their remains, and for their families. It is heart-breaking, plain and simple. I hope the perps get everything that is coming to them. If they have an ounce of humanity in them (which they have not demonstrated), I hope they have to look each and every living family member in the eye, and apologize to them. Each one. That is the very least they can do. And then I hope they have the book thrown at them. They deserve no less.

So, there WERE African Americans and Hispanics who passed the exam, too, something previously unreported. As Mr. Ricci said, the press did NOT do its job, accepting as fact the city of New Haven’s talking points. Wow – what a HUGE surprise – the press not engaging in fact checking. Again! Shocking. Ahem.

I thought this was an interesting interview. Congratulations to all of the firefighters who worked so hard to pass their tests (Ricci was not the only one who sacrificed studying for the exam – it sounds like EVERYONE sacrifices for these extra classes and tests). Here’s hoping you all get the positions, and back pay, you worked so hard to achieve.

The only kids who weren’t self-conscious in the extreme about their evolving bodies and appearance were those few precocious jocks destined for high school football glory. To minimize exposure of the shiny wire braces on his teeth, one of my friends refused to speak unless absolutely necessary. Another tried to fake mononucleosis (the teenage diagnosis du jour) to buy time so that a bad haircut could grow out.

So it is difficult to imagine how 13 year old Savana Redding felt while being forced to expose her breasts and pelvic area to school officials. There was perhaps a reasonable suspicion that Redding could be in possession of a couple of Advil and possibly an Aleve because school personnel were tipped off by another student. Yet, was this breech of the rules sufficient to warrant what amounted to a strip search?

Even though Savana was also suspected of bringing other contraband to school, by an 8 to 1 majority the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that her rights had been violated and that the suspected breach failed to rise to the level of danger that would justify that degree of bodily invasion.

Oh, by the way, no pills were found in her backpack or on her person.

The case itself is somewhat complex, and good overviews appear
here and here. But the question remains as to what rights schools have when they receive tips from other students about threats that could endanger other students and school personnel.

Columbine and similar tragedies have put schools on alert. Students are actively encouraged to report any potential problems, and these reports are taken seriously. Yet there appears to be no bright line to demarcate exactly when extreme measures can and should be taken. Perhaps for that reason the Court did not impose any penalties on the personnel at Savana’s school. Yet, a quest to search for a couple of Advil’s by invading the body of a teenage girl, even though done by a female nurse and secretary, crosses way over some line.

What do you think?

Toss another knuckle-dragging sack of crap into the pile that guarantees the Republican Party will never recover. Imagine being married to something like this and not killing it in its sleep?

And don’t forget to buy some gold from this neanderthal, you hear?

Gordy talks periods at :35 seconds.

Say good night to me, Republican Party. Between Rush “feminazi” Limbaugh, Glenn “I’m 95% chick! I blubber all the time!” Beck and now this animal, I will stay home before I vote for the next Republican candidate. Guys like this are the best weapon the Democratic Party has. This ranks right up there with, nay it surpasses, Barack The Pig Obama’s reference to “Periodic moments” aimed at Hillary. It takes some real experience to outPig Barack Obama in the “Offend women” department. Is this what you REALLY aspire to, Republican Party? If so, say goodbye now. You deserve to be eaten alive by the other animal farm.

And I couldn’t resist stealing Gordie’s “hot” pic from Riverdaughter. I nearly went blind when I saw it. And speaking of “Patriotism,” there’s nothing like wearing the American flag over your old and shriveled age-induced low-hanging ball sac.

I’m sorry, but this is just beyond the pale!

Poor Michael Steele. It’s hopeless, isn’t it? I will keep this video to remind myself to stay home in 2012. This is the face and voice of the Republican Party.

And by the way, I find it hysterically funny that the men in this party don’t like how Sexism feels. You would think it would cure them, but nope. What do you expect from a guy who actually let’s someone take a photo of himself looking like this?

Hey Gordy! Scuse me, “G Man”. Eat shit and die!

Rachel’s commentary speaks for itself. Judge Sotomayor is a moderate, and has made several pro-business rulings. Here’s Rachel’s source:

From Rachel Maddow’s Web site:

The not very liberal-sounding dissent by Judge Sotomayor referenced on the air by Rachel: 209 F.3d 200 (2nd Cir. 2000)

Below find a screen grab of the top portion of this ruling.

MY NOTE to our readers: Please consider that ANY ONE of us who truly wishes to know what Sonia Sotomayor is made of as a judge must judiciously and openly read ALL of her rulings — including this ruling, in full — and not selectively pick and hammer on a few.

Her abilities are found in the sums of her experience and her judgment — as well as her not inconsiderable academic achievements in the first quarter of her life.

(Click on the image to view the larger version.)

UPDATE:

Lest there be any confusion about Rachel Maddow’s view of Judge Sotomayor, here is the first segment of her show last night:

I could have done without the cocktail metaphor, but I wanted to be sure you understand that Rachel Maddow is in favor of Judge Sotomayor’s appointment to the USSC, but that she is taking great care to point out that Judge Sotomayor is not some far-left radical. Hence the segment on her pro-business rulings.

Imagine a time when a female candidate for a position of power is actually judged on her merits. That moment is coming. It’s called The New Agenda.

On the back of the Sotomayor nomination, the Washington Post writes Women’s Groups Vow to Fight for Swift Confirmation. Which women’s group is the first to be mentioned? The New Agenda:

The New Agenda, a nonpartisan group formed during last year’s presidential campaigns, hailed the selection as “inspirational” and pronounced itself “thrilled” that four of the 10 women it suggested for the court were interviewed by Obama.

“It’s a great day for America and a great day for women,” said New Agenda co-founder Nancy Hopkins. “The choice of Sotomayor also shows that excellence and diversity go hand in hand. In this case, they were inseparable,” she added.

Yes, we are ready for a fight. We’re raring to go. Judge Sotomayor – We Have Your Back!

But imagine this in the future – the not too distant future – an organization with millions of members. Now that is a real voice. Then we wouldn’t be hearing “bad temperament”, “not that smart” (see video below) while of course we all knew, even the left, that Alito and Roberts were just “brilliant”. We could end this double standard in it’s tracks! Issues are fair game, sexist treatment is no longer fair game!

And to be a national organization with millions of members and real power to end the likes of the upcoming Sotomayor misogyny-fest – you know, the stuff that Hillary and Sarah had to endure – we need to build the infrastructure to become a national organization. And infrastructure requires dough – and we need your help. Remember – we are not a blog – we are a grassroots organization with a blog to keep our members informed.

Please donate to The New Agenda. We can and will make this country a better place for women and girls.

One donor from the West Coast wrote to us today to say that she was cutting into this month’s food budget to donate funds. She had been a lifelong feminist and was ready to throw in the towel until The New Agenda came along. Another donor wrote to say that TNA gives her hope for real progress for women: “If not TNA, who? And if not now, when?”

JOIN US! DONATE! WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Even our friends at Fox are joining the misogyny-fest. Who can we count on? Ourselves!

From the “About Us” page:

The New Agenda was founded on August 11, 2008, when 30 women met in Westchester, New York, to sketch out plans for a new non-partisan women’s rights organization. The attendees were community activists and leaders of women’s organizations from around the country, many of whom had met during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. It was the painful lessons of that campaign that provided the raison d’être for the new group: to support women for public office, to draw a line in the sand against the sexism and misogyny so much in evidence in 2008, and to build a broad, non-partisan coalition to advance key goals for women.

The New Agenda calls on President Obama to select a woman to fill Justice Souter’s seat

The New Agenda, a non-partisan national movement advocating for all women, called on President Obama to fill the seat that will be vacated by Justice Souter with a qualified woman. Currently only one of nine positions on the nation’s highest court is a woman.

“Women’s experiences, expectations, and lives are sufficiently different from men’s that men can not represent women no matter how sympathetic they may be,” said Nancy Hopkins, MIT biology professor – a leader in her field and New Agenda co-founder. “Women are best represented by women. The fact that only one of nine Supreme Court Justices is a woman is an enormous injustice to the women of the United States.

We expect – we demand – that President Obama begin to correct this injustice.”

Last week Hopkins was awarded one of Women’s eNews 2009 21 Leaders for the 21st Century – a distinction shared with Lily Ledbetter. Hopkins knows what it’s like to be in a field dominated by men who are highly educated and smart, but often clueless about gender. Hopkins was in the audience when Larry Summers famously stated that girls are genetically inferior to men when it comes to math and science – a statement Hopkins’ life and career strongly refutes.

The field of law would benefit greatly from a feminine perspective. Upon learning that John Roberts would take her place, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared him “good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

“There is an amazing pool of incredibly talented women who are leaders in the field of law,” said The New Agenda co-founder Amy Siskind. “We look forward to President Obama selecting one of them.”

To reinforce the message that there is a rich pool of candidates, The New Agenda released the following list of exemplar candidates for the Supreme Court seat.

• Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm: Harvard Law School graduate, former federal prosecutor and a county attorney

• Kathleen Sullivan: dean of the Stanford Law School after teaching at Harvard Law School. Has argued key cases before the Supreme Court

• Diane Pamela Wood: longtime professor at the University of Chicago Law School, federal appeals court judge (7th Circuit)

• Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears: the first black woman to be appointed chief justice in any state

• Kimberly McLane Wardlaw: federal appeals court judge in California, and would be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court.

• Sonia Sototomayor: 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

• Sandra Lea Lynch: chief judge of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

• Elena Kagan: U.S. Solicitor General

• M. Margaret McKeown: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

• Pamela S. Karlan: Stanford University law professor

WOW! Someone with some common sense! “Scaring people is not leadership.” RIght on, Lindsay! Right on!

I just wish there were MORE MEAT like this, by an intelligent and thoughtful guest, than the filler that passes for news but is NOT news. I’m also bored stiff by the repetitiveness of TV cable news. I try to watch some so I know what they’re emphasizing but I always end up turning to NPR or BBC World News. Today, CNNMSNBCFNN have got the tapes of the plane that landed in the Hudson, and they’ll be playing that every hour, all day and all evening long. It’s perfect fare, because it’s the kind of news that does ALL work for them. It requires no reporters, no investigation, and very little analysis; the networks just toss it up on the screen and let the watchers watch.

But you’re probably like me, and you want MORE actual news, so here’s some of what I’ve found today:

*** Sad news: “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery today for pancreatic cancer.” (Via CNN’s breaking news e-mail)

*** “Deluge Is Holding Up Benefits to Unemployed
Decline in Funding Forces Staff Cuts as Claims Swell:

Thousands of people in the Washington area and hundreds of thousands more across the country are waiting longer than they should for unemployment benefits at a time when they need the money the most because rising joblessness is overwhelming claims offices, records show.

The problem is compounded by a simultaneous decrease in federal funding, which has reduced staffing at some local government offices. The result is that the District and many states, including Maryland and Virginia, are failing to meet federal guidelines that require timely processing of unemployment claims. …

It’s likely to get worse. …

*** Eric Shinseki, the brave general who told the truth to Donald Rumsfeld and ended up with his career ruined, is ON THE JOB as Secretary of the Veterans Administration.

According to the WSJ, he’s beginning with a careful analysis which, from all the stories we’ve heard about chaos and inefficiency at the VA, sounds like a plan: He is “launching a top-down review of his embattled department, saying major change is needed soon to ensure the “highest levels of integrity, transparency and performance.” More snippets:

“Our veterans deserve and demand a Department of Veterans Affairs that remains relevant over time, that is responsive to their individual and changing needs, and that cares enough about them to undertake this challenging transformation. We care,” Mr. Shinseki said in testimony prepared for a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday.

… Thousands of veterans currently endure six-month waits for disability benefits, and the VA is scrambling to upgrade government technology systems before new legislation providing for millions of dollars in new GI benefits takes effect in August.

In recent weeks, the Government Accountability Office found that the VA was still lowballing budget estimates to Congress at the expense of tens of thousands of patients needing long-term health care. The VA also acknowledged at least nine cases of giving incorrect doses of drugs — mostly blood-thinning heparin — due to widespread computer glitches that it didn’t disclose to patients. …

*** Ken Rudin, the political blogger for NPR, has a fascinating report on the race to succeed Florida’s retiring senator, Mel Martinez, and also on the future of Minnesota’s Norm Coleman:

FLORIDA:

[...]

Jeb Bush had frozen the GOP field while he was considering the race. Now it’s Charlie Crist’s turn. The popular governor said he would sit down with his new wife and discuss it after the legislative session, which ends in May. Crist, like Bush, could probably have the nomination if he wants it. He is barred from seeking a third term in 2010. Way back in 1998, Crist was the GOP Senate nominee against Democratic incumbent Bob Graham and got clobbered by nearly a million votes. But that was a long time ago.

[...]

The latest news has former Sen. Bob Smith (R) thinking about running. That’s former Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire. Smith, who moved to the Sunshine State to sell real estate since losing his seat to Sununu in the 2002 primary, has sent out an email trying to gauge his support.

MINNESOTA:

[...]

After a hand recount of 2.9 million voters, Al Franken, the Democratic challenger, has a lead of 225 votes. For the longest time, the assumption (here at least) was that it’s just a matter of time before Franken is sworn in. But not so fast. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court agreed to review 4,797 previously rejected absentee ballots. This was in response to a motion made by Coleman, who actually wanted the judges to review about 11,000 votes; Franken wanted the scope to be limited to 771 rejected

So the review of nearly 5,000 ballots has begun. Just because they are being looked at does not necessarily mean Coleman will prevail. There’s no telling how many of the ballots will be reinstated, and it’s quite possible that Franken could get a healthy portion of them. And, if after this process Coleman moves into the lead, we know that Franken will come up with his own list of ballots he wants reviewed.

We may not know who won the election until March. At the earliest.

[...]

So: What else is going on in the big bad world?

As Lilly Ledbetter approached her retirement after working as a Goodyear plant supervisor for many years, someone slipped her a disturbing fact. Her male colleagues had been making far more than she was. She sued.

A jury found Goodyear guilty, but the Supreme Court threw out the case. Why? The reason will astound and disturb anyone who works for a private company.

According to enough Bush Supreme Court appointees to reach a 5-4 decision, Ledbetter should have filed her suit within 6 months after the first discriminatory paycheck was issued.

Huh? How’s that again? Exactly how would Lilly have known that fact way back then, given that private companies are still under no obligation to supply salary information to their employees?

President Obama spoke of Lilly Ledbetter’s plight during his campaign, and today he put his pen where his mouth was. (We at No Quarter are watching for what he actually does and give credit when credit is due.) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has been signed into law.

Amy Goldstein deftly puts the bill in its proper perspective:

The legislation …essentially rewrites the rules that specify the time within which workers may sue under a part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlaws discrimination based on gender, race, national origin or religion. Under the bill, workers may bring a lawsuit for up to six months after they receive ANY [emphasis added] paycheck that they allege is discriminatory.

The high court had held that such cases could be brought only within six months of the discrimination’s beginning, rejecting a long-held interpretation by lower courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that each paycheck represented a fresh act of discrimination.

Republicans and others have said this is simply a victory for litigators. Perhaps it is one more income source for trial attorneys because a new law can now be broken. But as Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski (D-RI) put it, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate!”

So, in the end did Lilly Ledbetter become rich as well as famous? Well, no. Now 70 and recently widowed, she will not receive restitution and her case cannot be retired. As Gail Collins puts it, “She’s now part of a long line of working women who went to court and changed a little bit of the world in fights that often brought them minimal personal benefit.”

A friend sent along a quote by Mary Ann Radmacher that well characterizes the Lilly Ledbetters of the world.

Courage does not always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice
at the end of the day saying,
“I will try again tomorrow.”

Actually, I learn a great deal from that program, and do wish it were an hour long. I hang on to every word that Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin utter. Eleanor Clift, sadly, has become my least favorite panelist ever since she drank the KoolAid last year, and her critical thinking has suffered — she just mouths the typical talking points we’ve all heard all week long on every cable news channel. She has nothing NEW to add, or rarely.

And, even when I was a Daily-Kos-lovin’ regular Kossack diarist (@ 2005), I loved TMG (The McLaughlin Group). And I never understood why it was verboten to say that I liked the show, or why there was a regular FRENZY about getting PBS to cancel the show. Whatever for? Because PBS was bowing to the wishes of the rightwingers in Congress who control their purse strings? Call me STUPID, but I have to ask this: Shouldn’t the elected “rightwingers” have as much say about funding PBS as the leftwingers? Ditto NPR?

Ideally, I suppose, no elected officials should mess with PBS’s and NPR’s programming. But obliterating all supposedly “rightwing” programming? That’s anti-democratic, and it proves why the leftwing can never be allowed to RULE our nation because their level of censorship will be more extreme than that of the rightwingers, I fear.

And why do the lefties ASS-u-ME that if anyone, like me, watches TMG, his or her thinking will be irrevocably damaged? That viewers can’t discern for themselves which POVs they prefer?

That someone like Pat Buchanan, whose astonishing memory for U.S. history is mind-blowing, should be silenced? God, I could listen to Pat Buchanan all day every day, and never be bored. I wish MSNBC would use him more. I wish Fox News would give him a huge deal, and give him an hour show!!! I wish he could replace Rush Limbaugh!!!

Clarence Page is another not-so-favorite contributor, but this that he said last Friday was very funny:

Search here to find the stations that carry TMG, and on what days and at what times.

HERE is the panel on PEBO and the USSC:

The Supremes

Issue Three: The Supremes.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: (From videotape.) I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Supreme Court is just what its name suggests — supreme — supreme over all the other 16,000 judicial bodies in the United States. The court’s nine justices interpret law and they set precedent for years to come. The nomination of these justices is by the president, and it is arguably his or her most enduring power.

These justices commonly outlive the nominating president’s terms. All nine of them serve for life, if they so wish. Thirty-two percent resign or retire. As a consequence of lengthy service, the justices’ age can be quite seasoned. In the current court, one of the nine is an octogenarian, John Paul Stevens. Three of the nine are in their seventies — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Question: Why will it be easier for President-elect Obama to assess nominees’ judicial philosophy than for other presidents who have done so, or to do so? Do you understand the question?

MR. BUCHANAN: Sure.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you understand the question, Eleanor?

MS. CLIFT: I can guess at it. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why is it going to be easier for Obama?

MS. CLIFT: Because he’s thoughtful and he’s a former constitutional lawyer.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: There you go. MS. CLIFT: And he understands that he needs to keep a balance on the court, which is now evenly split between left and right, with one swing vote, and the three most likely justices to retire are on the left. And so he needs — the best he can do, from my perspective, is to keep the court where it is and not let the right take over.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He’s a lawyer. And in addition to that, he taught constitutional law for many years, did he not?

MR. PAGE: At the University of Chicago, one of those incubators for justices.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The University of Chicago. So he also knows what questions to ask the interviewee in order to discover what his judicial philosophy is —

MR. BUCHANAN: Let me say, John —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — or hers, correct?

MS. CROWLEY: Well, that’s right. He does have the background. But let’s be honest. I mean, when the country elects a president, they elect a political philosophy. So he’s not going to appoint conservative judges, and that’s his prerogative not to. We’re looking at between one and three vacancies, possibly, starting with John Paul Stevens, who’s about 89 years old. There are others. Ruth Bader Ginsburg —

MS. CLIFT: Eighty-seven, I think.

MS. CROWLEY: — is not in the best of health, and so she might retire as well. So there will be vacancies here for him. And he has made it clear that he wants somebody who is going to be able to reflect his political philosophy and approach the law that way as well.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, more on the Supreme Court from Obama.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: (From videotape.) And we need somebody who’s got the heart to recognize — the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Can you live with that, Clarence?

MR. PAGE: Well, we’ve seen that with Sandra Day O’Connor, her experience as a woman being discriminated against, in spite of her stellar qualifications. She said that had an impact —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he’s saying —

MR. PAGE: — on her — MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — you’ve got to have heart. That’s what he’s saying.

MR. PAGE: Right, right. And the candidates know this. I remember Clarence Thomas sounding very eloquent and passionate about his sympathy for the accused, and then once he became a justice, showed very little of it in his decisions. So I think, you know, there’s part of some salesmanship of —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, what’s the primary — is heart the primary —

MR. BUCHANAN: John, heart is not primary. This is an absurdity.

MS. CLIFT: No, it isn’t.

READ ALL of the panel’s discussion of issues on Friday night.

I wish i’d spent more time hunting around for some of John McLaughlin’s priceless comments and his astonishing predictions — he is SO prescient (!). But perhaps all of you will do some huntin’, and you’ll share what you find.

OPEN THREAD!!!

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

Barack Obama paid ACORN more than $800,000 via one of their hundreds of subsidiaries operating out of the same address. The purpose: To “Get Out The Vote”. He trained early little ACORNS when they were just little nuts in Chicago–and denies it with his typical pathological liar dexterity.

Fannie Mae was the biggest fraud perpetrated upon America’s economy by the worst of criminals–members of congress,

Fannie Mae’s former CEO walked off with $90 million dollars as a reward for cooking their books and bringing down America,

Barack Obama has collected money from the brothers who live at a Hamas Compound and didn’t bother reporting it to the FEC,

AIG went on yet another trip on taxpayer money–this time to hunt partridge in England,

Nobody cares that Barack Obama is lying about his relationship with a domestic terrorist who still hates America and cannot wait to get his talons even further in the Subversion of America’s education.

Nobody notices that several additional members of the former Weather Underground are working hard to get Barack Obama elected.

Even more ironic, the Ohio Secretary of State needs the Supreme Court to tell her to do her job and allow the counties in Ohio to check several hundred thousand ACORN voter registrations to see if any of them is actually legitimate.

So who are they skewering? Why, Joe the Plumber of Course! A Wrench to the head for him! He questioned The One.

The Breaking News is that Joe isn’t a licensed plumber. And he was obviously a Plant! Obama showed up in Joe’s neighbhorhood and started talking to everybody while they Worshipped, and this guy Joe found out he was going to be there so he obviously moved into a house there really fast so he could pretend to be a resident and could be a plant! Yeah! That’s it…….

So Joe asked him a question like he wasn’t supposed to. He was just supposed to worship. Only it wasn’t a question The One wanted to hear.

And he’s a Republican, which I am assuming they regard as some kind of disease or something. I mean, inquiring minds want to know, Barack. Are you only planning to be President of the left wing of the left wing of the Democratic Party, Communists, Marxists, ex-terrorists and deadbeats? Or do you plan on getting rid of everybody else? You know, people who actually pay taxes and things? Just wondering.

After all, this Joe The Plumber thing is critical stuff! No sense of covering something trivial, like say, Obama’s Old Friend and political fixer Tony Rezko, the shameful slum lord who bilked the taxpayers out of millions to “restore” buildings as living quarters for the poor–but instead turned off the heat and allowed family pets in the form of rats–while Barack Obama looked the other way.

Why bother worrying about Obama’s connections to Rashid Khalidi, former PLO member. when you can check into Joe The Plumber and hit him with his own basin wrench for disturbing The One’s reverie?

Why bother looking into why an Iraqi prison escapee with a mansion in Chicago would contribute to Barack Obama’s campaign when you can tell the world that Joe The Plumber isn’t licensed yet?

All that other stuff is just plain trivial. What’s important is, Joe The Plumber. Why? Well because, it’s not nice to question The One Joe!!!! You made him look foolish, man. That can be downright hazardous.

Deflect. Re-route. Change the subject to something else. It’s what the Obama campaign is all about. Ask them about his terrorist buddies and hear an answer about the weather (scuse the pun). Mention ducks and hear about bears. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. And if you can’t do that, just kill the messenger.

Congratulations Joe, you are the perfect example of what an Obama Presidency would be like. Complain, show doubt, ask a question, and plan to suffer for it. And get that American Dream crap right out of your head, Joe. That’s a Flusher under an Obama Administration. We need to all be the same, Joe. You know, you fail, I gotta fail too. It’s the Socialist Way, Comrade.

But don’t worry about taxes in the future fella! When they are done with you , you won’t be paying ANY taxes, because you won’t be working! The Secretary of State of your state will toot right along, complicit with voter fraud for The One, but you, Joe…..you are doomed, you bad boy you! You evil person! You don’t even make $250,000 a year, Joe! But don’t worry, you never will when they are done with you.

Now, I have a suggestion for you, Joe. I hear you work 10-12 hours a day. Why bother working so hard, Joe? What you can do if Barack Obama is President is just work enough to make sure you pay no taxes after your write-offs. Then sit and wait for the IRS to give you a check! What a deal, Joe! We’re all going to do it. It’s going to be the Great unAmerican Giveaway!

Get with it Comrade! And for goodness sakes, stop asking questions, will you? It annoys Comrade Obama and gets in the way of the Glorious Cause. That freedom and Democracy stuff is all over-rated anyways. That’s why millions upon millions of immigrants came here to get away from guys just like Barack Obama.

‘‘If you believed (Obama), I’d be receiving his tax cuts,’’ Wurzelbacher said. ‘‘But I don’t look at it that way. He’d still be hurting others.’’

Not as much as he’s gonna hurt YOU, Joe. Your question made The One gaffe. That’s a No-No. You’re toast, fella.

Meanwhile. off to the Re-education camp with you, Joe!