Archive for June, 2007

Jun 30 2007

Profile Image of Dusty
Dusty

Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s Drama Queen

Filed under politics

Justice Anthony Kennedy loves his job. He loves being the center of attention. He sits squarely in the catbird seat as it were, able to single-handedly affect change as no other individual in our government…this side of George Bush of course. He has more power than the head Supreme, Justice Roberts, because with the rest of SCOTUS evenly split between liberal and conservative views…it’s Justice Kennedy they all look to for the final vote, the final answer in a complex question of who’s right and who’s wrong.

To understand how this egotistical, self- described ‘nerd’ relishes his position of power and authority, one should look at his childhood. It was spent in the company of adults more times than not. Raised in Sacramento California, both his parents were part of the CA legislature and their friends were the famous and not-so-famou s of Californian legislative history..like Governor Earl Warren for example, who Kennedy ‘worked’ for as a young child of nine at the Statehouse. Since Kennedy had a hard time developing childhood friendships, his father saw to it that a job was created for the child at the statehouse. Damn, how does that work? I want a job created for me working for the Governor damnit..but I digress.

Justice Kennedy seems most at home when he is lecturing and condescending to others. He relishes his role as the deal-breaker in all SCOTUS cases now that Sandra O’Connor has retired. There are four obvious conservative s with Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. Then there are Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens for the moderate to liberal pov. Kennedy waffles back and forth with little to tell us which way the wind is going to blow for him on each case. He sided with the moderates on the Military Tribunals and most abortion cases, yet it was Kennedy who wrote the opinion upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban. This past week he voted with the four “Bushies” on the issues of freedom of speech, campaign ads, faith-based funding by the government and the role of the EPA in saving our planets non-human species. A recent study also showed that Kennedy is the most consistent Supreme who votes to strike down more state and federal laws combined than any of his colleagues. He is no friend of ‘states rights’..this I can pretty much state with authority.

Justice Kennedy also thinks SCOTUS is more important than Congress when it comes to affecting the lives of the average American. He might be right..but still, I take issue with this quote from him: “You know, in any given year, we may make more important decisions than the legislative branch does—precluding foreign affairs, perhaps,” he said. “Important in the sense that it will control the direction of society.”. When asked to name the most important qualities for achievement in his field, he replied: “To have an understanding that you have an opportunity to shape the destiny of the country.”

Wait a minute pal..isn’t your friggin job to stay the hell out of morality and merely define the rule of law? Correct me if I am wrong Anthony baby..but aren’t you just supposed to protect the Constitution and define the laws created by our legislative branch? What balls this man has..seriously, my dear reader..his grandiose view of his job scares the shit out of me. This man defines ‘activist judge’ to a proverbial tee, don’t you think?

What really causes me to despise Justice Anthony Kennedy was his role in Bush v. Gore. Yes, my dear reader..that case which decided that George Bush was our President instead of Al Gore. To quote from a New Republic article on Kennedy: “Kennedy initially joined the four liberals who wanted to allow the Florida recount to continue, but, after a brief show of agonizing, he changed his mind. This left Justices Breyer and Souter—who thought they could win Kennedy’s vote—with their hands extended, played for dupes. In the per curiam opinion itself, which Kennedy drafted on his own, his muddy writing style and self-aggrandizing conception of the Court’s role are on full display. “When contending parties invoke the process of the courts,” he wrote pompously, “it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitution al issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.” Note the false modesty and the feint at shrinking from the burden of an “unsought responsibility.” Of course, it was the Court, at Kennedy’s insistence, that decided to settle a debate Congress would have resolved.”

This flip-flopping sumbitch possibly cost Al Gore the election. In one of the most divisive elections ever held in modern history..Kennedy had the nad’s to change his mind midway through the process. For this alone, I will never be able to forgive him and I personally want him to spend eternity washing the feet of Jerry Falwell in hell while he has to listen to the non-stop styling’s of American Idol first round losers who’s voices resemble the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard.

Yesterday, Kennedy once again sided with the conservative s, although he did not participate in writing the decision. He also stated he didn’t agree with the ruling in it’s entirety. My question is..why would you vote with them if you couldn’t support the complete ruling. Racial equality is something our country has danced around and attempted to provide since the civil war. What part of it was expendable Justice Kennedy?

SCOTUS agreed Friday to review whether Gitmo detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement. . In April, the court turned down an identical request, which makes this an incredible and highly unusual move. The last time this subject came up SCOTUS only had 3 of the necessary 4 Justices that wanted to review the case. True to form, Kennedy was on the fence. It is unclear if he flip-flopped again. The question this time is why a Military Tribunal over our regular court system. This case won’t come before them until after October sadly..but its something to give us hope. What side will Kennedy come down on? As noted earlier, he sided with the left side of the court in the Hamden case.

It seems the right doesn’t mind “activist” judges so long as the bastards go ‘their way’. I would like to bring this around full circle with some citations from a TomPaine article about some of the recent decisions by SCOTUS that I mentioned earlier, where Justice Kennedy held the swing vote. :

The conservative activists on the Supreme Court decreed in a series of 5-4 decisions:

It’s critical to recognize these decisions—along with earlier decisions to end privacy between a woman and her doctor, and to make it harder to challenge pay discriminati on—are part of a pattern. Justice Anthony Kennedy played an important role in each and every one of these decisions.

As long as Justice Anthony Kennedy likes to play “Drama Queen” for a day..we have faint hope that not all rulings will go along with the rightwingers bullshit scheme for America. But I ain’t holding my breath dear reader..and neither should you.

Tags: Gitmo, Torture, Habeas Corpus, SCOTUS, Justice Kennedy

Racial Equality, Womens right to choose, Equal Pay for Women, McCain-Feingold

Cross-posted at BIO button

Sphere: Related Content

13 responses so far

Jun 30 2007

Profile Image of sagefever
sagefever

Change or from cocoon to emergence

Filed under Uncategorized

My way of being in this world has to change,we all through out our lives face obstacles,our methods for meeting them can get pretty entrenched.Time for change for this woman.

My son was born in 1988 ~he was as they say “severely delayed developmentally”, first I was told he never be more than “6 months” of age mentally ,then he was considered 2~which was a”good” assessment.By this point having been told he was blind,he was not, that he would never..well that list was endless.I began to just fold over myself and him partly to protect him and also so I could enjoy the baby stage~which, I figured correctly ,were going to be the best years for us.When faced with many years of baby it really does not behove you to pay much attention to linear time.On many an occasion that way of dealing with intrusions worked for me.Once they(the states overseers) asked if I would keep a food diary:translation we want to put a stint in his stomach.My boy loved food way too much for that,plus I’d seen enough stints to know no fun,just fast and easy. Each time anyone goes under for surgery it is a risk~with kids like him it is dangerous.So I folded over again building that cocoon shell nice and hard.I took the two hours each meal to feed him,they knew there was no way to make me do the stint or any just cause..so that way of dealing worked well for us.

But now he is gone.Time and events press in on me now in new ,different ways that demand different methods of facing them.Change~ the one thing we all know will be ours to deal with no matter what.Old habits die hard for me..but this is what the emerging butterfly must feel like,cautious,warming as the sun rays bring life to her wings,stretching them wide, the first few tentative flutters,the irresistible lure of the air drafts,the odor of nectar..here’s to being as graceful ,as natural as the butterfly.Here is to change.

Sphere: Related Content

9 responses so far

Jun 30 2007

Profile Image of Dusty
Dusty

Avoid Bush’s Executive Privilege Claim By Investigating NSA Program As A Crime

From ThinkProgress: (video on their site as well)

Yesterday, after years of White House stonewalling, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the Bush administration for documents related to the warrantless domestic surveillance program.

Today, during a background discussion with reporters, senior Bush administration officials indicated that they would invoke executive privilege in order to deny the NSA documents to Congress, just as they did this morning concerning subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney scandal. “Our response to [the NSA] subpoenas will be the same as our response was before,” said an anonymous official.

But last night on MSNBC’s Countdown, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley claimed that Congress may be able to “get around the executive privilege in court” by saying “we are investigating a potential crime.” Turley said this was possible because warrantless wiretapping is “a federal crime” that “the president has ordered hundreds of people do.”

As Columbia University law professor Michael Dorf points out, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that, “where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, [executive privilege] must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution.”

Bush is invoking such “a generalized need for confidentiality,” according to a senior administration official this morning:

“This is not a mere exercise relating to a particular event. This is an exercise in an attempt to protect the prerogatives of the president for this president and for future presidents.”

When I saw this on Countdown the other night I thought it was a simply wonderful idea. I am glad that TP posted on it for those that might of missed the show and interview w/Professor Turley.

Tags: , , ,

Sphere: Related Content

5 responses so far

Jun 28 2007

Profile Image of Thorne
Thorne

Happy Hookers for Cancer Kids

Filed under politics

(edited to add crochet instruction links for the happy hooker wannabes *wink*)

I know a couple of you are already breaking out your hooks or posting this one at your blogs, but since this is something that I feel strongly exemplifies the positive sort of grass roots actions that are possible by utilizing this awesome medium of the internet/blogosphere, I wanted to cross post it here. I’ve done a lot of blogcruising over the last few years. Bitch-fests are at a premium, big money efforts are spamming everyone, along with get rich schemes and scams of all sorts, but here is an effort that is not only noble and compassionate, but deserving of recognition and applause for the simple fact that it is action!!!Taking action. A drop in the ocean some would say, but I bet not the kids that will be snuggling under these afghans, or the families and other caregivers at the camp. Too many times, too many of us feel

“What’s the point? How can my small, insignificant self make a difference?”

We find ourselves overwhelmed by the war, the corruption, the pain and suffering… the “who’s the biggest victim” or “who is suffering worse” arguments, the censure of others for other causes…

One… stitch… at a… time. One hug at a time, one woman at a time, one man, soldier, politician, one aluminum can or plastic bottle or lightbulb.

That’s how we’ll do it; whatever it is that needs be done. It starts with me.

 

clipped from thiseclecticlife.com

button.jpg

6720 SQUARES!
70 DOWN
6650 TO GO!

That would be 140 afghans made of 40 granny squares (each square 6?x6? without the black border). Each square would be made by a different person; each afghan from squares sent from different parts of the globe. Each square would have a small card attached with the logo, or name, AND location of the person who made it (you can add best wishes as well). When a child gets an afghan, the child will know that at least 40 different people around the world care enough to share their time and their heart.

  • If you can’t crochet, you can help spread the word. Add a button to your site with a link to the original post. Instructions for doing so can be found here or here.
  • Participate in the blogroll if you are posting a button or writing about the project or if you are sending squares, tell me so I can add you here. You may send an image that is 125 x 125 pixels and I will post it with a link to your url.
  •   blog it

    *x-posted at Thorne’s World

    *Note for happy hooker hopefuls:  The pattern linked in the above clip is super simple, even for an inexperienced or “virgin” hooker!  Only 2 stitches!  Lefties, go here, everybody else start here  to begin your chain, and then go here to learn how to do a doublecrochet (dc).  These are decent tutorials with images.

    Sphere: Related Content

    11 responses so far

    Jun 28 2007

    Profile Image of Dusty
    Dusty

    Trashcan Ann picks on Edwards dead son..wotta bitch!

    Filed under 08 Elections

    Did anyone catch the skank on Chrissy Matthew’s show yesterday? She went after John Edwards as usual. But this time..Elizabeth Edwards called in and told her to knock it off..of course Trashcan Annie refused to back down..including Mrs. Edwards pleas to leave her dead son out of it. There is a transcript up if anyone is interested, I will post it.

     

    Fuckin’ worthless hag..the browshirts pinup girl is a smarmy witch..its a fact jack.

    Sphere: Related Content

    11 responses so far

    Jun 26 2007

    Profile Image of Dusty
    Dusty

    SCOTUS screws us again..Thanks Bush

    Filed under politics

    Lady JusticeToday the highest court in the land shit on the first amendment once regarding students, and then turned around and allowed swiftboaters to continue to do their dirty work.

    Explain those two rulings to me and how they don’t contradict each other someone, anyone. In fact, explain the four rulings to me today..as this article in WaPo points out..the fucking neocons went 4 for 4 today using baseball lingo. That means they won all four cases.

    Bastards can thank George Bush for setting up the Supreme just the way they like it…Alito, Roberts and the other two bible-thumping neocons gave the green light to BushCo’s ‘faith-based’ funding bs as well.

    It was a crappy day overall for Lady Justice. Something tells me she is going out and getting drunk tonight. I wouldn’t blame her if she did. Bush has stacked the Supreme Court for what looks like decades to come, judging by the ages of Roberts, Alito and company. Only the liberals are old..and that ain’t good my dear reader.

    Tags: , , , ,

    Sphere: Related Content

    9 responses so far

    Jun 25 2007

    Profile Image of Dusty
    Dusty

    John Edwards needs to rent a set of balls for the duration…

    Filed under 08 Elections

    Lamia by Herbert James DraperOver at FireDogLake, there is an excellent, and I do mean excellent writeup by Pachacute about the lovely and talented John Edwards. It says quite a lot about how I feel about him too. A small taste:

    But you’re too gentle, so far, to be trusted. It’s time to get your hair mussed. If you don’t, you’re going to continue to get this kind of hit piece coverage. The elites hate you and your anti-poverty agenda because they see you as a traitor to your class. They think you’re a sanctimonious prig for calling them out on their own blatant hypocrisy.

    Take a gander..its short and sweet.

    Tags: , ,

    Sphere: Related Content

    10 responses so far

    Jun 23 2007

    Profile Image of Dusty
    Dusty

    What do women see in Hillary?

    Filed under politics

    Lamia by Herbert James DraperFrom The Nation:

    “I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!” exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, “Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you.” Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described “Hillary resisters”–those who believe that “she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe,” as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, “who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can’t stand her position on the war, who don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”

    This rather dramatic change of heart encapsulates one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of “the joy of female independence” now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing’s favorite “femi-nazi” now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to “a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.”

    So what’s up with the Hillary-bashing? “Women don’t trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her,” wrote Susan Douglas in a May In These Times article titled “Why Women Hate Hillary.” A month later, in her Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen declared, “The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem.”

    Not exactly true, as it turns out. Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.

    Let’s be clear: Hillary has a “feminist problem,” and more so with those who lean left.

    At first glance, the fault line dividing feminists in their view of Hillary Clinton is merely a matter of ideology. On one side are the mainstream moderate women’s organizations such as NOW and EMILY’s List, facing off against more radical progressive feminists, especially those opposed to the Iraq War. Some of her supporters claim that much of the anger is inspired by her now-infamous 2002 Congressional vote. “It’s about this one vote, which was not to invade Iraq but to authorize the President to wage war. I can’t understand how this can be held up against a lifetime of important political work,” says NOW president Kim Gandy.

    Antiwar sentiments run high indeed, but when it comes to feminism and feminists, the “Hillary divide” also mirrors a deeper debate over the relationship between gender and political power. The ambivalence over Hillary’s candidacy has just as much to do with increasing skepticism about the value of making it to the top.

    “Having a woman in the White House won’t necessarily do a damn thing for progressive feminism,” writes Bitch magazine founder Lisa Jervis in LiP magazine. “Though the dearth of women in electoral politics is so dire as to make supporting a woman–any woman–an attractive proposition, even if it’s just so she can serve as a role model for others who’ll do the job better eventually, it’s ultimately a trap. Women who do nothing to enact feminist policies will be elected and backlash will flourish. I can hear the refrain now: ‘They’ve finally gotten a woman in the White House, so why are feminists still whining about equal pay?’”

    Jervis’s views were echoed by her peers on the blog Feministing, where Jen Moseley wrote, “As women sign up to work with anyone but Senator Clinton, of course, they’re being asked why. That’s the bad news. The good news is they’re all giving the same answer. Being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women. There’s no vagina litmus test, people.”

    For rest of the article, click here.

    Tags: , ,

    Sphere: Related Content

    12 responses so far

    Close
    E-mail It