Remember last year when Indiana's governor Mike Pence signed into law a supposedly "religious freedom" law that allowed discrimination against gay people in public accommodations and other areas? The reaction from the marketing, corporate, sports, and convention businesses was so swift and so severe that the legislature quickly backed down and amended the bill to protect against LGBT and trans discrimination. Even so, they lost hundreds of millions of dollars in convention and tourist money.
Arkansas almost didn't learn the lesson and was flirting with a similar bill. But just in time they changed course and amended the law to include protections against sexual orientation and gender discrimination. Georgia also had a bill introduced but didn't allow it to get out of committee. And we felt proud of Georgia, for once. Remember all that?
Forget it. This year, the Georgia Senate has passed an even worse bill, whose sponsors piously deny that it discriminates. But it does. And Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who led the fight against discrimination in Indiana, is gearing up to lead the fight in Georgia.
Last week, the Georgia senators voted 38-14 for a bill that allows religiously affiliated groups to refuse to "rent, lease or otherwise grant permission for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such religious organization." It's called the First Amendment Defense Act; and, according to Alexander Kaufmann, senior business editor, Huffington Post, "the legislation actually takes Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act a step further, barring government authorities from bringing civil cases against organizations accused of discrimination."
At least the Indiana law allowed specific cases to be argued in court. The Georgia law does not; rather, it grants an absolute right to discriminate, based solely on the religious beliefs of the owner of the facility.
The only part of the bill that makes any sense is completely unnecessary. It says no religious clergy person will be required to perform marriages of people that would violate his religious principles. That is already protected by specific mention in the Supreme Court decision that guaranteed marriage equality. The SCOTUS decision has to do with civil marriage; religions can have their own rules about religious marriage.
The rest of the bill has to do with discrimination in business arrangements, even when they deny it and try to disguise the fact. Revealingly, one of the bill sponsors last year said they couldn't leave that part out, because that would gut what it was all about -- although he didn't want to admit that it was discrimination he was talking about.
Here's the thing: Is your right to religious freedom -- to believe, to practice, and to advocate your particular religious beliefs -- absolute? Start with an extreme example: does it allow you to murder someone? Of course not. There are limits when your religious freedom encroaches on my rights. That is the crux.
Kim Davis was not jailed in Kentucky for her religious beliefs; she was jailed for contempt of court in not following an order to do her job, which was to provide marriage licenses according to law. That law may have put her in conflict with her religious belief -- but she was depriving others of their right to marry.
The court and the state ultimately made the appropriate accommodation for Kim Davis' religious belief: she does not personally have to issue the licenses or have her name on them as county clerk. But she cannot prevent others in her office from doing their job. Just as a pharmacy may allow one of its pharmacists who objects to contraception not to fill such prescriptions, as long as there are others available who will do so.
Of course, there are going to be some gray areas when the two rights clash -- and they will have to be adjudicated based on the relative importance of the conflicting rights. The corporate world, the convention world, the sports world (think SuperBowl) -- have spoken to Indiana. They are about to have to speak to Georgia in the same way -- by withdrawing their business, if we turn back the clock to discrimination. In Georgia, add to that the ever-growing film industry, which would surely join in this fight.
Note to Gov. Dean: Of course, first of all, this is a moral issue, and that moral issue is discrimination falsely camoflouged as "religious freedom." It is also a business decision, and the nation has already spoken on this one. By allowing this to become law (assuming the House passes it too), the state will lose billions of dollars.
Gov. Dean, you say we can't afford to expand Medicaid under the Obamacare plan. Then how can we afford the loss of convention and tourist business that will result if this law is passed? Of course both decisions are political; don't pretend otherwise. You can't have it both ways, governor. Get your veto pen ready -- or else we may not be able to afford a lot of things you want. Will that persuade you?
Ralph
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Didn't see this one coming
Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump. The surprising thing is that Christie was considered one of the four, along with Bush, Rubio, and Kasich, who were acceptable to the anti-Trump GOP establishment and to moderate and independent voters.
Now Christie's endorsed the one who gives these same politicos the vapors. Oh, lawsey me, Beulah !! Bring me mah smellin' salts !!
And he timed it perfectly to capture the news cycle -- just as the disappointing boy wonder Marco found his inner lion and landed some blows on The Donald in the debate the night before. The circus is now on the verge of becoming a circular firing squad.
Or not. You gotta wonder what Christic got from Trump. Not VP. Too much competition. How about Attorney General Christie?
Ralph
PS: Wouldn't that be rich? President Trump, whose for profit Trump University is being sued for fraud, nominates Christie for AG, and he can't get confirmed because he's under criminal indictment for corruption as governor.
Now Christie's endorsed the one who gives these same politicos the vapors. Oh, lawsey me, Beulah !! Bring me mah smellin' salts !!
And he timed it perfectly to capture the news cycle -- just as the disappointing boy wonder Marco found his inner lion and landed some blows on The Donald in the debate the night before. The circus is now on the verge of becoming a circular firing squad.
Or not. You gotta wonder what Christic got from Trump. Not VP. Too much competition. How about Attorney General Christie?
Ralph
PS: Wouldn't that be rich? President Trump, whose for profit Trump University is being sued for fraud, nominates Christie for AG, and he can't get confirmed because he's under criminal indictment for corruption as governor.
Scalia's death will have real consequences in real people's lives.
Former Gov. Bob McDonald (R-VA) was convicted of corruption for accepting money and expensive gifts in exchange for using the power of the governor's office to promote the man's private business. McDonald was sentenced to two years in jail.
The conviction was upheld by an appeals court. McDonald then appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, and SCOTUS accepted the case. They could have just let the lower court decision stand, so at least four justices must have felt there is a good chance they will overturn it. They went even further and voted to put the sentence on hold until they hear the case in April. I think that would take five votes. Justice Scalia almost surely was in that majority.
Now, with Scalia's death, the case will be heard and decided by eight justices. It's possible that the court may end in a 4 to 4 tie, which would mean that the appeals court decision stands, and McDonald goes to jail.
It's possible that, with a cooperative senate, Scalia's replacement could still be seated before the April hearing. Thus, it's conceivable that McDonald could go free. Don't count on it, given the recalcitrance of the Republicans to even meeting with, much less confirming, an Obama nominee.
Another possibillity is that McDonald might have five votes anyway in the remaining eight. We don't know. But, if it was the usual 5 to 4 liberal-conservative split on the procedural vote (with Scalia), then McDonald now has to win one of the liberals in order to go free. Scalia's vote could have meant the difference between jail and freedom for this former Republican governor.
The loss of Scalia's vote will result in other 4 to 4 ties in cases where the lower court decision will stand. Some will thus end in outcomes that liberals favor, while others will result in conservative-pleasing outcomes -- the Texas abortion clinic case being one of those. There the appeals court upheld the restrictive law that will close most of the facilities in Texas.
In such a situation, however, if a tie without Scalia favors conservative positions, then Scalia's vote would only have added to that. At least, with a tie rather than a 5-4 ruling, it will apply only to the case heard; it will not be generalized to all states, which leaves it open to another abortion clinic case being decided after a Democratic appointee joins the court and gives a liberal majority.
Ralph
The conviction was upheld by an appeals court. McDonald then appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, and SCOTUS accepted the case. They could have just let the lower court decision stand, so at least four justices must have felt there is a good chance they will overturn it. They went even further and voted to put the sentence on hold until they hear the case in April. I think that would take five votes. Justice Scalia almost surely was in that majority.
Now, with Scalia's death, the case will be heard and decided by eight justices. It's possible that the court may end in a 4 to 4 tie, which would mean that the appeals court decision stands, and McDonald goes to jail.
It's possible that, with a cooperative senate, Scalia's replacement could still be seated before the April hearing. Thus, it's conceivable that McDonald could go free. Don't count on it, given the recalcitrance of the Republicans to even meeting with, much less confirming, an Obama nominee.
Another possibillity is that McDonald might have five votes anyway in the remaining eight. We don't know. But, if it was the usual 5 to 4 liberal-conservative split on the procedural vote (with Scalia), then McDonald now has to win one of the liberals in order to go free. Scalia's vote could have meant the difference between jail and freedom for this former Republican governor.
The loss of Scalia's vote will result in other 4 to 4 ties in cases where the lower court decision will stand. Some will thus end in outcomes that liberals favor, while others will result in conservative-pleasing outcomes -- the Texas abortion clinic case being one of those. There the appeals court upheld the restrictive law that will close most of the facilities in Texas.
In such a situation, however, if a tie without Scalia favors conservative positions, then Scalia's vote would only have added to that. At least, with a tie rather than a 5-4 ruling, it will apply only to the case heard; it will not be generalized to all states, which leaves it open to another abortion clinic case being decided after a Democratic appointee joins the court and gives a liberal majority.
Ralph
Friday, February 26, 2016
David Duke, former KKK head, backs Trump
David Duke, former head of the KKK and one time presidential candidate himself, has put out a call for people to volunteer for Donald Trump's campaign and to get out the vote for him. He told them they would "meet like-minded people" among Trump supporters.
Other far right and White Supremacist groups have previously indicated their preference for Trump, who has very mildly repudiated what they stand for. Let's see what he does now with the greater publicity that David Duke's endorsement will engender.
Ralph
Other far right and White Supremacist groups have previously indicated their preference for Trump, who has very mildly repudiated what they stand for. Let's see what he does now with the greater publicity that David Duke's endorsement will engender.
Ralph
An interesting suggestion for Scalia's replacement
Professor Michael Broyde of the Emory Unviersity Law School has made a different recommendation for replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, given the difficult political struggle between the president and the Republican senators.
Rather than trying to find a moderate that could get confirmation, or making a recess appointment which would last only through December 2016, the president could . . .
Rather than trying to find a moderate that could get confirmation, or making a recess appointment which would last only through December 2016, the president could . . .
* * *
". . . appoint a leading legal mind [who is] at the end of his career.
In particular, the President should nominate Judge Richard Posner to
the Supreme Court. Posner is a leading intellectual light of the past
half-century in law. He is the author of more than 40 books -- many of them landmarks and classics in diverse fields.
"He has been a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1981. The Journal of Legal Studies found Posner to be the most-cited legal scholar of all time by a considerable
margin. He is respected by judges, law professors and lawyers alike. He
is the modern 'Albert Einstein' of American law, and it has always been
an embarrassment to the legal system that he is not a member of the
Supreme Court. Imagine the NBA Hall of Fame without Michael Jordan:
Richard Posner is the Michael Jordan of Law.
"Three additional factors are important in supporting Posner's selection. The judge is not a moderate but an iconoclast,
with unique positions that neither political party fully supports: He
supports same-sex marriage, is a conservative on economic matters,
opposes the war on drugs, minimizes privacy and is famous for
undertaking economic analysis of many issues.
"Everybody agrees with him
sometimes and almost no one all the time. Second, Posner is already 77
and is unlikely to serve for many decades given his age. The next
President could conceivably name Posner's successor.
"Finally,
and most importantly, the idea that one of the leading lights of law
worldwide is a Supreme Court justice ought to make anyone who cares
about the high court and the law proud to be an American."
* * *
I don't presume to know a lot about Judge Posner, but just from ordinary newpaper reading I know that he often gets into battles with a range of legal minds, such that it's hard to peg him into any pigeon hole . . . except prodigious and perhaps brilliant.
Ralph
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Koch adviser joins Rubio team as adviser
Although Charles and David Koch have said that they plan to spend nearly $900 million from their network of political donors to defeat Democrats in 2016, they have not yet endorsed a presidential candidate. That may be about to change.
Politico announced today that Marc Short, the Koch's top political operative, is joining Marco Rubio's campaign as a senior adviser. He has been president of the Koch backed Freedom Partners. Koch support means lots of money, but it also means access to their vast data bank of voter information.
Yes, but how does that help overcome Trump's message -- which has caught fire -- of fighting back against the establishment and the candidates bought by big donors?
Ralph
Politico announced today that Marc Short, the Koch's top political operative, is joining Marco Rubio's campaign as a senior adviser. He has been president of the Koch backed Freedom Partners. Koch support means lots of money, but it also means access to their vast data bank of voter information.
Yes, but how does that help overcome Trump's message -- which has caught fire -- of fighting back against the establishment and the candidates bought by big donors?
Ralph
Trump's big win in Nevada . . . and Cruz's loss.
The Nevada caucuses were made a part of the quartet of early-voting states to represent both the western states and a more demographically diverse population. Here are the results.
Trump 45.95%
Rubio 23.9%
Cruz 21.4%
Carson 4.8%
Kasich 3.6%
This was a big and a very significant win for Trump. He has now won in New England, the South, and the West and came close in the Midwest. And, even more significant, in Nevada he came in first in almost every category: women, evangelicals, more educated, less educated, moderates, and those who identify as "very conservative," -- but also with unions members and Hispanics.
Consider the bad news for Cruz: his two big constituencies are: "very conservative" and "evangelical." He lost both to Trump. As to other categories, we should remember that this was a Republican primary, and all those categories have "Republican" attached. Just how many Republican Hispanics are there, how many Republican union members? In a one-to-one, Hillary will probably carry those latter categories easily against Trump.
But this was a primary; and for Trump to win over Cruz among evangelicals and very conservative voters is really bad news for Cruz. Perhaps his dirty tricks are catching up with him.
Rubio's second place win was enough to keep him in the race, pick up some endorsements and probably big donors. He and Jeb have talked and plan to meet. Would his endorsement help? Not much. Rubio seems the only viable opponent for Trump at this point. But he's got to start winning some states. Super Tuesday will be the big test for him. It may just be too late.
Which brings us to the question: Can Trump beat Clinton? I think that depends on what happens between now and November. If there is a major terrorist attack, yes he might be swept into office on a wave of nationalist fervor and fear -- plus blame of Obama and Hillary as his Sec. of State.
Or if they manage to make her emails a big issue, that could do it. Yesterday, a federal judge gave the go-ahead on an important procedural issue in the case. It had to do with requiring testimony from her top aides from that time. I think this is the scenario in which Bloomberg might step in and run an independent campaign, if it looks like she will falter.
Another scenario would be if Trump does a pivot and starts acting like an adult, appoints some good advisers and listens to them, indicating that he is taking it seriously. Then he would appeal more to independents and conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, who might otherwise stay home. Combine his broad, populist appeal with acting like a serious-minded candidate, willing to learn how to be president -- that could make him really formidable in November.
It is a bit sobering to look at the comparable turnout. The Democratic caucuses in Nevada totaled around 12,000. The Republicans had about 75,000. And the Democrats had the advantage of holding theirs on a Saturday; the Republicans caucused on Tuesday night. Nobody is talking about that.
I did early voting yesterday and cast my vote for Bernie Sanders. I don't see a path to victory for him, but I wanted to register my approval for his goals and his idealism and to thank him for running this race and pulling Hillary to the left.
I've followed presidential politics ever since the days of Jack Kennedy. There's never been anything like this one as a fascinating process to watch unfold.
Ralph
Trump 45.95%
Rubio 23.9%
Cruz 21.4%
Carson 4.8%
Kasich 3.6%
This was a big and a very significant win for Trump. He has now won in New England, the South, and the West and came close in the Midwest. And, even more significant, in Nevada he came in first in almost every category: women, evangelicals, more educated, less educated, moderates, and those who identify as "very conservative," -- but also with unions members and Hispanics.
Consider the bad news for Cruz: his two big constituencies are: "very conservative" and "evangelical." He lost both to Trump. As to other categories, we should remember that this was a Republican primary, and all those categories have "Republican" attached. Just how many Republican Hispanics are there, how many Republican union members? In a one-to-one, Hillary will probably carry those latter categories easily against Trump.
But this was a primary; and for Trump to win over Cruz among evangelicals and very conservative voters is really bad news for Cruz. Perhaps his dirty tricks are catching up with him.
Rubio's second place win was enough to keep him in the race, pick up some endorsements and probably big donors. He and Jeb have talked and plan to meet. Would his endorsement help? Not much. Rubio seems the only viable opponent for Trump at this point. But he's got to start winning some states. Super Tuesday will be the big test for him. It may just be too late.
Which brings us to the question: Can Trump beat Clinton? I think that depends on what happens between now and November. If there is a major terrorist attack, yes he might be swept into office on a wave of nationalist fervor and fear -- plus blame of Obama and Hillary as his Sec. of State.
Or if they manage to make her emails a big issue, that could do it. Yesterday, a federal judge gave the go-ahead on an important procedural issue in the case. It had to do with requiring testimony from her top aides from that time. I think this is the scenario in which Bloomberg might step in and run an independent campaign, if it looks like she will falter.
Another scenario would be if Trump does a pivot and starts acting like an adult, appoints some good advisers and listens to them, indicating that he is taking it seriously. Then he would appeal more to independents and conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, who might otherwise stay home. Combine his broad, populist appeal with acting like a serious-minded candidate, willing to learn how to be president -- that could make him really formidable in November.
It is a bit sobering to look at the comparable turnout. The Democratic caucuses in Nevada totaled around 12,000. The Republicans had about 75,000. And the Democrats had the advantage of holding theirs on a Saturday; the Republicans caucused on Tuesday night. Nobody is talking about that.
I did early voting yesterday and cast my vote for Bernie Sanders. I don't see a path to victory for him, but I wanted to register my approval for his goals and his idealism and to thank him for running this race and pulling Hillary to the left.
I've followed presidential politics ever since the days of Jack Kennedy. There's never been anything like this one as a fascinating process to watch unfold.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
