The utter arrogance

The utter arrogance of it is mind-boggling. Georgia's Representative Tom Price, who has risen in Congress to be chair of the House Republican Study Committee and an increasingly vocal member of the GOP leadership, has introduced a bill that would mandate that the House hold no sessions between the November election and the end of this Congress in January.

Because, Price says, he is afraid of what legislation the Democrats will force through in a lame duck session. What arrogance!!! What hubris!!! He's saying: We know we're going to win, and we want to start being in control now, even before the election. You should just roll over and play dead in the meantime. I hope the Honorable Price will be greatly disappointed when the Republicans do not in fact retake control of the House in the elections.

These Republicans are quick to yell "Constitution !!!" whenever they think Democrats are overstepping boundaries. Well, isn't this a bit of usurpation of the Constitutionally mandated terms of House members? Price in effect is wanting to shorten the terms by two months, that's 1/12 of the entire term.

Get over yourself, Dr. Tom.

Ralph

Is Judge Walker disqualified because he is gay?

Of course it's inevitable that opponents will try to discredit Judge Vaughan Walker's landmark and strongly reasoned ruling by making an issue of the fact that he is himself gay and in a long-term relationship. It's been suggested that he has a vested interest because (1) he lives in California and (2) he might want to marry his long-term partner.

I did not know this when I read his ruling and was blown away by the logic and intelligence of his reasoning, particularly that he based it on both the compelling evidence presented at trial and on questions of law. It should stand on its own merits. If it does, then what does it matter what his sexual orientation is?

Is there any judge about whom it could be said that his sexual orientation was a totally irrelevant fact? Is a heterosexual judge guaranteed to be unbiased about marriage?

It's just that we don't think of that as bias because it is the "norm" in our society; we call that heterosexism -- the invisible influence of our cultural norms on our thinking about controversial issues that challenge those norms.

Or, to put it more succinctly, a fish doesn't know it's in water or know that others could drown in it.

They will try to discredit the ruling -- it's already started. The pushback should be: find us a judge who doesn't have a sexual orientation or a gender. Until you do, we'll judge the judge on the merits of his arguments.

Ralph

Other news

1. Medicare. In the annual report on Medicare from governmental actuaries, the news is good. The new health care law will significantly improve the outlook for Medicare, IF it is implemented the way it has been designed. The life of its trust fund will be extended by 12 years, until 2029.

Take note Republicans. People don't want you to mess with their Medicare, so you'd better not mess with the health care reform -- or else you'll be messing with Medicare.

2. Social Security also got a favorable report from the actuaries. It is expected to run a surplus until 2024. No need to rush to fix that one either, it seems, certainly no big overhaul or privitization; maybe a little tinkering and up the retirement age -- 6 months or so ought to do it for now. So stop fear-mongering, you Republicans.

3. By a vote of 63-37, Elena Kagan was confirmed as the fourth ever, and the third currently sitting, woman Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. Republicans did a lot of grandstanding, some of it was possibly ideological, but most of it was pure politics, their stated reasons often being at direct odds with Ms. Kagan's actual testimony. Pay no attention to them, Ms. Kagan; that's just how they are. I just looked at the individual pictures and statements of the 37: man, what a bunch of dried up, prissy, constipated looking old prunes. No wonder we can't get anything done in the senate.

4. Massachusetts became the 6th state (along with HI, IL, MD, NJ, WA) to adopt a law to assign its electoral votes to the candidate for president who wins the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won the vote in MA. It will be law as soon as Gov. Duvall Patrick signs it, and he has said he will. If enough states adopt this voluntary plan, it will effectively allow us to elect the president by popular vote without having to amend the constitution to do it.

5. What's with Christopher Dodd lecturing freshman senators about changing the filibuster rules. He warned them, patronizingly telling them that they don't know what they're talking about, never having been in the senate when their party was in the minority.

I assume what Dodd meant was that he wants to keep the filibuster so Democrats can use it when they are next the minority party. That is just playing politics. No matter which party uses it to obstruct progress, it should be changed. Tom Harkin's proposal seems entirely reasonable, useful to slow down a vote but without constituting minority rule by blocking. If Dodd really wants to preserve minority rule, then I'm glad he's not going to be back next term.

With the senate's makeup of two senators from each state, the filibuster can block legislation with only 40 votes -- which could conceivably come from the 20 least populated states and represent only 11% of the voters. That shouldn't be.

Ralph

And Newt chimes in . . .

Newt found another parade to try to jump in front of and pretend to be leading. Here's his reaction to yesterday's ruling on Prop 8 from his website, www.newt.org:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Rachel Madow has already answered that, saying:

"The rights of the minority are not supposed to be put up for a vote; they're not a popularity contest. They're supposed to be subjected to the test of constitutionality. . . . That's sort of the big idea in this country. That's the big idea of this country."

Now that's a debate I would like to see: Newt and Rachel.

Ralph

Prop 8 ruling - 3

From Aaron Belkin, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at University of California at Santa Barbara, writing in the Huffington Post about the significance of Judge Walker's powerful opinion.

From my perspective, the most compelling and awe-inspiring aspect of Judge Walker's decision is the wholesale rejection of the politics of paranoia . . . [which] involves the use of divide and-conquer tactics to blame some outcast group for the nation's problems. . . . the paranoid style always involves a distortion of facts. In today's decision, Judge Walker saw the defense of Prop 8 for exactly what it is: the use of phony facts and arguments to conceal a private, moral judgment.

Listen to what he says on page 132 of his decision: "Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate."

What is striking about the Prop 8 defense as well as Judge Walker's dismantling of it is that rather than simply admitting that they're not comfortable with marriage equality, proponents tried to conceal their private, moral judgment with no fewer than twenty-three phony arguments as to why allowing gay people to marry would cause actual, tangible harms to the people of California!

Judge Walker, however, found that there was no evidence in the record of any potential for harm:

"They provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that 'responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage.' When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents' counsel replied, 'you don't have to have evidence of this point.'" (pp. 9-10)

And there it is right there. "You don't have to have evidence." When Americans complain about the supposed harms caused by immigrants, people of color, gays and transgendered people, often they make arguments as if these minority groups are responsible for significant, actual harm. But when pushed to defend their claims, they don't have evidence. That's the politics of paranoia in action. And it's a dangerous politics which corrodes the integrity of the deliberative process. And that's part of what Judge Walker recognized today.

Like Justice Anthony Kennedy's powerful opinion on the Lawrence decision that struck down laws that made homosexual acts criminal, Judge Walker's opinion, in it's clear statements of fact and rejection of mere unsupported opinions, surpasses even what we had all hoped for in its scope and clarity and, hence, in its broader applicability.

As Belkin said: "Even if today's decision is reversed, this is a moment to celebrate the Court's expression of America's highest, inclusive ideals."

Amen,

Ralph

Prop 8 ruling - 2

Some more excerpts from Judge Walker's landmark ruling:

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians in denying a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

Some very important findings in his opinion are now in official court records and can be cited by other courts. Because his reasoning was so explicit, clear, and strong reasoned, and are rationally derived from weighing the evidence presented by the two sides and examined in court proceedings, they will be influential. Even if the decision is overturned on appeal, they will have historical significance. Among these findings:

"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Again and again, Judge Walker refers to the defense argument, points out that, even when queried, no evidence could be given to back up statements. At one point, when pressed, the defense attorney simply admitted, "I don't know." Another time he asserted that a statement about marriage didn't need to have evidence to prove it. It just is.

No, Judge Walker is saying to the moralists who want to dictate our Constitution according to their beliefs, you can no longer just say, "It just is."

Ralph

Prop 8 ruling - 1

Judge Vaughan Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution on both equal protection and due process grounds AND because his 138 page ruling is so incredibly clear and strongly reasoned, it seems to me it will be hard to overturn on appeal.

Back when Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a strong ruling overturning Lawrence v Texas that wiped out all sodomy laws and overturned the court's own decision in the 1986 Bowers case, Justice Scalia predicted, in his objection, that this would lead to same-sex marriage some day. I assume that he was already thinking that laws like Prop8 would not stand up to scrutiny.

And now we're well over the thresthold of that process that Scalia predicted and feared.

How do you argue with this from today's ruling by Walker?

"A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation."

Ralph

Prop8 loses

U. S. District Judge Rules California's
Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional !!!

This is hugely significant. Previous court rulings have been state court judges ruling on state laws that may violate state constitutions. This is the first ruling by a federal court that overturns a gay marriage ban because it violates federal law. U. S. District Court Judge Vaughan Walker has ruled that the law banning marriage, passed through Proposition 8, violates the United States Constitution in both its guarantees of equal protection and due process rights.

It is now expected to be appealed to U. S. Court of Appeals and then on to the U. S. Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown chose not to have the state enter a defense of the law at this trial. Neither still be in office when the appeal is heard (unless Brown is elected governor), so it might make a difference in who is in those offices as to whether the state offers a defense on appeal.

The only defense at this level was the lawyer provided by anti-gay groups; among the most active in raising money for it was Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage. The defense argument was pathetic, citing no valid evidence for its opinions but only appealed to "tradition" and the claim that the institution of marriage will suffer.

In contrast, lawyers Ted Olsen and David Boies -- liberal/conservative opponents in the Bush v. Gore case, but teaming up on this one -- gave what will probably go down as the definitive case made for gay marriage: moving testimony from individuals about how the prohibition of same-sex marriage affects their lives, plus impeccable empirical evidence to support their claims, and a course in history and sociology of marriage.

Judge Vaughan's ruling may be even more significant than the simple fact of his overturning the law, because it clearly addresses the legal questions and addresses the opponents claims. It could be influential in other cases across the nation. I'll review this in another post later. He specifically rejected the argument that Prop8 was a proper way to change the CA Constitution on such an important matter, saying that vote was irrelevant, because you can't take away people's fundamental rights by a simple vote of the majority.

Ralph

90 to go

We have 90 days to go before the November election. And we are already into the silly season, with absurd rhetoric already sinking so low there's no place left to go in the next 90 days.

Newt Gingrich is not even running for anything, but he's out there trying to find a parade to jump in front of. His latest attention-seeker was to declare that we should have attacked Iran and North Korea. We're letting down Bush's brave beginning, when he named the Axis of Evil Three. And, despite the Bush Doctrine, pace Palin, we have only taken out one of them. Tsk tsk. I guess Newt wants us to be fighting four wars; two just aren't enough. So, Newtie, surely you'll be advocating bringing back the draft and raising taxes to pay for it, no?

Rush Limbaugh isn't running either, but he's trying to keep the birther movement going. It's lost steam lately, with all the hysteria focused on illegal immigrants. But Rush blared forth this morning, remarking that today is Obama's birthday -- "not that we've seen any proof of that."

Oh, yes, immigration. There's Arizona and all the me-too gubernatorial candidates from other states, who promise similar laws. Here in GA, both Republicans in the run-off would, while Democrat Roy Barnes says he wouldn't.

Arizona still simmers with near hysteria whomped up about the violence caused by the illegals, and how, if the feds won't arrest 'em, by god their sherrif can do the job. (Never mind that the crime rates have actually gone down significantly in the past few years in Arizona, even in the border counties.)

But forget such small change as state laws, which the feds can sue you for. Now they want to take it deeper: repeal part of the 14th amendment to the Constitution -- yes, the amendment that abolished slavery. It also contains a clause that guarantees citizenship to any child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. They want to get rid of that, so they can get rid of all those babies the illegal immigrants make. Gov. Bobby Jindal is one of those babies, having been born of in this country of Indian parents in just such a situation.

GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell and John McCain haven't quite joined those demanding that the 14th be changed, but they both are calling for "hearings" to explore the issue. What a perfect position to take in the heat of a campaign. Flirt with an extremist position, so you can appeal to that crowd, but stop short of endorsing it; just call for hearings, so you seem more calmly reasonable to the few not unhinged members of their party.

And then there's Sharron Angle, trying to beat Harry Reid in the Nevada senate primary. Nuttier than Sarah Palin, and not nearly as pretty, she's claiming the Democrats are violating the "First Commandment." Right, not amendment but commandment. You need to read her own words from an interview on a Christian radio station:

"I know people are very frightened about what's going on in this country. And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment [Thou shall make no other gods before me.] We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government. And you've just identified the real crux of the problem."

Fine, Sharron. Except that God isn't doing very well taking care of the unemployed and uninsured, even though the Republican senators you want to join are doing their dead-level best to prevent the government from doing its job -- I guess, from what you say, so God would have a chance. Is that it? But if God is so powerful, why doesn't he just take over the country and do it right? Show those awful Democrats how a country should be run.

Boy, this one presents a dilemma, just like Palin for President. Nominate the ditsy dame so she will be easier to beat by the Dems in the general election. But, what if the unthinkable should happen?

Ralph

Dr. George Rentboy Rekers . . . again.

Dr. George Rekers had about slipped back into obscurity after the whirlwind of scandal that enveloped the retired "neuropsychologist," who was thrust into the spotlight of scandal when caught at the airport returning from a 10 day European vacation with a rentboy. There, exposed in all of his anti-homophobic hypocrisy, was the co-founder of the Family Research Council, advisory member of NARTH, and "expert witness" against gay adoptions in both Florida and Arkansas courts.

This today is only indirectly about Dr. Rekers, but it does resurrect the scandal. The Florida Attorney General's office contracted with Dr. Rekers to provide expert testimony to support the state's case that it is not in the best interest of children to be raised by two parents of the same sex. Reportedly he was paid over $100,000 by the state for this testimony.

That AG was Bill McCollum, who is now running for governor of Florida in the August Republican primary. At a public appearance, he was asked why he spent so much of the state taxpayer's money for such questionable evidence on the supposed dangers of gay adoption. [Actually, the evidence he peddles has been thoroughly discredited.]

McCollum's reply is astonishing. He must not have realized what he was revealing:

"He was the only available witness that had the credentials, willing to testify, and willing to produce the evidence. What we needed to have done was to put the records in the evidence."

If it's so hard to find anyone with credentials who is willing to testify to dubious "evidence," maybe that's because the evidence is not only dubious but outright invalid. And no scientist of any standing or integrity would have agreed to this testimony.

So, not only is Rekers a gay man himself and utilizer of the services of a gay "rentboy" -- but he's also a lousy scientist and scholar and must have the integrity of a newt.

Ralph

Paul Krugman echoes Richard

Paul Krugman in Friday's New York Times wrote a column that I believe friend Richard could endorse -- and I don't disagree with it either. I'll quote some excerpts to give the gist:

Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred? . . .

Mr. Obama rode into office on a vast wave of progressive enthusiasm. This enthusiasm was bound to be followed by disappointment. . . . Given the facts of politics, and above all the difficulty of getting anything done in the face of lock step Republican opposition, he wasn’t going to be the transformational figure some envisioned.

And Mr. Obama has delivered in important ways. Above all, he managed (with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi) to enact a health reform that, imperfect as it is, will greatly improve Americans’ lives — unless a Republican Congress manages to sabotage its implementation.

But progressive disillusionment isn’t just a matter of sky-high expectations meeting prosaic reality. Threatened filibusters didn’t force Mr. Obama to waffle on torture; to escalate in Afghanistan; to choose, with exquisitely bad timing, to loosen the rules on offshore drilling early this year. . . .

What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is? Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need such excuses. . . .

The point is that Mr. Obama’s attempts to avoid confrontation have been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats could spell catastrophe for the Obama agenda.

He then goes into the Elizabeth Warren appointment and why he seems to be waffling on the right person for the job.

The debate over financial reform, in which the G.O.P. has taken the side of the bad guys, should be a political winner for Democrats. . . . And choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing that protection . . . is the natural move, both substantively and politically. Meanwhile, the alternative — disappointing supporters yet again by choosing some little-known technocrat — seems like an obvious error.

So why is this issue still up in the air? Yes, Republicans might well try to filibuster a Warren appointment, but that’s a fight the administration should welcome.

O.K., I don’t really know what’s going on. But I worry that Mr. Obama is still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship, while his aides dislike the idea of having to deal with strong, independent voices. And the end result of this game-playing is an administration that seems determined to alienate its friends.

Just to be clear, progressives would be foolish to sit out this election: Mr. Obama may not be the politician of their dreams, but his enemies are definitely the stuff of their nightmares. But Mr. Obama has a responsibility, too. He can’t expect strong support from people his administration keeps ignoring and insulting.

This is what Richard has been saying. Except it's easier for me to accept the negative assessment when Krugman also acknowledges the positive accomplishments as well.

Ralph