Submitted to a Candid World
Archive for
Obama Appoints Judge Sotomayor, and the Immediate Response
BREAKING: by 9:30 today, it had leaked that President Obama would appoint Judge Sotomayor of the Second Circuit to fill David Souter’s spot on the Supreme Court. Read our earlier posts on two important cases by Sotomayor, here and here.
Obama’s initial remarks commend David Souter while reminding us that “the life of the law” implicates experience and not just intellect, before referencing both her career and her life experience. This, unfortunately, trends directly into the right’s immediate attack, that picking a Latina counts as “identity politics,” rather than intelligent decisionmaking. At the heart of this attack is a quote by Sotomayor making the rounds on conservative blogs:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
The full speech follows below the line and, if you read the whole thing, you can see that she’s being quoted somewhat out of context. Her speech revolves around the question of how, if at all, diversity in judging matters, and her statement above does not definitively answer the question. Rather, it simply suggests that, without more, a Latina woman with experience will better understand a case involving issues she’s familiar with, than a white man who’s not interested in trying to learn.
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.
That’s less remarkable, then, than it sounded at first. Not that it’ll matter to the right.
California Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage Ban
As we covered back in January, plaintiffs challenging California’s “Proposition 8″ – which banned gay marriage in California, just a few months after the first went into effect – actually have a pretty good case. The decision will come down tomorrow, and we’ll have a report when it does.
UPDATE: the California Supreme Court declines to invalidate Proposition 8, but also declines to apply it retroactively, and invalidate existing same-sex marriages. The only way forward for California gay couples is another proposition, to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, start your petitions!
Perspective: An Open Letter to America, Before the Next Attack
This past week, former Vice President Dick Cheney argued that it’s only possible to judge the Bush administration’s extreme and often vile actions through the lens of 9/11. He’s right about that, but the conclusion he wants you to draw – that overreaction is excusable, in the context of that horrific day – remains dead wrong.
We Americans have a history of reacting to desperate times with desperate measures. This intuitive response is all too human, but not entirely laudable, and suggestive of a national willingness to sacrifice our values, just when they matter most.
Sometimes, fear is healthy. President Lincoln’s decision to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus on Baltimore rail lines, in direct contravention of the federal judiciary, probably saved Washington, D.C., and maybe even the Union. But Lincoln’s decision – even if it ultimately went too far – was characterized by a measured narrowness that’s since eluded leaders facing dangers significantly less desperate. In World War II, long after the real threat of a west-coast Japanese invasion had faded, we jailed 110,000 Japanese-Americans, 62% of whom were citizens. During the Cold War, we let a power-mad Senator insititute latter-day witch trials. More recently, our President suborned the rendition and torture of an innocent man, while his most visible apologist remorselesly fabricated lies to defend the executive’s unlimited right to torture.
We’ve come to regret the majority of these actions. Specifically, in the time since September 11th, 2001, we’ve realized that we allowed fear to hoodwink “the better angels of our nature.” We now oppose torture. We will be tempted to forget that fact, and I hope we won’t.
Cheney was right when he reminded us that America will probably be attacked again. This very real possibility makes it all the more vital that we understand and resist the temptation to give in to bloodlust and terror. Looking at Bush & Cheney’s actions from the perspective of 9/11 makes them understandable – yes. But it doesn’t make them right. Leadership into fear’s embrace is no leadership at all.
Michael Steele’s GOP Redefines “Class”
Also, “Grand.”
Earlier this week, the RNC released an ad titled “Pelosi Galore,” casting Nancy Pelosi as the old-school Bond villain, “Pussy Galore.” After drawing more than a little justified criticism, the GOP has pulled all but one instance of the ad. In case it ends up fully disappearing, you can watch it in all its tacky glory after downloading it from us, here.
Liberty University, and the Right’s Selective Defense of Free Speech
Yesterday, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University kicked the college’s Young Democrats club off-campus, offering its students a telling lesson in the perceived value of theocracy over democratic virtue. Fellow fundamentalists have been quick to defend the decision, citing the University’s legal right as a private institution to favor certain kinds of speech over others.
No-one can deny that a purely private institution is legally or technically correct when it favors some speech over others. But contrary to “Futurama,” technically correct is not the best kind of correct. Any university that takes as its mission the education of the future leaders of America, and yet fails to instill in its students a decent respect for the rule of law, lets down both its students, and the country.
Liberty’s decision also stands in contrast with one of the far-right’s latest causes: the criticism of universities, private or otherwise, that elect to individually prohibit hate speech against gays, or disfavor religious organizations. They even took one such case to the Supreme Court in 1995, winning for Christian groups at UVA the questionable right to mandatory public funding.
Juxtaposing these recent cases with Liberty’s decision, one is left with the inescapable impression that, in the view of many fundamentalists, the right to free speech is one that only they enjoy, a weapon to defend the faith wherever helpful, but an uncomfortable obligation to be avoided otherwise. I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am disappointed.
The Clergy, Religious Freedom, and Gay Marriage
One of the stranger arguments against gay marriage suggests that the legal recognition of gay marriage (as opposed to “opposite marriage”) threatens religious liberty – as if there’s a cognizable liberty interest in subjugating someone else to a stranger’s religion. A refined version of this theory, made infamous by the justly mocked “Gathering Storm” ad, posits that legal protections for gay men and women would lead to cultural acceptance of homosexuality (probably accurate, but innocuous), and somehow legally compel churches to perform gay marriages, etc.
This charge is demonstrably false, and relies on a level of deception surprising even for a movement marked by lies and mischaracterization. American law historically respects the independence of clergy and the unique role of churches, by granting ecclesiastical institutions important exemptions even from bedrock civil rights laws. Remember, the First Amendment cuts both ways: the church may not interfere with government, but neither may the government interfere with the church.
Regardless, this straw man argument shot to national attention yesterday, when the New Hampshire legislature rejected by a narrow margin HB 0436, a bill that would have conferred important rights on same-sex couples, subject to a “religious freedom” limitation:
457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage.
Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.
No surprise – the religious right went bonkers. But it shouldn’t. These “religious freedom” clauses should be rejected, not just because they’re duplicative of both state and federal constitutions, but because they would, if passed, perpetuate a fallacious understanding of the line between church and state, while implying that the private relationships of some somehow endanger the private worship of others. No, I say; we write laws to protect and enable our citizens, not to placate irrational fears or insult minorities.
Expect an addendum with relevant cases; it’s late…
Government’s Hand in Health Care: What Americans Have Wanted All Along
I am no fan of attitudinal data. Asking a sample of respondents how they feel about this or that isn’t nearly as illuminating as knowing what they did about this or that, but more often than not, opinion is all we’ve got. Luckily, there are ways to buttress the reliability of attitudinal data. One way is to look for historical trends; another is to compare similar indicators from different surveys, taken from similar samples at similar times.
With the site’s hosting service in the toilet this week, I have had oodles of free time to analyze and research and discover an amazing little factoid about the United States: Americans have long envisioned a large role for government in health care, and that perceived role has only grown in the last 35 years.
Of course, if one only listened to pundits and the MSM and Rush Limbaugh and the litany of Republican politicians over the last generation, one would never guess the long-time trend for Americans to want government involvement in health care. So the data in this post should provide the backdrop for anyone watching the theater that is the current health-care-reform debate.
I started my investigation with the General Social Survey (University of Chicago). This social survey has been administered approximately every two years since 1972 and covers a wealth of subject matter. I found two indicators dealing with societal-level health care issues. The first asks respondents to say whether they believe government has a responsibility to help people pay for doctor and hospital bills or if “people should take care of these things themselves.” The second asks if it should be government’s responsibility to provide health care for the sick.
The results are surprising. Responses to the first question (asked since 1975) indicate often more than 50% of Americans believe government does have a responsibility to help people pay their medical bills. Another 30% believe government and individuals both bear the responsibility. In any event, usually less than 20% of Americans believe people should be completely on their own when it comes to their financial obligiations to the health-care sector.
Click to enlarge
Responses to the second question mirror those to the first. Unfortunately, the second question was asked at irregular intervals (1985, 1990, 1996, 2006), but the results appear consistent. Since 1985, only about 15% of Americans believe government either probably or definitely should not have any responsibility for providing health care for the sick, which means — happily — about 85% of Americans believe the government does have a responsibility to care for its sick citizens. Interestingly, a shift from 1996 to 2006 has taken place between respondents who believe government probably or definitely should take responsibility for the sick. We’ll have to wait to see if this is a lasting change.
A recent CBS News/New York Times poll also shows Americans’ willingness to have government take responsibility for a number of activities related to child-health outcomes. The vast majority of Americans favor the use of tax dollars to fund government health-care, dental-care, school-meal, and day-care programs for the nation’s needy children. Even more than 60% of Republicans support government-funded health-care for America’s children!
Click to enlarge
The CBS/NYT poll also asked if respondents would be willing to pay increased taxes to fund government programs for children, and while support drops off and certainly follows party lines, over one-third of Republicans, an even split of Independents, and 51% of Americans in general could handle a tax increase.
Click to enlarge
So far these data indicate a tendency for Americans to be charitable towards those in need, and it could be argued these data address government involvement that already exists in the form of Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start, and the relatively recent SCHIP … that these data are not meant to be extrapolated as a larger indicator of support for the dreaded “socialized medicine” … the evil universal health care … the single-payer monster that threatens to kill all that is wholesome in the private insurance industry.
Not so fast! I was able to find several different surveys that corroborated the GSS and CBS/NYT data, and specifically dealt with the questions of universal coverage, government’s responsibility for ensuring it, and the outlook for the future of the country with it in place.
60% is the new black … after the jump.
14 Short Tales from 48 Hours in America
Thanks to server outages, along with various and sundry other matters, we’ve been “off the air” for a while now. In an effort to catch up, and in the spirit of a good but often overlooked Simpsons episode, please enjoy this grab-bag of various news stories:
- Houston gets a new light rail line or two, or three! Construction begins whenever, with whatever money is needed. Presumably it’ll connect downtown & the Rice/medical center area with other vibrant areas of Houston like the Galleria, and Montrose, and… well… don’t get me wrong, I love Houston, but what else?
- If the new Houston light rail is anything like the current one, the city’s in for some hilarity, in the form of some pretty hysterical collisions.
- Birthers are going to put up “WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?” billboards! Reactionary billboards, of course, have a long, sordid, and ineffective history among wingnuts.
- The GOP nixed its attempt to vicariously rename the Democratic Party the “Democrat Socialist Party.” Pulling Harry Reid’s hair, or tricking Pelosi into sitting on a whoopee cushion, are reportedly still on the table.
- Even noted madman Erick Erickson thought the stunt was “frivolous.” I guess we all have our limits?
- As scientists hail the discovery of another important transitional form…
- …creationists call “bias” on facts, the internet, and everything in between, lambasting Google for acting as if “suddenly there was demonstrable evidence for evolution.” Let me say this clearly: only an illiterate would describe the discovery of evidence for evolution as “sudden.” If you’re not on board, you’re not paying attention.
- Gingrich wants to run in 2012. Oh, please let the GOP nominate a hypocritical adulterer, to finally put to bed all the conservative whining about Democratic “immorality”!
- Creationist dentist Don McLeroy’s confirmation as chairman of the State Board of Education will be sent to the Texas Senate. Are you a Texas voter? Call your representatives.
- What is it with dentists being crazy? Birther “attorney” Orly Taitz is still going: now she wants to be on Glenn Beck…
- …who got grilled by Whoopi Goldberg yesterday. Hilarious.
- Am I the only one who sees nothing to fear with terrorists on American soil, so long as they’re in jail? Apparently I am. Jails still work, right?
- Obama met face-to-face with the first woman on his Supreme Court short list. Let’s finally see someone with the political awareness of Sandra Day O’Connor, the persuasive power of Antonin Scalia, and the piercing intellect of David Souter. So, you know, shouldn’t be hard.
- More people trust the Democratic Party on national security! Who knew, all it took was one horrifically bungled war founded on lies!
We’re glad to be back. Thanks to you loyal readers, who lend us your intellect and vitality daily, for sticking in there.
Posts Delayed…
Our apologies, but DreamHost is really dropping the ball lately. If you’re having trouble reading the site, we’re having much more trouble writing things to put on the site! Please forgive this unusually light content week, and we’ll be back soon.
A Brief Note on American Exceptionalism
Many of you will recall from the general election a backwater blog by the name of “TexasDarlin,” a wretched hive of PUMAs and birthers. Thankfully, TexasDarlin herself has gone into semi-retirement, but don’t get excited yet: a crack team of Human Events rejects still manages to breathe the spark of life back into the old husk every other day or so. Late last month we were treated to a screed beginning with the following line, one that merits response:
One of the central tenets of the far-Left is a rejection of American exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States, blessed by gifted founders who formulated a revolutionary system of government, enshrined in documents to which our leaders swear to defend, is the greatest force for good in the world. It’s the story we tell ourselves as a people, and there’s a lot of truth to it.
No, and no. American exceptionalism is the idea that the American people, and the American polity, are unique – in short, that they are “exceptional” – and that this uniqueness requires America to be a moral leader for democracy, and indeed humanity. It is as much the idea that American ought to be superior, as it is the idea that America is superior. The concepts are not severable: one cannot be understood without the other. For example, America’s uniqueness is not a justification for poor policy. When America fails to lead well, that we are “exceptional” is no answer, and no justification for that failure. Our unique place in the world charges us with the duty and the burden to lead well, and magnifies rather than acquits our failures. Unflinching support for our government, and the ignorance it engenders (“America: love it or leave it!”), is the antithesis of this duty.
Properly understood, then, by questioning our government and our actions in the world at large, the left does not reject as much as enforce America’s exceptionalism and its related commitment to be a “city on a hill,” an example for the world to follow. Don’t ever mistake vigilant stewardship for a dearth of patriotism. Indeed, it’s quite the opposite.
