In the out crowd

Once when I was in jr. high school, my mom thought she was doing a good deed for me and cut off the old frayed and torn bottoms of my circa 1972 way too long bell bottom blue jeans.

Oh horror!

Now that I am beyond the age of caring about fitting into the crowd, I look at the circa 2005 bell bottom blue jeans and laugh at how much they look like ours, but without the torn and frayed bottoms. Mom was ahead of her time.

But I'm not laughing today because the Bush administration has come up with a way to make the children of Katrina feel bad about themselves. They want to suspend the McKinney-Vento Act which affords equal educational rights for homeless children. They want to create special schools for them, make them carry special IDs and, get this, wear "identifying insignia". Great way to make these kids feel at home in their new communitites, huh? More likely they are looking for a great way to resegregate their schools.

It gets worse for these kids as the waiver will also allow them to be moved around and prevent their parents from making formal complaints about their placement. One really has to wonder how the administration could be pushing an organized way to discriminate against children who have lost everything first to a hurricane and then to their cronyism and ownership society practices, but then again, they really have a cavalier attitude toward minorities and the poor and created the failed national emergency plan that separated children from their parents in New Orleans during the crisis, and some of them have yet to be reunited.

With the suspension of Davis-Bacon Act taking away wage protections for the workers rebuilding New Orleans, Bush and Co. really seemed to hate Americans and now they are picking on the kids.

Happy Birthday to Me

The DCCC gave me a present: an entire web page devoted to Kirk's relationship to Tom Delay.

My favorite line on the page is when they are talking about Kirk's initial vote to weaken the ethics rules until he saw that someone noticed:

So Mark Steven Kirk cares about the integrity of the House after all -- when cable news is covering it.

That's our Marky Rooster. Thoughtful, independent leadership while the cameras are rolling. The rest of the time, he's catering to Bush, Delay and cronies in the name of his political career. Hey Mark, we thought you worked for us. We want to see your time card.

DNA Database Expanded to Arrested not Convicted

I used to think this was the stuff of futuristic horror novels. Now, it's reality. There is a bill that was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week (S.1606 ) that provides for the collection of DNA from anyone who is arrested or detained under Federal authority. It actually amends the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to allow samples to be taken from those, not convicted, but just arrested. You do not have to be eventually convicted for your DNA to remain in the national database for later use by the FBI during criminal investigations.

I can see it coming. Let's arrest all the blacks, or asians or latinos to get their DNA, and by the way, our health care would be cheaper if we could ship folks with a particular DNA blueprint off to a foreign war....

While I totally disagree with this bill, if it does get passed it will be too bad that it will come too late to take a DNA sample from Tom Delay. Maybe they will have it in time for Frist and Rove and then John Roberts will declare it unconstitutional. In that alternate universe, maybe.

Speaking of Delay, his attorney has been meeting with officials to keep Delay from the common perp walk and know his bail before the arrest so he can avoid any jail time. I don't know why he should avoid handcuffs and jail when Cindy Sheehan and Stephanie of DCP had to do it for their very short and peaceful anti-war demonstration.

Looking for a beach down the road

Civil rights activist, attorney and judge Constance Baker Motley died yesterday at the age of 84. Her career as a civil rights attorney started when she was denied entry to a public beach at the age of 15 for being black. She spent the rest of her life fighting for civil rights and winning. As an attorney, Judge Motley argued cases that desegregated restaurants, lunch counters, recreational facilities, railroad and bus terminals and local buses and cases that accellerated the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education.

John Roberts, confirmed as Chief Justice moments ago, is on a mission to reverse the decisions Judge Motley fought so hard to win. Roberts argued against desegregation and affirmative action for the Reagan administration and when asked, never disavowed those arguments. He also often argued to narrow the reach of Civil Rights statutes seeking to limit the ability of private citizens to bring claims. Also, Roberts has a dismal record on housing, education, employment discrimination and voting rights to prevent minorities from gaining their own access to equal opportunity.

Roberts would probably argue that young Miss. Baker needed to go to the rocky, unkempt beach a few miles down the road. Nonetheless, John Roberts is Chief Justice (here's the roll call and thank you to Senators Durbin and Obama for their no votes) and Judge Constance Baker Motley is dead and the world is far worse off for it.

I'll tell you, I'm sick of all the political strategizing and arguments that Democrats needed to save political capital on this vote. You can outsmart yourselves and strategize yourselves to death. The vote speaks for itself and this vote will haunt us for a very long time as will Roberts anti-civil rights decisions. In the new world of the Roberts court, what beach will you be able to use? Are you white enough? rich enough? connected enough? Christian enough? and all under the standards of the radical right, or will you be walking down the road looking for a beach you can call your own.

Rule of Star Trek Strikes Again

It's official.

The rule of Star Trek is proven again:

The bad guys, seeming to have superior power, lose when they become too arrogant. It happened to Khan. It happened to the Borg. I happened to the Cardassians. Now it has happened to "You're Doing a Heck of a Job" Brownie and it may be happening to Tom Delay. Their crowd thinks they are an elite force subject to no rule, no law. The rest of us are subject to the highest standard under their fake religion.

Well, here's what the elite have been up to:

I have not heard the buzz, but I thought Brownie looked pretty bad trying to blame the Katrina disaster on Blanco and Nagin. He said that Blanco failed to include New Orleans, but Blanco had issued the appropriate request for help for New Orleans on Saturday before the storm, so it appears Brownie either lied under oath or needs a map (sort of like Mark Kirk--see my September 8th post). As for what Nagin was supposed to do, his city was UNDER WATER. He doesn't have an aircraft carrier or hospital ship at his disposal or an army.

I heard a caller in to the Jerry Springer Show on AAR this morning on my way to work after the dentist. The caller was trying to compare Nagin to Giuliani after 9/11. The comparison is a false one. New York was not completely devistated, only one area was. The rest of the city had services, utilities, food and water. No comparison.

We here in Chicago think Mayor Daley could probably manufacture all of the military equipment needed in an emergency, but maybe we are deluding ourselves as to just how far his power goes. City does look great, though, and is way better looking than the federal areas of DC, which look neglected and abused under the Bush Administration...a huge shame that no one is talking about. Will someone please clean the orange fungus off the Lincoln Memorial and clean out the Reflection Pond of duck poop! It stinks! And reseed the grass you tore up while you are at it and get rid of those stupid wire and brown plywood fences that wouldn't even keep the DemoCat out much less Osama bin Laden. The decay of the Mall really made me cry when I saw it this past weekend. It's dying under their arrogance.

Then there is Tom Delay, the ultimate hypocrite claiming to have cornered the market on morals while committing felonies. Now, he is saying that the prosecutor is a "partisan fanatic" Too bad Delay had not learned that term when he was impeaching Clinton for a little White House tryst that affected no one but Monica, Hillary and Chelsea. I wonder if any hanky panky is going on in Congress, d'ja think? Anyway, thinking folks say Delay prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, is a principled, cautious attorney.

After Delay, there is John McCain, the scary hypocrite, who even some Democrats misguidedly defend. He's scary because he knows better and supports the administration anyway while giving people hope that he's really a moderate and will come through in the end. Guess what guys, he won't. He's gotten a taste of being one of the elite not subject to any rule or law. Who cares what he once was if now he always votes with and shills for Bush to keep his presidential hopes alive. I don't care about his presidential hopes. He's a Senator now and owes his state to be true to his campaign pledges. He met with Cindy Sheehan today and gave her the Bush line. Here is what she said about it: "I don't believe he believes what he was telling me." Cindy gets McCain, but he is playing with fire. Ask Colin Powell.

I am hoping that there is hope with the Delay indictment and hopefully more under the Fitzgerald investigation of the Plame incident. Illinois former republican governor, George Ryan, is being brought to justice this week. If and when the bad guys get their comeuppance, we'll need a bunch of good guys to pilot the ship back home.

Breaking...Delay Indicted

By Texas Grand Jury: One count of criminal conspiracy.

Here's the story from MSNBC.

Begin at the end

I'm going to describe my past couple of days to you and go backwards in time because I saw that on a TV show once and it was good.

*For all you DemoCat fans out there: She is home safe and sound sulking under her own bed after 4 days of sulking under my parent's. I think revenge is in the works and I had better watch out where I step for a while.

*OK, I did get to see Mark Kirk on Monday after all. He was deplaning the plane I thereafter planed--Chicago based crew had to get back to Chicago. He was hunkered down in his coat collar hoping no one recognized him. I am sort of kicking myself for not chasing after him or at least yelling out "Hi Mark!", but I hadn't the energy at that point and he would have run away like a scared rabbit anyway.

*Met a bunch of good protesting folks on the plane on the way home, a friend from the district who had observed at the White House protest for the attorneys. She told me all about it. I also met a couple from Hastert's district and some folks from the 8th who went to Bean's office and spoke to an aid. They were hurt that although she was there, she did not come out to say hi.

*Had some really great crab cakes and hit the road for the airport. The bartender told me that it would take an hour in the rainy rush hour to get to Washington National Airport (I will not call it by that other name), but it only took 20 minutes so I was early.

*It is really hard to find a ladies room in the Russell Senate Building. Maybe it's because of the lack of women senators.

*Tried to get in to see John Kerry just to say hi, so I went over to his office at the Russell Building. I had heard that he might be back at around 4, but at 4:30 he wasn't there, so I signed his guest book and talked to his scheduler and office helper for a minute. They were really nice even though I told them I was not from Massachusetts.

*Had a drink with a friend to say goodbye.

*Met with Mark Lippert at Senator Obama's office. The Senator's office is well run and professional. He doesn't have many jelly bean bags in his basket because he gets so many visitors that he's almost out. There was a crowd in the outer office and we almost lost our appointment to a Korean group seeking a resolution of issues in North Korea, however, Lippert made time for us. Lippert was bright and very well spoken. He said that Senator Obama is very concerned about our continued presence in Iraq including the unchecked spending with no oversight and its negative effect on our own military. He is willing to become a leader in creating an exit strategy once it becomes clearer what is the "right thing to do," his concern being the manner in which we leave and what we leave in its place. Obama wants to avoid the increased anti-American sentiment in the region and avoid a failed state through our withdrawal, but is not yet sure how to get there. He has been and continues to meet with the experts and expects to visit the region himself. He has even spoken to King Hussein of Jordan (yes, I know King Hussein is deceased. It was in the past tense, so I did not question Lippert further, but maybe he misspoke and meant Abdullah. I just don't know.) and will be in closed door sessions with some generals where he hopes to get honest answers.

Obama has already been a leader on the issue of no permanent bases having pushed during recent hearings on the topic.

Mr. Lippert pointed out from his own thoughts that it is not good for anyone to have Obama become the issue himself by speaking out before he is sure what needs to be done and before other support, including republican support, is had. Responding to the question will public opinion make a difference. Lippert said yes, but there are a few more milestones that have to be reached before he believes most people will make a stand, and that could stretch us out to January 2006.

*Lunch with our friends from the DCP.

*Patrick Magnuson reluctantly stayed put long enough for us to find him in Kirk's office. They would not give us the courtesy of a scheduled meeting, but said that if we kept coming back, he might be around. We opted to call and finally found him in the office. Kirk's office was almost surreal, in the sense of that silly TV show the Surreal Life. There was a giggly scheduler who answered the phone like a teenager and everyone in the office had a wierd smirk on his or her face. We noted that the jelly bean basket was full; probably because he never takes visitors. We were told that there was no room in which to meet, so we would have to talk to Magnuson in the outer office. We began. The group pointed out that the continued military presence in Iraq was hurting American credibility in the world and with moderate Iraqis upon which we must rely to help Iraq eventually build its own government and provide for its own security. We asked Magnuson if Kirk would break from the hard right of his party and take a leadership rold in the withdrawal strategy in Iraq. Magnuson began his lip biting with the air building in his cheeks and puffing them out. He was apparently instructed not to say much and this was his tactic for keeping his mouth shut. Magnuson attempted to deflect to progress in Afghanistan, but the group would not let him. Ultimately, Magnuson broke from his cat and mouse game of saying very little and said that Kirk wants to avoid a failed state and to do so we must "stay the course" as in the Bush talking point. One group member asked how Kirk's position differs from the president's. Magnuson had a visible cow. Another group member invited Kirk to have a town hall meeting and offerred to do all the work and even provide the punch and cookies. Magnuson looked at him like he was crazy. The picture of the district on the wall has no dots or pinheads in it (see below).

*Called a bunch of times and were finally told we could see Magnuson at noon.

*OK, here is what is in Russ Feingold's office:


It's a map of Wisconsin with dots representing all the places Feingold has participated in listening sessions and pinheads in all the places he continued the program after the map was made. It's really dotted and hole-y isn't it? And he has to travel an entire state, not just a district. We met with Feingold aid Margaret Della and she was happy to meet with us even though we don't even live in Feingold's state. Senator Feingold is disappointed that only Boxer has signed on to his bill requiring the president to report on a time frame for a withdrawal from Iraq, Senate Resolution 171. She also mentioned that the Senator was moved to introduce this bill after he went to listening sessions in his state and talked to his constituents.

*Showed up to Kirk's office on time, but no Patrick Magnuson.

*We began our lobbying day with a visit to Dick Durbin's office. We met with Richard Purcell. Purcell made it clear that Senator Durbin is waiting until October 15th to make any decisions on how he will proceed, either through co-sponsorship of the Feingold bill or introduction of his own, perhaps mirroring the bi-partisan legislation in the House, House Resolution 55. Durbin believes after the Iraq Constitution referrendum on October 15th, it will be clearer what needs to be done and that then there will be some republican support for a withdrawal measure. We pressed Durbin for the leadership his position as senior senator affords.

*Met in the Cafeteria of the Longworth House Office Building to strategize with people from other groups including Chicago Peace Action. Glad I had eaten because the food didn't look too good. The group began calling Kirk's office to follow up on previous requests and calls for an appointment and vague responses back. We were told to try to catch him at 10.

*Got up really early, showered, dressed and grabbed a couple of Rice Krispy Treats that I bought at the CVS the night before for breakfast.

In any event, we are going to have to withdraw from Iraq at some point. Our continued presence is clearly fueling the insurgency and as one fellow in my group put it, creating an Al Qaeda movement in the Arab world. Since we are going to have to come up with an exit strategy eventually, why don't we just do the work now and begin at the end to avoid the heartache, waste, death and destruction we are otherwise destined to meet with? Let's begin at the end.


The lobbying team.

Note: Who did I meet on Sunday? John Bonifaz and William Rivers Pitt. Both real cuties. I am still so excited about it!!

Jelly Beans on Capitol Hill

For those of you who have been wondering where I've been, no, I didn't go to the White House to get arrested with Cindy. I participated in the lobbying event on Capitol Hill. The picture to the left is of official Jelly Belly jelly beans take from the basket in Mark Kirk's office. I have to go to work now, but stay tuned to find out what happened there and in the offices of Dick Durbin, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold.

Also stay tuned to find out how I actually did see Mark Kirk himself on Monday even though he was hiding in-district while we were out in DC.

I'll also talk a bit about the PDA event on Sunday and tell you which two of my heros I got to meet!


More later on this too!

A yellow rose at the Vietnam War Memorial

For what nobel cause did the tens of thousands die in Vietnam....none comes to mind now.

The few folks who are marching today in favor of the Iraq War should think about what will be thought of this war 30 years from now.

Best T-shirt slogan, sign and Bush blow up doll!

To serve the corporate interest

Photos of Saturdays Anti-War Protest in DC above are courtesy of the DCP. They are all a lot taller than I. Thanks guys! The point of it is so you can get some small taste of the crowd. C-Span estimated about 500,000 people and that is what I thought all along. The place was packed and in some places you were elbow to elbow with other people. Good thing they were peace people or it could have gotten ugly.

It never came close to getting ugly. The peace people are great. I was entirely comfortable talking to anyone who happened to be next to me. We were all busy reading each others banners, signs, t-shirts and buttons. Many were giving away buttons to the crowd and I got a good one that says "Worst President Ever".

Then comes the new reports from the mainstream media. They were not there. It would have cost them too much to place reporters in both DC and Texas and since profit is their only motive, they would not think of spending the dough on reporting on the story. To hold themselves blameless for their derelection of duty, Aaron Brown got up on CNN last night and admonished the protest organizers. It was their fault for CNNs lack of coverage...bad timing. Aaron also forget to get someone really good at math to give him the report. He reported 100,000...there were that many folks just waiting for one of the port-o-potties.

Then, the media went on about the counterprotesters. I saw maybe 50 or so of them. A friend of mine estimated 70. Let's go with his numbers. I'll do the math for you: 70 X 7142.85=500,000. Over 7000 times the number of protesters than counterprotesters, but they got equal press.

When Reagan deregulated the media, he ensured corporate profit motive as the only motive in the media, and hence, support for the corporate interests served by the far right extremists. They promised you cheap cable and phone service to persuade you to live with the deregulation despite the warning from media groups about lack of public service media. You got the lack of public interest media, but if you got the cheap prices, please let me know because I sure didn't and I'd like to find the cheap prices so I can switch.

March for Peace and Justice

To the left is a picture of some of the hearty NSPI folks from Illinois who marched for Peace and Justice this afternoon in DC.

Someone asked at dinner, "who is talking about justice?" Of our political leaders, who among them is talking about justice, that old concept from the New Deal era? The concept that the world is not owned by the richest 1% of the population and that the rest of us are not their servants and pawns and that the earth is not theirs to waste and spend.

I'm not sure. I'd like to think Dick Durbin and Barack Obama are there for us and they often are (thanks Dick and Barack for nos on Roberts), but sometimes I think that they back off more than we need from them, a vote for Condi here, an unwarranted apology there. So, where are our consistent and passionate voices for Justice?

The Grassroots.

The grassroots campaign workers and activists who did not quit after November 2004. That is our consistent voice for Justice. They keep going no matter how weary and spent they are. They go to constant long and tiresome meetings, create educational events for the district, spend their own money traveling to DC to be heard and seen. The people are the voice of the nation, not the politicians and they sure spoke loudly today in DC.

The mainstream media wants to downplay today's march, but when hundreds of thousands of people come from all over the country to march in DC for Peace and Justice, they are sending the strongest message of all. It's not for personal political gain or for entertainment. They are telling their leaders that they are not willing to stay home and act like everything is ok. The Bush administration has relied on the tacit ok in the past, but it's gone. Americans want their country back from corporations and warmongers. Americans want peace and justice like they always have.

One counterprotester's sign read "Our Republic is Worth Defending". They totally missed the point of what that means, but it is true. Our Republic, the one created under the Constitution of the United States is worth defending, and hundreds of thousands defended it today with their presence on the streets of Washington DC.

Prelude to Peace

The quiet before the march early in the morning on Sept. 24. Organizers gathering their volunteers, a lone violin player and folks from every state meeting up with their friends and socializing with each other. I met folks from Wisconsin, Vermont, Maryland, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Connecticut, Pennslyvania and Kentucky.

Greetings from DC

It's late, so just a short post. I finally got to meet Karen and Dick from DCP, also Mike and Matt and I am sorry to say a very nice woman from Michigan whose name I just don't remember (and I am so sorry). Still discussing the election, but it's ok because we just met in person for the first time. Vote fraud in Ohio was still the topic. Found out that police went to several precincts in and around Toledo, mostly black neighborhoods, sirens blazing and when no problems were found, sirens still blazing....supression of the vote being the intent.

We still have to discuss vote supression and race in this country and until we do, we'll just never know about our elections.

Even Carter thinks Gore won in 2000.

If you cannot win honestly, shouldn't that tell you something about your plans for the country.

Kirk votes for federal support of discriminatory hiring

Independent and Thoughful leadership. I don't think so. Kirk is getting closer to his party and the religious right ever day. Yesterday, he voted in favor of the School Readiness Act of 2005 which allows discriminatory hiring practices based on religion in Head Start programs that receive federal funding. Apparently, Kirk is in favor of turning over our educational system to religious zealots because there was another version of the bill pending in the Senate that could have added the favorable provisions such as additional spending disclosure and educator collaboration without the religious hiring provision.

On another topic, Kirk was happy to have a misleading comment about his military service on his website to help the GOP keep their seat in Ohio against Paul Hackett who, if elected, really would have been the only congressman to have served in Iraqi Freedom. For the whole story on how Kirk supported the lie, read the Nitpicker.

Taking it to DC

Yup, we're taking Ellen's 10th CD Blog to DC for the Peace Events and we're going with the wonderful folks from NSPI and DCP. Watch the blog for nightly reports (technology permitting) and watch the DCP blog.

For all you DemoCat fans out there: She's sprung from her cat carrier where she was en route to Grandma and Grandpa's house last night. She'll monitor this weekends events from there, and, hopefully, not puke on anything I cannot afford to replace. Thanks Mom and Dad for watching her!

BREAKING...DemoCat Jailed in Connection with DC Peace events

Details to follow.

Stay at the table, you don't have to eat

Today, I learned that poet Sharon Olds turned down an opportunity to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24th. Ms. Olds, a winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and a professor of creative writing at New York University, wrote a letter to the first lady explaining her reasons for declining and the same was republished in the Nation.

In her letter Ms. Olds said:

But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.

I can sympathize with Ms. Olds, but am concerned about what it means to keep a noted poet out of the National Book Festival, particularly one who disagrees with the administration. Now, it is likely that the National Book Festival will be addressed by a Bush supporter who parrots the company...er...I mean...party line. There will be no dissenting voice.

I can understand not wanting to break bread with anyone in the current administration, but dissenters have to be careful about cutting themselve out of the power centers of the country and losing the platform.

If dissenters leave rightful places at public events, it leaves those events to the administration and dissenting voices are silenced.

You surely have better things to do this September 24th, Ms. Olds, but next time, if there is no schedule conflict with perhaps a better forum, go to the event and speak your heart to the audience. The nation should hear your dissenting voice. The nation needs your dissenting voice, more than ever now.

Next time, just eat at home beforehand.

Take a Stand

Dear Senators Durbin and Obama:

I am writing you about the upcoming confirmation vote on John Roberts for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. I ask you to vote no.

I know that a lot of politicians believe that a no vote on the Roberts nomination is a wasted protest vote and that the real goal is to get more Democrats elected in order to avoid similar situations in the future. The argument continues that taking a stand on the Roberts nomination makes Democrats look disagreeable to the moderate majority that needs to be courted in 2006 and 2008.

I disagree with that analysis.

First, I am not sure that moderate majority exists. No one I canvassed in Illinois or Wisconsin told me they were voting for Bush because he was more moderate. Those who were going to vote right-wing said they did it to feel safer or because Bush was a "man of god". They were not sure Kerry was honest or had any ideas. Basically, they bought the lies repeated in the post-fairness doctrine post-fairness mainstream media.

Second, Democrats won't be able to get the landslide they need to beat the vote fraud and upcoming poll taxes if they don't strongly stand for something. Democrats have to stop playing the losing hand in a political game of "hey right-wingers, we're not that disagreeable" with their votes. Democrats have to stop voting for things they know are wrong to look less "liberal" or "disagreeable" as defined by republicans.

Roberts did well avoiding questions and the administration did well avoiding handing over more educational documents on his record. That does not mean that he will decide cases and perform the additional duties of Chief Justice in a way that we should have to live with. Roberts has a record of pulling out the stops to reach the farthest right-wing result possible in tortured legal analysis that would make my old Constitutional Law professor's head spin. Just because he did not come to the hearings wild eyed and foaming at the mouth does not mean that he gives up years of reactionary legal analysis.

With a Roberts Court, I envision Roe v. Wade overruled on the very rule of stare decisis that he used to deflect the question. He'll say it has been eroded by Casey. I can even envision a Roberts Court bringing back the Plessy v. Ferguson separate but equal rule for accommodations saying that Plessy, a railroad accommodations case, differed in material fact from the school district environment from which Brown v. Board of Education sprung. We know Roberts benefactors want to wipe out the 20th century of progress and have no reason to believe his nomination is not part of their strategy and take him at his word that he has no political agenda. Think about it. Anyone who is willing to look at the travel habits of a toad and not the business habits of a polluting corporation to answer the question of whether the corporation is engaged in interstate commerce requiring application of federal environmental laws shows they are willing to reach and reach far for an agenda. I'd bet even the toad was surprised.

Roberts may be an intelligent and skilled attorney, but if he is working for the radical, religious right-wing, he is simply unacceptable as a leader of a thinking and caring nation. It is time to take a stand and say so.

Senators, please take a stand on John Roberts and tell the nation that the Democrats truly stand for the liberal values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, and will not allow the unbridled corporationism and religious facism for which Bush and his nominees stand to go unchallenged.

Regards,

Ellen

Independent and thoughtful leadership, Kirk style

Last week, the current congressman for the Illinois 10th, Mark Kirk, voted in favor of a highly partisan committee investigation of the federal response to Katrina. The committee is to be selected as follows:

The select committee shall be composed of 20 members appointed by the Speaker, of whom 9 shall be appointed after consultation with the Minority Leader. The Speaker shall designate one Member as chairman.

Votes are expected to be 11 to 9 in favor of awarding the Bush administration a plaque with the engraving: "Brownie, you are doing a heck of a job", and calling it a day.

Of the committee that was created, house minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: "I am disappointed that the committee Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist have outlined is not truly bipartisan, will not be made up of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, cannot write legislation, and will not have bipartisan subpoena power."

Kirk again shows his district that he will vote the party line and refuse to call upon his bosses for accountability, even when his district wants accountability. Is that the independent and thoughtful leadership Kirk promised his district?

Civilization is a tree

FDR described political philosophies of his day:

Say that civilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood. The radical says: "Cut it down." The conservative says: "Don't touch it." The Liberal compromises: "Let's prune, so that we lose neither the old trunk nor the new branches."

FDR did not live to know the American facists now known as the neo-cons or Bush administration cronies. Here is a description of them:

Say that civilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood. The Bush crony says: "Cut down the tree and give the fruit to Kellogg, Brown and Root and the wood to Bechtel. Keep the rot and dead wood and give it a job at FEMA. Post an armed guard with an automatic weapon from Blackwater to protect the stump from being sat on by a weary traveler and have an interrogator from CACI available to torture the weary traveler if he doesn't offer $20 to Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing. If too many weary travelers wish to use the stump for rest, burn it and blame the environmentalist who says we should not have cut down the tree to begin with."

9/10th of the law

New Orleans's Mayor Nagin is asking for a slow repopulation of the city by business owners and residents. Bush's group says no, it's too soon due to environmental concerns.

Who's right?

There are environmental concerns. Did Bush grow a heart for the people of New Orleans?

Doubtful.

More likely, the longer the residents and small business owners stay out of New Orleans, the easier it will be to turn it into the company town for Halliburton and eventual playground for the haves and have mores.

Has Nagin gone mad?

Doubtful.

I don't claim to know the guy, but I can understand what he might be trying to accomplish. New Orleans will be the first city that the republican corporationists will have a chance to build from the ground up and with the place practically empty and needing a lot of clean up and rehab requiring a lot of money, they will have a free hand. They already suspended fair wage and according to Hugh Kaufman on Ring of Fire this past weekend, suspended environmental cleanup laws telling property owners that they are on their own with their cleanup (so don't for a minute think they care about the clean up being done according to environmental laws).

Mayor Nagin, misguided as he may be, is probably going for his last chance to keep the city for its people. He's probably trying to bring the real residents of New Orleans back to keep the character of the city, it's small businesses and poor residents needing home and to keep the salivating developers at bay.

The old saying "possession is 9/10s of the law" is not true under any body of law, but it makes a point. If the people of New Orleans stay away, you might as well just rename the place Hallibechtelblackwaterland.

Welcome back

Welcome back.
Katrina was your ticket out.
Welcome back.
It’s not the same old place and you should stay out.
Toxic waste is spewing from chemical and oil plants;
and the EPA is lying about benzene pouring from gasoline vats.
You know if you’re poor we’ll leave ya
with starvation wages and nothing to feed ya.
Yeah, you can’t blame FEMA a lot ‘cause it will put Bush on the spot.
Welcome back.
Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back.~~sung to the tune of the theme song from Welcome Back Kotter.

They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

Frodo: I can't do this Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.~~Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers

Magically disappeared

Millions of dollars are missing in Iraq. Turns out that Paul Bremer worked, not for the state department as a diplomat, but for the department of defense. He presided over cash payments made to corporate mercenaries. Some congressional Democrats have asked for an accounting and hearings, but the call has been quieted and the taxpayer dollars are gone, magically disappeared.

In 2000 and 2004 votes for Democrats magically disappeared too. Now, there is an employee of Diebold who is speaking out about the known back door for hackers and the cover-up. But that's so technical, not the type of things Americans are known to ask about, not something good like sex with an intern in the Oval Office, so although bloggers are talking about it, it's unlikely to get much press in the mainstream media. American votes, magically disappeared, and along with them our ability to have real elections in our so-called democracy.

Hundreds of American soldiers are dead in Iraq. The official count is 1900 at this writing, but they are only counting the ones they die on the spot. If one or hundreds get moved to a hospital or sent home before they die, they aren't counted. Some say the real count is about 9000, but that was before this deadly week. The Iraqi dead are not counted at all. They are not deemed relevant enough to bother our leaders' beautiful minds. Young men and women just magically disappeared.

Republicans are saying that there is a silver lining to the Katrina disaster being the loss of the slums, lack of jobs and bad schools. However, they are unwilling to make that silver lining become a reality with good wages, rebuilding a New Orleans for its poor with good schools and improved but affordable housing. Already taxpayer money is pouring into no-bid contracts for friends of the administration and wages have been reduced, illegally and without an end date. The poor will unlikely be able to afford to get back home or even live in the new New Orleans. They will be magically disappeared into the slums of the cities they were unknowingly dropped off in at the height of the crisis, so thirsty, hungry, tired, dirty and confused that they did not have the chance to ask questions. Now that they are asking, they aren't getting answers and folks are paying a lot less attention.

Children are missing from Katrina. We are all seeing them on CNN and other stations, some with pictures and ages, some with no picture or age. They could be anywhere with anybody. After the tsunami, there were concerns about child abusers getting ahold of the lost children. No one is mentioning that here, but I don't see how that is not a concern. The count is being done by several unrelated private organizations. I don't see why the first priority of Bush's great unfunded plan for Katrina relief does not include federal coordination of the missing children databases and matching them up with their families. Maybe Halliburton doesn't have software for that. Looks like there will be hundrens of children magically disappeared.

Speaking of the tsunami. We had a body count almost immediately from places like Thailand and Malaysia. In New Orleans, it's all quiet on the number of dead. Naigin first said 10,000. Some were saying up to 40,000, but suddenly we were told that the numbers were grossly exaggerated and that the count is far less. Then, there was no count. We saw a few pictures of dead in New Orleans. Then, we heard that FEMA had prevented news organizations from taking pictures, then CNN won the ability to broadcast pictures of the dead, but ultimately didn't. The dead in New Orleans magically disappeared.

The American people used to demand accountability from their leaders. Now, its taxpayer dollars, opposition voices, thousands if not millions of children and adults, and an entire American city just magically disappeared and few are asking and no one is ever held accountable. Accountability is scoffed at, Americans are happy to go on their way and be left alone, and its business as usual for the most corrupt government ever seen in this country.

Our money, our children, out communities, our vote and voice, and our desire to understand how this came about, all magically disappeared.

Eviction notice

A friend of mine who is a real estate attorney passed on the title link.

Apparently, George Washington never had the deed recorded...that is the deed to the land upon which the White House sits. The farmer who sold it was said to have been "obstinate", so maybe he never really delivered it either. Maybe title never really passed and the US Government does not really own the White House.

Without a deed of record from the farmer, David Barnes to the USA, if you ordered a title commitment for the White House, you might get a title finding like this:

Heirs at law of David Barnes

The government may be able to make an argument for adverse possession. That is, they can argue that there has been open, notorious, exclusive and continuous use of the land by the US Government for as many years as DC law requires for it to have obtained title thereby. A court would require proof and maybe all the records of the maintenance work was tossed or shredded along with the Iran/Contra Scandal evidence.

Then, there is another concept that may work for the government, but may work against it too. That is the power of eminent domain. Sure, if the government doesn't really own the White House, it could always file a condemnation suit and take it, right? Under the Kelo vs. New London case, the City of New London could take Ms. Kelos perfectly good house for development so long as it was a public use and the Court found that economic development was a public use appropriate for the eminent domain remedy. No one on the Court in Kelo said anything about redecorating, corporate takeover of the country, political revenge being acceptable public use.

There is no telling what DC would like to do with the White House land for economic development, maybe an history museum of better days past in Washington; maybe a combination use condo, townhouse, Target and Winn Dixie would be nice; maybe something to rival the Mall of America with a water park, indoor temperature controlled zoo and shopping mall or maybe they'd go the pure public use route like a school or maybe a prison...now that would make transportation for the Bush Administration final act easier.

The 2000 recount failed. The vote fraud in Ohio that ruined Kerry's chance of taking over as occupant was hushed. Bush has not yet been impeached. However, maybe none of that will be necessary after all. Wouldn't it be funny if all of this ends with a simple DC neighborhood real estate attorney representing the heirs of David Barnes and a complaint seeking the remedy of ejectment.

If the story's correct, and the local law cooperates, maybe Bush is just a squatter after all.

A Friday Skit--To the victors' campaign contributors and their designers go the ...

Cheney: Ok, lets get this teleconference started gentlemen.
Condi: Uhh...
Rove: Shut up Condi.
Cheney: George, are you here?
W: Coming Uncle Cheney. Needed a bathroom break....just tucking in the shirttails...
Condi: Sir, you didn't say a word.
W: It's ok, Condi. Laura's got me hooked up in suspenders today.
Cheney: Can we get started.
W: Sure, Uncle Cheney
Rove: I'm ready...just unfolding this map.
Cheney: Thanks, Karl. Let's get started. I think you did brilliantly last night George. You showed the country how we are making lemonade out of lemons.
W: Lemonade?
Cheney: We are going to make New Orleans and Boloxi bigger and better and whiter.
W: Lemonade. Can we have oatmeal cookies with our lemonade Uncle Cheney?
Cheney: We just need to get the funding in place and Tom and Bill have that sewn up.
W: Iced oatmeal cookies with raisins.
Cheney: What are you talking about, George.
W: Iced oatmeal cookies with raisins with our lemonade.
Rove: No oatmeal, George. The Quakers are giving us trouble over the War. No Quakers in Iraq. No oatmeal cookies in the White House.
Condi: Can we get back to the subject...
Rove: Shut up Condi.
Cheney: She's right. Let's proceed. Karl, you have the map out?
Rove: Yup, all unfolded, borders drawn and color coded.
Cheney: Good, put it on the video phone. Great. That looks good. New Orleans will be rebuilt by a consortium of Halliburton, Microsoft, Bechtel and Wal-mart. But, Disney gets the French Quarter and they are contracting out the food service to McDonalds. Have to replace all those hoidy toidy French beignets with good old American Egg McMuffins.
Condi: I love bignets.
Rove: Shut up Condi. Dick, what about security. Blackwater's already got that under contracts with Halliburton and they've contracted out weapons to N. Korea, so we are all set.
Cheney: China wants a piece of this too. Maybe a few blocks for knock off designer purses and shoes. Condi, get on that right away.
Condi: Sir, isn't that a bit sexist?
Rove: Shut up, Condi.
Cheney: There will be knock off software too, Condi. Just keep China away from Gates.
Condi: OK, Sir.
Rove: Let's get to Boloxi. That set up is really neat.
Cheney: Tell us, Karl.
Rove: Harrah's is merging with CACI, MGM and Smith and Wesson. It will be unbelievable and easy with Tom and Jack at the helm.
Condi: I thought Jack Abramoff was indicted, Sirs.
Rove: He'll be back in time for the first spin of the roulette wheel. We're not dealing with Martha Stewart here.
Ring Ring
(everyone checks their cells)
W: It's me. Hello. Oh, hi dad. Yes, Yes. I'm here with Uncle Cheney and ^%&* and that woman, (whisper) the brown one.... Ok, Ok. Dad wants me to put him on speaker.
Cheney: Ok, Hello Mr. President.
HW: Hi all. You too, Condi. I'm really calling for mother. She wants Gretna for her charity society. She saw them on CNN and they are her kind of folks.
Cheney: They have to be a major corporation with a PAC that forces its employees to contribute to the Party, Mr. President.
HW: Barbara's incorporating. The twins are the officers. We're all set.
Cheney: Well, ok sir. But the girls will have to get their sorority sisters to become at least Pioneers.
HW: Done.
Rove: Great. What's the first lady er former first lady going to call it?
HW: Not sure yet, Karl. Temporarily, just The Club.
W: Sounds good dad!
Cheney: Our regards to the queen mum. Bye Mr. President.
WH: Bye.
Cheney: So, we're all set then. The rebuilding will begin and our ownership society has weathered the storm.
W: There was a storm?
Condi: Katrina, sir.
W: She colored too?
Cheney: Let's wrap up. New Orleans and Boloxi will be rebuilt and then become wholly owned subsidiaries. Then, we work on the suburbs, but that will be easy. Lots of smaller donors who want in.
W: and mom gets Gretna.
Cheney: Sure George. Bet the place will be full of chintz in no time.
Rove: I heard that California is expecting an earth quake soon. The big one.
Cheney: One thing at a time, Karl.

Real people

I skipped Bush on TV in an attempt to up his TVQ and to convince the American public that the funds he promises to the Katrina affected areas will go to the actual hurricane and FEMA negligence victims and not corporate mercenaries like Blackwater and government contract hogs like Halliburton. Instead, I attended the Tenth Dems Stem Cell Forum. Among the speakers were State Senator Jeff Schoenberg and Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes. They discussed the political side of funding and bringing researchers to Illinois. There was a medical ethicist, Dr. Joel Frader and another doctor who was an expert on stem cell research who explained in very simple terms, how stem cells are created and expected to perform.

I am certainly no scientist, but what I got out of the forum (other than learning how to make my own evil twin--just a joke so don't email me saying that stem cell research is cloning because it is not) is that the religious extremist groups simply lie about what is involved in the creation of these stem cells from blastocysts not yet embryos that can even begin to become a baby. The other thing I got out of it is that the research will continue in states that are far sighted enough to allow and fund it and in other countries.

Dr. Frader talked about the deep religious beliefs of those who disagree with embryonic stem cell research, but failed to describe how those religious believers deal with the fact that there are real alive people all over the country suffering and their beliefs prevent these suffering people from receiving the help they need and we know is possible.

Sen. Schoenberg mentioned priests and Cardinal George pressuring Senators and Representatives to vote against the state funding. No one mentioned whether or not that leaves their churches open to losing their tax exempt status for engaging in political partisanship.

When I got home, I talked on the phone with one who shall remain nameless. He asked if I create my own evil twin, how will anybody tell the difference.

Tee hee.

Maybe I'll clone the DemoCat.

I won't go there

There are a lot of things for which I will blame Bush.

• I will blame him for getting us involved in a war based on lies.
• I will blame him for Osama bin Laden at large.
• I will blame him for cash payments to corporate mercenary companies and bad accounting.
• I will blame him for starving state and local governments so he can look like he gave us a tax credit.
• I will blame him for sacrificing our seniors in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.
• I will blame him for selling Americans out in favor of a greedy credit industry.
• I will blame him for selling Americans out in favor of a greedy medical industry.
• I will blame him for selling Americans out in favor of a greedy energy industry.
• I will blame him for cronyism and kickbacks to campaign contributors at the expense of the American people.
• I will blame him for putting armed corporate mercenaries on the streets of a major American city.
• I will blame him for the loss of New Orleans.
• I will blame him for enriching his campaign contributors rather than the folks who need to be involved in rebuilding their community.
• I will blame him for the loss of the right to privacy, choice, religious freedom and freedom from religion.
• I will blame him for ruining our good name in the world community.
• I will blame him for the loss of our environment and for the monarch butterfly which made a comeback in Illinois because of the environmental laws that he is now trashing.

BUT...

I will never never never blame him for needing a bathroom break.

That is the one thing with which I can identify.

The difference between politics and governing

Yesterday, Molly Ivins said that Bush enjoys politics but hates governing. The dictionary definition of politics is the "art or science of government or governing", but dictionary definitions often reflect the agenda of the victors and are not always true. The definition of communism has become Soviet style dictatorship and the definition of facism has become Soviet style dictatorship--obviously the dictionary folks liked Reagan.

Since we cannot trust the dictionary (read Skippy today--the post entitled "language is a funny thing") , here are a few rules I have to distinguish politics from governing:

1. Grudgingly voicing qualified responsibility in response to an extreme downturn in the polls is politics. Quickly and unequivocally taking responsibility and working to fix the problem or resigning so someone else can, is governing.

2. Leading a dialog on the direction we want to take as a nation is governing, taking the nation into the direction that best monitarily rewards your campaign contributors is politics.

3. Telling people that only you can protect them is politics. Actually protecting them is governing.

4. Helping those whose lives have been shattered by giving them a chance to rebuild their home and community at a living wage is governing. Giving no-bid contracts to your campaign contributors and suspending fair wage laws in a disaster zone is politics.

5. Respecting the precedent of our courts is governing. Grasping for any possible tiny loophole to change the law for the benefit of your campaign contributors is politics.

6. Helping people get over racism is governing. Pandering to racism to help your campaign contributors maintain their power is politics.

7. Pushing the nation into an undefined war with a hit and run war plan that makes permanent victory impossible and using it to monitarily reward your campaign contributors is politics. Carefully entering into only necessary wars with intelligent and finite war plans and sharing the burden and gains from war with your allies is governing.

8. Starving your local governments and blaming them for the results of lack of funding and taking credit for tax cuts and pork projects in favored areas is politics. Appropriately funding important local projects is governing.

9. Hiding the consequences of your actions is politics. Learning from the consequences of your actions is governing.

10. Dooming a country to which you promised freedom to a government of religious extremism because it will pander to your interests and the monitary interests of your campaign contributors is politics. Actually bringing the promised freedom, no matter how difficult and timeconsuming, is governing.

See the pattern. Politics is the art of rewarding your campaign contributors so you stay in power. Governing is leading the nation so its people have liberty and prosper. Only Bush's campaign contributors benefit from the politics he plays and Ms. Ivins appears to be correct when she says that Bush himself hates governing.

So why is he our chief governor?

Grasping for straws and a little happy news, but bad news for penguins

I just needed to end the day with some good news even if I had to pull it out kicking and screaming:

• Ted Kennedy is the only one who managed it. He actually pinned John Roberts down on his position regarding the Effects Test of Section 2 of the Voting Right Act which allows the federal government to veto proposed changes in state or local election systems if they are deemed to have a discriminatory purpose or effect on minority voters, Kennedy pushes for an answer and Roberts responds: "I have no basis for viewing this as constitutionally suspect." If he changes his mind, at least we have it on tape.
• Ontario Canada ultimately rejected a law that allows faith based tribunals to handle arbitrations in matters of family law. Why it was before them to begin with is kind of scary, though. So much for my Thunder Bay alternative.
• Conservatives have worrying about what people do and have focused their attention on Penguins. Hope they stay there for a long while. Sorry, Tennessee Tuxedo.
• If the goose lobby has as much clout as the Penguins, fois gras will soon be banned in Chicago. (Don't read this while eating fois gras or anything else--trust me.)
• Burt Natarus is fine and resting at Northwestern Hospital (you know I love them at NW from my August 20th ER post.) Wonder if his doctor is a short woman?
• Molly Ivins has recognized that there is a difference between politics and governing.
• We have some very smart federal judges left.
• Brittany Spear had a baby boy. Well, it's good news for Brittany and her family.

STARE DECISIS

To avoid answering questions on choice directly, John Roberts engaged in a discussion of stare decisis. What does that mean and what could that mean for the future Roberts Court?

Stare decisis is one of those latin legal terms that you usually have to look up in Black's Law Dictionary. I'll save you the trip to the library. It means "to stand by that which is decided." It is "the principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts. "

Here is another really good definition of stare decisis from Learning the Law (9th ed. 1973), by Glanville Williams :

What the doctrine of precedent declares is that cases must be decided the same way when their material facts are the same. Obviously it does not require that all the facts should be the same. We know that in the flux of life all the facts of a case will never recur, but the legally material facts may recur and it is with these that the doctrine is concerned.

Our American common law system depends on stare decisis to bring stability and fairness to the law. Courts are required to follow the precedent of predecessor courts or higher courts in its provincial jurisdiction. So, the Circuit Court for the 19th Judicial Circuit has to follow its own previous rulings, the rulings of the Illinois Appellate Courts, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to which we belong, has to follow the precedent of it's predecessor court, the US Appellate Courts for the 7th Circuit (the Circuit in which our Northern District of Illinois resides) and the US Supreme Court. Sometimes one Circuit will follow precedent from another Circuit, often one close in proximity, if it has no precedent of its own on the issue, but it doesn't have to. You can even find older US cases that use old English cases for precedent. Despite all the talk about activist judges, courts typically don't just make it up as they go along and judges take great pains not to.

Sometimes it seems that a court has overruled precedent, but we have to ask if it is a direct overrule of the central holding or an erosion of its doctrinal basis without a direct overrule. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which approved racial segregation with the idea of "separate but equal" was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) or was it? Plessy did not involve the public schools, but railroad accomodations and, if that is a material fact (and arguably it is as we would probably want our children and their futures to be handled more carefully than adult railroad riders), Brown may have not been a direct overturning of Plessy, but it did cause the demise of Plessy and the misguided doctrine of "separate but equal" forever and is usually seen as an overruling of Plessy. Here's the great Warren quote from Brown that sums up the holding:

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.,505 US 833 (1992), the Court held that the rule of stare decisis required that Roe's essential holding be retained. The majority opinion started off with this observation:

Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe.

Then, they commented on the challenge and reaffirmed Roe:

The CHIEF JUSTICE admits that he would overrule the central holding of Roe.... State and federal courts, as well as legislatures throughout the Union, must have guidance as they seek to address this subject in conformance with the Constitution....

This is what they held regarding the rule of stare decisis:

The obligation to follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks its outer limit. ....[W]e recognize that no judicial system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it. Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable. At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed....

This is what they said about the inquiry they used to determine whether or not the rule of stare decisis required them to uphold or overrule Roe:

So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed.

This 1992 Rehnquist Court (with no help from Rehnquist himself) upheld Roe under the rule of stare decisis and added yet another ruling of precedent in its favor. However, they did set forth a list of tests for a case to overrule a case within stare decisis and they did make a significant ruling rejecting Roe's trimester framework in determining when the State could make rules limiting choice.

Roberts more or less went through the stare decisis tests of Casey in his testimony today:

The principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors. Settled expectations is one of them, as you mentioned. Whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side --whether the doctrinal bases of a decision had been eroded by subsequent developments.

Specter pointed out that there has been no doctrinal basis erosion in Roe and Roberts responded by refusing to discuss any particular case, but he made it clear that he considers erosion of precedent important and focused on the Casey court's discussion and overruling of the trimester framework and substituting the undue burden analysis with strict scrutiny.

We have to be very aware that John Roberts has a history of looking for any possible legal theory to uphold the most right-wing conclusion in any case he touches. He looked at the local travel habits of a toad rather the multistate business of the company whose pollution killed it in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, to limit the application of federal environmental laws, and he looked to the meat packing industry to determine whether or not a school district was re-segregating in his brief for Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, No. 89-1080, 1989 U.S. Briefs 1080 (June 1, 1990).

Roberts may have sounded like he believes in the rule of stare decisis and unlikely to lightly overrule a strong precedent such as Roe v. Wade, but we have to remember that he is a skilled attorney and is being very careful in his presentation and very legalistic. He is leaving himself a lot of room to allow a later overruling of cases that protected the rights of the everyday regular Americans for whom his benefactors have so much distain and in favor of the interests of their corporate and religious extremist friends.

I think that we have a lot to worry about from a Roberts Court.

What they do have time for

Bush had no time to give any meaningful and timely help to the victims of Katrina, but he did have time to make sure his corporate cronies have ample chance to dip at the trough of death and destruction.

On Thursday, September 8, 2005, Bush signed an Executive Order suspending the Davis-Bacon Act in affected areas. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 requires a federal contractor to pay its workers at least the prevailing wage on construction projects. By prevailing wage, it does not mean the union wage, but the prevailing wage in the community before the disaster. Any hope of a works project such as John Edwards spoke of to help hurricane victims get back on their feet with jobs rebuilding their own homes and communities is gone in a puff of corporate greed.

Oh, there is nothing in the executive order that requires the companies hiring workers at low wages to pass the savings on to the taxpayers.

Even before handing over the workers to the blood thirsty corporations, Bush handed the major reconstruction work to Cheney's very own Halliburton and friends.

So, when our Congressmen passed the multi-billion recovery package last week, they may have been thinking about the victims, but ended up only enriching the same corporate mercenaries that are running things in Iraq, like Abu Ghraib prison. They should be screaming, but they're not.

Let's hope at least some of our tax dollars gets to the hurricane victims. You're probably better off driving down to the Houston Astrodome and handing out cash if you want your money to get to the victims.

There is always time in the Bush administration for thier friends, never time for the people of this country.

Roberts and re-segregation

When Kanye West said that "George Bush does not care about black people," you can believe him. The sentiment is proven in Bush's choice of nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. The Katrina disaster illustrated just how far we still have to go to create equality of opportunity for African Americans, but John Roberts has demonstrated that he wants to move backward, not forward in providing opportunities for minorities.

Roberts particularly demonstrates his tendency to favor racial discrimination in his ideas on the issue of school re-segregaton. In 1990, as political deputy to Solicitor General Ken Starr, Roberts wrote an amicus brief in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, No. 89-1080, 1989 U.S. Briefs 1080 (June 1, 1990) in which he opposed efforts of African American families to stop re-segregation of local schools. The Dowell case began in 1961 when black students and their parents, sued the Board of Education of Oklahoma City to end de jure segregation in the public schools. In 1963, the District Court found that Oklahoma City had intentionally operated a "dual" school system, intentionally segregated by race and institutionally enforced by the community in real estate sales, financing and restrictive covenants. In 1972, the Court found that efforts to end the segregation failed and required busing. In 1977, the Court found that the District was in compliance with the 1972 order and dismissed the case. The ultimate goal was a "unitary" school district for students of all races, but the 1977 order never actually proclaimed the district "unitary".

In the 1980s, the old busing system was claimed to be moving children too far away from home and was consequently changed to alleviate that claimed burden. However, by 1985, the district was still not unitary with 11 of 64 elementary schools having greater than 90% black students and 22 with greater than 90% white plus other minorities, and only 31 being racially mixed. Nonetheless, the 1985 court order interpreted the 1977 order to have declared the system unitary.

The students and parents went back to court claiming that the district still hand not achieved a unitary system. The District Court found for the school district. The appellate court reversed and on remand, the District Court found that the Board "had done nothing for 25 years to promote residential segregation, and that the school district had bused students for more than a decade in good-faith compliance with the court's orders", that "present residential segregation was the result of private decisionmaking and economics, and that it was too attenuated to be a vestige of former school segregation." It also found that the "district had maintained its unitary status". The appellate court reversed with great concern that conditions in Oklahoma City had not changed enough to take away the risk that many schools in the district would return to their former one race status .

Roberts argued that the 19