Members of Congress speaking at conference that says judges pose a "mortal danger"

Congress' anti-judge fervor grows by the hour.

Embattled Congressman Tom DeLay and conservative Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn are scheduled to speak this week at a conference in Washington, DC that blasts "unbridled" judges as posing a "mortal danger", apparently to those who have the misfortunte of appearing in their courtroom.

On the conference's Web site, its organizer calls the Republican Baptist-faithed judge in the Terri Schiavo case "an activist Florida judge who, in effect, passed a death sentence on Terri Schiavo." The site criticizes "liberal judges" who "defy the will of the people" in order to "force their radical theories on the nation," and it also notes that these judges have apparently declared "war." Read More......

GOP hate fest continues. Second GOP member of Congress accuses judges of cruelly and mercilessly killing Terri Schiavo

Who will be the next innocent judge, judge's family member, or person in a court room to die as a result of the GOP's judge-a-palooza hate-a-thon?

From some New Jersey paper apparently called "The Times":

New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, a friend and advocate of Terri Schiavo's family, called for a full inquiry into her case yesterday after the severely brain-damaged woman who spent 15 years connected to a feeding tube died.

Smith has said Schiavo was not in a persistent, vegetative state, but was a disabled woman who was unjustly killed by deliberate dehydration and starvation....

Smith characterized Schiavo as a "healthy but disabled woman" whose death "exposes an extremely cruel, merciless and dysfunctional element" within the judicial system.

"The fundamental human rights of disabled people have suffered a tremendous blow as Terri Schiavo was sentenced to die and then denied her own representation and a new and full review by federal courts," said Smith in a statement issued from Geneva, Switzerland, where he is attending a United Nations Human Rights Conference.

Read More......

Open thread

Enough anger. Time for me to watch 24 on TiVO.

Ooh, Washington Post covers the Cornyn defends domestic terrorsists story (well, that's my angle). Pretty quick turnaround for them. Read More......

National Press Club AGAIN defends GannonGuckert panel discussion

Raw Story reports that the National Press Club (NPC) is again defending its panel discussion, this time with yet another rationale. You gotta hand it to the mainstream media running the Press Club, they've got more excuses explaining their handling of this panel than Gannon has, well, previous professions.

According to Roll Call, where there's going to be a story tomorrow:

National Press Club officials, reports Akers, "insist they're going to sharply question Gannon about how he wound up covering the Bush White House with no prior journalism experience."

"I don't think John Aravosis is the only person in the world who's capable of criticizing Jeff Gannon," Mike Madden, a reporter with Gannett News Service who will moderate Friday's panel discussion told Akers.

Well, with all due respect Mike, we wish that were true, but recent experience suggests otherwise.

We watched, first hand, the downright crappy and unprofessional job most of the mainstream media has done handling the GannonGuckert story to date. Other than a few glaring exceptions, like E&P;, Salon.com, Anderson Cooper, Mo Dowd and Frank Rich, most of the mainstream media refused to cover the story, and when they did cover it, it was trivialized as gossip and they got the facts wrong. Worse yet, the msm let GannonGuckert spout off wildly contradictory facts each and every time he speaks, yet barely any of you call him on it. So pardon the blogosphere for worrying that the mainstream media is going to do what it has always done when confronting this story - duck and cover.

But there's more from Roll Call:

The Press Club's president said he planned to ask Gannon why he considered himself a journalist. "He should answer that question. The alternative is to censor somebody. We believe in free speech and tough questions," Dunham said.

Yeah, uh huh. Asking GG why he considers himself a journalist is not a "tough question." Following up and catching him in his inconsistencies and half truths, knowing what he's said at previous appearances and catching him changing his story and making him explain why, now THAT would constitute tough questioning. But hope springs eternal.

And as for this new-found National Press Club love of free speech and abhorence of censorship, funny the NPC wasn't so outraged when Jayson Blair wasn't present at two NPC panels about his saga, and we hear Stephen Glass wasn't exactly invited to talk at his panel either. But those plagiarizing fake reporters weren't also high-priced man-whores, so perhaps their lack of titillating-entertainment-value places them lower on the free speech totem pole.

Not to mention, if the National Press Club is such a fan of free speech, then why is the only key player in the GannonGuckert affair who isn't invited to the panel discussion the blogs who actually broke the story and followed it doggedly for two months, trying in vain to get the mainstream media to cover the very aspect of the story the NPC is debating on Friday?

Oh, but that would require a foolish consistency on the part of the National Press Club. I mean, you can't expect the National Press Club to give free speech rights to BOTH sides of a story. I mean, that would be, um, fair and balanced. And in the new journalism of today, the august journalism the National Press Club appears to now embrace, if you don't write about ass-fucking, or charge $200 an hour for it, your free speech rights are checked at the door, and your credit for breaking a story goes down the censorship memory hole.

Oh wait. I just wrote about ass-fucking. Maybe my invitation is now on the way. Read More......

Congressman Conyers rips Senator Cornyn for justifying violence against judges

Hear, hear.

During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as "unconscionable," lacking "human compassion," needing to be held in "contempt," and having "answering to do." I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

Outside the halls of Congress, words flew even more recklessly and the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube an "act of medical terrorism." The Reverend Pat Robertson called it "judicial murder."

I remember thinking about Judge Rowland Barnes of Georgia, who less than a month ago, was shot to death by an angry litigant in his courtroom, along with two other court employees. I remember thinking that irresponsible words can lead to tragic results. I thought of Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother are thought to have been murdered by an aggrieved litigant. Since then, I have been trying to think of the most appropriate forum to gently call this to my colleagues' attention, and to remind them that -- no matter how strong our feelings about individual decisions and cases, we need to be cognizant of the influence we may have -- especially on those that may be disturbed, and we always need to know that -- as elected officials -- our words have consequences.

That was to be a subtle message. It is unfortunate that today my message must be less subtle because things are very quickly spinning out of control....

This apparent effort [by Senator Cornyn] to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements.

Read More......

"The first thing we do, let’s kill all the judges" - Shakespeare, kind of

Quoting a little Shakespeare seemed appropriate (Shakespeare actually said "kill all the lawyers.") Consider this an open season open thread. Read More......

BREAKING: GOP Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) says violence against judges is understandable

UPDATE: The transcript is attached, in context, at the end of this post. Also, a second GOP congressman has now accused judges of cruelly killing Terri Schiavo, and Congressman Conyers has openly criticized Cornyn.

Senator John Cornyn should resign immediately.

At 5PM today on the Senate floor, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) gave an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are "unaccountable" to the public. Sources on the Hill went and pulled the transcript of what Cornyn said, and it read:

SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]

We now have Republican Senators making excuses for terrorists. Explaining why terrorism is understandable. Why terrorists have legitimate concerns. Justifying why the victims of terrorism are really to blame for these heinous crimes. Wonder what Senator Cornyn thinks of rape victims?

This is utterly outrageous. Outrageous. The GOP is now embracing domestic terrorists who are trying to undermine our democracy. And they're doing it so they can take down the judges who "killed" Terri Schiavo, and instead impose some Pat Robertson-like theocracy on our country. This is absolutely utterly beyond contempt. Tell Judge Lefkow in Chicago that her mother and husband are dead because she brought it on herself.

And the ultimate irony is that it is people like John Cornyn who now risk inciting violence against judges by giving aid and comfort to these homicidal maniacs. Cornyn should resign immediately.

Here's the text of what Cornyn said, 4:54 PM Eastern time today, in context - he clearly is blaming the judges for the violence against them.

…it causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions. And no one, including those judges, including the judges on the United States Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects.

And, Mr. President, I'm going to make clear that I object to some of the decision-making process that is occurring at the United States Supreme Court today and now. I believe that insofar as the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policy-maker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it has led to the increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation fights. That is a very current problem that this body faces today. It has generated a lack of respect for judges generally. I mean, why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision borne out of an ideological conviction any more than they would respect or deny themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an elected representative?

Of course the difference is that they can throw the rascal -- the rascal out -- and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal -- if they don't like the decisions that we make. But they can't vote against a judge because judges aren't elected. They serve for a lifetime on the federal bench. And, indeed, I believe this increasing politicalization of the judicial decision-making process at the highest levels of our judiciary have bred a lack of respect for some of the people that wear the robe. And that is a national tragedy.

And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share.

You know, it's ironic, if you look back, as we all have, being students of history in this body, all of us have been elected to other -- to other bodies and other offices and we're all familiar with the founding documents, the declaration of independence, the constitution itself, we're familiar with the federalist papers that were written in an effort to get the constitution ratified in New York state. Well, Alexander Hamilton, apropos of what I want to talk about here, authored a series of essays in the Federalist Papers that opined that the judicial branch would be what he called the -- quote -- "least dangerous branch of government." The "least dangerous branch." He pointed out that the judiciary lacked the power of the executive branch, the white house, for example, and the federal government and the political passions of the legislature. In other words, the congress. Its sole purpose -- that is, the federal judiciary's sole purpose was to objectively interpret and apply the laws of the land and in...

I love how, after making the entire case for how the judges are bringing violence on themselves, Cornyn throws in "certainly without justification." Yeah, nice try, but we have the rest of your entire speech as evidence to the contrary. Read More......

Priceless

This is why the Center for American Progress is my favorite Dem group. Just read this. Read More......

Religious right fears the homos control Washington

UPDATE: I totally missed the possible GannonGuckert reference in this story, or what I think is a veiled reference to GG: "homosexuals dominant [sic] the hospitality industry in Washington." I thought he meant, like, waitering and hotels. I think he might have meant "man-whores" too, seriously.
----------------------

And we do, especially the Republican party - there are gays everywhere in the party, even in its highest ranks, and there's nothing you can do about it.

And apropos of nothing, it being Mehlman Monday and all, why is the religious right still not asking why the head of the Republican Party, Ken Mehlman, still hasn't personally come out and said he's heterosexual? I mean, his proxy told GQ that he's straight, but then a week or two ago Ken demurred again. I'm sure he's just been busy.

From the religious right propaganda organ, AgapePress:

..The influence of homosexuals in the nation's capital is growing as more advocates of that lifestyle have relocated within the District of Columbia. The Washington Post recently ran a three-page article on the growing influence of homosexuals in Washington, DC -- and in particular, the rise of homosexual police officers. Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says he is well aware of the huge effect being exerted by the homosexual population of DC. "I myself have talked to people who have been in the 'gay lifestyle' and in Washington and have since left it -- and they said that it's a lot bigger than people realize," Knight says. "Homosexuals are drawn to Washington [because] it's a power center and it's also a large urban center where there are lots of bars and clubs. But I think the influence they wield is way out of proportion to their numbers."

He explains that the number of homosexuals in DC law enforcement has grown in recent years. "They have four full-time officers, they have eight auxiliary officers, and they've even got a transgender officer -- a retired U.S. Capitol Police sergeant," he says. According to the Post, that element of the force is specially trained to deal with the violence that permeates the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, says Knight, homosexuals dominant the hospitality industry in Washington and are in position to keep tabs on the sexual liaisons of many members of Congress. He explains that that can provide information that is very valuable in getting an agenda through Congress.

Bob, if you mean we're going to out the SOB's who talk about family values but whore around on the side? You're right. Read More......

Open thread

La la la Read More......

Frist preparing for Nuclear Option

Looks like Bill Frist is preparing for the "nuclear option" in the Senate. He wants to change the filibuster rules on judicial nominations. AP is reporting that:

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is irked that Democrats have used filibusters to block 10 of Bush's choices for federal appeals courts.

He's vowed not to let it happen this year, particularly with the possibility that there could soon be a Supreme Court nominee to consider. But to carry out that promise might require changing Senate rules that now allow just 41 members to block any judicial nominee.

Frist needs 50 votes in the 100-member Senate to change the rules. Vice President Dick Cheney could then break a tie.

The interesting thing, according to the article is that he doesn't have the full support of his Republican caucus:

Many are nervous about what has become known as the "nuclear option," a rules change would set off a political war that might block the remainder of Bush's domestic agenda. GOP Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, John Warner of Virginia and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have either said they oppose changing the rules or have declined to promise to support the change.

Veteran Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Richard Lugar of Indiana won't say either.

"I'll cross that bridge when I come to it," says Alaska's Ted Stevens, elected to the Senate in 1970 and now its longest-serving Republican.

This is serious stuff. If the Republicans change the rules, the Democrats have vowed to shut down the Senate. And, they can. Harry Reid is being resolute on this issue...and he needs to.

This past weekend, for their weekly radio address, former Majority Leader George Mitchell talked about the "nuclear option." Mitchell gave up a federal judgeship when he was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1980. He is a very, very smart and astute politician. (and, it doesn't hurt to have Mitchell involved to keep Snowe and Collins in line.) Reuters gave the report on his address:

"All Americans should be concerned about the effort by Republican leaders in the Senate to unilaterally change the rules,” Mitchell said in delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address.

“They call it their 'nuclear option.' It’s an apt name because it will destroy any hope of bipartisanship and permanently change the Senate for the worse,” said Mitchell, who served as majority leader from 1989 to 1995....Mitchell said: “Our system of checks and balances is in place for a very good reason. It works. It protects all Americans.”

“During the six years that I served as Senate majority leader, Republicans often used filibusters to achieve their objectives,” Mitchell said. “I didn’t always agree with the results, but I accepted them and we were able to work together on many important issues.”

If Frist moves ahead, this will be an intense battle. And, everyone will need to engage. Read More......

Anatomy of the MSM not getting it

I found out via Poynter that the San Diego Union-Tribune caused a bit of a stir recently by running an article ON EASTER SUNDAY the title of which read: "The Resurrection. Did it really happen?" A lot of Christian readers found that article a bit tacky, published on Easter Sunday and all.

The reader representative for the paper (kind of like an ombudsman, I think), wrote an article today defending the article. And while I can see how folks might disagree on this one, I think the reader rep's arguments are a classic example of why the mainstream media just doesn't get it.

In a nutshell, she looks at the guts of the article, whether it was fair, whether it was accurate, and doesn't really consider the larger question, namely, is it appropriate to run this kind of article on the front page of the paper on Easter Sunday? Isn't it a bit like running a front-page story on "Santa Claus, does he really exist?" on Christmas day for all the kids to read, or, "Judaism, real religion?" on Channukah or Passover?

The question before us isn't whether the article was factually correct or fair, the question is whether it isn't a bit tacky to run a FRONT-PAGE-STORY essentially questioning the validity of Easter ON EASTER SUNDAY. And the reader rep totally misses the mark when she tries to justify the story by saying:

"Many churches use their observances of Christmas and Easter as opportunities to affirm their members' beliefs and to address the questions of non-believers," Merriman said. "At my church, the Sunday sermon title was 'Did Jesus Really Rise?' I suspect there were similar question-titles on the signs outside churches across San Diego County. Were those titles offensive? Disrespectful? I don't think so. Nor was our headline. It captured the central question of the story and of Easter."

Well, first of all, that church you cited is apparently in San Diego, and they probably brought the topic up because they read it on the front page of your newspaper and people were outraged. So that hardly proves the top is okay for discussion on Easter Sunday - you CAUSED the topic to be brought up in church.

But more importantly, it's a totally different situation to have YOUR CHRISTIAN CHURCH discuss the resurrection and your local secular newspaper. On Easter Sunday, I know my church is NOT going to debunk Jesus and the resurrection, whatever the title of the sermon. But my secular paper, their allegiances are hardly in the same place, nor should they be. So it's absurd to suggest that a church discussing this topic carried the same insult, or non-insult, as a newspaper headline on the front page on Easter Sunday. (It's like using the word "fag" or talking about my momma. I/we can do it, you can't.)

I agree that it's an interesting topic for discussion, and would love to read the article (and did read it). I also think that it is tacky to run that kind of headline on the front page on Easter Sunday, regardless of what the article actually says.

But more importantly, the mainstream media's response is what I wanted to highlight here. They're like little geeky robots, looking at the facts and not the larger picture, whenever they try to justify something they've done. Comparing their story to a sermon in church - not the same thing, guys. Suggesting that their story was fair and accurate, and thus, that that is the only basis for judging whether a story was appropriately or inappropriately run - ignoring the real possibility that even fair and accurate stories can be offensive in the wrong context. And questioning the resurrection in a big fat front-page headline on Easter Sunday strikes me as sensational and poor timing.

Whether you agree or disagree, do look at the arguments the reader rep uses. It's all wonk talk and no heart, no soul. The msm has lost its soul. That is at least part of, if not much of, the problem we're all facing with them. Read More......

Evidence suggests US military perjured itself before Congress during Abu Ghraib hearings

Ok, so does the rule of law matter anymore in America?

The memorandum, dated September 14, 2003, was signed by Lt. Gen. Sanchez and laid out specific interrogation techniques, modeled on those used against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for use by coalition forces in Iraq. These include sleep "management," the inducement of fear at two levels of severity, loud music and sensory agitation, and the use of canine units to "exploit [the] Arab fear of dogs."

During sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Sanchez flatly denied approving any such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false.

Specifically, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Sanchez, "today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." To which Sanchez replied, using the acronym for Coalition Joint Task Force-7, "Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year."

Sure sounds like a contradiction. And lest we forget, we throw gays out of the military for a lot less. Read More......

Open thread

Man, still fighting this cold. Though feeling a bit better. Read More......

Zogby says support for DeLay is slipping

What a shame for such a man of principle. 45% say they would vote for someone else while 38% are saying they would still vote for him. His numbers in recent elections have been slipping as well, even with unknown candidates running against him so 2006 might be an interesting year. Read More......

Moving forward in Zimbabwe

Assuming no oil is located in Zimbabwe any time soon, there's a big question about how to move forward after the recent election where Mugabe and his thugs jammed through a ZANU-PF victory. The opposition MDC claim to have actually won 94 of the 120 parliament seats (the "certified" results say ZANU-PF won 78 seats) and are calling for new elections but regional African governments are pressing for a power-sharing government, also publically giving a thumbs up to the election results.

Southern Africa is a great place and without a doubt, South Africa could have a worse leader than Mbeki but it is about time that the US and EU re-think their own relationships with those African countries who went along with the troubled elections. Back room politics do not work with a thug like Mugabe and it is time for everyone to quit playing the game. As we know, invading a country is also a bad plan but with a united front from Europe and the US, it's time to develop a coordinate policy that can encourage a more serious program for democratic reform. With half of the Zim population on the verge of starvation and a government that uses food for both punishment and reward, the situation is becoming more and more urgent. Read More......

France polls show "NON" vote for EU Constitution

Every recent poll that has been taken recently in France has shown that the EU Constituion will not be accepted by voters. The growing discontent is coming from all sides of the political spectrum and much like Bush and his Social Security speaches, the more the government tries selling it, the less people like it.

Reasons for voting against it range from fear of EU subsidies being cut back, to fear of "Anglo-Saxon" market economy, to general displeasure with the Chirac agenda, to a general sense of frustration with the EU government which lacks even more transparency than the existing government. As a founding member of the EU, this will be a massive blow to the new constitution. Passing power to Brussels is a larger struggle for the larger EU powers who seem to want both the EU as well as the power to dictate the terms, which is increasingly difficult in the 25 member union. Read More......