GOP hero Mitch Daniels and his ethics problem

The guy who sorted the books of Indiana by leasing the state highway for 75 years (leaving the state with no revenue for seven decades) has recently accepted the job as president of Purdue University in Indiana. It's an unusual move since he has no experience in such a role, though he admits that he spent his "life reading, admiring, and attempting to learn from those who do." Uh huh.

The bigger issue and the one that raises obvious ethical issues is that he was hired by a board of directors that he hired himself while governor of Indiana. Daniels will jump from a salary of $107,000 to a comfortable position that likely includes a house and car plus a salary in excess of $500,000. That's quite a jump for someone without any experience in academia.

He does have management experience though you have to question the motives of someone who has screwed the state out of road revenue for 75 years. One hates to think how a guy who was not kind to education will damage the university with the same mindset as when he was governor.

When questioned about the conflict of interest for the high paying job, Daniels could not even provide a complete answer. The revolving door of politics and business (and yes, universities are big business) never ends.

“Do you see,” a WLFI reporter asked, “or how would you address, the perception of some people that there may be a conflict because of the number of trustees that you appointed?”

Since elected as Indiana’s governor in 2005, Daniels has either appointed or re-appointed 100 percent of Purdue’s trustees – appointing eight himself and reappointing two others. This includes Tuesday’s reappointment of three Board members which extended a three-year term to the search committee chair, Michael Berghoff; though the decision of Daniels as president had already been made by then.

After a four-second pause, Daniels deflected the question.

“Well I’ll just leave that to the University. I don’t know what – “

Read the rest of this post...

Catholic Monsignor convicted in Philly abuse case

On the same day as Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 counts, the archdiocese of Philadelphia also received a strong verdict. Many had expected more in this case, but it is still a groundbreaking decision. Covering up crimes may now be viewed differently following this case.

A jury convicted Msgr. William J. Lynn of child endangerment Friday, finding that as the Archdiocese of Philadelphia secretary for clergy, he ignored credible warning signs about a priest who later sexually assaulted a 10-year-old altar boy.

The verdict, after a three-month trial, marked the first time since the clergy sex-abuse scandal erupted nationally a decade ago that a Catholic Church supervisor had been found criminally liable for child-sex crimes by a priest.

Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina immediately revoked Lynn's bail, and deputy sheriffs escorted the white-haired monsignor to a holding cell. Lynn faces up to seven years in prison, and prosecutors vowed to seek a term near the maximum.

In the Sandusky case, there was brief mention of an appeal, though that sounds unlikely. What sounds much more likely is even more trouble for Penn State who is being sued for covering up the scandal, not unlike what we saw in the Philadelphia church trial.

Having just spent a week in the Philadelphia area, I was floored with number of people who minimized the scandal. Too many people limited the story to Sandusky rather than the the school administration as well as the legendary Joe Paterno. There were plenty of people who were as disgusted as most outside of Pennsylvania but the continued support for Paterno was too much.

I know how irrational college football fans can be (my school is right up there with Penn State, Michigan and Notre Dame fans in terms of being irrational and sometimes delusional) but wow, the inability to see the depths of this problem was amazing. Perhaps the next round of civil lawsuits against the school and individuals may change some opinions, or at least I hope that's what happens. But then again, there are still plenty of supporters of the Catholic church despite the global child rape problems. Read the rest of this post...

"Big spender Obama" is a GOP lie

There's a lot to agree with in this Business Insider article. Obama should not have continued Bush's bank bailout (that was caused by Bush) but the GOP can't blame Obama for expenses that Bush began. Read the entire article because we're sure to hear more of this "blame Obama" garbage in the coming months.

The document, “Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables,” was recently published by the Federal Government, and it shows (pages 22-23) that the Government’s actual “Outlays” have remained essentially flat since the 2009 budget, which was submitted under George W. Bush. In fact, Obama’s first budget, 2010, even went down 1.7% (following a year in which there had been 2.7% inflation, so the real increase was -1%); the 2nd, 2011, then increased 4.3% (following a year in which inflation was 1.5%, so the real increase was 2.8%).

That’s what was actually spent. What had been proposed by the President was, of course, a bit different. George W. Bush had proposed 2009 expenditures of $3.1 trillion, but the Federal Government actually spent $3.5 trillion, because of the crash, which Bush caused. Barack Obama proposed 2010 expenditures of $3.6t, but again $3.5t were spent – virtually the same amount as in 2009 – because of the need to re-start “demand.” (Moreover, since the inflation-rate was 2.7% in 2009, federal expenditures actually went down 2.7% from 2009 to 2010, despite the Keynesian need that year to boost spending.) Obama then proposed for 2011 $3.8t, but $3.6t ended up being spent – a 4% hike from the prior year. (But the inflation-rate was 1.5% in 2010, so the real spending-increase proposed in 2011 was only 2.5%.)

Read the rest of this post...

Saudi Arabia to fund Syrian opposition forces

Better them than us, though it's highly likely that the US will be more deeply involved than anyone back home would want. As reported by the NY Times, the CIA is already operating inside Syria. The last thing the US needs now is yet another war that we can't afford. After eleven years of war, enough is enough.

The Guardian:

Saudi officials are preparing to pay the salaries of the Free Syria Army as a means of encouraging mass defections from the military and increasing pressure on the Assad regime, the Guardian has learned.

The move, which has been discussed between Riyadh and senior officials in the US and Arab world, is believed to be gaining momentum as a recent flush of weapons sent to rebel forces by Saudi Arabia and Qatar starts to make an impact on battlefields in Syria.

Officials in the Saudi capital embraced the idea when it was put to them by Arab officials in May, according to sources in three Arab states, around the same time that weapons started to flow across the southern Turkish border into the hands of Free Syria Army leaders.

Read the rest of this post...

British companies to report CO2 emissions in annual reports

While not perfect, it's still a good start.

The U.K. will make publicly listed companies report their greenhouse-gas output, the first country to do so as it calls on big business to clean up its act.

All companies listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange will have to include emissions data in their annual reports starting in April, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said today in a website statement.

Large public- and private-sector organizations account for about 10 percent of Britain’s emissions. Tackling the pollutants pumped out by factories, utilities and other big companies may help the U.K. meet a European Union target to cut carbon output to 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2025, a goal that’s also driven the growth of renewables from wind and biomass to solar power.

Read the rest of this post...

Did Justices Roberts and Alito perjure themselves before Congress?

Not that we have Rule of Law or anything — Nixon and Ford fixed that with their corrupt deal, the one that gave the presidency to Ford in exchange for Nixon's sweeping pre-indictment now-and-forever pardon.

How's that for a quid and a quo? I'll take either side of that deal.

But perjury before Congress is against the law, an actual crime. And Supreme Court justices can be removed (I hear).

With that in mind, here's Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast (my emphasis; h/t Cliff Schecter on Majority.fm):

Count this if you must as my attempt to "intimidate" John Roberts, but I was reading back through his statements about stare decisis at his hearings. What a liar.

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School is one of our leading legal scholars, so let me hand it over to him here for a few grafs, from a piece he wrote for HuffPo that's five years old but rings awfully true as we count down the days until the Supreme Court seems likely to hand down its most striking overturning of a law since the 1935 National Recovery Act decision.

The quote from Geoffrey Stone (again, Chicago Law School; again, my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee [under oath] that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents."

Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that "the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability," and "integrity in the judicial process." Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly "unworkable" over time.

But in general, "a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

It is hardly surprising that Roberts and Alito would pay such obeisance to the doctrine of stare decisis in order to get themselves confirmed. Stare decisis is, after all, the bedrock principle of the rule of law [note, there's that phrase; Alito is right].

Not only does it promote stability and encourage judges to decide cases based on principle rather than on a preference for one or another of the parties before them, but it also serves importantly to reduce the politicization of the Court. It moderates ideological swings and preserves both the appearance and the reality that the Supreme Court is truly a legal rather than a political institution.

After some discussion of the Warren court's rulings, Tomasky concludes:

Roberts--and Alito--simply lied. Balls and strikes. Right. They are politicians in robes, nothing more.

Perjury with an excuse, like a note from Jesus or something.

In right-wing minds, it's Means v Ends all the time, and Ends always comes with a note from Jesus. It's how they roll, why they need right-wing Jesus and his personal, invisible and wholly-imagined blessing.

Consider, when John Mitchell, Nixon's former Attorney General and head of his Committee to Re-elect, was asked at the Watergate hearings (my paraphrase) — You testified that re-electing Nixon was a critical national imperative. You committed all these crimes to re-elect him. Would you kill to re-elect him?

Mitchell's answer — go ahead, guess; remember, he's under oath:

(Long pause) "Senator, you ask a hard question."

The song of the hyper-moral. (And remember, Mitchell was Attorney General.)

So, can a Supreme Court justice be impeached? Here's the answer:

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

The answer, in other words, is yes; but only in an actual republic. Bananas are on their kleptocratic own.

By the way, when you start typing "can supreme court justices be impeached?" into the google, it prompts you with that very search after can supr is entered. Choice number one.

I must not be the only one who cares.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

The Pogues - Thousands Are Sailing

A great song by one of my favorite bands and great images from old New York and Ellis Island. My grandfather arrived at Ellis Island from Cork just a few years before WWI and as suggested in the song, was a cop in Philly like many Irish immigrants. (Shocking for an Irish immigrant, isn't it?) My mother's side came over during the famine in the 1860's so I'm still not sure where or how they entered.

It's always a disappointment to me when I hear Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. Americans who bash immigrants considering what our own families experienced. What part of that history do the bashers not see? Do they actually think those immigrants were liked or wanted? And let's not even get into how legal or not that wave of immigration was, because the haters are probably not going to like what they find out either. Read the rest of this post...