Will my friends on the left flank of the political spectrum please go provide some aid and comfort to Brad, whose head is reeling.
Keep Donating
Remember to keep it up:
Right now, Amazon has collected $7,988,270.89 from 75,150 donors. Overall, according to this tally, $329 million have been donated.
Also, here is a registry for folks to find out if their friends and loved ones in the region are alright.
Also, check out Hurricane Housing.
The Next War on The Judiciary
It appears a new front has opened up in the war on the judiciary. Apparently, judges have taken a cue from the knucklehead pharmacists for life and are choosing to simply refuse to deliberate cases in which they disagree with possible outcomes for moral reasons:
A pregnant teenager went to the grand and imposing county courthouse here early in the summer, saying she wanted an abortion. The circuit court judge refused to hear the case, and he announced that he would recuse himself from any others like it.
“Taking the life of an innocent human being is contrary to the moral order,” the judge, John R. McCarroll of Shelby County Circuit Court, wrote in June. “I could not in good conscience make a finding that would allow the minor to proceed with the abortion.”
The teenager was in court because Tennessee, like 18 other states, requires minors to obtain a parent’s permission before they can have an abortion.
But the state also allows another option. The teenagers can ask a judge for permission to decide for themselves.
Judges, however, are starting to opt out. Other judges of the Shelby Circuit Court have recused themselves like Judge McCarroll, and now, according to one judge, only four of the nine judges on the court hear such abortion applications.
Judges in Alabama and Pennsylvania have also said they will not take such cases.
The actions, similar in some ways to pharmacists’ refusal to dispense drugs related to contraception or abortion on moral grounds, have set off a debate about the responsibilities of judges and the consequences of such recusals, including political ones when judges are elected rather than appointed.
Judge McCarroll’s decision prompted 12 experts on judicial ethics to write to the Tennessee Supreme Court in late August. The experts called his action lawless and said they feared that his approach could spread around the nation and to subjects like the death penalty, medical marijuana, flag burning and even divorce.
“Unwillingness to follow the law,” the letter said, “is not a legitimate ground for recusal.”
Fabulous. Just what we needed. This brings a whole new dimension to the impartiality debate:
“I didn’t swear to uphold all of the laws of Tennessee except for X, Y and Z,” Judge Bailey said. “You’re sworn to uphold the law whether you agree with it or not.”
He said he worried that the varying approaches of the judges at his court could have political consequences.
“I hope that how I handle these questions of allowing these young women to get abortions does not lead to my defeat in the next election,” in 2006, he said. “If it does, so be it. I can’t keep a job constantly fearing that I’m going to lose it.”
Judge McCarroll was on vacation and did not respond to several requests for an interview through the court, his clerk and an e-mail message. In his statement, he said that recusal was not only appropriate, but also required.
“A judge should recuse himself or herself,” he wrote, “if there is any doubt about the judge’s ability to preside impartially or if the judge’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned.”
Just another thing to keep your eye on, and while there is no religious test allowed, it will be interesting to see how, in the matter of appointments, judges will be vetted to determine whether or not they will address these issues.
Double Duty
Rick Moran has constructed a great timeline that is continuing to evolve as more facts become available.
Also, see this response to Krugman’s absurd column.
My Favorite Moron
It looks like my favorite moron is back in the news:
To borrow a line from Dorothy: We’re not in Kansas anymore.
Unlike the Kansas School Board, which earlier this summer approved allowing educators to teach theories in addition to evolution that explain life on Earth, the Utah Board of Education on Friday unanimously approved a position statement supporting the continued exclusive teaching of evolution in state classrooms.
Only two people out of the dozens who attended Friday’s meeting sided with Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, and his proposal to allow teaching “intelligent design” as a theory to explain the origins of life.
Good for them. Buttars, however, remained defiant and vowed to soldier on:
The school board ignored Buttars’ complaint that board members never invited proponents of intelligent design to participate in drafting the position statement.
The board also chose to decline his request to delay voting on the document until the senator could give a two-hour presentation arguing for intelligent design.
During the public comment period, Buttars repeated his intention to either introduce legislation to require intelligent design be a school topic, or place the issue on next year’s ballot in the form of a referendum.
If you will remember, Buttars also has my favorite quote, ever, regarding intelligent design:
Buttars doesn’t disregard evolution completely, rather he believes God is the creator, but His creations have evolved within their own species.
“We get different types of dogs and different types of cats, but you have never seen a ‘dat,’ ‘’ he said.
Buttars lives up to his potential again in the hearings:
Buttars insisted that all he wants is equal time in the classroom – and it doesn’t have to be the science classroom.
“Whenever anyone challenges the evolution people, they go berserk,” he said. “[Evolution] is not a fact . . . We’re dealing with censorship here. If we only taught Shakespeare in English class, that wouldn’t be fair.”
Some of the scientists retorted that science is not a democracy.
“Legitimacy is not determined by public opinion polls, radio and TV talks shows, privately published books and, most certainly, not by legislation,” said Richard Tolman, a professor of biology and science education at Utah Valley State College.
In a summer full of crappy news, how about three cheers for the Utah Board of Education?
I Beg You
I am the last person who should be commenting about spelling, because you can find a typo in almost every paragraph of every post on this site.
But for my sanity, will you people learn how to spell incompetent?
“The incompentense of this administration.”
“If we had a competant President.”
And so on and so on. Please. I beg you.
Roberts as Chief Justice?
This is interesting:
President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. today to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose death late Saturday opened a second vacancy on the Supreme Court and a new front in the ideological battle over the judiciary.
The chief justice died just days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was preparing to convene hearings Tuesday on the nomination of Judge Roberts, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The hearings will be the first in 11 years for a Supreme Court nominee. Judge Roberts was a former clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.It was not clear how the announcement would affect the proceedings.
Seems like he has pretty broad support, it is a conservative nomineee replacing a conservative chief, and I think this will not be that big of an issue.
*** Update ***
And I really see no big reason why these hearings can’t be delayed a week or so, given the events of the past week.