And no, I am not making that up.
Stanley Fish, a Steamed Dumpling, and Antonin ScaliaPost + Comments (16)
by John Cole| 16 Comments
This post is in: Politics
by John Cole| 8 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics
Senators Cornyn and Kyl have offered up immigration reform legislation:
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chairman of the Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship subcommittee, and U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Chairman of the Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security subcommittee, introduced comprehensive border security and immigration reform legislation on Tuesday.
The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 will dramatically strengthen enforcement, bolster border security, and comprehensively reform our immigration laws. The key components of the bill include enhanced border security and interior enforcement, employer accountability, and reform that addresses temporary workers and the current illegal population.
“This bill strengthens our border enforcement and comprehensively reforms our immigration system,” Sen. Cornyn said. “We need both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our immigration laws.”
Sen. Kyl said: “People rightfully ask: if the current laws at the border and at the workplace are not being enforced, why should we believe new laws will be? Our bill answers that question by putting in place both stringent legal requirements and the assets necessary to ensure that we can control the border and prevent illegal hiring in the United States.”
As senators from Texas and Arizona, Cornyn and Kyl represent approximately 85 percent of the nation’s southern border. In preparation for the bill, the two Senators have carried out a thorough review of the nation’s immigration laws this year, including chairing seven hearings on various aspects of the issue.
The bill can be found here in .pdf format.
by John Cole| 35 Comments
This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance
Here is the post for you to tell me what is wrong with the site and what needs to be fixed.
Oh yeah- If I forgot a permalink for you, please let me know.
Does anyone know how to enable trackbacks? And are pop-up comments a possibility?
by John Cole| 24 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Here are some round-ups on Judge Clement:
Red State– Here, here, and here.)
Andrew Sullivan: Just go and start scrolling.
Think Progress- These guys went all postal and have a Supreme Court blog
Supreme Court Nomination Blog- Just start scrolling.
Out of all of these links, the most interesting thing comes from Red State:
Something has happened in the past ten minutes. I’ve had three five (they keep IM’ing) people from the media and conservative think tanks IM to say we’re on a wild goose chase — the conservative think tank people say its an intentional one. According to them, we should not be looking at Edith Clement, but at her cohort on the Fifth Circuit, Edith H. Jones a/k/a the Female Scalia.
My money is on Clement still, but it is interesting how, by the time I’ve finished writing this post seven people have IM’ed to say it is Jones, not Clement.
Enjoy.
by John Cole| 57 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics
Despicable murderer Eric Rudolph gets his due:
An unrepentant Eric Rudolph gave an impassioned defense of his murderous bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic Monday as a judge sentenced him to two life sentences and victims confronted him in court for the first time.
The wife of a police officer killed in the blast and a nurse maimed in the storm of shrapnel described him as a cowardly, bumbling American terrorist.
“I faced five pounds of dynamite and hundreds of nails, yet I survived,” said the nurse, Emily Lyons. “Do I look afraid? You damaged my body, but you did not create the fear you sought.”
“In the name of faith, you hate,” said U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith, who imposed the life terms worked out in a plea deal. “For the professed goal of saving human life, you killed. Those are riddles I cannot resolve.”
While it would be profoundly unfair to directly link Eric Rudolph to mainstream anti-abortion activism, it is important to recognize the impact the rhetoric of the anti-abortion lobby and how it may have impacted the behavior of this deranged individual. From Rudolph’s prepared statement back in April:
Abortion is murder. And when the regime in Washington l0galized, sanctioned and legitimized this practice, they forfeited their legitimacy and modal authority to govern. At various times in history men and women of good conscience have had to decide when the lawfully constituted authorities have overstepped their moral bounds and forfeited their right to rule…
Because I believe that abortion is murder, I also believe that force is justified and in an attempt to stop it…
However, if you do recognize abortion is murder and that unborn children should be protected anal you still insist that force is unjustified to stop abortion, then you can be none other than cowards standing idly by in the face of the worst massacre in human history.
There are those who would say to me that the system in Washington works. They say that the pro life forces are making progress, that eventually Rob v. Wade will be overturned, that the culture of life will ultimately win over the majority of Americans and that the horror of abortion will be outlawed…
I ask these peaceful Christian law abiding Pro Life citizens, is there any point at which all of the legal remedies will not suffice and you would fight to end the massacre of children? How many decades have to pass, how many millions have to die? Is there any point when the cries of the children will not go unanswered? I think that your inaction after three decades of slaughter is a sufficient answer to all of these questions…
Along with abortion, another assault upon the integrity of American society is the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior, and as such I have complete sympathy and understanding for those who are suffering from this condition…
This effort is commonly known as the homosexual agendas. Whether it is gay marriage, homosexual adoption, hate crimes laws including gays, or the attempt to introduce a homosexual normalizing curriculum into our schools, all of these efforts should be ruthlessly opposed…
After laying low for a year, I succeeded in making operational a command detonated focused device that would greatly reduce the risk for handing innocent civilians when carrying out these operations. Over a million human beings had died in the past year, and as the anniversary of Roe v. Wade approached, the idea was to send yet another message to the killers and those who protected them…
I had nothing personal against Lyons and Sanderson. They were targeted for what they did, not who they were as individuals…
While Rudolph’s behavior and murderous rampages were well beyond the mainstream, his language is not considered extreme when compared to the day to day rhetoric employed by those within the mainstream anti-abortion lobby.
Abortion is Murder:
Eric Rudolph, April 2005: “I believe that abortion is murder, I also believe that force is justified and in an attempt to stop it..”
Eric Rudolph, July 2005: “What they did was participate in the murder and dismemberment of upward of 50 children a week,” he said. Abortion is murder, Rudolph said, adding: “I believe that deadly force is indeed justified in an attempt to stop it.”
James Dobson, January 2003: “Abortion is murder. These are not matters of opinion.”
Randall Terry, May 2005: “ABORTION IS MURDER. It is the deliberate destruction of a judicially innocent human life in a time of peace.”
Operation Rescue, current: “We hold true to the great and historic creeds of our Christian faith: the Apostolic Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We reject all modern heresy and apostasies, including the ?Apostolic Mantle? doctrine. Furthermore, we assert that mankind is created in the image of God Almighty. Because of this, we assert that all violent assaults upon innocent human life defy the revealed will of God. Those assaults that end an innocent human life are murder.”Judge William Pryor, 2002: “Abortion is murder, and Roe v. Wade is an abominable decision.”
And, as a truly American testament to the mainstreaming of this rhetoric, bumper stickers. Again, the belief that abortion itself is murder is not one that is problematic (from the standpoint of excessive rhetoric and the results of said speech). Millions of decent people deeply feel that abortion is murder. I, myself, do not view abortion favorably, and will do my level best to make sure I do nothing to support the practice. The problem is when the rhetoric is so pitched, so heated, that it leads to extra-legal behavior and violence. What happens when the abortion is murder rhetoric takes the next step?
Dehumanizing Abortion Providers:
Eric Rudolph, April 2005: “I had nothing personal against Lyons and Sanderson. They were targeted for what they did, not who they were as individuals…”
Paul Hill, August 2003: “It’s as though a machine gunner is taking aim on bound peasants, huddled before a mass grave, and you are forbidden to stop him. In much the same way, the abortionist’s knife is pressed to the throat of the unborn, and you are forbidden to stop him. It’s as though the police are holding a gun on you, and forcing you to submit to murder— possibly the murder of your own child or grandchild.”
Randall Terry, May 2005: “This is not killing in war. This is not an accident. This is not manslaughter. This is not self-defense. This is not the execution of a capital offender.
It is the cold, calculated murder of a human child for money by an abortionist, with forethought and malice. Abortionists are little more than hired assassins capitalizing on the distress of pregnant women.”
EAEC, current: “While those who condone the murder of innocent babies like to label themselves as “pro choice,” the FACT is, they are ‘pro murder of innocent babies.'”
Operation Save America, January 2001: “There were 12 abortion mills in Dallas in 1988 when we first began this ministry,” said Rev. Benham, “Today there are only six. The battle for the lives of little boys and girls is being won on the streets. We give all praise to God.”
Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), 2004: “Women wounded by abortion – like actress Jennifer O’Neill, singer Melba Moore, civil rights activist Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, and co-founder of the National Silent No More Awareness Campaign, Georgette Forney – have called on us to listen to their heart wrenching stories and take seriously our moral duty to protect women and children from the predators who ply their lethal trade in abortion mills throughout the land.”
Eric Rudolph, April 2005: “Two attacks were carried out in the winter of 1997. The first in January was an abortion mill (Northside Family Planning). The second was a homosexual establishment (The Otherside Lounge). The abortion mill was closed that day but occasionally there was staff on hand to clean their blood-stained equipment, and these minions and the facility itself were the targets of the first device. The second device placed at the scene was designed to target agents of the Washington government.”
Greg Cunningham, CBR, 1998: “The man who organized the week-long display said he would make no apologies for the Holocaust comparison. ‘Abortion is genocide. That’s the whole point,’ said Gregg Cunningham, director of the Los Angeles-based Center for Bio-Ethical Reform [CBR].”
Again, these are just a few samples, and I really don’t need to provide more. A concerted effort has been made to dehumanize the opposition, to label abortion as genocide, and to color those who support abortion as murderers, killers, and the like. Along with the rhetoric, non-violent calls for action are made. Unfortunately, psychopaths and sociopaths do not always stay within the parameters of those non-violent calls to action, and take matters into their own hands.
Borderline and Violent Calls to Action:
Paul Hill, Why I Shot an Abortionist,”: “When I first appeared on Donahue, I asked the audience to suspend judgment as to whether the action had been wise, but I took the position that Griffin’s killing of Dr. Gunn was justified. I later realized, however, that using the force necessary to defend the unborn gives credibility, urgency, and direction to the pro-life movement which it has lacked and which it needs in order to prevail.
I realized that using force to stop abortion is the same means that God has used to stop similar atrocities throughout history. In the book of Esther, for instance, Ahasuerus, king of Persia, passed a law in 473 B.C. allowing the Persians to kill their Jewish neighbors. But the Jews did not passively submit; their uses of defensive force prevented a calamity of immense proportions.
I realized that a large number of very important things would be accomplished by my shooting another abortionist in Pensacola.
– This would put the pro-life rhetoric about defending born and unborn children equally into practice.”
Paul Hill Action Statement: We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.
Randall Terry, date unknown: “If you believe it’s murder, act like it’s murder!”
Central Illinois Right to Life, explaining Michael Griffin’s behavior: Michael Griffin may be delusional, but delusion is often born of frustration, and frustration is an inevitable by product of an increasingly Tyrannical Society that is devoid of Truth, lacking in Moral Leadership and impervious to Democratic Change.
As for pictures of mutilated babies, the victims of abortion, that’s not delusion, that’s reality!
Rev. David Trosch, head of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, advocating the murder of abortion providers: “Michael Griffin has used a method which is unfortunate, to say the least, but I can’t go against him for doing it.”
Trosch is an intense man with a serious, unchanging expression on his face, and a man with an unchanging issue on his mind — abortion.
For the moment, Trosch says, he has no plans to kill a doctor himself. He has “only remotely” thought about it, he said.
“It’s not part of a role of a priest normally to do such a thing,” he said. “It’s not my calling, you might say. My profession is a teaching profession, essentially.”
Still, Trosch wouldn’t say with absolute certainty he’d never kill a doctor.
While Trosch said he has never told anyone else to kill a doctor, he casually acknowledged that the advertisement could have incited people to kill.
“It doesn’t bother me,” he said.
Killing a doctor is justifiable, Trosch claims, if the killer is trying to save the life of babies. That is a defensible position, he contends. It’s like killing a criminal before he kills you or your friend. Or it’s like killing people in wartime to serve a greater good.”
Rev. Trosch, on shooting pharmacists: “According to the Rev. David Trosch, even pharmacists might eventually become targets. “I would see no problem with shooting a pharmacist” who provided a “morning-after pill” to women who seek to terminate their pregnancies. Trosch, in a July 16 letter that predicted the “massive killing of abortionists and their staffs,” pointedly warned that clinic defenders and reproductive- rights activists “will be sought out and terminated as vermin are terminated.”
While there are many more quotes I could include from the fringe, you get the message. The point of this post is not to smear the millions of Americans who truly believe abortion is wrong, and who work through non-violent means to achieve their goal. The overwhelming majority of the leadership in the right-to life movement has condemned this sort of violence.
However, it is important to recognize that the careless rhetoric being bandied about by those on the pro-life side can have disastrous outcomes (here is a brief, albeit out of date, summary of violence at abortion clinics). Most recently, the rhetoric has reached a fevered pitch in certain quarters referring to any court decision as examples of ‘judicial tyranny, ‘judicial activism,’ or ‘legislating from the bench.’
Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader, stated in regards to the Terri Schiavo case, that “the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.” I am not making a Clintonesque claim that right-wing radio is leading to terrorism, and I am not stating that Tom DeLay is in favor of murdering Americans. There is, however, in my opinion, a connection between the rhetoric of people who are supposed to be responsible political and spiritual leaders and the horrible deeds of delusional, misguided, and ultimately, evil individuals.
This has been a long post, but let me offer one more quote, as we come full circle back to Eric Rudolph:
“Those who attempt to save the lives of unborn children and who wish to promote a culture that respects life are now treated as fanatics, threats to American freedom,” he said.
Those like Eric Rudolph should be treated like fanatics, and those who enable lunatics like Rudolph should recognize their hand in this, however unintentional. They are not responsible for Eric Rudolph’s behavior, nore Paul Hill’s, nor Michael Griffin’s. But we can;t pretend the day-to-day rhetoric had no impact on the beliefs of these murderers. This is a lesson we should remember.
by John Cole| 46 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Ken Mehlman goes to the NAACP, apologizes for the GOP’s past sins, and Bob Herbert unloads on him:
One of President Bush’s surrogates went before the N.A.A.C.P. last week and apologized for the Republican Party’s reprehensible, decades-long Southern strategy.
The surrogate, Ken Mehlman, is chairman of the Republican National Committee. Perhaps he meant well. But his words were worse than meaningless. They were insulting. The G.O.P.’s Southern strategy, racist at its core, still lives.
My goodness. What could Mehlman have said that was so offensive? Did he pull a James Watt? Let’s look:
“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” said Mr. Mehlman. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
Oh. Can’t imagine why President Bush may be reluctant to address the NAACP if this is what creates such vitriolic condemnations. At any rate, Herbert does repeat a few canards:
The Southern strategy meant much, much more than some members of the G.O.P. simply giving up on African-American votes. Put into play by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon in the mid- to late 1960’s, it fed like a starving beast on the resentment of whites who were scornful of blacks and furious about the demise of segregation and other civil rights advances. The idea was to snatch the white racist vote away from the Democratic Party, which had committed such unpardonable sins as enacting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and enforcing desegregation statutes.
I’ll let you deal with that one on your lonesome in the comments. Herbert continues:
So what did Ronald Reagan do in his first run for the presidency, 16 years after the murder, in the summer of 1980? He chose the site of the murders, Philadelphia, Miss., as the perfect place to send an important symbolic message. Mr. Reagan kicked off his general election campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, an annual gathering that was famous for its diatribes by segregationist politicians. His message: “I believe in states’ rights.”
I’ll let Kevin Drum take care of this one:
Reagan obviously knew the racial baggage of a phrase like that at a place like Neshoba, and it’s a genuine blight on his record. However, it’s worth noting that (a) Reagan talked about states’ rights routinely in a non-racial context, (b) Mississippi at the time was seen as a swing state that Jimmy Carter had only barely won in 1976, and (c) the Neshoba event wasn’t originally planned to be the kickoff for his campaign. His original intent was to kick off the campaign with a speech to the Urban League, but his advisers were afraid of the symbolism of doing that first and following it with Neshoba.
Drum goes on to note that Dukakis and others all went to the Neshoba County Fair, and that the reason may have more to do with the fact that this is the ‘it’ event for this region, and a campaign stop for everyone.
I am not going to whitewash or defend the Republican party’s checkered past on matters regarding race, as there really is no excuse for many of the past behaviors. In fact, most of us in the party acknowledge it, and it is why we have such a hair trigger when people like Trent Lott attempt to glorify the segregationist past of people like Strom Thurmond. I have even written at length about some of our sins and how the biblical rhetoric employed against blacks now has been retooled and redeployed against homosexuals.
Despite all that, it is still profoundly unfair to even attempt to portray this White House as racist. Bush may be wrong on a lot of issues, but it is a stretch to claim that racism is one of those sins, and Herbert is simply trying to keep hate alive.
by John Cole| 14 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Well, I guess that is one solution to the Rove/Plame rumblings in the press- move up the unveiling of the Supreme Court nominee. “Look- A rabbit!”
As my Republican credentials are, as of late, not very good, I feel obliged to follow the meme shift and do my partisan role to aid the cause. As such, I offer you this indictment of Gonzales by Gene Healy:
Gonzales’s theory of limitless executive power resurfaced in what have come to be known as the “torture memos.” An August 2002 memo prepared under Gonzales’s direction argues that the 1994 statute Congress passed prohibiting torture infringes on the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief: “Congress can no more interfere with the president’s conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield.” If the president deemed torture necessary to achieving America’s war aims, the memo argued, then Congress would be powerless to restrain him. It’s a theory that echoes Richard Nixon’s infamous statement in a 1977 interview with David Frost: “Well, when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” Asked about the memos in his confirmation hearings for attorney general last January, Gonzales refused to recant his view that the president can ignore the law.
It’s not clear what we can glean from Alberto Gonzales’s tenure on the Texas Supreme Court. But his record as a top administration official is clear: he is altogether too much a company man, all too willing to waive constitutional limits in support of radical expansions of executive power. He should not be allowed to serve on a Court that will in the future be called upon to check that power.
In other nominee news, Atrios says that CNN is reporting (no CNN link yet) the nominee will be Edith Brown Clement. A little bit about Judge Clement from Confirm Them:
Clement is known to be pro-defendant in civil rights cases and is like O’Connor on business issues, which means that conservatives will be pleased with her on those issues. There is no indication that Clement takes an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause and every indication that she does, in fact, take the opposite view.
Sources close to the White House tell me that the pick has been made, but are not giving me the name. Third party sources who would be among the first to know are saying that there is every indication that Clement is the pick. In fact, we are beginning to see conservatives get on board and shift from Edith B. Clement having too thin a papertrail to her being “with us.”
No one knows how Clement would vote on the ultimate issue — is abortion a medical procedure subject to state regulation or a constitutional right. I am told that, with the pressing issues currently headed to the court, i.e. partial birth abortion, parental notification, 24 hour waiting periods, the Solomon Amendment, etc. — conservatives do not need to worry about Clement, they need to worry about Justice Kennedy and whether he will continue heading left.
I have been told by multiple parties that, though we know little about Judge Clement’s leanings on social issues, we should make no mistake that her family background is conservative and that her husband is a “loyal” conservative. Also, I’ve gotten a few emails and phone calls from a few particular people who would know who all say that we should trust the President on this pick. I also know that lawyers in my home state of Louisiana like Clement and do think she is conservative.
It seems that Clement is not the ‘safe’ pick the base wants, and could be the ‘surprise’ they fear. Should be interesting.
BTW- Judge Clement is only 57, which is a definite plus. This confirmation battle is going to be so bloody that the younger the candidate the better, as a lengthy term will make the political capital expended seem worth it.