Still confused about that whole Gonzales thing? (Lord knows I am.) PFAW has an flash map that connects the dots between the fired attorneys, upcoming political races, and the 2008 Election.

For example, clicking on Nevada shows you that a US attorney was fired there for "no particular deficiences," and then you find out that NV is a key battleground for 2008... which is why the DOJ wanted the atty to work harder to drive down voter turnout with b.s. voter fraud investigations. See? It all comes back to voter fraud!

Go check it out.

Fun Interactive DOJ Map!

PFAW Chart on Gonzales Firings

Alright. I was planning to take a few weeks off this whole blogging thing and just focus on finals. But then an article like this comes along and I simply cannot resist pointing it out. Oh boy.

The Justice Department- who is obviously completely out of the spotlight at the moment- is asking a federal court to limit basic attorney priveleges in the case of Guantanamo detainees. What kind of privileges would they give up?

"Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantánamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee’s case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.
The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.
Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees — in a single visit — that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators."

Wow. So, limit access to clients, their evidence, and violate attorney client privilege. For people that are already being held without charges in a secret prison that uses illegal interrogation techniques. Does that about sum it up? Oh, right... this request is being brought by a Department that is under investigation for massive corruption. Wow.

Its hard to think of a strong enough commendation of this latest DOJ action... so let me just say... um... I think that this is bad.

Court asked to Limit Lawyers at Guantanamo

The Black Hole of Guantanamo

Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 264, before us today, which provides for equality under the law for both men and women, represents one of the most clear-cut opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in the principles that shaped our Constitution. It provides a legal basis for attack on the most subtle, most pervasive, and most institutionalized form of prejudice that exists. Discrimination against women, solely on the basis of their sex, is so widespread that is seems to many persons normal, natural and right. - Shirley Chisholm, Aug. 10 1970

Good news on an otherwise boring day: Sen. Barbara Boxer has reknewed the drive to get the embattled Equal Rights Amendment passed. Originally written in the 20's by Alice Paul, the last time it was seriously considered was the 70's, when it missed the mark for ratification to the tune of 3 states. These days it seems to have a fighting chance, but you can bet the conservatives (including, shudder, Phyllis Schafly) will come out in droves to prevent it. (They think it will be a basis for gay marriage and unisex bathrooms, both of which I am ALL for, btw.) The actual text of the amendment is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Would an amendment like this actually have a tangible impact on women's lives? Who knows. But think about the difference it could make to future generations of women, reading the constitution for the first time to discover that their rights were enshrined there too.

New Life for the ERA

Mike the Usurper wrote:
For one reason, it's a place the Democrats can stake out a clear opposition position. It's hard for them to even say "withdrawl" and getting them to agree on a version of that or what is done after that is sort of like herding cats. Agreement on the US Attorneys mess is easy.

Second, they have something that is really interesting here. As came out at the press meeting, the White House is in a very ugly corner, and it's one of their own making. On the one hand they want to claim executive privilege about the decisions made on this issue. On the other, they have been making public statements that W was not informed about any of this. That's a very tricky box. They can't claim privilege on something that was not discussed with W, but they can't very well let these guys go to the floor and have to say "These people were fired because they were prosecuting our buddies."

Third, this is a subject that has traction with likely voters. These guys were trying to turn Justice into the right hand of the party? That will get the left going even more ballistic, the middle (what's left of it) going against the administration in a hurry, and fracture off the "get government out of my space" wing of their own party.

Fourth, it's a way to cut out even more of the political machinery. This is more than enough to take down Alberto, and might be enough to take down Turd Blossom with him. Even if Rove stays, it weakens the hand being played by W even more.

It's a fight they can win, and win going away. At that point they stop looking like loser Democrats and can maybe start running with other balls that need to be moved downfield, like the wiretaps, like the Iraq war, like botching Afghanistan, like bungling Katrina, like torture and extraordinary renditions for that purpose. As Newton put it, an object at rest tends to remain at rest, an object in motion tends to remain in motion.

I'm not happy with the Democrats at the moment, but I'll take this as a first step.

These are all very good points. And one thing that didn't occur to me is that the main thing isn't the firing itself, its the lying about the firing. Here's a great article by Cohen that gives that statutory basis I was looking for.

All the same, I'm not so sure that the attys shouldn't have sued so the judiciary could handle it and the legislature just harp on it (and possible repeal certain patriot act provisions.)

It wasn't just a bad idea, it may have been illegal

RE: More on U.S. Attorney Firings- this stuff is getting out of hand

So lets see. Against the administration we've got Hurricane Katrina...Guantanamo...gay marriage...global warming...voter disenfranchisement...the DC vote...oh yeah, and IRAQ. But what are Dems harping on? Fired Republican attorneys. This is a bad strategy. Times reports:

The potential for the investigation to broaden into a constitutional confrontation has created a tricky political calculus for the newly empowered Democrats. As they consider their strategy, they are acutely aware that they are already entangled in another major clash with the administration over the question of pulling American troops out of Iraq.

Um, yeah, there's always that. But what about the fact that they are requesting documents, calling witnesses, spending money on a huge investigation to prove *at most* that the Executive branch violated a "traditional" separation of U.S. attorneys from political endeavors. Fired atty David Iglesias wrote in the Times yesterday,

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Not being political? A few pararaphs later, he describes his noble fight (but eventual failure) to prosecute voter fraud, which was number 1 political priority for the GOP at the time. So. Its not that he wasn't being political... its that he was doing a shitty job at it.

Why do I not feel sorry for him?

Ethics are important in government. But in this extraordinarily unethical administration, why are we focusing on firings of GOP attys that are pissed that they didn't get rewarded for their noble attempts to fuck over voters, prosecute illegal immigrants, and otherwise be good ole boys for Bush? I'll admit that this investigation has its value in pointing out what a racket these political appointments have become. But are dems really going to waste their time and cred on a constitutional showdown over this, when they've got so many more valuable constitutional fights to fight?

Someone please explain this to me.

More on U.S. Attorney Firings- this stuff is getting out of hand

The Times has an editorial today about the BHFJ case- pretty interesting stuff. This letter was most interesting to me, as it offered an educators perspective:

To the Editor:

As educators, we are charged with the duty not just to educate our young people but to help mold them into moral adults. This “mission” does not always agree with the precept of free speech.

No student in my middle school classroom may speak to me or to any other student with disrespect or in a hurtful manner. I also expect my students to limit conversations during class time to the topics I pick. Does this violate the students’ rights to free speech? You bet it does! Should it carry out of the classroom? I believe that it should.

I hope that any educator who sees his student behaving in a destructive manner will step in and speak up. I hope that someday my students thank me for this “violation” of their constitutional rights, just as I hope that the Alaska student realizes someday that his principal was acting in what he believed to be the student’s best interest.

Claire Hirschhorn
Fair Lawn, N.J., March 20, 2007

But Decius, to answer your question: there are limitations on free speech in plenty of situations ("shouting fire" in a crowded theater, for example.) In school this is particularly true. The courts have given schools wide discretion in surpressing speech that is sexual, gang-related, and drug-related, among other things deemed "disruptive." However, for the most part political speech is protected, even if it is mildly disruptive (black arm bands, for example.)

So yes, the content really made a difference here. But all the same I think the court will come down for the kid because of the extenuating circumstances (and also because the school's argument was just really unconvincing.)

RE: Whose Bong Would Jesus Hit?

Decius wrote:
Do those few words make a difference?

They do make a difference, because this sign was basically interpreted by the court as irreverant nonsense. Read the transcript- they spend half the time grilling Starr about whether this would have been removable if the sign had said "repeal the marijuana laws" or something similarly political. But "Bong Hits for Jesus"? The kid admitted he used this phrase because he thought it was funny and would attract media attention, but its not even clear that it makes any real statement about pot or Jesus. This is why the school though they could get away with this- its not protected political speech, its just druggie nonsense! The court really didn't seem to buy it.

Why did they grant cert? The appeals court ruled for the student. Wouldn't freedom of speech be safter if they decided the circuit was so obviously corrent that it wasn't worth reviewing? Why did they decide to review it?

Read my blog and I have some links to the transcript and a slate article that puts this case in context. My understanding (as far as cert) is that this case was unique because the expression wasn't exactly on school property, but took place at a school sponsored event. Also, because drug and violence speech is usually repressable within the school, it made an interesting question that hadn't been looked at since Tinker. The circuits were split on what exactly were the bounds of the school's authority in this kind of case.
I do think that this will be good for free speech if they come down for the students, because schools have been tightening the kinds of speech for years, and allowing them to regulate it in and out of school according to school policies (which of course, could be totally arbitrary) would be scary.

Is the student really interested in money? How much was he awarded?

The answer is yes, he sued for damages, I'm guessing punitive. Like I said, this kid seems like kind of a jackass. The case isn't over yet so damages haven't been awarded yet, but Justice Roberts indicated that big damages weren't likely. (He was like, come on! Its a principle who was acting under the school's rules, you're really gonna ream her on damages?)
I bet they get awarded court costs, which are fairly significant, but nothing else.

RE: Whose Bong Would Jesus Hit?

Will a funnier case ever go before the Supreme Court than Morse v. Frederick? If you don't know the story already, a witty (and apparently litigious) high school student unrolled a large banner stating, simply: "Bong Hits for Jesus" in front of his school. But this was no ordinary day, rather it was the day the Olympic torch ceremony came through Juneau, Alaska, along with accompanying tv crews. So his antics could have concievably been broadcast to a wider audience- had not his incensed principle removed it. The boy sued, trial court found for the the school, the ninth circuit found for the bong-hitter, and that brings us to today, when when we get to hear Justice Scalia asking Kenneth (yes that one) Starr "this banner was interpreted as meaning smoke pot, no?"

A few other favorite moments:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: So if the sign had been "Bong Stinks for Jesus," that would be, and Morse had the same reaction, that this was demeaning to the Olympics and it was unruly conduct, that there would be a protected right under Tinker because the message was not promoting drugs?
....
JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus, heh heh heh," you know. Supposed that's what had happened?
.....
MR. MERTZ: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court: This is a case about free speech. It is not a case about drugs.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It's a case about money. Your client wants money from the principal personally for her actions in this case.

Damn straight its about money! Money for more bong hits! But seriously, legally this case had some value as well. These are important questions in this days of heaightened school security. How far does a school's discretion go in regulating speech? Can a kid put up a B.H.F.J. banner in home room? What about wearing black armbands? What about putting up a banner that said Democrat/ Republican for Jesus? Many groups on the left and right (usual suspects ACLU and not so usual like Liberty Legal and American Center for Law and Justice, Pat Robertson's guys) filed amicus briefs on the side of the student, who was not particularly political or religously observant, but rather wanted "to get on television".

Reading the transcript of the oral argument, it seems at first like the Justices simply weren't up on the hip-kid slang. But really, the interpretation at the banner was at the heart of the matter. Was this political speech? Probably not- that might have been more along the lines of "Legalize bong hits...for jesus". Was is religous speech? Um, no one was willing to buy that. But this ambigous kind of jackassery- ought this sort of speech be protected? Even if it vaguely promotes drug use?

The court seemed to come down on the side of Jesus... I mean, the students. This banner was outside the school, not in the classroom, and although it was pretty much meaningless nonsense, with a few words changed it could have been a political or religous expression. And the Justices didn't seem to be comfortable with the idea of a "school message" that was being contradicted. After all, were that the case schools could be republican, pro-choice, or pro-war and expression the contrary could be stricken as disruptive. All in all, I think speech rights are fairly safe for now.

Safe for when someone comes up with something more important to say than "Bong Hit for Jesus," for fuck's sake.

Whose Bong Would Jesus Hit?

I remember fielding telephone calls on Election Day 2004 from friends and colleagues anxious to talk about the exit polls, which seemed to show that John Kerry was beating George W. Bush and would be the next president.

As the afternoon faded into evening, reports started coming in that the Bush camp was dispirited, maybe even despondent, and that the Kerry crowd was set to celebrate. (In an article in the current issue of Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes, "In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.")

I was skeptical.

The election was bound to be close, and I knew that Kerry couldn't win Florida. I had been monitoring the efforts to suppress Democratic votes there and had reported on the thuggish practice (by the Jeb Bush administration) of sending armed state police officers into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando to "investigate" allegations of voter fraud.

As far as I was concerned, Florida was safe for the G.O.P. That left Ohio.

Republicans, and even a surprising number of Democrats, have been anxious to leave the 2004 Ohio election debacle behind. But Mr. Kennedy, in his long, heavily footnoted article ("Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"), leaves no doubt that the democratic process was trampled and left for dead in the Buckeye State. Mr. Kerry almost certainly would have won Ohio if all of his votes had been counted, and if all of the eligible voters who tried to vote for him had been allowed to cast their ballots.

Mr. Kennedy's article echoed and expanded upon an article in Harper's ("None Dare Call It Stolen," by Mark Crispin Miller) that ran last summer. Both articles documented ugly, aggressive and frequently unconscionable efforts by G.O.P. stalwarts to disenfranchise Democrats in Ohio, especially those in urban and heavily black areas.

The point man for these efforts was the Ohio secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who was both the chief election official in the state and co-chairman of the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio — just as Katherine Harris was the chief election official and co-chairwoman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida in 2000.

No one has been able to prove that the election in Ohio was hijacked. But whenever it is closely scrutinized, the range of problems and dirty tricks that come to light is shocking. What's not shocking, of course, is that every glitch and every foul-up in Ohio, every arbitrary new rule and regulation, somehow favored Mr. Bush.

For example, the shortages of voting machines and the long lines with waits of seven hours or more occurred mostly in urban areas and discouraged untold numbers of mostly Kerry voters.

Walter Mebane Jr., a professor of government at Cornell University, did a statistical analysis of the vote in Franklin County, which includes the city of Columbus. He told Mr. Kennedy, "The allocation of voting ma... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Those Pesky Voters - New York Times

Hawaii Sen. Daniel K. Akaka thinks Hawaiians should be allowed to govern themselves as Native Americans and Alaskans do, and after seven years of pushing a bill to start the process, the Senate is expected to take it up this week.
Mr. Akaka says the bill is a way to give "indigenous" Hawaiians a sense of pride and a chance for sovereignty for the first time since 1893, when Queen Liliuokalani was deposed and lands were illegally seized by U.S. Marines and a cadre of sugar-plantation businessmen.

Hawaii is awesome !

Senate to consider letting Hawaiians pursue sovereignty?-?Nation/Politics?-?The Washington Times, America's Newspaper