Not An Activist Court? Bah-Humbug

The decision announced today by the US Supreme Court (Citizens United v. FEC) is an appalling use of judicial activism by the 5 conservative judges (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas). Instead of narrowly ruling on the facts presented to the Court in last year's term, the Chief Justice asked for and received a re-hearing of the case based on parameters he set. In other words, he wanted to examine whether campaign finance regulations barring corporations from buying advertisements to endorse candidates, was a unconstitutional ban on free speech.

As we all know, the First Amendment is for individuals, but long ago the US Supreme Court decided that corporations are "individuals," and therefore entitled to the same constitutional protections.

This case unravels years of sane campaign finance laws which, while not doing a good job at keeping out obscene amounts of money in federal campaigns, at least had the noble idea that people contributed to a candidate's election. Now, we'll have the candidate from Citibank, the candidate from Boeing, the candidate from Goldman Sachs, from Johnson & Johnson....

And we all know the "magic" of corporate marketing. They managed to convince a whole nation to leverage their homes to the hilt to buy flat screen TVs, granite counter tops, and stainless steel appliances against the homeowner's better interest, just think of the snarky ads they will come up with the convince you to vote for their candidate. Signed, sealed, delivered...Senator Bank of America.

Look at how corporations have perverted and corrupted sports in America. Wow, maybe a corporation can get naming rights to the US Capital or even the White House! Goldman Sachs White House or the Blue Cross US Capital.

I have one more thought: really this decision isn't about "free" speech, it's about bought and paid for speech. Manipulated speech. Advertising speech. It's about marketing a candidate. Instead of Manchurian Candidate, think AIG Candidate, primed and programed to do the bidding of the huge insurance corporation...

May we live in interesting times...we sure do now!

Death Penalty Death Knell

Why not start off the New Year with an intense topic? The death penalty.

There are a few topics in America that are polarizing, you know, where people stand on one side of the line or the other. But the death penalty is one of them. Either you are for it or against it.

In Texas, there is a raging debate about whether a truly innocent man was executed last fall. This debate is what death penalty proponents have worried about forever and anti-death penalty advocates knew would happen sooner or later. However, it's not quite clear, of course, whether the man was innocent....

Then there were the problems in administering the lethal injection in Ohio, which resulted in suspending the executions of two inmates.

Today's news brought another interesting twist in the debate. The very think tank that crafted the legal underpinnings to the Gregg v. Georgia decision in 1976 by the US Supreme Court, opening the door, again, for capital punishment, is going out of businesses because, essentially, they can no longer justify the death penalty. Now, they didn't say it that boldly, but that is what happened.

It will be interesting to watch as debates over capital punishment begin to unfold in the next few years. It's political hot potatoes to come out against the death penalty, particularly if you're a Democrat. President Obama supported the death penalty in his presidential campaign, even for non-capital but heinous crimes such as child rape. Slowly, very slowly, the US Supreme Court has been narrowing the ability of state's to administer the ultimate penalty.

Which is to say, nothing is every final in our society. The death penalty was abolished in 1962, re-instituted in 1976 and may well be effectively abolished again in the near future.

Public Disclosure and Initiatives

No one has ever denied that democracy is messy. But what really makes democracy works is information and to use the in-vogue word, transparency. In small towns in New England, decisions are still made with town meetings. Stand up and be counted. The extremely popular television show, Gilmore Girls, had a field day with the town meetings, yet everyone attended and every one talked.

Here in Washington State we are processing a wrenching debate over whether the names of people who signed petitions to challenge laws enacted by the State Legislature (known as referendums) or petitions to create laws (initiatives) can be made public. The Secretary of State said "yes," those names should be public and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. The US Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the release until it can have a hearing, meaning the vote will be long over.

The contentious part of this is that the names sought were attached to a petition to essentially rescind the domestic partnership law passes by the state legislature. And the groups trying to prevent the release are, they claim, afraid that they will be harassed and hounded by gay activists. Indeed, they only point to California where the release of contribution records to the initiative to ban gay marriage resulted in a community theatre director being "hounded out of a job" because he gave money in what was perceived to be an anti-gay measure.

Whether concerns over being hounded are valid or not, it seems that our democracy operates much better when we are willing to be open about our beliefs. Rather than hiding behind legalistic interpretations of regulations, standing up and being counted is a vibrant part of our debate. It frequently inspires a much more open dialogue as well as healthy resolutions.

Anti-disclosure advocates maintain a petition signature is like a vote, it should be kept secret (these days your vote really isn't secret, trust me). But a petition isn't a vote. It's an attempt to convince fellow citizens that we either need a new law or the laws we have are not good. It's your stand up and be counted moment.

And for once we have to trust that the rest of us will not act inappropriately once we hear your side.

War Memorials in National Preserves

The US Supreme Court heard a case about a war memorial that has been in the Mojave desert since 1934 when private citizens erected a memorial to everyone who has died in a war.

Of course, once the land became part of the federal preserve, issues concerning the separation of church and state bubbled up. In litigation, the US District Court (and a decision upholding that ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) required the cross associated with the memorial to be removed. Subsequently the Department of Interior transfered ownership of the small site back into private ownership and did not appeal the decision by the appellate court.

Today's hearing was more technical, with the ACLU challenging the transfer of the land.

Seems to me with a major war in Afghanistan, an economy still in floundering, health care reform now a joke, and major environmental issues to worry about, this seems rather insignificant. While I am sympathetic to people who don't like to see crosses on or around public spaces, it is, truly, something we see on a daily basis. Can we not worry about other stuff before we begin to take this on?

On another note, apparently Justice Sotomayor has asked more questions in three days of hearings that Justice Thomas has since he was sworn in in 1991. Not that I think asking questions is either good or bad or even demonstrates a curious mind, but I just found that fact interesting!

Madame Justice

I think we are witnessing the confirmation of a woman who will be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. Plus, she got her law degree from Yale! Go Bulldogs!

Meritocracy

In today's New York Times, David Brooks posted a great op-ed piece about meritocracy. Of course, his exhibit A is the US Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. But what Brooks forgot, I think, was not only the compelling issues of ethnicity but also her gender.

Practicing law as a woman in the early 1980s was no picnic. Law firms, even government prosecuting offices, did not have maternity leaves. It was a rare even to see a woman elected to partnership, much less a woman made head of a prosecutor's division. To just tread water, women had to work twice as hard and be even more perfect.

Sonia Sotomayor has had to sacrifice a lot of living in order to be sitting at the table, being grilled by privileged white men who have had wives, aides, children take care of their every need. Which, in my opinion, makes them less able to judge this amazing woman's ability to be a Supreme Court Justice.