Liberty and Justice for All!

Be clear, I support the ability of a gay couple to sign the same contract that a heterosexual couple can sign.

Today a federal judge overturned  the federal gay marriage ban, in part, because it interferes with the right* of a state to define marriage.

Now, the end result is good for couples in Massachusetts who (if the ruling survives any appeals) will be able to get benefits from their same sex spouses. However, it could be bad for couples in California who are fighting for their right to marry the people that they love. If that ruling holds, how would Prop 8 be overturned?

Now, a ruling in another case stated that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is also unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

So in one hand, one judge ruled that states have the right* to define marriage and in the other hand the same judge ruled that gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The judge could have made the argument for the latter in both cases. So at the moment, these rulings seem to be contradictory. However, I will hope that it is the latter argument that wins out so couples who happen to be of the same gender can finally stop being treated as second class citizens.

* States do not have rights, they have powers. Read the 10th amendment.

Seems a Sleestak won the PA Democratic Primary.

How will he get anything done with that hissing sound?

What is that you say? Sestak? OHHHHHH! My bad!

Good luck Mr. Sestak! I hope you nail the Club for Growth candidate Toomey to the wall.

Congrats are also in order to  the Democrat in PA 12. Congrats Mark Critz. Republican Tim Burns will be challenging the then incumbent Mark Critz in the fall. (And yes, Critz is pro-2nd amendment and pro-life. I would rather a moderate Democrat who can win and who will work with the Democratic party most of the time then someone who is a member of the Party of NO, the GOP, who will never reach across the aisle to work with the Democrats).

Louisiana AG Buddy Caldwell defended his reasoning for joining the previously all Republican attempt to overturn the new healthcare legislation via a lawsuit with the given excuse:

 As Attorney General, I am duty bound by my oath of office to pursue a request by the Governor of the state of Louisiana for legal assistance, so long as it has substantial legal merit. (emphasis mine)

Now, we could argue if the case actually has any legal merit (I doubt it) but that is not the point. As it has been explained in the media, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal allegedly threatened the AG with the loss of some staff positions if he did not comply with the Governor’s request that he join the lawsuit.

In a subsequent address to employees of his office, the Attorney General said the decision was made more out of the necessity of saving jobs in his agency than any real hope—or desire—of overturning the health care law.

One employee said Caldwell, in a candid admission, claimed that a deal was made with Jindal. Under terms of that agreement, the governor would not make additional cuts in the attorney general’s budget if Caldwell joined in the litigation. Caldwell agreed to be the “token Democrat,” he said, so that he might save additional job cuts by an administration whose state goal is to reduce the number of state employees by as much as 5,000 per year over three years.

 

Now, many are calling this a threat and others are calling it a bribe. You can argue the semantics of what it is all day but there is an important aspect of this that needs to be addressed.

The Louisiana Attorney General is an elected position.  As such, one would think that he would have the autonomy to pursue (or not pursue) whatever he felt was necessary in the course of his service to the State of Louisiana.

The Constitution of the State of Louisiana confirms this.

Section 8. There shall be a Department of Justice, headed by the attorney general, who shall be the chief legal officer of the state. The attorney general shall be elected for a term of four years at the state general election. The assistant attorneys general shall be appointed by the attorney general to serve at his pleasure.

As necessary for the assertion or protection of any right or interest of the state, the attorney general shall have authority (1) to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any civil action or proceeding; (2) upon the written request of a district attorney, to advise and assist in the prosecution of any criminal case; and (3) for cause, when authorized by the court which would have original jurisdiction and subject to judicial review, (a) to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any criminal action or proceeding, or (b) to supersede any attorney representing the state in any civil or criminal action.

The attorney general shall exercise other powers and perform other duties authorized by this constitution or by law.

There doesn’t seem to be any constitutional requirement for the AG to do the bidding of the Governor.

However, while the assistant attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the AG, other staff does not serve at his pleasure and those positions can (apparently) be eliminated when the Governor sees fit.

Apparently, Governor Jindal feels that staffing levels in the Department of Justice should be set  by how subservient the AG is willing to be when it comes to the demands of the Governor and not by the total money available in the state budget or the needs of the Attorney General to do his constitutionally mandated job.

This  leads me to question the autonomy that Caldwell, or any AG, will have under Bobby Jindal. If anybody in the Jindal Administration comes under scrutiny and needs to be investigated, will Caldwell do his duty and investigate the appropriate people and do his job? Or has Bobby Jindal effectively neutered the ability of the AG to investigate the political allies of Governor Jindal with the threat of departmental cuts if Jindal’s bidding is not done.

Jindal has now managed to turn the AG into his puppet while removing one more avenue to investigate the Governor’s office.

And to all the remaining Jindal apologists, how does manipulating the AG to do your bidding with the threat of reduced staffing levels fall under the “gold standard of ethics” promised by Governor Jindal?

A recent poll states that only 8% of Americans want Congress to be reelected. This is just about as dumb as the congressional approval rating polls. Why are such polls meaningless? Because at the end of the day, incumbents typically have a 85%+ reelection rate for Congress.
Usually people disapprove of Congress as a whole. However, they love their own Congressman for “bringing home the bacon needed economic development funds”.  Pork is often defined as tax dollars that Congressmen who don’t represent you bring home to their districts. This is why Republicans can get away with bashing the stimulus while using the funds from the stimulus bill to promote what a good job they are doing as an elected official.

I find it likely that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the GOP will use this poll as “proof” that America is unhappy with the Democratic ran congress. I also find it likely that many conservatives will believe them without thinking about what the poll actually says (which is nothing).

I guess Tim Tebow was so impatient to be seen in the Superbowl that he couldn’t wait to get drafted and take his team there. Apparently, he will be staring in a commercial sponsored by Focus on your own damned the Family. Word has it that Tim will be reading a thank you note to his mother for not aborting her pregnancy when she fell ill (even though her doctors told her that it was dangerous to remain pregnant).

Now, that decision was her choice to make and she was free to either take that risk or not because of Roe v Wade. Women’s rights groups are taking the angle that CBS should not be helping to promote a group that they feel is anti-woman and anti-gay. I would take a different approach though. The choice to have an abortion is one that I will never have to face and it is a choice that I would not wish on anyone. Women who have to make that decision are likely having a hard enough time of it as it is, they do not need people telling them what choice they should make… pro or con.

The only people that should be giving advice on a medical procedure, unsolicited, are doctors. Any other advice on abortion should be given when requested only. And to encourage women to not obtain abortions when their lives are in danger is absolutely and 100% irresponsible!  Imagine a woman who is given false hope of life from a Superbowl commercial. She goes against her doctors recommendations and decides to not abort her pregnancy. She then dies because Tebow thanked Mommy and her family (perhaps her other children) have to go on without her… all because some extremist conservatives decided that it was a good idea to guilt women into the choice that was not best for them or their families.

Instead of calling for the commercial to be pulled, perhaps a counter-commercial should be aired to confront this one instead. A commercial both proclaiming the support of the ability of Tim Tebow’s mother to make that choice and showing how irresponsible it is for people without medical degrees to be convincing sick people to not get treatment.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling just handed our government over to huge corporations and will prevent the ability of any real meaningful candidacy to oppose the candidates selected by the corporations.

In 2007, Exxon Mobile made over $40 billion in profit. There are typically 33-34 Senatorial elections every 2 years. If they set aside just over $1.5 billion per year for Senatorial elections, they could literally fund $80 million of advertising per hand selected candidate in each election year.

Between 2005 and 2010, Senator Harry Reid spent just over $5 million. In the same time period Senator DeMint spent just over $2 million. Even Senator Landrieu in a swing state spent only $10 million in that time period. Senator Hutchinson spent $14 million during that time as well. The hand picked candidates of Exxon Mobile would be able to have $80 million of advertising ran for each them over that same time period (or over $17 million a year).

Before this decision, the RCCC only had $2 million on hand to support candidates this year. Now, big oil can put up $3 billion every 2 years and pay for $10 million in advertising for 300 GOP congressional candidates, more than enough to control the House of Representatives.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spent just over $1 million on her election. Republican Eric Cantor spent just over $1.5 million on his election.

Sure, that assumes that Exxon Mobile would spend $3 billion of its net profits a year on elections. But why wouldn’t they if they would then own Congress and our their Government.

Anyone who claims that only liberal courts can be “activists” is an idiot. And what the hell ever happened to the idea of Stare Decisis that Justice Alito supposedly respected?

The election over the open Massachusetts Senate seat is coming into the final stretch and it is closer than perhaps many people would have thought. Conventional wisdom would seem to favor the Democrat (Martha Coakley) but Massachusetts has elected Republicans in statewide elections before (Mitt Romney anyone?). I believe that all of the Governors between Dukakis and Patrick have been Republicans.

Democrats in that election are making one huge mistake and I fear it could be costing them votes, if not the election*. They are trying to paint the seat as “Teddy’s Senate Seat” and that we cannot let the Republicans take it away so they can kill healthcare reform.

The Democrats seem to forget that Ted Kennedy did not have very long coattails. Besides all the GOP governors who won while he was in the Senate, Kennedy also endorsed Obama in the primaries and Clinton took the seat. While Senator Kennedy may have been very popular in Massachusetts, it doesn’t seem that he was really ever able to share that popularity with others. So what makes the Democratic Party think that it will be able to do what Teddy Kennedy could never do, which is to use the luster of Teddy Kennedy to help others win in Massachusetts?

Furthermore, Massachusetts is a state that already has healthcare reform with  universal coverage. Telling them that they need to support a Democrat to help with healthcare reform for other people doesn’t seem very smart at all. Perhaps they should have focused on Cap and Trade, or the Employee Free Choice Act, or that he once voted to allow for religious exemptions so that pro-life doctors and nurses could deny access to the morning after pill for women in the ER. (They did put that vote in an ad, but that is not the focus of the campaign).

Instead of trying to label this as being “Teddy’s seat”, perhaps the Democrats should be claiming that this is the “people’s seat” and that only by supporting the Democratic Candidate in this election will you elect someone who will stand up and fight for the people of Massachusetts in Washington D.C.

Just sayin…

*I really do think Coakley will win, but I really think the Democrats are not fighting this election in the right way.

I just watched WWL and they interviewed Bobby Jindal on his two year mark as governor. It is really sad that WWL will continue to not question Governor Jindal on his claims. See, Governor Jindal said that one of the reason we are doing better than other states in the union is that our unemployment rate is lower. WWL didn’t ask why.See, when Bobby Jindal rejected the stimulus funds meant to increase the length of time that someone can collect unemployment payments, he made it so people would stop receiving payments sooner, especially when compared to states that accept the funds. When people stop getting unemployment payments because their benefits run out, they are no longer counted as being part of the workforce. This makes Louisiana have an artificially low unemployment rate as compared to the rest of the country.So why is our unemployment rate as low as it is? It is because Bobby Jindal manipulated the system so it would be that way. Yet WWL allows him to tout himself and how wonderful he wants people to think he is. Why should we take them seriously?

Rep. Akin (R - Mo.)  screws up the pledge!

I find it quite ironic that a Republican would skip the word indivisible. Kinda reveals how the teabaggers want us divided.

Link