Obama Picks the Wrong Fight

Disregard for a second whether or not the specific points Obama made atMonday’s press conference about potential conservative judicial activism. Disregard for a second that Obama specialized in constitutional law while teaching at the University of Chicago. And, finally, disregard for a second that a poll of judicial insiders all predicted before last week’s arguments that there was only a one-in-three chance that the individual mandate would be found unconstitutional.

Read the rest here.

The Supreme Court's Rightward Shift

This will come as no surprise to observant court watchers. Under John Roberts, but not necessarily because of John Roberts, is the most conservative it has been in decades. The general rightward shift will continue for the foreseeable future until one of the five conservative justices leaves (Kagan is replacing a liberal in John Paul Stevens). This is unlikely to happen anytime soon as one conservative justice, Anthony Kennedy has indicated he'd like to wait out Obama.

Supreme Court sisterhood? Elena Kagan may not be the only female nominee

If you were 77-years-old, your spouse recently died and you faced two separate bouts of cancer would you continue working, or would you kick back and relax? This is the decision facing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Read the rest at The Loop.

Vast Majority of Americans Can't Name a Single Supreme Court Justice

Nearly two-thirds of Americans were unable to name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court in a new poll by findlaw.com. Only one-third could name one justice. Practically none were able to name all 9. See more details.

This is why I always mention that America is screwed. Americans seem to lack the basic concept of civics and understanding government. This is just the latest example of why we need more civics education in this Country. But I have a feeling that the politicians like it this way. They like the idea of a poorly informed electorate. Look at what you can do with a poorly informed electorate... just look at Faux News and the Tea Party nonsense.

Hell, I can name all 9. I guess that makes me some sort of geek. Even if my brain is foggy, I can name the majority of justices - 6 or 7 - with no problem.

This is why the majority of Americans don't get upset about Miranda rules being eroded, or an immigration law in Arizona that is legally marginal at best.... nefarious at worst, and likely unconstitutional (even with the changes made to the law by Arizona politicians as a way to dodge legal challenges).

This is one of the main reasons why i'm always disgusted with the state of American politics, and the general apathy & lack of awareness of citizens.

Not Ecstatic About Elena Kagan

Kagan talking about Obama during a 2005 Celebration of Black Alumni at Harvard Law School:



I thought for sure that Obama would choose a safe pick for the Supreme Court - someone non-controversial. But it turns out that he took a risk. Kagan is a nominee who is drawing criticism from both Progressives and Conservatives. Kagan's nomination seems to resemble something closer to cronyism than substance....an opportunity for Obama to do something for someone that he knows or has worked with in the past. Not very different from David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Arne Duncan, Valerie Jarrett, etc. Yes, she may be qualified, but if he were interested in choosing someone who did not necessarily have experience on the bench, then there were certainly stronger candidates that he could have chosen. The list of scholars, constitutional lawyers, and those who have both litigation and academic credentials is quite long. Kagan probably falls somewhere near the middle or the bottom of that list. I'm o.k. with a nominee without Judicial experience.... as long as the person is not a politician. But Kagan is probably the closest thing to a politician that Obama could have nominated, without nominating an actual politician. Remember, much of her experience comes from serving in the executive branch.

Critics have been expressing concern about the lack of a paper trail for Kagan...that we don't have much to go on. But I think there is plenty of information available. I, for one, have seen just about all that I need to see in order to raise doubts about this nominee. I am bothered more by the little that we do know about her, as opposed to what we don't know. What bothers me the most is her position on civil liberties. I am not much of a civil liberties critic, but in this case, (and since they seem to be under attack lately) questions should be raised. Kagan is on record agreeing with Bush era policy regarding indefinite detention and enemy combatants. Of course the Bush rules on enemy combatants were thrown together to avoid providing due process and standard criminal trials to those captured in Afghanistan. That may have been a legitimate concern at the time, because there was no functioning Afghan government, Bush didn't want to use the Geneva Convention rules, and didn't want to set up a system through the UN or ICC. Since then, however, Republicans have tried to apply these provisions to militants still captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, those captured in other parts of the world, and terror suspects captured in the U.S. There is a huge difference between what Donald Rumsfeld was trying to do in 2002-2003 and what Republicans are trying to do now.

Kagan appears to believe that military tribunals (which the Federal courts have already determined were unconstitutional under Bush) are sufficient for providing due process. Worse.... Kagan believes that the "battlefield" in the war on terrorism can be anywhere that we decide it is...and anyone picked up on that battlefield could be subject to some sort of alternative due process legal system. (And I thought that the Obama Administration decided to get rid of the term "War on Terror". It looks like he may be ready to resurrect that too.... all for some sort of political expediency). A Supreme Court nominee who is so shaky about fundamental civil liberties and the Constitution should be examined with caution IMO.

Here is her testimony touching on these issues, taken from her 2009 confirmation for Solicitor General:



Her connections to former Bush attorney Jack Goldsmith should also raise some eyebrows. And it may be hard to package Elena Kagan as someone who understands the lives of ordinary Americans when she has worked for the likes of Goldman Sachs in the recent past, although only in an advisory role. She doesn't strike me as a champion of the little guy, and few Supreme Court nominees actually come from the real world and could take on that role anyway. Once Kagan is confirmed, the entire Court will consist of justices with Ivy League University backgrounds.

If Obama was hoping that a lack of a paper trail would make confirmation easier, he may have miscalculated. I don't think Kagan's confirmation will be as easy as the Administration had hoped. But I see no obstacle that would stop her from being confirmed.

With that said.... I am not completely against this nominee.... but I am not for her either. I think that a better choice could have been made. The last time I felt this kind of strong ambivalence about a Supreme Court pick, was when George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas. I was actually offended by Thomas's pick as a replacement for Thurgood Marshall. But I had the ambivalence too because I felt that if Bush wanted to really pick a highly qualified minority, there were many other more qualified candidates that he could have chosen.

Wish List of Qualities I Want in Next Supreme Court Justice

The not-so-surprising announcement by 90-year old Justice John Paul Stevens that he's leaving the bench in June sparked the inevitable debates about who President Obama will select as his replacement. Just as predictably are the questions on whether or not Senate Republicans will block Obama's nominee.

For the moment, let's put aside concerns about Senate Republicans. All you need to know about the Grand Opposition Party is that they'll oppose Obama's nominee no matter what.

The most important discussion centers around what type of justice the president should nominate.

Here's what I want in a justice:

Read the rest at The Loop.

The Fight For Health Care Reform Is Not Over Yet - U.S. Supreme Court Likely To Have Last Word

The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have the last word on the Health Care Reform legislation that was signed by President Obama today. John Roberts, along with Scalia and Alito are salivating right now.... especially Roberts. He loves being in this position at this moment. At the very least for Roberts, it's a chance to make Obama sweat. He has made it no secret that he is not fond of the Obama Administration, particularly after the spat about comments made by Obama at the last State of the Union address, criticizing the court for its ruling on campaign finance regulations in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Uncle Clarence probably can't wait either.

The lawsuits by State Attorneys General from across the Country (most of them Republican) will drag on for months. Writing in the Washington Post, Georgetown University constitutional law professor Randy E. Barnett breaks down the potential areas for legal challenges and the potential for their success. He concludes the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t likely to overturn the legislation - however, he admits that it is not out of the realm of possibility.

The courts won't be the only avenue that Republicans will use to try to kill the legislation. They will also try to interfere with the passage of reconciliation "fixes". If they can't find any traction there, they plan to continue to scare and misinform voters about the legislation. Yesterday, on one of St. Louis' local Right wing radio stations, callers were suggesting a move towards violence (with the host playing right along). On NPR last night... angry callers, brainwashed completely by the propaganda, talked about going to prison and the death camps they may have to endure because of the legislation (Ohhh yes, the Right has brainwashed the Hell out of Americans. You can do anything when you control media). Listen to the March, 22nd discussion on Healthcare from NPR's On Point. The GOP and Right wing media have been extremely effective at ginning up fear and using propaganda to turn public opinion clearly against Health Care Reform.

This will be a serious problem for Obama and the Democrats. They act as if this is a real victory... and it may be. But it may be an even bigger victory for Republicans who still control the debate... in fact, they control public opinion. Progressives have failed monumentally in the information war.... and it is showing. They have time to debunk the lies and recover somewhat.... but I don't think they have a clue regarding how to do it, and I don't think there is even a willingness on their part to do it, and because of that they will pay dearly in November.

The Democrats still have the problem of the economy, which was destroyed by Bush & Co. The public....real folks down on the ground... are concerned more about the economy and jobs than anything else. This is why Obama and the Democrats should have been more focused on jobs over the past year. Their interest in jobs and the economy have been luke warm...and people have noticed. This is why voters, misguided and vulnerable to Republican propaganda, will choose Republicans this Fall.... the same Party that is largely responsible for getting the Country into its current economic mess.

The Republicans will now run their campaigns using Health Care as their rallying cry. They will run on repealing it....and stupid voters (the targets of Right wing propaganda/lies) will respond by punishing Democrats. Of course Republicans won't be able to repeal it as long as the Democrats are in the White House. But a President Mitt Romney (or some other Republican President) is likely to sign legislation repealing it in 2013, before the bill has a chance to kick in completely. Stupid American voters are likely to give us a Republican House and Republican Senate (possibly this year) and a Republican in the White House in the 2012 elections.

Could they do this realistically? I don't think so.... but it all depends on how well they maintain their brainwashing. If they can continue to effectively misinform the public and continue to win the argument.... then a repeal is a possibility. Republicans have undisputed control over information and public opinion in this Country.... despite the fact that most evidence shows that their core principles and values are losing propositions. Their theories on politics, social policy, economics, and foreign policy have been proven failures. Yet, because they control the battlefield in terms of PR and information.... they can continue to be successful. It pisses me off that Progressives seem to be unable to understand the importance of winning the information war. They don't seem to get it.... even after all of these years... after 2000, and after John Kerry in 2003-04... they still don't understand what the Hell is going on. You can have the best policies in the World...and you could have better programs for improving the lives of voters...but none of that matters if you can't win the information war.

So all of this celebrating might be premature.

Reaction to Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Money in Campaigns

Reaction to yesterday's Supreme Court Decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The other reactions let me know that I wasn't the only one blown away.


Listen to NPR reports here and here.


Congressman Grayson

Howard Fineman


Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment

U.S. Supreme Court Embraces Corruption

Court rules 5-4 to remove certain corporate spending limits for campaigns.

From the Washington Post:

By MARK SHERMAN
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 10:18 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

It's interesting (and fitting in a way) that this ruling would come just as Health Care Non-Reform is perhaps taking its last breaths, after months of being changed, watered down at every turn, and dismantled by the powerful insurance lobby which threw millions of dollars into all sorts of campaigns to kill it. Even if some sort of Health Care bill passes...the insurance industry has already used its power (and the members of Congress that it owns) to shape the legislation in a way that would favor big insurance companies. So they had all bases covered either way.

The Supreme Court move will allow the insurance companies & other corporate interests to reward the members of Congress that they already own...and to (literally) buy more politicians. It's like a D.C. meets Nevada kind of thing. It makes Prostitution legal in the U.S. Congress... & turns the Capitol into a legal brothel.

Read the full decision here, or in window below.

The Sonia Sotomayor Senate Hearings - Day 1

Today.... opening statements.

See Video

Voting Rights Act Upheld, but Narrowed. Vote was 8-1. Three guesses as to whom was the ' 1'.

From The Atlantic Monthly

Jun 22 2009, 10:37 am by Marc Ambinder
Supreme Court Upholds, But Narrows Voting Rights Act

By a vote of 8 to 1, The Supreme Court upheld Section 5 of Voting Rights Act, but says that it raises "serious constitutional questions" and that localities can "bail out" if practices survive scrutiny.

That suggests that the Court wants a new challenge to the constitutionality of the provision, kicking the can down the road, in essence.

The lopsided majority is seen as a surprise, as is the opinion's author, Chief Justice John Roberts. During oral argument, he evinced considerable skepticism about the government's arguments that preclearing election procedures in localities with a history of racial discrimination was still necessary. Administration officials worried that Roberts intended to build a majority to strike down the entire provision.

Section 5 requires federal preclearance of voting procedure changes in places where minorities were discriminated against in the past. Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized Section 5 in 2006; most parts of the 1966 1965 Voting Rights Act are permanent.

The court did not explicitly rule on the constitutionality of the act, although it recognized that its implementation more than 40 years after passage of the Voting Rights Act raises "serious constitutional concerns," and that the "preclearance requirement represents an intrusion into areas of stateand local responsibility that is otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system."

The case involved an attempt by a small utility district in Travis County, Texas to seek relief from the preclearance provision. There had been no history of discrimination by the district itself. A court disagreed, ruling that only an entity that formally registers voters could apply for a so-called "bailout." The Supreme Court remanded the decision, concluding that a fair reading of the VRA's legislative intent did not mean to limit bail-out applications to those districts or municipal divisions that registered voters.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the act had run its course and the conditions that allow its imposition no longer exist.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the opinion was being reviewed.

Colbert King of the Washington Post - we told you so.

Say it with me:

SLAVE CATCHING COON.

Why Obama Won't Replace Souter With An African American

Over at The Loop I have a new column on why I believe Obama will not select an African American to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. Check it out.

Justice David Souter to Resign From the Supreme Court...Is It Time for Obama to Repay The Black Community?

Saw this on Rachel Maddow. Considering he's been a dependable 4 in most 5-4 decisions on 'liberal' issues, I guess replacing him with someone younger would be a positive.

Bank on this: the next Justice of the Supreme Court will be a Latino.


UPDATE: talking with others, this has come up:

Myth has been very passionate about this subject, and I can’t fault her reasoning:

Craig told me to stop talking about it until there was a vacancy, well its time. Obama pay up to black women, whom he owes most. Its time for a Supreme Court Queen…............
African Americans have NO representation on the US Supreme Court. Period. It’s time to cash in our election chips and demand that Obama acknowledge the AA community and this impact on his election. The Hispanic community will just have to wait their turn. (Don’t even mention Unca Clarence cause he is not black).

Can’t argue with that.

So, if you think it should be A Black Woman….who are some possibilities?

Voting Rights Act Under Threat?

The U.S. Supreme Court is debating whether key parts of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary. According to an NPR report, Justice Kennedy (the swing vote) appears to be having doubts.

(I will try to find the transcripts and audio of the hearing later, if it is available...no time right now).

US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to the Voting Rights Act

As you can tell from the title of this post, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act.

Jack and Jill Politics did 2 posts on this today explaining what's happening.

First one:US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to the Voting Rights Act

Major props to JJP commenter, Miranda, for finding this story on a new challenge to the Voting Rights Act . . . We should take the following as an opportunity to educate ourselves and each other about OUR voting rights . . .

via USA Today:

By Joan Biskupic,

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear a challenge to the landmark 1965 voting rights act, paving the way for a major decision this term on federal power to oversee state election laws.

In the backdrop is the recent election of Barack Obama and the question of whether America still needs an expansive law protecting against discrimination in voting now that a black man has won the presidency.

A decision in the case from Texas, to be heard in April, could impact the U.S. government's authority to ensure that racial minorities — who were subjected to literacy tests and other devices to keep them from the polls for most of the 20th Century — continue to have as much of a chance as whites to elect candidates of their choice.

In dispute is the 2006 renewal of the Voting Rights Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Bush signed.

I must admit that I'm surprised the Court is even taking time to hear this case. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act (as I've interpreted) has always been a matter of access to the ballot - a concern that was wholly distinguishable from whether or not America ever had the guts to elect the first black President.

But here we have a challenge to the Voting Rights Act based on what I consider to be a weak legal premise:

continued from USA Today:

"A Texas utility district says the provision known as Section 5, which gives the U.S. government authority to oversee state electoral-law changes, is no longer needed and is unconstitutional. The utility district uses the election of the first black president as evidence.

'The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when Section 5 was first enacted in 1965,' say lawyers for the utility district.'"

Umm, yeah . . . that appears to be the jist of their legal challenge - we elected the black guy.

Talk about a slippery slope. You know, race relations have changed since the Civil War as well. So why not do away with the Civil War Amendments? I mean, who needs those pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments anyways.

It's important to note that this is a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, not necessarily the Voting Rights Act in its entirety. However, Section 5 is a very important provision.

What does Section 5 do?

Well, in effect, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires "preclearance" for "covered jurisdictions" that wish to make changes to their voting rights laws. "Covered jurisdictions" are explained in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. (more info after the jump)

Read more »

Attacks on Big Tobacco Continue - Good!

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs can proceed in state courts against Big Tobacco in their claims that the tobacco companies knowingly misled consumers with claims that light cigarettes would deliver less tar and nicotine.

I'm not a fan of smokers. I have little sympathy for them when they develop cancer or the like. I know I should, but I don't. However, I cannot abide by duplicitous companies that deliberately profit on distortions of the truth.

Keep in mind, the Supreme Court did not rule that what Big Tobacco did was illegal, they simply allowed the suits to proceed in state courts. This is a big blow for the purveyors of cancer sticks - they'll have to defend in court after court now. Oh well, they profit handsomely in China right now. They can afford it.

Obama and the Courts

If you'll notice, the tenor of our political discussions have mellowed since November 4th. Partly, this is because the mass media has stopped covering politics 24/7, partly this is because Sarah Palin isn't whipping her supporters into a frenzy calling PEBO a "socialist" who "palls around with terrorists," and partly because many conservatives are pleased with Obama's transition effort - to date.

Obama is building his political capital. He knows that liberal and moderates will give him a few month honeymoon when he takes the oath of office on January 20, but he can extend his honeymoon by making the occasional overture to conservatives. Keeping Gates on as Sect. of Defense and Paul Volcker to be one of his economic advisers does this.

In so doing, many are already talking of Obama building an era of post-partisanship. We should only be so lucky.

Supreme Court Loves the 2nd amendment

I find it interesting that the Supreme Court has given a big thumbs up to the 2nd amendment and a thumbs down to the 4th.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-----
Today the Supreme Court trashed a 32 year old DC law which banned handguns. The NYT described the law this way - Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district, but it also spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But the court did not articulate a specific standard of review for what might be a reasonable restraint on the right to possess a firearm.

I can and will go through this decision. But, it seems to me that we need to make the 2nd amendment clear. We need to amend it. As a matter of fact, walking through East St. Louis today is very different than back in 1789. This amendment needs to reflect today's reality. You should be able to own a gun if you aren't a felon or mentality disturbed.

As a trauma surgeon, I see almost everything bad that can happen with a gun. I've seen accidental shootings which is left 10 year old boys paralyzed. I've seen the anguish of the parents as they are wondering how the kids got into the guns. Unfortunately, by the time I see them, the anguish and the sorrow simply don't matter. The bottom line, we need to be more responsible with our firearms but, since we aren't, we must have the ability to make laws that keep us safe.

Therefore, Constitutional Amendments are needed. We must be able to ban assault weapons. We need to be able to ban fully automatic weapons (machine guns). We need to be able to control handguns. Safety locks are not unreasonable. Frequent gun registration is not an unnecessary burden. We should be able to ban armor piercing bullets.

I have no desire to ban all weapons. I have no desire to ban all handguns. Please don't e-mail me with statistics. The statistics have been massaged by both sides so much that you can prove almost anything if you look at the right statistic. I'm sure there are some advocates for guns who can show me a statistic in which having a gun makes you smarter, more attractive and more successful in life. I'm sure someone on the other side of the argument can show me statistics that banning weapons allows you to own two hybrids and increases the whale population.

Reasonable people should be able to sit down and come up with reasonable laws. Keep the zealots from both sides in the closet.

The Supreme Court Upholds the Second Amendment

From The NYTimes.com

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 26, 2008
Filed at 10:16 a.m. ET


Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits
(March 19) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

I agree with this decision. I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I have long believed that Gun Control Laws, as written, only protect the criminals, and leave us law-abiding citizens up a creek. I have never owned a gun. It is a personal choice for me, but since I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I woke up one day and decided I DID want to own one, I don't believe I should be restricted by government. I am fully willing to go through any registration process that is set out, and see no problem with background checks and waiting periods.

UPDATE: Before you think that I'm a non-thinking NRA Member, I part company with the NRA, and quite frankly, get angry with them for not going for the middle. I don't believe that a lot of people who oppose guns want to literally take them from gun owners. I believe that a lot of them would just love to sit in a room with the gun owners from the rural and plains states and just ask them:

Why do you let the punks pimp you the way that they do?

I, for instance, don't believe it's a hardship to limit gun ownership to one gun a month. No sane person needs more than one a month. You a collector? You get to collect 12 a year.

I also believe gun shows should be very regulated. I believe it SHOULD be easy to trace a gun from the moment it rolls off the assembly line. And, if you're a law-abiding citizen, you should want that too.

Why let those who are shady pimp off of you by yelling 'Gun Rights'. It's not right. The decent gun owner needs to stand up to the sleaze. They need to detach themselves from the sleaze, understanding that compromise doesn't mean you'll be turning in your guns.

Giuliani hitches his star to conservative legal group

As if one needed another reason to distrust Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani hitches his star to conservative legal group
By James Oliphant Washington Bureau
September 6, 2007


WASHINGTON - Candidates sometimes speak in code, using language that might sound ordinary but has particular meaning to a chosen few.

Consider Rudolph Giuliani earlier this summer as he swung through Iowa. In the town of Council Bluffs, along the Nebraska border, he promised to select "strict constructionist" federal judges if elected president. It's likely that the pledge elicited nods, some yawns, and more than a few blank stares among the crowd.

But the sound bite really wasn't for them so much as it was a smart bomb aimed at the conservative legal elite in Washington. And its intended message was clear: "I am one of you."

That's no small statement where Giuliani is concerned. The former New York mayor is on the record supporting abortion rights and gun control, which loom as twin icebergs in his so-far-smooth sail toward the Republican presidential nomination. That means he needs some conservative bona fides in a hurry.

In that effort, Giuliani has tied himself in a big way to the Federalist Society, the expanding network of conservative lawyers who over the past quarter-century have played a leading role in reshaping the nation's judiciary and setting high-level Republican administration policy.

The newest Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito, is a proud son of the group, as are his elders on the court, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. And although the reported membership of Chief Justice John Roberts has been a matter of some dispute, Roberts will be delivering the keynote speech at the society's annual convention this fall.

Giuliani will be there too. His overture to the Federalist Society seems to be a bid to reassure nervous conservatives that they can count on him to do the right thing when it comes to selecting judges and crafting legal policy.

Rest of article is here:


This is the group that brought us Scalia, Uncle Clarence, Alito and John Roberts. So now that Rudy is singing their tune, it makes him even more dangerous than he already was. Keep a watchout folks. Not that you needed a reason to not trust Rudy, but here's one more. If there ever was a clear enemy of Black Folk, it's the Federalist Society. Keep your eyes open for more developments.