ABC News The Note is reporting today that the Federalist Society is planning to launch a coup against Harriet Miers’ SCOTUS nomination. The Note writes that a member of the organization told ABC News: "The Federalist Society staffers are ready to launch a coup. They have started whispering awful things about Miers. The staffers are just now reaching the point of wanting to talk on background. The whispering started on Monday, but has revved up. . . .They are willing to talk."
The Drudge Report tells us why the Federalist Society is hopping mad at Miers. While giving sworn testimony involving a voting rights lawsuit against the City of Dallas while she was serving as a city council member in 1989, Miers said she would not join the Federalist Society because it was too “politically charged.”
Interestingly, the organization seemed to take no offense to Chief Justice John Roberts’ pointed denial that he had ever been a member of the Federalist Society during his confirmation process, even though the records of the organization showed that he had served on an advisory board for the organization, and served as a moderator, presenter, and otherwise participated in a number of events sponsored by the organization over a several year period.
As reported yesterday by Advance Indiana, three women U.S. Court of Appeals judges, who conservatives had expressed support as choices to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, are listed speakers at the Federalist Society's National Convention in D.C. next month. Karl Rove, initially announced as the keynote speaker for the event by the group, has been dropped from the Federalist Society's promotion of the event at its website.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Rove Featured Speaker At Federalist Society Convention (Or Not?)
Today, Advance Indiana editor Gary R. Welsh received a flyer advertising the Federalist Society's 2005 National Lawyers Convention. The Federalist Society, an association of conservative attorneys who promote a strict interpretation of the Constitution, features Karl Rove as its keynote speaker at its national convention to be held at D.C's Mayflower Hotel, November 10-12, 2005 in the mailing flyer. Rove, who is a college drop-out, non-attorney, gay-basher and Deputy White House Chief of Staff, is currently in the midst of a bit of controversy surrounding SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers and conversations Rove supposedly had with Dr. James Dobson about her views to secure the Focus On The Family leader's support.
Something curious has happened since the flyer got mailed by the organization. The Federalist Society web site noticeably omits Karl Rove as its keynote speaker. Instead, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Ray Randolph is the highligted speaker. Rove is at the center of the ongoing Valerie Plame-CIA leak investigation. There has been much speculation in recent days that Rove will be indicted by the grand jury for his alleged role in leaking Plame's identity to the press before the grand jury's term expires at the end of this month. Could it be that the event's organizers know something about Rove that has not yet been announced publicly? Just asking.
If you are interested in learning more about the event, you can click here. Some of the topics to be covered at this year's convention include: "Originalism and Unenumerated Constitutional Rights," "Originalism and Pragmatism," "Originalism and Precedent" and last but not least "The Original Meaning of the Commerce, Spending and Necessary and Proper Clauses."
To give you more of the flavor for the planned meeting, under the topic "Originalism and Unenumerated Rights", the group will review Supreme Court decisions not looked upon favorably by fellow Federalist Society members, including: Dred[ed] Scott where "the Court discovered that the right to bring slaves into a territory was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment"; and Roe v. Wade where "the Court has found the right to abortion in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; and "the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights as a source of unenumerated rights." The group asks, "Does the Constitution provide any legitimate foundation for the enforcement of unenumerated rights?"
The good old time revival of conservative attorneys will feature such conservative legal stalwarts as Robert Bork, U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Edith Brown Clement, Edith Jones and Priscilla Owen (three women judges conservatives had okayed as SCOTUS nominees), former boss of Chief Justice Roberts and former Bush II Solicitor General, Theodore Olson and former Clinton prosecutor Ken Starr. And that popular gay marriage fighting and unlikely Republican Mormon Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, will make a special appearance.
You may recall that Chief Justice John Roberts went to great lengths to deny his membership in the organization during his confirmation hearing, although several of the group's leaders said otherwise. Now you know why.
Something curious has happened since the flyer got mailed by the organization. The Federalist Society web site noticeably omits Karl Rove as its keynote speaker. Instead, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Ray Randolph is the highligted speaker. Rove is at the center of the ongoing Valerie Plame-CIA leak investigation. There has been much speculation in recent days that Rove will be indicted by the grand jury for his alleged role in leaking Plame's identity to the press before the grand jury's term expires at the end of this month. Could it be that the event's organizers know something about Rove that has not yet been announced publicly? Just asking.
If you are interested in learning more about the event, you can click here. Some of the topics to be covered at this year's convention include: "Originalism and Unenumerated Constitutional Rights," "Originalism and Pragmatism," "Originalism and Precedent" and last but not least "The Original Meaning of the Commerce, Spending and Necessary and Proper Clauses."
To give you more of the flavor for the planned meeting, under the topic "Originalism and Unenumerated Rights", the group will review Supreme Court decisions not looked upon favorably by fellow Federalist Society members, including: Dred[ed] Scott where "the Court discovered that the right to bring slaves into a territory was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment"; and Roe v. Wade where "the Court has found the right to abortion in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; and "the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights as a source of unenumerated rights." The group asks, "Does the Constitution provide any legitimate foundation for the enforcement of unenumerated rights?"
The good old time revival of conservative attorneys will feature such conservative legal stalwarts as Robert Bork, U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Edith Brown Clement, Edith Jones and Priscilla Owen (three women judges conservatives had okayed as SCOTUS nominees), former boss of Chief Justice Roberts and former Bush II Solicitor General, Theodore Olson and former Clinton prosecutor Ken Starr. And that popular gay marriage fighting and unlikely Republican Mormon Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, will make a special appearance.
You may recall that Chief Justice John Roberts went to great lengths to deny his membership in the organization during his confirmation hearing, although several of the group's leaders said otherwise. Now you know why.
TRIB To Provide Review of Indiana Blogs
TRIB, an online review of Indiana blogs has recently been launched. According to its first post, "[the] blog will review and comment on major online postings in the rapidly growing world of Indiana blogs. It will act as a 'spotter' service for readers who don't want to look over all those blogs. And TRIB will lift up for praise or criticism the blogs that are written by Hoosiers or that concern Hoosiers especially."
What's in the name, TRIB? "It's a little bit of a Tribune. A little bit of a Tribute to bloggers. And, sometimes, a one-blog Tribunal." Advance Indiana welcomes TRIB and is pleased that it is one of the blogs TRIB will be watching.
What's in the name, TRIB? "It's a little bit of a Tribune. A little bit of a Tribute to bloggers. And, sometimes, a one-blog Tribunal." Advance Indiana welcomes TRIB and is pleased that it is one of the blogs TRIB will be watching.
Indy to Feds: Don't Trust Us On Diversity
The City of Indianapolis has been under a federal consent decree since the late 1970s to hire more blacks and women in its fire and police departments. The Indianapolis Star is reporting that the City will fight a move by the U.S. Justice Department "to end 27 years of federal monitoring of hires and promotions. " The City's corporate counsel Kobi Wright told the Star: "We don't think we've arrived."
According to the report, the Justice Department asserts that "federal oversight is no longer warranted because city officials are acting in good faith and barriers to opportunity have been eliminated." Since the enactment of the initial decree, the number of black firefighters has doubled from 10% to 20% of the department, while the number of black police officers has jumped from 11.3% to 16.2%. Women now make up 5% of the firefighters and 13.5% of the police officers compared to 1% and 8.5%, respectively, prior the decree.
The position taken by the City in insisting upon continued federal oversight seems counter-intuitive. City officials, arguing on behalf of Mayor Peterson, believe that the continuation of the consent decree will help avoid lawsuits against the city for reverse discrimination. The FOP, according to the report, supports the lifting of the decree. The article quotes conservative Republican council member Scott Schneider, a member of the city's Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee as saying: "I don't think we need to be baby-sat by the federal government . . . The mayor should feel confident enough in his leadership that he can put good hiring practices in place and follow them."
According to the report, the Justice Department asserts that "federal oversight is no longer warranted because city officials are acting in good faith and barriers to opportunity have been eliminated." Since the enactment of the initial decree, the number of black firefighters has doubled from 10% to 20% of the department, while the number of black police officers has jumped from 11.3% to 16.2%. Women now make up 5% of the firefighters and 13.5% of the police officers compared to 1% and 8.5%, respectively, prior the decree.
The position taken by the City in insisting upon continued federal oversight seems counter-intuitive. City officials, arguing on behalf of Mayor Peterson, believe that the continuation of the consent decree will help avoid lawsuits against the city for reverse discrimination. The FOP, according to the report, supports the lifting of the decree. The article quotes conservative Republican council member Scott Schneider, a member of the city's Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee as saying: "I don't think we need to be baby-sat by the federal government . . . The mayor should feel confident enough in his leadership that he can put good hiring practices in place and follow them."
Monday, October 10, 2005
Senator Lugar Doesn't Think Bloggers Are Journalists
Indiana's senior Senator Richard Lugar (R), who is proposing the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005 to shield journalists from having to disclose their sources by making such communications privileged, believes that bloggers are "probably not" journalists entitled to coverage under his proposed legislation. According to Editor and Publisher, Lugar told the Inter American Press Association: "Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"
Defining who is a journalist is a major problem with Lugar's legislation. The story reports that some journalists actually oppose a new shield law because they "fear that giving Congress the power to define who is and isn't a journalist could lead effectively to the licensing of journalists."
Lugar acknowledged that his legislation may be giving preferential treatment to journalists over ordinary Americans. "I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail." The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a long-time friend of Lugar's, inspired him to introduce the legislation.
Defining who is a journalist is a major problem with Lugar's legislation. The story reports that some journalists actually oppose a new shield law because they "fear that giving Congress the power to define who is and isn't a journalist could lead effectively to the licensing of journalists."
Lugar acknowledged that his legislation may be giving preferential treatment to journalists over ordinary Americans. "I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail." The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a long-time friend of Lugar's, inspired him to introduce the legislation.
Bloomington Targets Gay Tourists
WTHR-TV reports that the City of Bloomington's Convention and Visitor's Bureau has launched a campaign to target gay and lesbian travelers because they "tend to travel more" and they have more of a "discretionary income." The report said: "Bloomington is one of only a handful of cities in the Midwest that covers sexual orientation in its human rights ordinance. And according to census figures, it has the fifth-largest population per capita of same-sex couples."
The Convention and Visitor's Bureau is highlighting "Bloomington's gay-friendly atmosphere - from an annual film festival to the popular Kinsey Institute" according to the report. "There are a lot of gay businesses here," said Helen Harrell, who host's the only gay issues radio show in the state. "Just that attitude that accepting philosophy has made it a welcoming community."
As much emphasis as our capitol city of Indianapolis places on tourism, you would think its convention and visitor's bureau would take a more active role in encouraging the Indianapolis City-County Council to pass the Human Rights Ordinance like Bloomington. Instead, it sits on the sidelines while a small minority of religious extremists holds sway over a cowardly council.
The Convention and Visitor's Bureau is highlighting "Bloomington's gay-friendly atmosphere - from an annual film festival to the popular Kinsey Institute" according to the report. "There are a lot of gay businesses here," said Helen Harrell, who host's the only gay issues radio show in the state. "Just that attitude that accepting philosophy has made it a welcoming community."
As much emphasis as our capitol city of Indianapolis places on tourism, you would think its convention and visitor's bureau would take a more active role in encouraging the Indianapolis City-County Council to pass the Human Rights Ordinance like Bloomington. Instead, it sits on the sidelines while a small minority of religious extremists holds sway over a cowardly council.
Christian Coalition Leader Accused of Molestation
File this under the “Why This Doesn’t Surprise Me” category. The Oregonian reports that police are investigating charges that the state’s Christian Coalition leader, Louis Beres, molested three of his female relatives while they were pre-teens. A nephew of Beres said, “"My family has gone through hell . . . Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination. . . . It must stop."
Beres is Oregon’s equivalent of Advance America's Eric Miller as its state chairman of the Christian Coalition, a political action group that endorses candidates and causes, publishes voter guides, lobbies the Legislature and Congress, and campaigns for and against ballot initiatives.
The Oregonian reports that the Christian Coalition web site describes the group as "Oregon's leading grassroots organization defending our Godly heritage." The group opposes abortion, gay rights and stem cell research according to the newspaper. Beres, who confirmed he was under investigation, told the Oregonian that he blamed "personal and political enemies" for the reports and said, "I never molested anybody."
Beres is Oregon’s equivalent of Advance America's Eric Miller as its state chairman of the Christian Coalition, a political action group that endorses candidates and causes, publishes voter guides, lobbies the Legislature and Congress, and campaigns for and against ballot initiatives.
The Oregonian reports that the Christian Coalition web site describes the group as "Oregon's leading grassroots organization defending our Godly heritage." The group opposes abortion, gay rights and stem cell research according to the newspaper. Beres, who confirmed he was under investigation, told the Oregonian that he blamed "personal and political enemies" for the reports and said, "I never molested anybody."
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Relieved That Indiana Won't Embarrass Itself Again
A featured guest columnist in the Indianapolis Star today by IU health historian, Ruth Clifford Engs, reminds us that Senator Pat Miller’s recent efforts to ban unmarried women, gays and lesbians from using assisted reproduction techniques to have children has an all too familiar smack of “classical negative eugenics.” Engs said, “I was concerned that Indiana was again going to lead the nation with the first negative eugenics law of the modern technological world."
Engs notes that “Indiana has the ‘distinction’ of being the first place in the world to pass a eugenics sterilization law.” In 1907, Dr. Harry Sharp, a leader in the Indiana State Medical Society, convinced the Indiana General Assembly to enact the first sterilization law to “prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists” Engs informs us. “Negative eugenics”, she explains, “is the prevention, through legislation or social pressure, of certain groups of people considered not worthy or reproducing from having children.” The “unfit” to reproduce in the early half of the 20th century included “homosexuals, criminals, epileptics, chronic alcoholic, idiots and the feeble minded.” Engs said the “feeble minded”, a catch-all phrase, included women who had illegitimate children.
Engs points out that at the same time, positive eugenics was being practiced “to encourage, healthy, middle class protestant individuals from Northern European backgrounds to reproduce.” The protestant majority, you see, feared “race suicide” because these “desirable people” were having fewer people than less desired immigrants, including Jews and Catholics, and the poor and minority groups. As if the original 1907 law wasn’t bad enough, in 1931 another law Engs writes was “passed that required a family member who was applying to commit [an undesirable] to have a physician certify to the court whether the applicant’s debility was due to bad genes.” Fortunately, these laws eventually fell to the wayside as a result of court decisions and changing public attitudes.
Engs concludes: “Yes, it is important for children to grow up in warm, loving and secure family situations. Passing laws that harm people simply because some disapprove of their values or lifestyles does nothing to improve the heath and welfare of Hoosier children and harkens to a darker period of Indiana history . . . [Miller’s proposal] was never about the children.” Senator Miller please take note.
Engs notes that “Indiana has the ‘distinction’ of being the first place in the world to pass a eugenics sterilization law.” In 1907, Dr. Harry Sharp, a leader in the Indiana State Medical Society, convinced the Indiana General Assembly to enact the first sterilization law to “prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists” Engs informs us. “Negative eugenics”, she explains, “is the prevention, through legislation or social pressure, of certain groups of people considered not worthy or reproducing from having children.” The “unfit” to reproduce in the early half of the 20th century included “homosexuals, criminals, epileptics, chronic alcoholic, idiots and the feeble minded.” Engs said the “feeble minded”, a catch-all phrase, included women who had illegitimate children.
Engs points out that at the same time, positive eugenics was being practiced “to encourage, healthy, middle class protestant individuals from Northern European backgrounds to reproduce.” The protestant majority, you see, feared “race suicide” because these “desirable people” were having fewer people than less desired immigrants, including Jews and Catholics, and the poor and minority groups. As if the original 1907 law wasn’t bad enough, in 1931 another law Engs writes was “passed that required a family member who was applying to commit [an undesirable] to have a physician certify to the court whether the applicant’s debility was due to bad genes.” Fortunately, these laws eventually fell to the wayside as a result of court decisions and changing public attitudes.
Engs concludes: “Yes, it is important for children to grow up in warm, loving and secure family situations. Passing laws that harm people simply because some disapprove of their values or lifestyles does nothing to improve the heath and welfare of Hoosier children and harkens to a darker period of Indiana history . . . [Miller’s proposal] was never about the children.” Senator Miller please take note.
Democrats Come to Miers' Defense
The Washington Post writes in Sunday’s edition that Democrats are coming to the defense of Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers: "All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a conference call with reporters. "I really think it's despicable what they're doing." The Post adds: “Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., accused critics of Miers' nomination of being ‘incredibly sexist. . . They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft,’ Mikulski said. ‘I find this a double standard.’”
The Post story comments: “More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.” "I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. This contrasts with the vocal criticism she has received from conservative Republicans. “Several [conservative] columnists have derided Bush's decision, and some groups have called on the president to withdraw her name,” the Post writes.
To counter the criticism, the White House has “enlisted conservative leaders to testify that Miers would be a reliable vote." But the Post countered: "Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, tried to counter that assurance when he asserted that Miers pledged to be independent when they discussed her nomination. 'I said, Would you disavow people who send out assurances that they know how you're going to vote?' She said, 'Absolutely,' said Leahy. She said, 'I will be my own person, I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote.'"
As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.
The Post story comments: “More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.” "I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. This contrasts with the vocal criticism she has received from conservative Republicans. “Several [conservative] columnists have derided Bush's decision, and some groups have called on the president to withdraw her name,” the Post writes.
To counter the criticism, the White House has “enlisted conservative leaders to testify that Miers would be a reliable vote." But the Post countered: "Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, tried to counter that assurance when he asserted that Miers pledged to be independent when they discussed her nomination. 'I said, Would you disavow people who send out assurances that they know how you're going to vote?' She said, 'Absolutely,' said Leahy. She said, 'I will be my own person, I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote.'"
As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)