Ginsberg:"any woman will not do"

Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

The retirement of Ginsburg's colleague Sandra Day O'Connor has fueled speculation about whether President Bush will nominate a woman to her position.

Federal Judge John G. Roberts originally was Bush's nominee for O'Connor's seat but now is facing a Senate vote on the job of chief justice, a position left vacant after the death of William H. Rehnquist.

Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that description.

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.

Ginsburg arrived in New York to attend an annual lecture named in her honor. The lecture's focus is on women and the law.

This year, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, delivered it, while Ginsburg participated in a question-and-answer session afterward.

During the session, which was attended by hundreds, Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases.

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he "is a man who does listen and is willing to learn."

Ginsburg, an associate justice since 1993, is the second woman named to the high court; the first was O'Connor. Ginsburg was a noted advocate of women's rights during her work as an attorney and is considered one of the more liberal Supreme Court justices.

A Strange Law

I meant to blog about this last week, but got distracted. A friend of mine who volunteered in Chicago was telling me about how, when she went to volunteer, she had to sign an oath not to overthrow the government. (The woman quoted in the article is NOT my friend, who did sign the oath.)

Helper refused to sign oath; state refused help

By John Bebow
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 22, 2005

Jessica Parman wanted to help hurricane victims but didn't see the need to pledge allegiance to her government to do it.

Parman said she was turned away from a hurricane relief center in Chicago last week because she refused to sign an oath presented by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.

The oath required, in part, that volunteers "support and defend" the United States and Illinois Constitutions and swear not to "advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization" that advocated the overthrow of the state or federal governments "by force or violence."

Full article here, logins available at bugmenot.com if needed.

After hearing about this oath from my friend, I poked around, and found out different states have different oath requirements. Many have the standard US Government oath that you have to take when you get any sort of federal government job. The same one the Pres takes when swearing in: to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (Ironic, ain't it?) The Illinois oath seems rather extreme, and caused a lot of comment, according to my friend.

After looking things over, I decided this wasn't some new sinister thing, as it sounded at first. I think to work as a state or federal government volunteer, you are required to take the same oath as if you were working non-volunteer for the government. This is definitely true about the federal government. (I know, for instance, that Peace Corps volunteers have always had to take the oath upholding the Constitution.) This is probably the same oath the state politcians and workers all take. Sure, it sounds extreme, but remember that Illinois contains Chicago, where people vote early and vote often ;). So on that level, it makes sense even if it seems annoying and strange. Although I personally wonder about the effectiveness of such an oath--it rather reminds me of those questions you used to answer at the airline counter. Do they think someone is going to say 'Oh, sorry, can't sign/say that, I plan to overthrow the government next week!' or something?

Senate kills bid for Katrina commission

Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled an attempt by Sen. Hillary Clinton to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.

The New York Democrat's bid to establish the panel — which would have also made recommendations on how to improve the government's disaster response apparatus — failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Clinton got only 44 votes, all from Democrats and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Fifty-four Republicans all voted no.

"Just as with 9/11, we did not get to the point where we believed we understood what happened until an independent investigation was conducted," Clinton said.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has rebuffed a bid by House and Senate GOP leaders to create a committee patterned after the 1987 Iran-Contra panel that would have a GOP majority — reflecting their dominance of Congress.

Reid has instead vowed that any bid by Republican leaders to establish a special bipartisan committee involving lawmakers from both House and Senate will go forward only if Democrats have equal representation.

There's also information in this article about a House bill, which passed, allowing liability protection for those providing relief assistance, like The Red Cross.

Pledge: unconstitutional in public schools

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.

The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Newdow hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the high court.

"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told The Associated Press.

"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said.

"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

There is much more to this article. And how about that awkward sentence: "The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of"? How about "upon whose behalf he sued" or something not resembling a bad question on a high school English test?

Who's on first?

When asked about the FEMA chief's resignation on CNN yesterday afternoon, Bush replied "I can't comment on something that you may know more about than I do."

Listen for yourself.

But, as he said, he's been busy on the ground, and maybe he missed the news.

Because, of course, all his information comes from the news. Here's another interesting snippet from a press interview (full interview is here):

Q:
Did they misinform you when you said that no one anticipated the breach of the levees?

THE PRESIDENT:
No, what I was referring to is this. When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. When that storm came through at first, people said, whew. There was a sense of relaxation, and that's what I was referring to. And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say, the bullet has been dodged. And that was what I was referring to.

Of course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation in the moment, a critical moment. And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that.

Glad to know "people probably over the airways" are your major source of information, Mr. President. (I guess you just plum forgot that Fox News was touting Iraq's weapons of mass destruction at your administration's say-so. You heard it on TV, so it must've been true!) And I have to wonder what that large advisory staff of yours is for...

Salon's compliation of reporters w/ backbones

Click post title to view.

Inquirer editorial on Santorum: "bark but no bite"

It's a tight editorial that raises some good points. An exerpt:

Bob Casey Jr., his Democratic opponent in next year's Senate race in Pennsylvania... (gently) chided the Republican incumbent for not using his leadership position in the Senate to ask "tough questions" of the Bush administration about the conflict in Iraq.

Not true! Santorum replied.

He had been generally supportive of the Bush policy in Iraq, he said, but had expressed concerns about aspects of it "publicly and privately."

Trouble was, no one could find those statements. Not the Casey campaign. Not the reporters who went looking. Not even Santorum's staff after days of LexisNexis diving.

Santorum's response to this?

"I do a lot of interviews on TV, on radio, with print reporters who don't happen to write everything I say. The fact that it hasn't turned up in print doesn't mean I haven't said it."

Can you hear me now?

Which opens up these possibilities:

One. Maybe he was out of cell phone range when he said it and no one could pick it up.

Two. Maybe he thought he said it, but only dreamed it. (That's happened to me. Has it happened to you?)

Three. Maybe he said it, but reporters who heard it thought: a Senate GOP leader criticizing the administration on Iraq? That's not news.

Four. Maybe he never made any critical statements but didn't want to admit it because he would look like an administration lapdog. Weef! Weef!

You pick one.

Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon...

From the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

Published September 10, 2005, 10:50 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15 and posted on a Pentagon web site.

As always, try bugmenot.com if you want to read the entire thing and need a registration.

Those judges, they always spoil everything...

Score one for freedom of information!

From CNN.com

U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order Friday against a "zero access" policy announced earlier in the day by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security director.

In explaining the ban, Ebbert said, "we don't think that's proper" to let members of the media view the bodies.

The judge was to consider granting a permanent injunction Saturday when the government announced its decision not to enforce the "zero access" policy.

No one seems to have problems with the media veiwing bodies of crime victims, so what makes this "not proper" (other than fear people might find out how criminally negligent the government was, that is)?

I read somewhere that Sept 12 was supposed to be a National Day of Outrage: justice for Katrina and Iraq victims, but I haven't found out what's supposed to be going on. More details later if I do, or comment if you know anything about it.

What they really think...

This is from Rep. John Conyer's blog:

What is also alarming about this tragedy is how Republican leaders can't help but be insensitive to those who are suffering. It was reported today that House Majority Leader Tom Delay compared the situation of evacuees in Reliant Stadium to summer camp, asking the children, "is this kind of fun?" Were this an isolated incident, it may be easier to overlook, but Louisiana Representative Richard Baker exclaimed, "we finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans... We couldn't do it, but God did," House Speaker Hastert suggested that New Orleans ought not be rebuilt, and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum suggested those who couldn't evacuate themselves should be fined.

Full entry is here

Also he links to the latest poll numbers, which put Bush at below 40% approval.

And the insanity goes on...

Apparently we still need to make sure the wealthy get their tax cuts. Here's a petition from John Kerry's site:

Open Letter to President Bush,
Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert

President Bush, Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert,

It is totally unbelievable to me that, at this time of pain and suffering for so many people in our nation, Republican leaders have yet to forego their plans to lavish more tax cuts on the wealthy and well-connected.

Such tax cuts at this time would be a total betrayal of American values – and a slap in the face of people in the Gulf Coast who have lost and suffered through so much and have so far to go on the road to recovery.

I demand that the leaders of the Republican Party act immediately to take the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy off the table. And I won’t stop working until you do.

Our message to those who would even contemplate bestowing more tax cuts on the wealthy at this time is clear and unambiguous: Don’t you dare!

Signed,

Your name here

go to http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/taxcuts.php
if you want to sign it.

Some scathing editorials from the NYT on the government's response to the NO disaster:
Haunted by Hesitation By MAUREEN DOWD
Osama and Katrina By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

And another article from the Washington Post someone referred me to: Looks like not everyone is jumping on the "Get rid of 'em" wagon:
Fox Affiliate Refuses to Air Campaign Ad By SARA KUGLER

bugmenot.com if you need to register.

Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

I heard this on "Marketplace" yesterday and could hardly believe my ears:

Accompanying her husband, former President George H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this evening on American Public Media's "Marketplace" program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the Astrodome that included her husband and former President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son, the current president, to head fundraising efforts for the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack
Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to
Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Times-Picayune open letter to Bush

An exerpt:

We’re angry, Mr. President, and we’ll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That’s to the government’s shame.

Mayor Ray Nagin did the right thing Sunday when he allowed those with no other alternative to seek shelter from the storm inside the Louisiana Superdome. We still don’t know what the death toll is, but one thing is certain: Had the Superdome not been opened, the city’s death toll would have been higher. The toll may even have been exponentially higher.

It was clear to us by late morning Monday that many people inside the Superdome would not be returning home. It should have been clear to our government, Mr. President. So why weren’t they evacuated out of the city immediately? We learned seven years ago, when Hurricane Georges threatened, that the Dome isn’t suitable as a long-term shelter. So what did state and national officials think would happen to tens of thousands of people trapped inside with no air conditioning, overflowing toilets and dwindling amounts of food, water and other essentials?

State Rep. Karen Carter was right Friday when she said the city didn’t have but two urgent needs: "Buses! And gas!" Every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be fired, Director Michael Brown especially.

In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn’t known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, "We’ve provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they’ve gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day."

Lies don’t get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President.

Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, "You’re doing a heck of a job."

That’s unbelievable.

Someone should tell Hastert...

Not all of the damaged area is bulldozeable:

In Mobile, Bush cited the experience of Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., to make the point that the region will rebound.

"Out of the rubble of Trent Lott's house - he's lost his entire house - there's going to be a fantastic house," Bush said. "And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."

(From the San Jose Mercury News)

Oh, but wait... Lott's not in New Orleans, so that's all right.

Each new headline leaves you shaking your head...

From the Chicago Tribune:

Daley 'shocked' at federal snub of offers to help

Tribune staff reports
Published September 2, 2005, 2:44 PM CDT

Frustration about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina has reached Chicago City Hall, as Mayor Richard Daley today noted a tepid response by federal officials to the city's offers of disaster aid.

The city is willing to send hundreds of personnel, including firefighters and police, and dozens of vehicles to assist on the storm-battered Gulf Coast, but so far the Federal Emergency Management Agency has requested only a single tank truck, Daley said.

"I was shocked," he said.

"We are ready to provide considerably more help than they have requested," the mayor said, barely able to contain his anger during a City Hall news conference. "We are just waiting for the call."

The mayor's remarks came at the announcement of a city-sponsored "Chicago Helps Fund," which will accept donations from citizens for the hurricane relief effort.

full story here
May require registration. If so, check out bugmenot.com

And then you read this on CNN:

The big disconnect on New Orleans
The official version; then there's the in-the-trenches version

Friday, September 2, 2005; Posted: 4:10 p.m. EDT (20:10 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- Diverging views of a crumbling New Orleans emerged Thursday. The sanitized view came from federal officials at news conferences and television appearances. But the official line was contradicted by grittier, more desperate views from the shelters and the streets.

These conflicting views came within hours, sometimes minutes of each of each other, as reflected in CNN's transcripts.

The rest of the article has the conflicting views.

Back in 2004, The New York Times published an article including this quote from one of Bush's senior advisors:

''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

The problem with creating your own reality comes when your reality is no longer anyone else's reality. "Reality" based on fantasy ultimately hits the hard wall of real reality...

Hasert: "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."

A furious Gov. Kathleen Blanco issued a message to House Speaker Dennis Hastert: "I expect an apology as soon as possible."

She was referring to Hastert's comments about spending billions of dollars to rebuild New Orleans.

Hastert told an Illinois newspaper, "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."

Blanco said it's an insult to even suggest that "one of the most historic cities is not worth an investment."

"To kick us down when we're down and destroy hope" is unnecessary, Blanco said.

Did she expect any different? If that's what they're actually saying, imagine what they're thinking and planning to do.