Obama Tries to Quell Criticism of Gates Arrest

President Barack Obama attempted to quell criticism of his remarks concerning the arrest of Harvard law professor Henry “Skip” Louis Gates by Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Massachusetts police force during a cameo appearance at a White House press briefing on Friday. The president expressed regret that “my choice of words didn’t illuminate, but rather contributed to more media frenzy.” He also said he phoned Sgt. Crowley to apologize for conveying the false impression that he intended to malign him and his department.

At his press conference on Wednesday he said “that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they [sic] were in their own home.”

Seeing how his words of condemnation inadvertently led to much of the inane fodder in the blogosphere, talk radio, and cable television chatter and consequently distracting the public from his broader legislative agenda, he urged us to step “back for a moment,”  recognize that “these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts,”  but “be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African-Americans are sensitive to these issues.”

He also said he invited Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley to the White House for a beer as a gesture of good will and hopes of reconciling differences and putting this controversy to rest.

His comments were meant to be conciliatory and to prevent the controversy over his initial set of remarks from competing with his message of the urgency of passing a health care reform bill through a slow moving Congress. On August 7th, the Congress breaks for a month long recess, and the White House is determined to keep the pressure on lawmakers to continue to work on the bill even during the break if need be. I could see how some of his advisers may think wading into racial politics at this juncture would not be helpful.

By the same token, the president attempt to rein back his statements were not helpful in enriching our already impoverished discussion of racial justice. Whether he knew it or not, the president’s remarks on Friday gave us the impression that the gray haired professor who walks with a cane is just a fault for his own arrest in his own home even if he produced an ID showing as the imposing and armed police officer is for cuffing him, since its all one big misunderstanding.

To imply there is some kind of moral equivalency here given the power relationship is wrong. Even if Professor Gates was belligerent is not clear that he was wanted to fight, threaten, initiate violent behavior, or was a danger to public safety or became annoyance, any one of which would have justified the arrest for disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law. In this instance, a mere heated exchange eventuated in a mug shot.

The president could have at least reaffirmed his statement on Wednesday that racial profiling remains a national problem and that something should be done about it.  For starters, we could pass the End Racial Profiling Act, which would ban the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal funding to state and local police departments if they adopt policies to prohibit the practice. ERPA has yet to be introduced this Congress, but criminal justice reform advocates have been clamoring for its passage for years.

Instead, we are told that tempers flared unnecessarily on both sides and that we should all calm down and have a brewski. I doubt that the next person of color who gets pulled over in the Boston area will derive much solace from that recommendation.

President Obama called this a “teachable moment” for all us but that presumes that someone has to do the teaching or at least lead the discussion. Many people, perhaps unjustifiably, expected our first black president to do just that, but it seems he really does not appetite for it and quite frankly is rather busy with salvaging two failed wars he inherited from his predecessor in addition to trying to capture terrorists, reforming our financial regulatory system, stimulate job creation, overhauling our education system and, of course, passing a health care reform bill.

Political observers have wondered whether or not President Obama’s ascendancy not only means that we live in a post-racist America, but also if we need an activist class of black leaders anymore. Some have provocatively asked if Obama signifies the “End of Black Politics?” But the President Obama needs a counterweight on these issues, someone to contrast his own views with on racial justice issues and who can forcefully communicate the concerns of black America to everyone else. The president still has to worry about managing the perception that he’s inclined to favor some groups over others.

Of course, scores of black intellectuals and civic leaders have commented on the Gates affair, but no one with the kind of stature necessary to become President Obama’s gadfly on racial issues writ large in the same way President Lydon B. Johnson had to contend with Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the 60′s.

Even the most gifted and talented among us need to be pushed in the right direction to realize their potential.

Check out the president’s remarks on Friday here:

False Choices in Picking a New Court Nominee

Each time a key administrative appointment is in the news suddenly the conversation operates on two polarities – diversity and qualifications, as if someone could not be eminently qualified for a job if he or she were not a white male. People need to be constantly reminded that there are talented people of color and women out there for many of the country’s top jobs, just look at the president’s cabinent or even the man who occupies the Oval Office himself.

Thats why its frustrating to read opinion pieces in the Washington Post like Benjamin Wittes entitled, “On the Supreme Court, What Price Diversity?” particularly when he says that a diverse court automatically comes at the price of nominating a quality Justice. That’s just a false dichtomy.

Syndicated columnist Ruben Navarette breaks down why on the Chris Matthews show.

Souter Round Up

I thought this was a good round up.

Rumor and speculation are the life blood of covering nominations and appointments particularly during the early days of any presidential administration. That said, here are some helpful links and other info on who is on the short and expanded list of replacements.

The WSJ wants President Obama to appoint, “Jose Cabranes, a Puerto Rican immigrant named to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President Clinton in 1994.”

Keith Perine at CQ’s Legal Beat asks when is a filibuster not a filibuster. Seth Stern also says that we should expect a vote to confirm Obama’s nominee whoever she is some time before the August recess.

Micheal Fletcher and Paul Kane at the WaPo report that administration officials expect the next nominee to be confirmed by October. Dan Balz also at the WaPo informs us that even if the nomination battle become a hyper partisan navigating the politics of it all may still be tough.

I got an oldie but goodie here. In July of 2007, Tom Goldstein wrote a really good post for SCOTUS blog on who Democratic Supreme Court nominees might be.

Stuart Taylor at the National Journal shares some “random thoughts” on what to expect when you are expecting a nominee.

Georgetown Law Professor Jefferey Rosen in the NYT urged the president not to follow the Souter model in picking a nominee, since he had “a hermetically sealed approach to the job” and “had had trouble communicating his ideas” to other Justices.

Mary L. Dudziak at Balkination says Obama should appoint someone like Justice Thurgood Marshall to the court.

Meteor Blades at DailyKos has a post featuring pics to go with the names of potential nominees being floated in the media.

Otis is Hungry at Daily Kos also has bios and commentary to go with the names.

Michele Malkin implores her fellow conservatives to gird their lions.

SCOTUS blog collected the statements from sitting Justices on Souter’s retirement.

(H/T: Justice Chatter)

Obama Holds Impromptu Press Conference on Souter

Clearly, Obama really enjoys being president.

As you can see he did not stray far from the empathy standard that he articulated as a presidential candidate.

The White House posted his remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: I just got off the telephone with Justice Souter. And so I would like to say a few words about his decision to retire from the Supreme Court.

Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task — reaching a just result in the case that was before him.

He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion — the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.

I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court’s new term begins.

(H/T: TPMDC)

A Skeptical Court Hears Voting Rights Act Case

Yesterday, a skeptical U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states and localities with a history of voting discrimination submit changes in voting procedures, or gain “pre-clearance,” by the federal government for approval.

The case involves a municipal utility district in Texas that wants to sidestep needing to comply with the provision because it claims the kind of discrimination that it once deterred no longer exists. Board member elections in the utility district require pre-clearance since the entire state of Texas falls under the jurisdiction of Section 5.

The case is called Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

Adam Liptak’s summary in the NYT of yesterday’s oral argument was spot on, especially his description of Justice Kennedy’s hostile line of questioning. And if his questioning is any indication, which in this case I think it is, Kennedy will likely write the majority or controlling opinion as he did in the Section 2 case earlier this year and erode much of Section 5, while of course noting that racial discrimination “is not ancient history.”

Perhaps, the real question here is how badly the Court will gut Section 5 and if it will introduce or demand that Congress create a more precise and less far reaching standard in determining which states and jurisdictions should be covered and why, even if in 2006 it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act only after it held 19 hearings and reviewed thousands of pages of testimony and documents.

Plus, a very curious exchange between Justice Scalia and Debo Aegbile from LDF during yesterday’s oral arguments.

Scalia actually suggested that simply because the VRA was cleared both chambers of Congress by wide margins, even if both houses and the Oval Office were controlled by Republicans at the time, we should be skeptical of its validity. In other words, we should be skeptical of the law, which has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, because it got too much support. Huh?

If we applied that same line of thinking to other laws enacted by Congress such as the American Disabilities Amendments Act that passed this fall and signed by a Republican president, then I suppose we should consider them invalid too. Or maybe we should consider the unanimous opinions like in Brown v. Board of Ed invalid because they also had too much support.

What happened to judicial modesty and due deference to legislative bodies that conservatives love to spout?

Here’s the exchange:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Adegbile, what was — I read it in the briefs, and I forget what it was. What was the vote on this 2006 extension — 98 to nothing in the Senate, and what was it in the House? Was -

MR. ADEGBILE: It was — it was 33 to 390, I believe.

JUSTICE SCALIA: 33 to 390. You know, the — the Israeli Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there. Do you ever expect — do you ever seriously expect Congress to vote against a reextension of the Voting Rights Act? Do you really think that any incumbent would — would vote to do that?

MR. ADEGBILE: Well -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Twenty-five years from now? Fifty years from now? When?

MR. ADEGBILE: Justice Scalia, I think some members of Congress did of course vote against the Act.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Thirty-three members of the House and nobody in the Senate.

MR. ADEGBILE: Thirty-three members of the House, indeed. But I think the — the reason that they voted for it is what’s more important. Congress did not assume that section 5 was necessary. It took a very careful examination to see how it was operating, and the determination was that in the absence of section 5, because of the repetitive violations, because of 620 objections — there was evidence that approximately 60 percent of those show some evidence of intentional discrimination.

If you take away the prophylaxis, the discrimination will return in a way that we don’t need to revisit. The history has been that voting discrimination manifests itself through repetitive efforts and…..

Besides Texas, eight other states are covered by the provision, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Most of Virginia and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota are also covered.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to eliminate discriminatory voting practices by state and local governments. The law has been renewed and amended several times since it was passed, most recently with a 25-year renewal in 2006 where it cleared the Senate by a 98-0 and the House 390-33.

On Prosecuting Bush’s Team of Torture Lawyers

From the New York Times Editorial page:

At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.

That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.

Few, except the Obama administration itself, would quibble with what the New York Times is advocating. An official investigation followed by prosecution of those who authorized the use of torture should take place. But the question is when and by whom.

After all, President Obama has an ambitious wish list of legislative priorities inspired by the weight of several crises competing for his attention. That means that pursuing a high profile and public investigation into the abuses of person would almost certainly create a Congressional atmosphere so partisan that it would jeopardize his chances of passing a climate change bill, a health care reform bill, overhauling education No Child Left Behind, immigration reform, in addition to dealing with a likely Supreme Court vacancy even as he and his team struggle to nurse an ailing economy.

Of course, this does not preclude Congress itself from conducting its own low profile investigation while encouraging more open source reporting on the matter. Nor does it prevent certain state bar associations from disbarring the very lawyers who used legal fictions to circumvent the law.

In other words, Obama could allow others to make the case for him based on the record provided thus far over the course during the next few years. Over time pressure by certain Bush officials will mount and cause some of them to flip either because of the level of scrutiny involved, their pariah status within their respective fields, or maybe their conscience will eat at them.

That way provided there’s sufficient pressure from Congress and if the public develops an appetite for prosecuting senior Bush officials, which does not quite exist yet, the Obama administration could go in for the easy kill by appointing an independent prosecutor.

At minimum, it could set the stage for the creation of a Commission of Inquiry, as proposed by Chariman of the Senate Judicary Patrick Leahy. Certain individuals intimately involved in the torture regime could cooperate with the commission’s inquiry in exchange for some immunity.

Perhaps it would not satisfy many human rights advocates who want everyone responsible prosecuted now, but it would afford us an opportunity to learn from our mistakes.

Homeland Security Sees Uptick in Hate Group Recuritment

A Department of Homeland Security report on the rise of right wing hate groups and extremism was leaked this week. The DHS report is called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

Unsurprisingly, the report found that the spike in undocumented immigration, the current economic downtown, and the election of the first African American president have spurred their efforts in winning new recruits.

Not exactly news to many of us, but its different when you see this documented by the government.

Of course, much of the controversy surrounding the report has focused on how these groups recruit disgruntled military veterans that find it difficult to readjust to civilian life, but that’s far from the report’s central focus. And anyone who takes time to read it would soon discover that himself.

But even if some civil libertarians and conservatives raising concerns about whether or not the government should be monitoring political beliefs, I think this presents many civil and human rights advocates with an opportunity to to promote greater awareness about the rise of hate crimes and their clear, though often overlooked, relationship to hate speech. That’s not to say we should go out of our way to criminalize intolerant speech, but being vigilante about countering intolerant speech can be critical to reducing hate crimes.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, which seems like it will be introduced this session of Congress, would provide local authorities with more resources to combat hate crimes and give federal government jurisdiction over processing hate crimes in states where the current law is inadequate.

In my opinion, I think the key findings in the report include:

• Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

• In contrast to the early 90s, the advent of the Internet and other information age technologies s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.

• Lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

• Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

• Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy.

Also, see Department of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano’s statement on the report here.

Kenn Starr Backs Harold Koh For State Gig

That makes two. Ken Starr and Ted Olson, former Solicitor General under Bush the younger, have both endorsed President Obama’s nominee for State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh. As some of you may know, Koh has come under attack from the likes of Glenn Beck and Jay Sekulow and their foot soldiers on the far right who have tried to portray Obama’s nominee as a nutty liberal looking to supplant American law with Sharia law and a threat to the “fundamental American principles of representative government.”

The baseless accusations have already been debunked by Dahilia Lithwick and others but now right wingers will now have to shout down their own. In a letter dated yesterday, Dean of Pepperdine Law School Ken Star said, “I am firmly convinced that Harold is extraordinarily well qualified to serve with great distinction in the post of Legal Advisor,” and Ted Olson who said he had “ the greatest respect for Harold Koh,” and added, “He’s a brilliant scholar and a man of great integrity.”

Part of the reason that conservatives have gone after Harold Koh, Dawn Johnsen, and other executive nominees is to set the stage for the larger battle over a Supreme Court nominee which may come as soon as this summer. Conservatives hope to target and tarnish as many people with SCOTUS nom resumes, like Koh, in an effort to eliminate them from contention but also to keep throwing red meat to their base to keep them engaged on issues that even vaguely have culture warrior significance.

Justice Ginsberg on Foreign Law

From Jefferey Toobin at the New Yorker:

It looks like Harold Koh, President Obama’s nominee for legal adviser at the State Department, may turn out to be the first real confirmation fight in the new Administration. The controversy has been mentioned in a handful of newspapers, but there’s plenty of Internet fire on the anti-Koh, and pro-Koh, side.

The heart of the attack on Koh, who is now the dean of Yale Law School, is that he believes in “transnationalism,” which purportedly is the notion that American courts should honor and apply the laws of other nations in our courts.

I wonder if the so-called controversy over Koh’s transnationalism can be explained away by simply saying that if citing international law is good enough for the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, then it should be good enough for a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department. The Court has cited international law, which is not the same as being bound by it, in cases involving gay rights and the death penalty and the sky did not fall, though it did anger the right.

Adam Liptak reported in the NYT on Saturday that Justice Ruth Ginsberg thinks the debate concerning international is sorta ridiculous.

In her remarks, Justice Ginsburg discussed a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court concerning the use of torture to obtain information from people suspected of terrorism.

“The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off,” she said, describing the question presented in the case. “Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.’ ”

The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”

My sentiments exactly.

Side note: Toobin, apparently has not been following the battles over President Obama’s other executive nominees fight that closely, since he seems to think that Koh would be the first real confirmation fight.
Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, has come under attack from the far right for being a lawyer for NARAL at one point and her unsparing criticism of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and use of torture to extract intelligence information from detainees. Republicans are threatening to filibuster her nomination.

Another nominee, Thomas Saenz, was in the pipeline, though never formally announced, to be Obama’s top civil rights enforcer at the Justice Department until the anti-immigrant right sunk his nomination for his work on successfully challenging local ordinances banning day laborers from city streets and of California’s Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot measure that prevented undocumented immigrants from taking advantage of certain social services.

NYT: Obama to Push Immigration Reform This Year

This could be risky if it is not done right since the anti-immigrant right has been waiting for this. The last time comprehensive immigration reform came up in the Senate in June 2007 we got clobbered on cloture by the score of 46 yeas to 53 nays. Of course, you cannot discount the fact that the bill was being pushed by an deeply unpopular president on a reluctant Congress in different political environment. But still its something to think about.

At any rate, Julia Preston at the NYT says once the CIR bill drops it will feature many of the familiar elements that Obama campaign on:

In broad outlines, officials said, the Obama administration favors legislation that would bring illegal immigrants into the legal system by recognizing that they violated the law, and imposing fines and other penalties to fit the offense. The legislation would seek to prevent future illegal immigration by strengthening border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, while creating a national system for verifying the legal immigration status of new workers.

I really hope that does not mean reviving E-Verify or the no-match stuff. Those policies just don’t work. But I do like the fact that the administration is at least signaling they will push some version of CIR this year. It’ll be interesting to see if certain members of Congress will embrace their inner Tom Tancredo on this one or get on the right side of history.

Census Politics

Most people who follow the politics surrounding Census are focused on a certain set of obstacles to achieving an accurate count such as the ongoing immigration crackdown, the foreclosure crisis, and counting people displaced as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But apparently we can now add gay marriage to the list of emerging issues confronting the 2010 count, which is used to allocate funding for building roads, maintaining schools, improving hospitals, and apportioning legislative districts.

Money quote from the New York Times

Also on Tuesday, in a separate effort to bolster the number of census respondents, the mayor and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, wrote to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, asking that the Census Bureau, which Mr. Locke oversees, count legally married same-sex couples as “married” in the 2010 census. As it stands, the bureau plans to count these couples as “unmarried partners,” since federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages.

“Recognizing these unions for statistical purposes may encourage greater participation in the census” among lesbians, gays and bisexuals, Mayor Bloomberg said. “And greater participation and accuracy are the end goals of the census outreach effort.”

Meanwhile with the count beginning in less than a year from now, a Census Director, Dr. Robert Groves, has  been nominated, but not confirmed yet and Congressional Republicans are getting busy looking for issues to reject him.

Ohio Congressman John A. Boehner told the Washington Times, “Mr. Groves reportedly advocated a scheme to use computer analysis to manipulate census data, rather than simply conducting an accurate count of the American people.” House Minority Leader also added, “We will have to watch closely to ensure the 2010 census is conducted without attempting similar statistical sleight of hand.”

Rep. Boehner is cynically using Groves expertise in sampling against him in order to portray the nominee as a voodoo numbers guy and Democratic hack. Boehner is trying to propagate this myth despite the fact Goves won the endorsement of even Bush’s former Census Director Louis Kincannon, who called the nominee an “eminent scholar” and said statistical sampling is a “nonissue,” according to the National Journal.

Who knew that a national head count could be so political?

Obama Reaffirms Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

At a town hall meeting in Mesa County, California this week, Obama reaffirmed many of the same principles of comprehensive immigration reform that he campaigned on in the 2008 presidential election. Those guiding ideas include a path to legalization, securing the border, and employer verification. But at the same time he said he did not want to create a system that would discriminate against someone “just because you’ve got a Hispanic last name or your last name is Obama.” He also reiterated his support for a comprehensive approach to immigration rather than tackling the problem in a piecemeal fashion.

Until now, Obama choose to only discuss immigration issues when engaging Spanish only media. This time, however, he is voicing the same message while on CNN, which is somewhat of a big step and could be an indication that it might be on the agenda this coming fall or late summer.

Money quote:

Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can’t have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it.

So we’ve got to deal with that at the same time as we deal in a humane fashion with folks who are putting down roots here, have become our neighbors, have become our friends, they may have children who are U.S. citizens. (Applause.) That’s the kind of comprehensive approach that we have to take. All right. Okay. (Applause.)

(H/T: America’s Voice)

Global Warming Deniers Unite!

Last week, global warming skeptics and deniers organized a conference in New York City to devise a strategy to counter the recent success of the green movement, according to the NYT. Interestingly enough, even as as polls continue to show a persistent majority of people, though with some notable variation, believe global warming is real and not an exaggeration there is still a growing minority of that remain fiercely skeptical about climate change. I suspect public opinion and our politics  will likely become even more polarized in the future and may delay decisive action on what to do about global warming.

Money quote from the NYT:

“The only place where this alleged climate catastrophe is happening is in the virtual world of computer models, not in the real world,” said Marc Morano, a speaker at the meeting and a spokesman on environmental issues for Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

But several climate scientists who are seeking to curb greenhouse gases strongly criticized the meeting. Stephen H. Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University and an author of many reports by the intergovernmental climate panel, said, after reviewing the text of presentations for the Heartland meeting, that they were efforts to “bamboozle the innocent.”

Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations office managing international treaty talks on climate change, said, “I don’t believe that what the skeptics say should provide any excuse to delay further” action against global warming.

But he added: “Skeptics are good. It’s important to give people the confidence that the issue is being called into question.”

I tend to think that skeptics are not inherently good. Skepticism can also be used to unnecessarily prolong decision making and bold action. Many companies employ lobbyists, pseudo think tanks, and communications professionals to convince people that so-called intelligent design and evolution are of equal scientific value. Over time highlighting excessive skepticism in the face of compelling evidence only serves to undermine the will for action and gives people the false impression that the debate needs to continue indefinitely.

At any rate, below is a graph of Gallup polling illustrating shifts in public opinion on climate change across time. The crunch in 2004 was probably due to superior messaging on the issue by Republicans, particularly those in the Bush campaign.

The gap widens a bit in 2006 in small part because of the release of Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth and the wealth of media coverage on environmental activism. Greater parity among those who believe that global warming is “generally exaggerated” and among those who think its “generally correct” is probably due to it becoming a partisan issue once again, particularly after an election that featured such topics as cap-and-trade, promoting offshore drilling and other energy security issues.

Intolerable Speech

You just cannot make this stuff up. Or if you did people would simply say this would not happen in 2009. But it did. A Utah state senator, who once called a bill he opposed an ugly black baby, called gay activists the biggest threat to the U.S after comparing them to radical terrorists. He remarks led to the Republican leadership there stripping him of his Judiciary Committee Chairmanship.

Here is how Utah State Senator Chris Buttars defended his comments

I was disappointed to learn of the Utah State Senate’s censure on Feb. 20, 2009. However, this action will not discourage me from defending marriage from an increasingly vocal and radical segment of the homosexual community.

In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled “haters,” and “bigots,” and are censured by their peers.

The Utah state affiliate of the ACLU released a rather disappointing and cliched response to the controversy.

While we disagree vehemently with Senator Buttars’ views, we strongly support the Constitution’s free speech protections. Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone’s rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence unpopular and controversial speech can be used to silence valid discourse.

Free speech in America has been, and always will be critical in the protection and expansion of the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. The ACLU protects freedom of speech, even that with which many of its supporters disagree.

I am not convinced that Senator Buttars free speech rights are being restricted because he was stripped of his chairmanship. Few people made that argument when then-U.S. Senator Trent Lott was demoted from his position as Senate Majority Leader in 2002 after he lavished praise on Strom Thurmond’s 1948 pro-segregationist campaign and claimed “if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.” Those problems of course being integration and much of the civil rights gains that followed the 1950s.

The comments were rightfully criticized as racist.

So when President Bush and and Lott’s fellow Republican lawmakers moved to replace the Mississippi Senator, they sought to distance themselves from comments that a good many Americans found intolerable.  At the same time, however, its not as if Senator Lott was legally restricted from voicing those same opinions again. The same applies here to Utah state Senator Buttars.

Elected officials, like private citizens, can exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights, but its not as if there should not be consequences to what they say whether its through public disapproval or being politically isolated.

The Land of Burris

Roland Burris once remarked that the slogan of his home state of Illinois may one day change from the “Land of Lincoln” to the “Land of Burris.” That’s certainly sounds bold. But his wish may be temporarily granted as the current face of the state’s reputation for political seediness given his contradictory explanations involving his appointment to the U.S. Senate.

According to the Chicago Sun Times, Senator Burris failed to inform an Illinois impeachment panel in January that he was contacted by then Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother for $10,000 in campaign contributions prior to his appointment. But in a sworn affidavit submitted earlier this month he did own up to it.  In the same affidavit he also admitted to having contacted Blagojevich’s top aides about his interest in the Senate seat, even though he said he had no contact with the now ousted governor’s staff when testifying before the Illinois impeachment panel. In December, Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested on bribery charges.

Now with the Chicago and national media world focus trained upon the widening scope of this pay to play scandal many of Chicago’s black clergymen, the Chicago Sun Times, and Illinois Governor Pat Quinn have all rightfully urged him to resign. Senator Burris could have come clean at the January 8th impeachment hearing about the nature of the contacts he had with Blagojevich’s staff in his exchange with Republican State Rep. Jim Durkin. The Chicago Tribune recently published the relevant parts of the testimony:

Durkin: At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?

Burris: No sir.

Durkin: Ok. If you were aware of a quid pro quo, what would you have done?

[snip]

Burris: Rep. Durkin, knowing my ethics, I would not participate in anybody’s quid pro quo. I’ve been in government for 20 years and never participated in anybody’s quid pro qu0

To be sure, the inconsistencies in Burris’s statements do not amount to wronging, but they are enough to warrant an investigation from the Senate ethics committee and a local Illinois prosecutor. But he could have admitted that he was asked about raising money on behalf of the governor and then rebuffed if that’s in fact true. It may have been awkward to admit then but he would at least not be as isolated as he is now.

Perhaps Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was right to be cautious about the whiff of impropriety of the Senate appointment of Roland Burris by the then already indicted Gov. Rod Blagojevich. “It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety,”  said Senator Reid in a December 2008  press statement believed to reflection the prevailing opinion of all the other Senate Democrats in his caucus.

Of course, Reid, feeling he had no choice but to seat Burris, later relented and even loaned him a trusted aid to help the Illinois senator get situated. Maybe he should have stuck to his guns.

At any rate, like many people, I seriously underestimated the temerity of Roland Burris to even tease Blagojevich’s people with idea of paying for the Senate seat knowing the governor was being wire tapped by the FBI.

Hasn’t he ever watched the Wire?

Oh well I suppose that’s how some people roll in the Land of Burris. Meanwhile Congressman Bobby Rush, a fixture of Chicago’s rough and tumble politics and urged reporters “not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor” is maintaining a low profile and said through a spokesperson that he is still waiting for more info.

Umm…yeah.