Bushwhacked, Again!! (Updated)

No new information, just a thought. Isn't it ironic that for all the whining and complaining about liberals using the Courts to push their agenda on the country, that's precisely what conservatives have done.
                                  __________________________________________
If the election of Scott Brown(ie), 'Publican of mASSachusetts, wasn't enough, now this:

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 campaign ads.

I am near tears.

James Crowe, II, Supreme Court Justice

Note: The will be a sudden change in tone as I discovere more while writing this piece. ~ No1KState
_____________________________

Folks, it's worse, much worse, than I had expected. I'm sort of embarrassed cause I should've ranted about this a month ago! I've had this article in my "read ASAP" file since it came out, but am only just now reading it all the way through. Cause the money quote comes on page 4.

Now, if you remember, last month, June 2009, before Michael Jackson died, we were all engulfed the the Ricci case, where a white firefighter sued the city of New Haven for reverse discrimination.

Also, remember all the white, male racial victimization played out during the Sotomayor hearings based on just 2 comments that I can think of, and only one which pertained to race, the comment about the "wise Latina woman"? I mean seriously. Were white men, who were members of one of the most powerful bodies in the world, really whining about anti-white and anti-white male bias? Yeah. See, they had their cake and ate it, too. Now, about that other cake that is yours . . . technically. . .

So anyway, get this:

Justice Antonin Scalia said at oral argument that he didn't believe New Haven would have canceled the test results if they'd yielded no white promotions.

Are you shocked? Stunned? Do you follow?

You know my biggest problem with that comment? Besides the fact that it's not true. It represents what so many white people fear from black anti-racist activists. They think we wanna turn the table against them. We don't, and the suggestion that we do is a not just a bit insulting and not just tad racist in and of itself. Do we wanna fire all the white power-brokers and replace them with people of color?

I'm sorry. That's not a good question, or rather, it wouldn't have resulted in a good answer. So let me say this. We don't want to rule the world. We'd just like to have fair and just say in our own. Is that too much to ask?

In light of Scalia's comment, could it not be the case that the Court did just what Sessions and Grahams feared it would? Except, to the benefit of white men (and two Latinos) and the disadvantage of men of color? And didn't Sessions, Grahams, and Pat-B all carry on as though the decision, handed down by four white men and man who wishes he were white, were some sort of vindication for white males?

And not is Scalia's comment disturbing, but he and Thomas joined Scalito - oh! I mean, Alito in this concurrence:

What Justice Alito sees in New Haven's actions, is not the good faith effort of a City with a history of discrimination in firefighter hiring to address a stark and alarming racial disparity in exam results. Instead Alito is certain that there's something of a racial conspiracy afoot - a conspiracy by black community leaders to discriminate against whites. . . . In fact, Justice Alito devotes pages and pages of his decision to examining the actions of Rev. Boise Kimber, who Alito describes as "a politically powerful New Haven pastor," including Kimber's "loud, minutes-long outburst" at a Civil Service Board meeting, Rev. Kimber's "adamant oppos[ition to the] certification of the test results" and his attempts to "exert political pressure" on the Board. All of this sounds like garden-variety aggressive rough and tumble of city politics, but to Alito it's evidence of racial quid pro quo.

Again, isn't Alito playing the very identity politics Hatch and Grassley claimed to fear . . . when the other "team" plays it, I guess.

And for that matter, seeing "that Congress amended Title VII in 1991 to enunciate the disparate impact standard explicitly," didn't the conservatives on the Court engage in . . . judicial activism?

:scary and voice music here:

And what's more is that they reviewed the facts of the case, role generally reserved for the appellate court. On top of that, and what resolves for me the racism on the court is that, "Justice Ginsburg in dissent says she believes that New Haven could have satisfied the new standard Justice Kennedy set forth, but [the majority] didn't give them a chance."

According to the experts I read, chances are employers, public and private, will still be able to practices for hiring and promoting that don't result in disparate impact.

Tell me again someone, preferably not someone I already know is racist, how is that not racist? Or, in the least, a prime example of white power and privilege, and the protection of white supremacy? How is that not racism at its finest? James Crowe, II, Esquire.

Ruling from Ideology

I've been around the last week. I'm up on everything. Can't get over Michael. He was just an incredible, once in ever artist. I'll never reach his level on music heights. And I wonder what would've come had he gone into acting. Or, if he had gotten some help. I won't even lie, I even wonder if the man was just a musical savant and a little diminished in other areas.

But I do hope that I can have the same impact when it comes to humanitarianism and people's lives in the area of social justice.

So, I've been watching the lastest, and the latest from the Supreme Court has me even more determined to help bring about justice and righteousness. And you know it was 5-4. Stank Kennedy. He must've been one of those other Kennedy's, you know? (Listen, if you don't understand the snide comment I'm making, please ask about it before you assume something stupid.) And for my white readers or any one of y'all just passing through, this is why Uncle Clarence gets his own title.

I swear! Just read the article and let me know what you think. And if you got something smart to say but didn't read the article, oh, I will be drawing blood. Make no mistake about it. And just so we're clear, yes, I'm saying this decision is racist. Yes, I'm saying the fact that we have so many "empathetic" white male judges not only influenced the outcome; but, at least 3 of'em are racist. Plain and tall.

Finishing the Ninth

I'm going to make this short. In an earlier post of my discouragement with a recent Supreme Court decision, I said I would do some research into the 9th amendment. Here's one article I found, and here's another article I found. They both support my basic argument about fundamental rights being protected by the 9th amendment. Though, it's not a protection for any little right a person may lay claim to.

Amendment IX: Strict Constructionism? Or Just Plain Ol' Disregard For Actual People?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It could very well be that I'm slow. I doubt it. But that could be the case. It's probably my AP US History teacher's fault. But I doubt that, too. I can read for myself.

Now, granted, I'm no constitutional scholar. And I haven't read up on the latest in law journals. But it seems to me that . . . you know what, let me tell you what I'm actually commenting on. Today, I guess, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

You guessed right. It was a split decision. The majority of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy against the minority of Souters, who Sotomayor will replace, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer. You have to read the article because the case is as interesting as the majority reasoning is specious.

Now we return to my regularly schedule diatribe.

My history teacher told us that the 9th Amendment essentially meant that just because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to use the bathroom in private doesn't mean you don't have that right. And reading for myself, I think it's quite clear. Just because the Constitutional didn't specifically address some specific right doesn't mean the people don't have it. Now, with the 2nd Amendment and the discussion concerning it in mind, we can argue whether "the people" in this case refer to the American collective or individuals. But let's take for granted it refers to individuals. I actually should've done this long ago, but I was a bit lazy and interested in other things.

Oh! Let me write this down before I forget - I'm going to need to do some quick googling of actual Constitutional scholarly articles about the 9th for my own sake if not for whatever contribution it could have to you.

Here's how I understand the 9th and would explain it to a reasonably intelligent child. You know how children like to argue that it's okay that they take the car even after they've been told not to because their parent(s) didn't precisely say, "You are not allowed to drive that car"? Maybe all Mom said was, "Don't let me catch you driving that car," in which case it's okay so long as you don't get caught. Or, maybe all Dad said was, "Don't let me hear tell of you driving that car," in which case it's okay to drive the car, and maybe even okay if Dad catches you driving the car, so long as he doesn't actually hear about your driving the car.

Well, as we know, not a few of the authors of the Constitution were parents and all had been teenage boys, so they knew to guard the country against specious legal reasoning by saying, "Just because we didn't specify a right doesn't mean the people don't have it."

But here's the thing. You know how conservatives argue that the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy? Well, you have the 4th amendment for that. The right to abortions? That's in the 9th. Gay marriage? Check the 9th. It's one of those things the conservatives get all funny about when it doesn't apply to them. It's one of those things they become less strict about when they have the chance to jam the individual.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know what legal standing convicts and inmates have in regards to the Constitution. Clearly it's okay, so far anyway, to deny them the right to vote even after they get out. But it does seem fairly quick and easy that they have the right to DNA evidence that may clear them, even if they don't, and here I'm referencing the article, say absolutely that they're innocent.

And too. I'm not trying to render a legal decision. I'm just side with the 4 who were.

Poor White Men :sigh:

I don't mean poor as in "having little or no money." I mean poor as in "unfortunate;hapless."

LOL!

Here's another article with a bit of a fresh perspective about the Sotomayor nomination and the racist backlash by conservatives.

Don't get me wrong. On one hand, to keep talking about the notion that Sotomayor is racist does lead credence to the lie. On the other, not to talk about the fallacy of logic would be to miss an opportunity to education:Not only are conservatives lying about Judge Sotomayor, they're lying about the current and future status and prospects of white men.

I mean, take Patty B (Pat Buchanan) for example. He's said:

You got down to four women, not a single white male – all women … Probably half of the great lawyers and judges are white males in this country. To rule them out, why? Because of sex and because of their race is wrong, I think.

There are a few problems with this statement I think we should break down.

1. Who decided that half of the great lawyers and judges are white males? Is it really that many? Isn't it racist to assume it's that many without actually knowing?
2. Let's say it is that many. Does that mean that women and minorities are less likely to make good judges? Or, does that mean that we need more women and minority judges?
3. And let's say it is that many. Doesn't it mean that white males are over-represented on the Supreme Court? How is that not racist?
4. Isn't it strange that with all the barriers women and people of color face in this country, the only time conservatives/Republicans really speak out against racism and/or sexism is when they perceive it's happening to white men?

And let's not delude ourselves. This is NOT just a run-of-the-mill conservative attack against Democrats. This is an attack against anti-racism - that's why they're stealing the language of anti-racist activists. This is an attack against racial and gender progress and equality. This is an attempt to maintain white male supremacy in the US.

Don't get me wrong. They know these attacks won't keep Sotomayor off the bench. What it will do is galvanize whites and their lackeys of color against Democrats; against Pres. Obama's next political move; and most especially, against future attempts to ensure equality and justice for all.

They are protecting their positions of power. And that is wrong, I know.

I'm Forced to Ask . . .

You know, I haven't really heard of anyone from the pro-choice camp murdering anybody for, I don't know, preventing women from having abortions. If you have, please drop a line. But how anyone can murder in the name of "pro-life" is beyond me, even if you argue they're ultimately saving lives.

By the by, has anyone heard anything for Gloria Steinem or Geraldine Ferrarro responding to the racist and sexist attacks against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor? I mean, I know they didn't defend Michelle Obama much when she was being called an "angry black woman" or Pres. Obama's "baby mama," so I guess their silence here is par for the course. A little disappointing, though. A little disappointing. You know. They come across as only being interested in making white women the equal of white men, not in equality for all. Of course, I already thought Ferrarro was racist, but Steinem? I'm disappointed. Maybe they'll say something by the time Judge Sotomayor is confirmed.

And oh, yeah. I'm sure you've heard all the "colorblind" talk about how Sotomayor's race and gender shouldn't play a role in the decision to confirm and deny her. Which is odd. I mean, you never hear that about white men. Don't get me wrong, I know that's because white men are held as the "norm" and everything else is a deviation from the "norm." But, it just bothers me because the people making all the "colorblind" talk are conservatives who, you know, aren't exactly thrilled to have a more diverse court. They want to argue that her race and gender shouldn't matter in that they don't necessarily make her a better judge; they have more sense than to argue her race and gender make her a worse judge. But, with all the talk that she's too focused on her race and how she's an anti-white racist based on all of one phrase and her membership in the National Council of La Raza, the largest Latino civil rights group, I kinda get they feeling they'd like to if they could.

What really gets me is how they argue that a court of 9 white men can make just as good decisions as a court of 9 Latinas. To prove this, they point out that a court of 9 white men decided Brown vs Board of Education which overturned Plessy vs Ferguson, as though it wasn't 9 white men who decided Plessy vs Ferguson in the first place.

But, every time I hear someone say Sotomayor's race and gender shouldn't matter, it's like a cloud floats by right out of my reach. I can't quite get my mind to figure out why it bothers me. I guess because conservatives want to pretend that you don't have to take race and/or gender into consideration in order to reach a fair decision in choosing who to place on the Supreme Court. They call her an "affirmative action" pick, which is ironic in itself. They, of course, mean that she was chosen just because of her race and gender and nothing else. As if excusing her race and gender, she doesn't have any other qualifications. They question her depth of intelligence as though graduating in the top 2 of Princeton University is so easy a caveman could do. As though Bush did it. They question if she's smart enough to be on the court, as though she hasn't spent the past 17 years as a judge in the federal courts. They question her temperament, which actually doesn't bother me accept they use the word "temperament" as a euphemism for "she may not always decide for the rich, the white, or the corporations."

But, of course, affirmative action means we just made sure her race and gender didn't hold her back. I guess what conservatives don't want to publicly acknowledge is that due to historical and recent racism, if you just reach into a pool of judges "color-blindly" you'll probably pull out a white guy. I'm guess they would disagree, and Clarence Thomas would be their example, but according to their rhetoric, the only way to choose someone without regard to their race or gender would be to choose a white man. And that, of course, only furthers the cause of white male dominance, of patriarchy and racism. I guess that's what bothers me about the whole argument that Sotomayor's race and gender shouldn't matter. For conservatives, it seems like the only time race and gender don't matter, which probably means as much as anything else that it's the only time they don't notice, is when a white man is involved. And that's just plain racist and sexist and I wish I knew how to scream this to them and put a stop to it. If only, if only.

If only I could further crystallize my thoughts! We'll see in the coming days. I'll keep trying to think this out. Enough for tonight, though.

I'm Joining In

I really haven't studied up on Judge Sotomayor, so there's nothing I can tell you that you can't find somewhere else. Which is why I'm sharing this NY Times link: "Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee."

What I will say is that I like this pick. I like the added diversity of enthnicity, background, and perspective. I also like what I've read about the decisions she's made on the circuit court. The conservative poo-poo by Wendy E Long in the article is just ridiculous and nonsensical; hense, why I'm calling it poo-poo.

Republican Judicial Arrogance

Oh. My Lord.

Two opinions from the Washington Post caught my eye today. One from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and one from regular Wash Post op-ed columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. One is an example of the Republicans' hypocrisy and the other an example of liberal confidence.

The reason I'm looking for Higher Help today is Sen. Sessions's op-ed, "The Right Person for the Court." No, I'm not kidding. How this freudian slip past by Sessions and his congressional assistants is beyond me. It's clear that the Republicans really, really wish Pres. Obama to nominate someone in the line of Justices Roberts and Alito. But they just can't come out and say that. And even if he does, they're gonna fight tooth and nail against his nominee. But they can't say that, either.

So here's what they say:

But if the president nominates an individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt his or her decision making, he will put before the public a central question: Are we willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary -- anchored in the rule of written law that applies equally to all people -- for a high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue?

As though that's not exactly what W Bush did. And then, to have the unmitigated audacity to say this:

With such high stakes, the American people rightly expect greatness in our highest jurists -- the greatness personified by John Marshall and Felix Frankfurter and anticipated from John Roberts.

Yeah! He sites Justice Roberts as someone with judicial restraint. Meanwhile, Justice Roberts shows every indication of at least really, really hoping Sec 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which, by the way, was just reauthorized 3 years ago, is overturned.

And then, with only the irony of the freudian slipped title, Sessions writes these "necessary" qualifications of the next Supreme Court justice:

-- Impartiality. The nominee should demonstrate an ability to fulfill the oath to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich," regardless of the judge's personal feelings toward the parties in the case or the political groups to which they belong.
. . .
-- Legal Expertise and Judicial Temperament. The nominee should demonstrate a mastery of the law, an ability to apply the law to complex facts, and the skill to craft plain and enduring opinions that lower courts, lawyers and the people can understand. The nominee must also demonstrate the humility necessary to be subordinate to the law that he or she will interpret. Great justices recognize the limits of their own power and defer to the wisdom of the people, effectuated through elected representatives and expressed in the written law.

It's almost enough to make you sick on the stomach. "Heurrr!" (My attempt at articulating that sound people make just before they get sick. You know, so just imagion in your head.)

Here's the thing, or, at least, my thing. We're we told just a few years ago that "if a president's picks were formally qualified and intelligent -- and both Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito were -- that should be enough?" My problem with the two wasn't their intelligence (Though, in my opinion, Alito doesn't look all that bright, but looks can be deceiving.). No. My problem was that they had tried to re-write the law as lawyers in the Reagan administration and would undoubtedly try to do and have done the same on the Court. Don't get me wrong. I understand that part of political differences is having opposite understandings of the Constitution. Liberals think it applies to everyone equally; and, conservatives think the Founding Fathers would only benefit rich, white, men/corporations. I understand that. But let's not pretend conservatives haven't been "judical activists" , as they were in the Ledbetter case; and hope to undo judicial precedence, as in a woman's right to privacy. Let's not pretend they're anything but partial.

Now. While I do think Sessions is a blithering racist hypocrit who would attack Pres. Obama for sleeping on the left side of the bed if he could, I do agree with him on this:

The Senate's examination of the nominee's impartiality, integrity, legal expertise and respect for the rule of law will be rigorous and fair. Senators should refrain from making political attacks on the nominee's character, leaking background materials or taking quotes out of context to create a caricature of the nominee.

Though, now that he's said it, I find it least likely that he'll actually live up to his own standard.

On the other side of things, I do agree with Dionne that "liberals should welcome a real debate -- and win it. But this means that such matters as a nominee's sexual preference should not be a consideration and that an authentic debate would involve ideas, not slogans -- notably "judicial activism," "legislating from the bench" and "strict constructionism."" How this would work with conservatives glibly throwing around such slogans and making personal attacks every which way. I certainly don't know if or how Democrats could make use of the kindness principle. But they shouldn't be unprepared for a fight.

Cause with a blithering racist hypocrit like Session leading up the 'publican challenge, you know one's coming.

Reverse Discrimination or Employment Fairness?

Update: I should've place this a couple of days ago. But, better late than never, I hope. I learned watching Hardball with Chris Matthews that 2/3rds of the oral examiners were people of color. So at this point, I really, really hope the black officers just didn't study.

All right. Here goes.

I've been silent about the case of the 20 white firefighters suing the city of New Haven for essentially reverse discrimination largely because I didn't know what to think. I felt conflicted. I felt bad for the 20 white firefighters, especially the lead plaintiff, who has dyslexia. But, I won't like, race solidarity and awareness of racism made me wanna make sure I knew as much as possible. I've come to two basic conclusions.

What happened is this:

The 20 plaintiffs, one of whom is Hispanic and also identified as white, claim that the city's decision to scrap the examination results before any promotions were made violated their rights to be employed in an environment free from racial classification.

All 20 plaintiffs would have qualified for promotion to lieutenant or captain had the test, which the city purchased for $100,000 from a consultant, been used by the city civil service board. No blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. The test was divided between written and oral questions.

I wasn't too sure about the tests being thrown out. There are lots of issues surrounding test taking that go beyond the glib, "just study and you'll be fine." There is a such thing as stereotype anxiety, and it's real. Now, I feel absolutely sure about the questionability of the tests. Oral questions? That's what sunk it for me. Now. If there're records of oral examination that someone could go back and look over, and after getting some experts it's found that race didn't impact that section of the examination, fine. Until then, what's up with that portion of the exam. The problem I have with oral examinations is that it seems hard to get around the grading being subjective. And please don't make me go into how looking black and sounding black has a negative effect on the employment prospects of black people, cause without knowing exactly what happened, subjectivity equals racism.

My biggest apprehension with this case is that conservatives are trying and, not knowing how Justice Kennedy may side, may be successful at undoing all affirmative action legislation or policy. This is from the L.A. Times:

The problem is that some conservative justices clearly see the New Haven case as an opportunity to advance their plan to outlaw all race-conscious decisions by government. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pressed that view during arguments last month when he wondered aloud what would happen if a city abandoned a test because black firefighters had scored disproportionally well. The implication was that taking race into account to advance minority participation is the moral and legal equivalent of Jim Crow laws.

That long has been Roberts' view. But for the full court to embrace it in this case would oversimplify the issue of racial equality and create new national standards from the unusual facts in one fire department. The court shouldn't use this hard case to make bad civil rights law.

And here's a suggestion. When it comes to resolving the conflict between "workplace diversity and the prohibition against race-based decisions in hiring and promotion": specifically prohibited the hiring and promotion of whites and males, yes, some people are both, on the basis of race or gender. The problem this country is facing is white supremacy and privilege. This is not a pro-black country. I think Pat Buchanan can relax.

Racism in Session(s)

On the eve of Pres. Obama's crucial nomination of a justice to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, the Republicans have chosen Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to replace Sen. Arlen Spector (presently D-PA) as ranking member on the senate's judicial committee. I think it's important to know what we're getting so we can begin thinking of how to respond. And also because I think what we're getting sucks.

Closed Sessions
The senator who's worse than Lott.

Sarah Wildman, The New Republic Published: December 30, 2002


Trent Lott must think he's living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond's century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can't scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott's comments "thoughtless" and told CBS's "Early Show" audience on December 12 that "Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down." And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, "I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people ... who don't get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I'm tired of being embarrassed by Republicans ... who don't get it."

It's a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott's east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi--and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.

Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.

Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.

On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.

It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."

None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.

Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.

And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.

Sarah Wildman was an assistant editor at The New Republic from 1999 to 2003.

Update on Section 5

h/t P6

Yep. Just as I suspected. The conservative judges seem to want to overturn "the political judgment of lawmakers." It appears that they're on the brink of . . . judicial activism!

From the Washington Post:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared extremely skeptical about Congress's conclusion that such an extension was needed. "Obviously no one doubts the history here and that the history was different," he said, referring to the history of discrimination in the states covered by Section 5. "But at what point does that history . . . stop justifying action with respect to some jurisdictions?" The chief justice apparently gave little credence to the information gathered by Congress over 10 months and 21 hearings that contemporary -- not just historical -- discrimination exists and justifies the extension.

Read the article and comment below.

Senator Hatch Claims Obama Speaking 'Code' On Supreme Court Nominee

From Real Clear Politics:

ABC News: Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on "This Week" Sunday that President Barack Obama used "code" for an activist judge this week when describing his ideal nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

"It's a matter of great concern, if he's saying that he wants to pick people who will take sides. He's also said that a judge has to be a person of empathy -- what does that mean? Usually that's a code word for an activist judge," Hatch said on "This Week."

"But he also said that, that, he's going to select judges on the basis of their personal politics, their personal feelings, their personal preferences," Hatch said, "Now, you know those are all code words for an activist judge who's going to be partisan on the bench."

When did Pres. Obama say anything about personal politics, personal feelings, or personal preferences? Get at me!

Yes He Did!! Whew!!

Today, President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act which correct the decision the Supreme Court made last year that in order to sue for pay discrimination, a worker had to filed within 180 days of the first unequal check. Yeah, our Supreme Court made that decision 5-4. No, not conservative to liberal; but completely ignorant and cold to the understanding and common sensible. So, yeah, I'm really hyped about this new development. Oh, and by the way, this Act is an act, as it were, of affirmative action.

In other news, it turns out Pres Obama might be attending a dinner to honor confederate general Robert E Lee. Besides the fact that I could've sworn the South lost, a White House spokesperson is saying they weren't aware of the confederate tie to some Alfalfa Club Dinner. Now that they know, Obama had better not go.

Here's video of Pres Obama signing the Ledbetter Act.

Thank Goodness for Senate Republicans!

You know I don't mean that! I'm already, er, not happy about the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. Now, she has sufficient reason to keep dragging Sen. Barack Obama and herself and the party through the mud. That's just great! (And if she succeeds in taking the nomination from Obama, I think all African-Americans should consider sitting this election out. More about that come June.)

But now, the Republicans, in their fervent commitment to the bottom, er, line, have blocked a bill that would reset the time employees have to sue employers for pay discrimination to 6 months after the most recent pay check. So essentially, the statute of limitations resets every time the employee gets paid. The intent of this bill was to undercut the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision that the time limit starts when the decision is made to discriminate in pay. If you're confused by the decision, don't worry. You're bright. If, on the other hand, the decision makes complete sense to you, then you should probably worry.

The Republicans blocked the bill, which had passed the House of Representatives, because they felt it was unfair to employers. The White House agrees - Bush threatened to veto the bill if it passed. Their concern is that an employer may be sued years passed the "decision" and that evidence might be lost. Plus, they are outraged by the Democrats having held the bill till after dinner just so Sens. Clinton and Obama would have the chance to support it. Sen. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, didn't go back to vote on the bill, but he's against it.

I'm going to contact both my US senators - Republicans each. It's probably useless, but I want my disdain for this obstructionism recorded.

Again Why We Need to Elect a Progressive President

You have got to read this indictment of the partisan Supreme Court.

This Is One Reason a Democrat MUST Win in November

The Supreme Court is atrociously divided along partisan lines. It's sickening!

I just watched Jim Lehrer and a report on the case concerning the Indiana voter ID law. According to the reporter (whose name I can't recall), Robertson, Alito, and Scalia displayed suspicion against the voting rights advocates; Ginsburg and Breyer display suspicion against the state.

Let me give you some background. Indiana's law requiring voters to present photo ID is supposed to help curb voter fraud. There are two problems with that theory:

1. Illegal voter suppression and intimidation is much more prevalent than voter fraud, which primarily concerns people voting who shouldn't be.
2. There's very little evidence of voter fraud.

Even Scalia had to admit there seemed to be little benefit from the law. He also questioned how much burden the law places on people, which I attribute to his conservative, privileged white male perspective. He wondered how the court could make a decision. I think the answer is easy - find in favor of the people's right to vote.

With this law, a voter would either have to present a driver's licenses or go through the hassle of obtaining a state ID card. The hassle would include, for example, having to pay for a birth certificate to present in order to get the ID. That'll be harder for some than others, but it'll cost anyone. On the face of it, it sounds like 21 century poll taxes, reading tests, etc or, rather, simply James Crow, Jr, Esquire.

If a voter doesn't have ID at the time of the vote, they can vote by provisional ballot which would only be counted if they arrived at the county courthouse in the county seat to either show an ID or sign an affidavit saying they're too poor to afford a state photo ID. It could be just me, but if I'm too poor to afford a state photo ID, I may also have trouble getting to the county seat.

Voting rights advocates believe the law will place undo burden on the poor, who'll be disproportionately minorities, and elderly. Both of who usually skew towards the political left. The state wants to prevent fraud, which isn't happening. And back to the point of this post, the Court's conservatives are doubting the voting rights advocates and the liberals, or in the case, the reasonable justices, doubt the state.

Voter ID laws (20 states have a form of one) arose in response to presidential election of 2000. That makes Indiana's law and any law like it a joke! The problem with the 2000 election, Florida and Tennessee admit, is that people were illegal prevented from voting. The problem had nothing to do with dead people voting, or Illinois voters voting in Michigan.

Yeah, I'm biased. I think the law is a fraud. Yeah, I'm siding with the liberals. But I think it's ridiculous that the justices are so partisan. This case, indeed Indiana's law, has more to do with partisanship than actual law. Especially considering the facts as I earlier laid out, it would seem Indiana should be making sure all eligible voters can vote; the state has nothing to gain by having this law on the books. The only entity that stands to gain is the state's Republican party. It's just plain mess that the Supreme Court could display such differences in what's obviously a partisan law in the first place. Either the law is Constitutional or it's not; it either protects rights and withholds rights. Even honest conservatives will admit that voter ID laws are unnecessary. The point is to keep Democratic leaning voters from being heard. And the Supreme Court is divided? And this is the Supreme Court of the vaunted United States of America? This is what we're allegedly trying to spread around the world? Give me a break!

And to make matters worse, the Bush administration is arguing on behalf of voter ID laws at the same time it admits that voter fraud is a myth. The administration's argument is that since so many people may not vote because they think that their vote won't matter due to voter fraud, in order to build voter confidence, there should be laws to prevent voter fraud. The argument is specious on its face. But then to add to the sheer putridness of the administration, it has been the administration and other conservative partisan groups who spread the falsities of voter fraud, which the claim will place doubt in the minds of legal voters, in the first place.

Now, I could be over-reacting. The cases hasn't been decided; the report I heard was about oral arguments. I hope it's properly decided. I really do. But the divide on the Court isn't just ideological; it's partisan. It's sickening. It's embarrassing.

If the rights of people to vote, to receive equal pay, not to experience harassment on the job, etc, etc, etc is to be protected, a Democrat president has to be elected. The Democrats have to fight on behalf of the people who are least able to fight on behalf of themselves.