Best Court Decision Ever

Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact — complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words — to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.

Read the whole thing on Ed Brayton’s blog.

Touché

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on a proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican State Senator Nancy Jacobs said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?”

Raskin replied: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

What Civil Liberties?

Former NSA agent Russell Tice is the whistleblower who leaked information about the NSA’s illegal spying activities to the New York Times. He’s now gone public and will be testifying before Congress about the blatant abuses of power going on in his former agency.

I’m not going to analyze why wiretapping American citizens without a court warrant is reprehensible - that’s been covered pretty well elsewhere (and frankly, should be common sense). I do want to pass along this thought, though, which came up during a discussion of the issue over at Slashdot

In America we have no excuse for saying “the gov’t abuses us”. We ARE the gov’t. And if we’ve let it grow out of control it is not due to technology, information, or any other excuse. It is due to public inattention and apathy. I find those things far more dangerous than information or even gov’t itself.

Update: There’s a better article and transcript of the interview over at Democracy Now

Religious Discrimination

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be “excluded from holding office” if she/he does not “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:

• Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
• Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically agnostics.
• Some Unitarian Universalists.
• Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity

Remember, that by excluding agnostics and atheists alone, you’re saying that roughly 10% of the United States population can’t hold office.

Legal bullshit withstanding, there’s still no way anyone but a Christian could win office in any but the bluest of blue states. Is this what freedom feels like?

Link

Re: Patriot Act Renewal

Sen. John Cornyn: “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.”

Sen. Russ Feingold’s retort: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

As far as I’m concerned, Feingold has a posse.

And while we’re on the topic, Give ‘em hell, Harry.

Tax-Exempt Churches

From Reuters:

The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of a Los Angeles Episcopal church because a priest implied to parishioners before the 2004 presidential election that Jesus would not have voted for George W. Bush.

I’m all for crackdowns like this one, as long as they’re applied fairly. That means any church which encouraged its members to vote for any Republican candidate should also lose their tax-exempt status. I suspect there are far more churches that fit this description.

On Schiavo

“Come down, President Bush. Come talk to me. Meet my wife. Talk to my wife and see if you get an answer. Ask her to lift her arm to shake your hand. She won’t do it.”

“Have they ever met her? What color are her eyes? What’s her middle name? What’s her favorite color? They don’t have any clue who Terri is. They should all be ashamed of themselves.”

“Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years … Why doesn’t Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let’s talk about all the children who don’t have homes.”

—Michael Schiavo

Source: St. Petersburg Times

And from the conservative New York Post:

“…the idea of Congress convening a weekend session to push through a potentially precedent-setting law for one single individual, with little regard to the long-term consequences, is profoundly troubling. Political opportunism? No question about it.”

Abortion, et al.

I’m not worried about Roe v. Wade, given the rampant hypocrisy of many people who vote on “moral issues”. The so-called “red states” have far higher abortion rates than more progressive states. They also offer far less sex education and don’t have networks offering social benefits to pregnant women, both of which reduce abortion rates. (Funny how that works.)

Being a trained scientist, I naturally approach the question of life from a biological perspective. First of all, the assumption that humans are somehow vastly superior to the rest of the animal kingdom is just ridiculous. We’re made up of the same matter, the same cellular mechanisms, and most of the same DNA. Why should a mass of undifferentiated cells in a uterus have any more rights than the steak on my plate right now? Or the leaves in my salad?

Some other species like chimps and dolphins are even able to do complex problem-solving, equivalent to what many children are capable of. Killing them is not murder, though. So why should a glob of undeveloped human cells be subject to a different set of standards?
The point is that without human sentience, we’re just another lump of meat. And we base our legal protections on possessing that kind of human sentience, which a fetus clearly doesn’t have.

In fact, we don’t even extend legal protections to all organisms that are fully developed humans. What about people in a coma? Once they are “brain-dead”, ending their life becomes legal, because they lack the mental capabilities that distinguish humans from any other animal.

So, when you look at it from this perspective, the question becomes “at what point does a human gain sentience?” Seeing as how humans don’t possess any real self-awareness, rational thought, or coherence until well into our toddler years, I don’t feel that birth is an unreasonable cutoff point for abortions.

Please don’t get me wrong - no one likes abortions. They’re painful, messy, and can leave deep emotional scars. That’s why we need to educate people on how to avoid getting themselves into a situation where one seems like the best option. I do, however, see a slew of situations where they truly are the best option.

I can’t in good conscience endanger the life of a woman, or force another unwanted child into this world. There are too many needy and neglected kids as is.

Torture

I’m sure that there are some hard-hitting assholes out there who think that ‘torturing the towel-heads’ is okay. The vast majority of Americans, not to mention ALL Christians, should be vehemently against it. It’s illegal in this country, it’s illegal under international law, and it sure as hell isn’t a moral thing to do, regardless of the stakes.

Sadly, Republicans seem to be okay with it. Bush’s proposed new Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, played an integral part in the authorization of torture at Guatanamo, Abu Gharib, and other places:

The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security.

This goes all the way to the top, folks. There’s plenty of evidence to show that Bush knew what was going on, as well. And despite a huge outcry, both domestically and internationally, Republicans continue to defend the practice:

In the afternoon, I was treated to Sean Hannity and Mark Levin defending torture against a well-informed but out-shouted caller. They fell back on two ideas: one, that what we did was not torture (there are pictures and sworn accounts that makes this only a semantic argument that won’t fly in the long run with decent folks) and two, that it was necessary to get information. This second point is easily debunked (torture does not provide reliable information, and what prosecutions have resulted from this oh-so-critical information?) None of these excuse torture.

In case you haven’t picked up on the problem thus far, try this:

The Republicans are defending torture. Torture is not legal, not effective military policy, and disastrous as a policy within the war on terror. It is not Christian, and it’s fundamentally unAmerican.

But the GOP is the party of moral values…

Senate Democrats, fight this guy’s appointment with everything you’ve got. He could be worse than Ashcroft.

Link

MO Amendment 2

passed last night overwhelmingly (70% yes). Between the bigoted voters and the wacko-conservative Republicans in the State Legislature, this state is going down the tubes. I am so getting out of state for grad school…

“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.”
– John F. Kennedy

“The highest result of education is tolerance.”
– Helen Keller

Vote Against Hate

On August 3rd, Missourians will vote on an amendment to the state Constitution that would permanently deny marriage equality to same-sex couples.

To me, this issue isn’t really about whether you like the idea of same-sex partners or marriage - it’s a bigger issue. This amendment is unprecedented because NEVER before has our Constitution been amended specifically to take away anyone’s rights.

Discrimination and hate are not things I want written into our state constitution.

If America stands for anything, it stands for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. Throughout our history, we’ve struggled to guarantee that equality: ending slavery; securing voting rights for women; and passing the Civil Rights Act just 40 years ago. This is just the latest attempt to create a sub-class of people and deny them basic rights.

So get out and vote. Contact me if you’d like more information on how to fight this hate-filled amendment.

I’m a Felon in Florida

My name, exactly as it is spelled with my exact middle name is on the Florida Felon list for Seminole County, which you can find here.

While that is not me and I have never lived in Seminole County, or Florida for that matter, it goes to show the problem with such lists. What if I go to grad school in Florida?

I also think that it’s rather ridiculous to deny the vote to past felons. Perhaps it’s fair to do it while they are incarcerated, but once they’re released, they’re supposed to be treated fairly. Denying these American citizens the basic right to vote is ridiculous.

Adapted from a Daily Kos post.

Responding to Hate

This letter is worth reprinting in full:

Letter to the Editor
by Sharon Underwood, Sunday, April 30, 2000
from the Valley News (White River Junction, VT/Hanover, NH)

As the mother of a gay son, I’ve seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people.

I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called “fag” incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn’t bear to continue living any longer, that he didn’t want to be gay and that he couldn’t face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn’t put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it’s about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won’t get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don’t know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you’d best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I’m puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that’s not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I’ll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for “true Vermonters.”

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn’t give their lives so that the “homosexual agenda “could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn’t the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can’t bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about “those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing” asks: “What ever happened to the idea of striving…to be better human beings than we are?”

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

via Atrios

Yesterday was the National Day of Prayer…

In 1952, Congress passed a law establishing the National Day of Prayer as an annual religious observance.

Quick: give me another sentence that uses the words “Congress,” “law,” “establish” and “religion.”

Hint (under Amendment I)

Thanks to Slacktivist for the heads-up.

Under God

I just read a great article that summarizes why the words “under god” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. And it’s not based on the points you might think. Read on:

The United States’ arguement in this case is essentially that the words ‘under god’ are meaningless, and do not refer to a particular god, set of beliefs, or ideals. This author argues that this cheapens the words, though, and may even break a commandment.

In a brief submitted by 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, they assert that “if the briefs of the school district and the United States are to be taken seriously,” (that is, if the words in the Pledge do not allude to God), “then every day they ask schoolchildren to violate [the] commandment” that “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain.”

I’ll leave you with this comment from the author: “The argument that a reference to God is not a reference to God is a sign that American religion is forgetting its reasons. The need of so many American believers to have government endorse their belief is thoroughly abject. How strong, and how wise, is a faith that needs to see God’s name wherever it looks?”

Link (thanks Jen).

Seperate but Equal

One suggestion on the table by activists is to create a doctrine of “Separate but Equal” and allow gays to have civil unions, but not marriage. To me, that’s exactly like restricting blacks to the back of the bus and saying “Well, at least we’re giving you a ride.”

Personally, I think we should take after some other countries and separate the idea of marriage from legal matters. If religious people claim marriage as a sacrament, then there should be a separate, legal definition (perhaps civil unions for all) that has no theistic basis.

Interesting /. Sig

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

If Only

A quote from Mac:

Legislating morality is arrogant. I don’t want laws telling me I can’t have sex a certain way or with a certain person. I don’t want laws telling me who I can or can’t marry. I don’t want laws telling me I don’t control my own body. What I do want is to be responsible for myself. And I want you to be responsible for your own self. Personal responsibility should be the new trend.

I agree completely, but boy. . . what a pipe dream.

Good News

Part of the Patriot Act has been ruled unconstitutional.

Now let’s work on getting rid of the rest.

Padilla Ordered Released

Jose Padilla was ordered released by a federal court of appeals last Thursday. They ruled 2-1 that the government did not have the right to treat him as an enemy combatant and ordered him transferred to civilian custody within 30 days or released.

This is great news. I, and many others have been extremely concerned with the erosion of our civil liberties since the 9/11. That attack has been used to justify a host of measures, implemented by John Ashcroft (aka Satan) in a manner that worries the left and right equally. That’s why some strange alliances have been formed in recent months, including diverse organizations like Moveon.org, the ACLU, the Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America and the American Conservative Union. Let’s hope they’re successful.