Courage And Senator Byrd
Has George W. Bush ever rolled into your town, arriving like some punk Third World dictator by flying in low, landing at an undisclosed location, traveling by secret route to whatever venue he’s going to visit (which charges no less that $1000.00 a head to get in—keeps out the riff-raff) all while the Secret Service and whatever other powers-that-be roam the crowds of protestors who (in my town at least) held signs pleading for day-care or some such benign desire for attention from “our” president, or just wanting to wave a hand at The President of The United States of America?
Makes ya wonder, don’t it?
The man obviously has no desire to be harmed by his fellow citizens and one gets the distinct impression from all the whoop-tee-doo surrounding W.s arrivals and departures that he and his minions consider us, the People of the United States of America, his enemies, when all in reality we want to do is get a good look at the man we’d have liked to like back when we could have liked him a little more than we do now. His loss, one hopes.
One also prefers to imagine he cares, although such proof of caring would, at this point, be ‘too little, too late’. George W. Bush and his ilk are detrimental to freedom and liberty, too rich to care about the poor, too callous to hide their arrogance, too malevolent to be in control of the United States of America.
That this country is inexorably moving toward imprisonment of these criminals and impeachment of the rest is a given. When the time is right, when all is said and done, when the proof exists that, yes, indeed, these criminal acts may be termed “conspiracy”; these criminal acts are “treason”; these criminal acts are deliberate actions to deceive the people of this country; these criminal acts are detrimental to everything this country has stood for and hopes to stand for in the future, then this country will impeach this man and as many of his “base” as we can get our judicial hands on.
One hopes.
__________________________________________________________________________________
"The true civilization is where every man gives to every other every right that he claims for himself."
--Robert Ingersoll
_________________________________________________________________________________
Associated Press
Byrd Warns Frist Against 'Nuclear Option'
12.12.2005, 05:32 PM
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn't expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the "nuclear option."
"If he ever tries to exercise that, he's going to see a real filibuster if I'm living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat," Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn.
"If the senator wants a fight, let him try it," said Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. "I'm 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven't been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. "
The animated exchange, springing from the majority leader's threat on Sunday to block judicial filibusters, featured Frist waving his hands and wiping his brow in exasperation.
Byrd insisted that Democrats have not threatened to filibuster Alito, who was chosen by President Bush as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In response, Frist read from a half-dozen news stories that quoted Democrats mentioning the option, looking back at Byrd after each item.
"I will do everything I possibly can if your side chooses, if the Democrat side chooses to filibuster," Frist said.
Senate Democrats have questioned whether Alito, a federal appeals court judge, has the proper judicial temperament and ideology to replace O'Connor. Some have said Alito's views on issues such as voting rights and abortion could provoke a filibuster unless he allays their concerns about his commitment to civil rights at his confirmation hearings, beginning Jan. 9.
The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic whereby senators use their right to virtually unlimited debate to block measures, legislation or nominations. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to stop a filibuster.
Under Frist's scenario, the GOP would seek a parliamentary ruling that declares filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees. That ruling ultimately would go before the full Senate for a vote, with a simple majority required to prevail. Republicans hold 55 seats.
Democrats like Byrd have threatened to retaliate with a fight that could snarl Senate business for months.
With the Senate back in town, Progress for America, a conservative advocacy group, launched a new television ad supporting Alito in Washington, D.C., Maine, Rhode Island and Nebraska. It will run for four days on cable stations, costs $150,000 and features two former Alito clerks praising the judge.
The Fraternal Order of Police announced Monday that it will support Alito's nomination. "We believe that he will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court," said FOP President Chuck Canterbury.
And the National Association of Manufacturers was expected to endorse Alito on Tuesday.
Several gay and lesbian rights groups announced their opposition to Alito's confirmation Monday. They include the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Disability rights groups planned to announce their opposition to Alito on Wednesday. They include ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, Alliance of Disability Advocates, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Council on Independent Living and World Association of People with Disabilities.
_______________________________________________________________
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/251764_thomas13.html
If Democrats only had some courage
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- It's about time that the "me too" Democrats, particularly those in Congress who vote with the Republicans so often, stand up and be counted.
Too many Democrats are tiptoeing around the major issues facing our nation, afraid to venture out of the mainstream. This is a big mistake at a time when the nation is begging for true leadership.
Democrats with the courage to be leaders could have a field day pointing out that millions of Americans lack health insurance and that 37 million have fallen below the poverty line. Soon they will no longer be able to claim that theirs is a caring political party because they won't have evidence that this is true.
Take, for example, the case of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Instead of endorsing universal health care -- a topic that she knows a lot about -- Clinton is busy co-sponsoring with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, a law to bar desecration of the flag. Has anyone burned a flag lately?
Clinton is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which might explain why she's busy pandering to conservatives instead of staking out a leadership role on more important issues.
The Democrats' lack of political courage has left voters with the choice of Republicans who call themselves that -- and Republicans who call themselves Democrats. The result: The GOP gets a free ride.
President Bush has been weakened this year and the allegations of corruption among GOP leadership have hurt the party.
Democrats have a golden opportunity to hammer away at the mistakes made by the Bush administration and to support Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has made a dramatic and courageous call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within six months.
Murtha's House and Senate colleagues should rush to embrace him. Instead, many of them have scattered to the winds, carefully parsing out distinctions that they claim prove that they're not like Murtha. The Pennsylvania Democrat is a newly minted dove. He was in the Marine Corps for 37 years and had such close ties to the Pentagon brass that some believe he is speaking for many of them in his call to end the war in Iraq.
Murtha argues that we will confront less terrorism if the United States ends its occupation of Iraq. He also frets that the U.S. military will be caught in an Iraqi civil war if it stays behind.
To the alarm of the right-leaning Democrats, Murtha has been joined by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has endorsed his plan for a pullout from Iraq within six months. But most House Democrats are taking their marching orders from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Rep. Steny H.
Hoyer, D-Md., the second-ranking House Democratic leader, who believe in a go-slow strategy.
It was sad to see Emanuel and his cohorts fail to endorse Murtha. Despite the realization that Congress was sold a bill of goods in endorsing the war, the Emanuel-led Democrats fled when Murtha took a strong stand.
They also put a damper on Howard Dean after he said on Monday that "the idea we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Dean was advocating the United States "should cut and run and retreat."
Dean changed his tune on Thursday and proposed a "strategic redeployment" of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over two years. It's possible to imagine the twist marks on his arms, left there by timid Democrats.
On the domestic side, the Democrats should put on a well-lighted marquee the fact that the Republican-controlled Congress plans to save $50 billion over five years by cutting food stamps, student loans and by slapping new fees on Medicaid recipients and reducing child support enforcement. So much for compassionate conservativism.
At the same time, the House on Thursday passed tax cuts totaling $95 billion, sending a clear message that the budget deficits will continue to grow.
The Democrats should learn from the Cowardly Lion's story in the "The Wizard of Oz." The King of Beasts wanted courage and lamented:
"Life is sad, believe me Missy,
"When you're born to be a sissy
"Without the vim and verve."
There's still time for a courage transplant before the next elections.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.
Copyright 2005 Hearst Newspapers.
___________________________________________________________________
ACLU Opposes Patriot Act Provision
Secret Service's Reach Questioned
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff WriterTuesday, December 13, 2005; A03
The American Civil Liberties Union raised objections yesterday to a little-noticed provision of the latest version of the USA Patriot Act bill, arguing that it would give the Secret Service wider latitude to charge protesters accused of disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics.
But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who sponsored the provisions, and his aides said the concerns are misguided. The changes are meant to clear up legal confusion about the Secret Service's role at major events and to ensure that venues are fully secure before the president or other top officials arrive, they said.
"I'm a little surprised at the concern," Specter said in an interview, adding later, "The venue needs to be subject to their jurisdiction to make sure it's okay."
The measure is the latest point of contention in a GOP-approved conference bill that would make permanent most parts of the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law and would renew two other provisions for four years. A bipartisan group has vowed to fight the proposal, and several lawmakers proposed legislation yesterday that would give Congress an additional three months to negotiate.
The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security Events, but only if the president or another person under the protection of the service is in attendance, according to a legislative summary.
The bill adds language prohibiting people from "willfully and knowingly" entering a restricted area "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." The measure also applies to security breaches "in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance," according to the bill.
Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a year in prison.
To the ACLU, the changes would open the door to even tighter security restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to harassment from federal law enforcement officers. The Bush administration has come under sharp criticism from liberal and civil-liberties groups for disputed arrests and security measures at presidential events.
"It's cementing the trend of the Secret Service basically acting to arrest or harass or control dissenters, and now not just at presidential events but at other events," said Timothy H. Edgar, the ACLU's national security counsel.
But Specter and his aides said the first change is meant to close a loophole in current law, whereas the second is aimed at making clear that the Secret Service has authority at major events as outlined in a Clinton-era presidential directive.
A Secret Service spokesman declined to comment on the issue because it involves pending legislation.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
_________________________________________________________________
Prosecutor Will Appeal Dismissal in DeLay Case
Tuesday, December 13, 2005; A04
A Texas prosecutor signaled yesterday that he intends to appeal the dismissal of one of the indictments leveled earlier this year against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for his alleged role in injecting corporate funds into the 2002 Texas elections. That decision will complicate DeLay's hope of regaining his role as House majority leader.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who secured the indictments of DeLay on charges of conspiracy and money laundering, wrote to Senior Judge Pat Priest that he opposes letting DeLay's trial on related charges go forward while his appeal of the dismissal is heard by a higher court, according to news service reports.
Last week, Priest dismissed an indictment charging DeLay with conspiracy to violate the state election law after concluding that the offense was not covered by the law until 2003, the year after it allegedly occurred. At the same time, Priest let stand another indictment charging DeLay with money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.
News of Earle's letter evoked condemnation from a spokesman for DeLay. The lawmaker was forced to relinquish his post as majority leader because of the indictments and had wanted the trial to proceed swiftly so he could resume his leadership role early next year if he is exonerated.
"The decision to appeal shows that Ronnie Earle is only interested in persecution by prosecution and has nothing but contempt for the court's respect of fairness and due process," said spokesman Kevin Madden.
"The judge's decision to swiftly dismiss Ronnie Earle's baseless and manufactured indictment last week was the correct decision then, and it will be the correct decision when this hopeless attempt to appeal is ultimately rejected."
-- R. Jeffrey Smith
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
________________________________________________________________
Justices To Review DeLay-Led Districting
Texas Plan Has Been Called Discriminatory
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff WriterTuesday, December 13, 2005; A01
The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to consider the legality of Texas's 2003 congressional redistricting plan, which was engineered by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and helped cement GOP control of the House.
The court will hear challenges from Democrats and minority groups who say that the mid-decade redistricting unlawfully diluted the strength of minority voters, injected undue partisanship into the congressional map and violated the concept of one person, one vote by drawing district lines with outdated census data.
Justice Department lawyers initially recommended rejecting Texas's plan, saying it would harm black and Hispanic voters, but were overruled by senior Justice officials. A special three-judge panel has upheld the redistricting map in two rulings.
Election law experts said the justices' acceptance of the case suggests that they may be prepared to craft clearer guidelines for politicians to follow when redrawing congressional maps. "It could be that a majority is ready to impose new standards," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who teaches election law.
The court said it will consider the case on an expedited schedule, hearing oral arguments March 1, just one week before congressional candidates are to square off in primary races.
The Texas plan has been at the heart of legal and ethical troubles facing DeLay. Though it allowed the GOP to pick up six congressional seats, DeLay's efforts on behalf of the plan resulted in his being admonished by the House Ethics Committee and indicted on charges of illegally diverting money to the campaigns of state legislators who drew the new map.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), who saw his compact Austin and Travis County district dismantled in 2003, welcomed the court's decision to hear the case.
"With all this talk of spreading democracy abroad, I'm hopeful there might be some spreading of democracy at home now," he said.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said: "Given the importance of the issues at stake, it is not surprising for the court to choose to allow oral argument before deciding the merits of the case. After hearing the case, we expect the court will agree . . . that the Texas redistricting plan is wholly constitutional."
A federal court had redrawn a congressional map after the 2000 census, but DeLay said it was too Democratic for a majority-Republican state. In 2002, Texans sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress.
DeLay and his political action committees pumped tens of thousands of dollars into state elections in 2002 to win Republican control of the Texas legislature. That fundraising led to his indictment in September and his resignation from the House leadership.
In 2003, at DeLay's urging, the legislature and Gov. Rick Perry (R) redrew the congressional map in three special sessions. Democratic legislators tried to thwart the effort, at one point fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the legislature a quorum. The Ethics Committee rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a private plane that was shuttling Democrats out of the state.
Critics say the new map was drawn in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court will hear one lawsuit, by Travis County and the city of Austin, that contends the redistricting violated the concept of one person, one vote by using three-year-old census data -- rather than remapping immediately after the census, which is customary. The plaintiffs said they made no effort to update that data to reflect more than 1 million new people -- predominantly Latinos -- who had entered the state between 2000 and 2003.
Two other suits, by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, say that the plan itself violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of minorities.
"When you set out to hammer the Democrats, it's going to be difficult to do that without hammering minorities' rights as well," said Rolando L. Rios, lead attorney for the Latin American citizens league.
The voting rights suits point to two districts in particular, Doggett's old 10th District, which covered one county and now stretches eastward to Houston, and Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla's 23rd District.
In 2001, the voting-age population of the 10th District was 55 percent non-Hispanic white, while Latinos and blacks made up 39 percent. Now, the white voting-age population is nearly 70 percent, while minorities are just over 25 percent. A district that gave Doggett 84 percent of its votes in 2002 gave Republican Michael T. McCaul 84 percent two years later.
The federal courts had deemed the 23rd District a Latino opportunity district, but Latino groups have said that white voters gave Bonilla his razor-thin margin of victory in 2002 over a Latino Democrat. That year, the voting-age population of his district was 63 percent Latino and 33 percent non-Hispanic white.
For Republicans in Austin, Bonilla's victory was too shaky. After redistricting, he cruised to victory with 69 percent of the vote. That time, the Latino population was 51 percent, while the white population had climbed to 45 percent.
"To dismantle a Latino-majority district for the explicit purpose of making sure they can't elect a candidate of their choice is a violation of the Voting Rights Act," said Nina Perales, southwestern regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Bolstering that case are the Justice lawyers. A December 2003 memo obtained this month by The Washington Post shows that six staff lawyers and two analysts from the voting section concluded that the Texas plan should be rejected because it would harm black and Hispanic voters. Senior Justice officials overruled that recommendation and issued an approval a week later.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory election practices must submit any voting or election changes to Justice for review. The department has the power to block any changes with an objection if discriminatory impact or intent is found.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other Justice officials have defended approval of the Texas plan, saying the three-judge panel's findings showed that the decision was sound. Legal experts have noted, however, that the court's decision rested on different legal standards than those Justice considered.
Rios said he hopes to use the Justice memo to bolster his case before the Supreme Court, at least to counter Texas's claims that the department had upheld the plan.
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
__________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Supreme Court to hear Texas redistricting case
By Jonathan WeismanThe Washington Post
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider the legality of Texas' 2003 congressional-redistricting plan, which was engineered by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and helped cement GOP control of the House.
The court will hear challenges from Democrats and minority groups who say the redistricting unlawfully diluted the strength of minority voters, injected undue partisanship into the congressional map and violated the concept of one person, one vote by drawing district lines with outdated census data.
Justice Department lawyers initially recommended rejecting Texas' plan, saying it would harm black and Hispanic voters, but they were overruled by senior Justice officials. A special three-judge panel has twice upheld the redistricting map.
Election-law experts said the justices' acceptance of the case suggests they may be prepared to craft clearer guidelines for politicians to follow when redrawing congressional maps. The court said it will hear oral arguments March 1.
The Texas plan, which allowed the GOP to pick up six congressional seats, has been at the heart of legal and ethical troubles facing DeLay. His actions concerning the plan resulted in his being admonished by the House ethics committee and indicted on charges of illegally diverting money to the campaigns of state legislators who drew the new map.
A federal court had redrawn the state's congressional map after the 2000 census, but DeLay said it was too Democratic for a majority Republican state. In 2002, Texans sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress.
DeLay and his political-action committees pumped tens of thousands of dollars into state elections in 2002 to win Republican control of the Texas Legislature. That fundraising led to his indictment in September and his resignation from the House leadership.
In 2003, at DeLay's urging, the Legislature and Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, redrew the congressional map in three special sessions. Democratic legislators tried to thwart the effort, at one point fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum. The House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a plane that was shuttling Democrats out of the state.
Critics say the new map was drawn in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear one lawsuit, by Travis County and the city of Austin, that contends the redistricting violated the concept of one person, one vote by using three-year-old census data and making no effort to update that data to reflect more than 1 million new people — predominantly Latinos — who had entered the state from 2000 to 2003.
Typically, states redraw their electoral districts once each decade when new census data are released. Because populations shift, districts must be redrawn so they are roughly equal in population.
Redistricting for partisan reasons is a practice as old as the nation itself, a divided Supreme Court said last year when it upheld a Pennsylvania plan that gave the GOP control of 12 of its 19 congressional districts, despite the fact that the state's voters were evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.
Material from the Los Angeles Times is included in this report.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
Makes ya wonder, don’t it?
The man obviously has no desire to be harmed by his fellow citizens and one gets the distinct impression from all the whoop-tee-doo surrounding W.s arrivals and departures that he and his minions consider us, the People of the United States of America, his enemies, when all in reality we want to do is get a good look at the man we’d have liked to like back when we could have liked him a little more than we do now. His loss, one hopes.
One also prefers to imagine he cares, although such proof of caring would, at this point, be ‘too little, too late’. George W. Bush and his ilk are detrimental to freedom and liberty, too rich to care about the poor, too callous to hide their arrogance, too malevolent to be in control of the United States of America.
That this country is inexorably moving toward imprisonment of these criminals and impeachment of the rest is a given. When the time is right, when all is said and done, when the proof exists that, yes, indeed, these criminal acts may be termed “conspiracy”; these criminal acts are “treason”; these criminal acts are deliberate actions to deceive the people of this country; these criminal acts are detrimental to everything this country has stood for and hopes to stand for in the future, then this country will impeach this man and as many of his “base” as we can get our judicial hands on.
One hopes.
__________________________________________________________________________________
"The true civilization is where every man gives to every other every right that he claims for himself."
--Robert Ingersoll
_________________________________________________________________________________
Associated Press
Byrd Warns Frist Against 'Nuclear Option'
12.12.2005, 05:32 PM
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn't expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the "nuclear option."
"If he ever tries to exercise that, he's going to see a real filibuster if I'm living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat," Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn.
"If the senator wants a fight, let him try it," said Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. "I'm 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven't been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. "
The animated exchange, springing from the majority leader's threat on Sunday to block judicial filibusters, featured Frist waving his hands and wiping his brow in exasperation.
Byrd insisted that Democrats have not threatened to filibuster Alito, who was chosen by President Bush as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In response, Frist read from a half-dozen news stories that quoted Democrats mentioning the option, looking back at Byrd after each item.
"I will do everything I possibly can if your side chooses, if the Democrat side chooses to filibuster," Frist said.
Senate Democrats have questioned whether Alito, a federal appeals court judge, has the proper judicial temperament and ideology to replace O'Connor. Some have said Alito's views on issues such as voting rights and abortion could provoke a filibuster unless he allays their concerns about his commitment to civil rights at his confirmation hearings, beginning Jan. 9.
The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic whereby senators use their right to virtually unlimited debate to block measures, legislation or nominations. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to stop a filibuster.
Under Frist's scenario, the GOP would seek a parliamentary ruling that declares filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees. That ruling ultimately would go before the full Senate for a vote, with a simple majority required to prevail. Republicans hold 55 seats.
Democrats like Byrd have threatened to retaliate with a fight that could snarl Senate business for months.
With the Senate back in town, Progress for America, a conservative advocacy group, launched a new television ad supporting Alito in Washington, D.C., Maine, Rhode Island and Nebraska. It will run for four days on cable stations, costs $150,000 and features two former Alito clerks praising the judge.
The Fraternal Order of Police announced Monday that it will support Alito's nomination. "We believe that he will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court," said FOP President Chuck Canterbury.
And the National Association of Manufacturers was expected to endorse Alito on Tuesday.
Several gay and lesbian rights groups announced their opposition to Alito's confirmation Monday. They include the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Disability rights groups planned to announce their opposition to Alito on Wednesday. They include ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, Alliance of Disability Advocates, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Council on Independent Living and World Association of People with Disabilities.
_______________________________________________________________
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/251764_thomas13.html
If Democrats only had some courage
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- It's about time that the "me too" Democrats, particularly those in Congress who vote with the Republicans so often, stand up and be counted.
Too many Democrats are tiptoeing around the major issues facing our nation, afraid to venture out of the mainstream. This is a big mistake at a time when the nation is begging for true leadership.
Democrats with the courage to be leaders could have a field day pointing out that millions of Americans lack health insurance and that 37 million have fallen below the poverty line. Soon they will no longer be able to claim that theirs is a caring political party because they won't have evidence that this is true.
Take, for example, the case of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Instead of endorsing universal health care -- a topic that she knows a lot about -- Clinton is busy co-sponsoring with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, a law to bar desecration of the flag. Has anyone burned a flag lately?
Clinton is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which might explain why she's busy pandering to conservatives instead of staking out a leadership role on more important issues.
The Democrats' lack of political courage has left voters with the choice of Republicans who call themselves that -- and Republicans who call themselves Democrats. The result: The GOP gets a free ride.
President Bush has been weakened this year and the allegations of corruption among GOP leadership have hurt the party.
Democrats have a golden opportunity to hammer away at the mistakes made by the Bush administration and to support Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has made a dramatic and courageous call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within six months.
Murtha's House and Senate colleagues should rush to embrace him. Instead, many of them have scattered to the winds, carefully parsing out distinctions that they claim prove that they're not like Murtha. The Pennsylvania Democrat is a newly minted dove. He was in the Marine Corps for 37 years and had such close ties to the Pentagon brass that some believe he is speaking for many of them in his call to end the war in Iraq.
Murtha argues that we will confront less terrorism if the United States ends its occupation of Iraq. He also frets that the U.S. military will be caught in an Iraqi civil war if it stays behind.
To the alarm of the right-leaning Democrats, Murtha has been joined by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has endorsed his plan for a pullout from Iraq within six months. But most House Democrats are taking their marching orders from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Rep. Steny H.
Hoyer, D-Md., the second-ranking House Democratic leader, who believe in a go-slow strategy.
It was sad to see Emanuel and his cohorts fail to endorse Murtha. Despite the realization that Congress was sold a bill of goods in endorsing the war, the Emanuel-led Democrats fled when Murtha took a strong stand.
They also put a damper on Howard Dean after he said on Monday that "the idea we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Dean was advocating the United States "should cut and run and retreat."
Dean changed his tune on Thursday and proposed a "strategic redeployment" of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over two years. It's possible to imagine the twist marks on his arms, left there by timid Democrats.
On the domestic side, the Democrats should put on a well-lighted marquee the fact that the Republican-controlled Congress plans to save $50 billion over five years by cutting food stamps, student loans and by slapping new fees on Medicaid recipients and reducing child support enforcement. So much for compassionate conservativism.
At the same time, the House on Thursday passed tax cuts totaling $95 billion, sending a clear message that the budget deficits will continue to grow.
The Democrats should learn from the Cowardly Lion's story in the "The Wizard of Oz." The King of Beasts wanted courage and lamented:
"Life is sad, believe me Missy,
"When you're born to be a sissy
"Without the vim and verve."
There's still time for a courage transplant before the next elections.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.
Copyright 2005 Hearst Newspapers.
___________________________________________________________________
ACLU Opposes Patriot Act Provision
Secret Service's Reach Questioned
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff WriterTuesday, December 13, 2005; A03
The American Civil Liberties Union raised objections yesterday to a little-noticed provision of the latest version of the USA Patriot Act bill, arguing that it would give the Secret Service wider latitude to charge protesters accused of disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics.
But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who sponsored the provisions, and his aides said the concerns are misguided. The changes are meant to clear up legal confusion about the Secret Service's role at major events and to ensure that venues are fully secure before the president or other top officials arrive, they said.
"I'm a little surprised at the concern," Specter said in an interview, adding later, "The venue needs to be subject to their jurisdiction to make sure it's okay."
The measure is the latest point of contention in a GOP-approved conference bill that would make permanent most parts of the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law and would renew two other provisions for four years. A bipartisan group has vowed to fight the proposal, and several lawmakers proposed legislation yesterday that would give Congress an additional three months to negotiate.
The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security Events, but only if the president or another person under the protection of the service is in attendance, according to a legislative summary.
The bill adds language prohibiting people from "willfully and knowingly" entering a restricted area "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." The measure also applies to security breaches "in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance," according to the bill.
Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a year in prison.
To the ACLU, the changes would open the door to even tighter security restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to harassment from federal law enforcement officers. The Bush administration has come under sharp criticism from liberal and civil-liberties groups for disputed arrests and security measures at presidential events.
"It's cementing the trend of the Secret Service basically acting to arrest or harass or control dissenters, and now not just at presidential events but at other events," said Timothy H. Edgar, the ACLU's national security counsel.
But Specter and his aides said the first change is meant to close a loophole in current law, whereas the second is aimed at making clear that the Secret Service has authority at major events as outlined in a Clinton-era presidential directive.
A Secret Service spokesman declined to comment on the issue because it involves pending legislation.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
_________________________________________________________________
Prosecutor Will Appeal Dismissal in DeLay Case
Tuesday, December 13, 2005; A04
A Texas prosecutor signaled yesterday that he intends to appeal the dismissal of one of the indictments leveled earlier this year against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for his alleged role in injecting corporate funds into the 2002 Texas elections. That decision will complicate DeLay's hope of regaining his role as House majority leader.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who secured the indictments of DeLay on charges of conspiracy and money laundering, wrote to Senior Judge Pat Priest that he opposes letting DeLay's trial on related charges go forward while his appeal of the dismissal is heard by a higher court, according to news service reports.
Last week, Priest dismissed an indictment charging DeLay with conspiracy to violate the state election law after concluding that the offense was not covered by the law until 2003, the year after it allegedly occurred. At the same time, Priest let stand another indictment charging DeLay with money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.
News of Earle's letter evoked condemnation from a spokesman for DeLay. The lawmaker was forced to relinquish his post as majority leader because of the indictments and had wanted the trial to proceed swiftly so he could resume his leadership role early next year if he is exonerated.
"The decision to appeal shows that Ronnie Earle is only interested in persecution by prosecution and has nothing but contempt for the court's respect of fairness and due process," said spokesman Kevin Madden.
"The judge's decision to swiftly dismiss Ronnie Earle's baseless and manufactured indictment last week was the correct decision then, and it will be the correct decision when this hopeless attempt to appeal is ultimately rejected."
-- R. Jeffrey Smith
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
________________________________________________________________
Justices To Review DeLay-Led Districting
Texas Plan Has Been Called Discriminatory
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff WriterTuesday, December 13, 2005; A01
The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to consider the legality of Texas's 2003 congressional redistricting plan, which was engineered by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and helped cement GOP control of the House.
The court will hear challenges from Democrats and minority groups who say that the mid-decade redistricting unlawfully diluted the strength of minority voters, injected undue partisanship into the congressional map and violated the concept of one person, one vote by drawing district lines with outdated census data.
Justice Department lawyers initially recommended rejecting Texas's plan, saying it would harm black and Hispanic voters, but were overruled by senior Justice officials. A special three-judge panel has upheld the redistricting map in two rulings.
Election law experts said the justices' acceptance of the case suggests that they may be prepared to craft clearer guidelines for politicians to follow when redrawing congressional maps. "It could be that a majority is ready to impose new standards," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who teaches election law.
The court said it will consider the case on an expedited schedule, hearing oral arguments March 1, just one week before congressional candidates are to square off in primary races.
The Texas plan has been at the heart of legal and ethical troubles facing DeLay. Though it allowed the GOP to pick up six congressional seats, DeLay's efforts on behalf of the plan resulted in his being admonished by the House Ethics Committee and indicted on charges of illegally diverting money to the campaigns of state legislators who drew the new map.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), who saw his compact Austin and Travis County district dismantled in 2003, welcomed the court's decision to hear the case.
"With all this talk of spreading democracy abroad, I'm hopeful there might be some spreading of democracy at home now," he said.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said: "Given the importance of the issues at stake, it is not surprising for the court to choose to allow oral argument before deciding the merits of the case. After hearing the case, we expect the court will agree . . . that the Texas redistricting plan is wholly constitutional."
A federal court had redrawn a congressional map after the 2000 census, but DeLay said it was too Democratic for a majority-Republican state. In 2002, Texans sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress.
DeLay and his political action committees pumped tens of thousands of dollars into state elections in 2002 to win Republican control of the Texas legislature. That fundraising led to his indictment in September and his resignation from the House leadership.
In 2003, at DeLay's urging, the legislature and Gov. Rick Perry (R) redrew the congressional map in three special sessions. Democratic legislators tried to thwart the effort, at one point fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the legislature a quorum. The Ethics Committee rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a private plane that was shuttling Democrats out of the state.
Critics say the new map was drawn in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court will hear one lawsuit, by Travis County and the city of Austin, that contends the redistricting violated the concept of one person, one vote by using three-year-old census data -- rather than remapping immediately after the census, which is customary. The plaintiffs said they made no effort to update that data to reflect more than 1 million new people -- predominantly Latinos -- who had entered the state between 2000 and 2003.
Two other suits, by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, say that the plan itself violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of minorities.
"When you set out to hammer the Democrats, it's going to be difficult to do that without hammering minorities' rights as well," said Rolando L. Rios, lead attorney for the Latin American citizens league.
The voting rights suits point to two districts in particular, Doggett's old 10th District, which covered one county and now stretches eastward to Houston, and Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla's 23rd District.
In 2001, the voting-age population of the 10th District was 55 percent non-Hispanic white, while Latinos and blacks made up 39 percent. Now, the white voting-age population is nearly 70 percent, while minorities are just over 25 percent. A district that gave Doggett 84 percent of its votes in 2002 gave Republican Michael T. McCaul 84 percent two years later.
The federal courts had deemed the 23rd District a Latino opportunity district, but Latino groups have said that white voters gave Bonilla his razor-thin margin of victory in 2002 over a Latino Democrat. That year, the voting-age population of his district was 63 percent Latino and 33 percent non-Hispanic white.
For Republicans in Austin, Bonilla's victory was too shaky. After redistricting, he cruised to victory with 69 percent of the vote. That time, the Latino population was 51 percent, while the white population had climbed to 45 percent.
"To dismantle a Latino-majority district for the explicit purpose of making sure they can't elect a candidate of their choice is a violation of the Voting Rights Act," said Nina Perales, southwestern regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Bolstering that case are the Justice lawyers. A December 2003 memo obtained this month by The Washington Post shows that six staff lawyers and two analysts from the voting section concluded that the Texas plan should be rejected because it would harm black and Hispanic voters. Senior Justice officials overruled that recommendation and issued an approval a week later.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory election practices must submit any voting or election changes to Justice for review. The department has the power to block any changes with an objection if discriminatory impact or intent is found.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other Justice officials have defended approval of the Texas plan, saying the three-judge panel's findings showed that the decision was sound. Legal experts have noted, however, that the court's decision rested on different legal standards than those Justice considered.
Rios said he hopes to use the Justice memo to bolster his case before the Supreme Court, at least to counter Texas's claims that the department had upheld the plan.
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
__________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Supreme Court to hear Texas redistricting case
By Jonathan WeismanThe Washington Post
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider the legality of Texas' 2003 congressional-redistricting plan, which was engineered by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and helped cement GOP control of the House.
The court will hear challenges from Democrats and minority groups who say the redistricting unlawfully diluted the strength of minority voters, injected undue partisanship into the congressional map and violated the concept of one person, one vote by drawing district lines with outdated census data.
Justice Department lawyers initially recommended rejecting Texas' plan, saying it would harm black and Hispanic voters, but they were overruled by senior Justice officials. A special three-judge panel has twice upheld the redistricting map.
Election-law experts said the justices' acceptance of the case suggests they may be prepared to craft clearer guidelines for politicians to follow when redrawing congressional maps. The court said it will hear oral arguments March 1.
The Texas plan, which allowed the GOP to pick up six congressional seats, has been at the heart of legal and ethical troubles facing DeLay. His actions concerning the plan resulted in his being admonished by the House ethics committee and indicted on charges of illegally diverting money to the campaigns of state legislators who drew the new map.
A federal court had redrawn the state's congressional map after the 2000 census, but DeLay said it was too Democratic for a majority Republican state. In 2002, Texans sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress.
DeLay and his political-action committees pumped tens of thousands of dollars into state elections in 2002 to win Republican control of the Texas Legislature. That fundraising led to his indictment in September and his resignation from the House leadership.
In 2003, at DeLay's urging, the Legislature and Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, redrew the congressional map in three special sessions. Democratic legislators tried to thwart the effort, at one point fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum. The House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a plane that was shuttling Democrats out of the state.
Critics say the new map was drawn in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court will hear one lawsuit, by Travis County and the city of Austin, that contends the redistricting violated the concept of one person, one vote by using three-year-old census data and making no effort to update that data to reflect more than 1 million new people — predominantly Latinos — who had entered the state from 2000 to 2003.
Typically, states redraw their electoral districts once each decade when new census data are released. Because populations shift, districts must be redrawn so they are roughly equal in population.
Redistricting for partisan reasons is a practice as old as the nation itself, a divided Supreme Court said last year when it upheld a Pennsylvania plan that gave the GOP control of 12 of its 19 congressional districts, despite the fact that the state's voters were evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.
Material from the Los Angeles Times is included in this report.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
posted by FancyRage at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home