Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), GOP ranking member of the Senate Judiciary

Watch Senator Clown's opening act here.

Connecticut firefighter, Frank Ricci, will testify on Thursday in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. What he knows about Supreme Court Justice qualifications, I have no idea. But he'll make a good prop for the circus Republicans are hoping to run in the Senate hearing room this week.

Read on….

Frank Ricci is a white New Haven, Conn., firefighter, who is one of the GOP's showcase witnesses on Thursday. His reverse-discrimination suit against the city of New Haven was rejected by a three-judge appeals court panel that included Sotomayor.

Liberal groups and bloggers are noting that Ricci, who has dyslexia, got his firefighting job in New Haven "by claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects Americans from discrimination over disabilities."

Marge Baker, People for the American Way's vice president, says: "I don't think Mr. Ricci thought that his being hired was a case of reverse discrimination against those who weren't disabled … You can't have it both ways; these laws can't be good when you use them to protect yourself and bad when they're used to protect someone else."

Republicans and conservatives are calling this a smear campaign. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said: "it is beneath both contempt and the dignity that this process demands." Conservative bloggers and at least one conservative group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, are trying to rally conservatives behind Ricci.

It's interesting to note that Republicans, like Hatch, are complaining about the potential "smearing" of a witness, a witness who is testifying for the purpose of smearing Judge Sotomayor.

Meet the real…… Mr. Ricci….

According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

That was just the beginning….

August 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."

In August of 1998, a state Department of Labor investigation cleared Chief Wayne S. Bartolotta of any wrongdoing in the firing. The Aug. 3, 1998, letter from the state Department of Labor indicated that the case was closed with a finding of no violation. "After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the South Fire District did not discriminate against Mr. Ricci." Ricci's response? According to the Courant, Ricci contended "Their decision was political, it has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong." He told the paper he would "pursue the matter in civil court."

And all of that led to the New Haven case in which Ricci along with other firefighters sued again. This time because Ricci thought he was entitled to a promotion, and the only reason why, he thought, he didn't get promoted, was because he was discriminated against. Four Supreme Court Justices led by the Activist Chief Justice Roberts agreed to write new law from the bench justifying the Ricci complaint.

Here's a guy who will whine this week that Mean Old Sotomayor didn't make New Haven discriminate in his favor. Wah,wah wah, he studied and he bought books, and did he tell you he was dyslexic? Here's a guy who is the quintessential victim, who will call Sotomayor a discriminatory judge because she wouldn't discriminate in his favor because he was "special." Sotomayor insisted, instead, on following the law, which 5 Supremes then went on to rewrite, you know, all on their own.

Frank Ricci will undoubtedly point to the New Haven case to "prove" that Sotomayor will discriminate against majority whites while favoring minorities. No matter what Mr. Ricci says, Sotomayor violated no one's rights when she agreed with her fellow judges in confirming New Haven's dismissal of the firefighter-promotion test scores. It's clear, to all but 5 activist Supreme Court Justices, that New Haven was attempting to follow Title VII's rules on disparate outcomes. No one who took the test was promoted. No one was discriminated against, including Mr. Ricci.

But I'll guaran-goddamn-tee ya'……Mr. Ricci will make a good stage prop for the GOP show this week. The show is being led on the minority side by ringmaster, Goober in Chief, and former(?) racist, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), perennial circus clowns Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jon Cornyn (R-TX)…..oh yeah, and Golly Gee and Gee Whiz Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) has brought his bag of special morality tricks.

All sides agree Sotomayor will be confirmed. But, hell…..might as well put on a little soap opera political theater so's the mushroomheads watching, you know, the CNN, will stay entertained.

I can hear the freaking chant immediately after Ricci talks on Thursday challenging Judge Sotomayor. McCain will probably blurt out, all crazy-like, "I think it's safe to say, we're all dyslexics now."
__________

The Beacon printed a very good E.J. Dionne (Washington post) column today dealing with the radical nature of the Roberts Court.

If you were to accept the thinking of the 5 Supreme Court Justices who overturned the Appellate Court ruling yesterday in the so-called Ricci Case, you would think that America's open sore of two plus centuries of enslaving and discriminating against blacks had healed itself completely in the last 45 years…..and now it's majority whites who are suffering mightily under reverse discrimination.

I spent about 30 minutes yesterday reading the ruling and dissent. It's worth a read, if only to see how activist judges make their politically seasoned sausage.

Ricci ruling plus Ginsburg dissent….

What I took away from the Kennedy-written decision is that, to conservative Justices, laws can be stood on their head to serve the political purpose of defending or supporting the majority or the powerful.

Chief Justice John Roberts' previous ruling in the Lily Ledbetter case was a prime example of how the intent of a law is twisted by 5 conservative Supremes to fit the needs of the powerful.

The Ricci case is now another example.

The city of New Haven, Connecticut threw out the results of a firefighter promotion test because blacks who took the test were disparately impacted. According to what is known as Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, when testing of employees demonstrates a clear disparity where minorities all do poorly, in order to avoid violations of federal discrimination laws in hiring or promoting, the employer must throw out the test and find a test that won't have such a disparate impact.

In the Ricci case, the above is New Haven's defense in a nutshell. They were following the law the best they could. Even the majority ruling by Kennedy agrees that the test scores did, indeed, demonstrate disparate impact. The original District Court's ruling AND the Appellate Court ruling (which included Judge Sotomayor) both agreed with the city's explanation of why the test was thrown out. The city was trying to abide by the law, the law called for action in case of obvious disparate results in testing, New Haven's test produced disparate results, New Haven had the duty to start over.

Here's New Haven's position in the matter…..

The city held that"…they cannot be held liable under Title VII's disparate-impact provision for attempting to comply with Title VII's disparate-impact bar."

In a nutshell, heres' what the District Court found in it's previous ruling for the city…..

District Court ruled…"it is not the case that the City MUST certify a test where they cannot pinpoint its deficiency explaining its disparate impact…simply because they have not yet formulated a better selection process." "motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact….does not, as a matter of law, constitute dicriminatory intent."

Judge Sotomayor, who will be savaged by ignorant and hate-filled conservatives over it, joined two other appellate judges agreeing with the District Court's ruling. Sotomayor voted, not in a judicial activist manner, but just the opposite. She followed the law.

However, yesterday's 5-4 decision reversed both the District and Appellate Court's findings. In Kennedy's ruling, it now seems like the 5 conservative judges believe they have godlike powers of discernment. Here's what I mean….

"Whatever the City's ultimate aim…however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed…the City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. The question is not whether that conduct was discriminatory but whether the City had a lawful justification for its race based action."

The ruling turns the entire disparate impact intent on it's head. The City had results that demonstrated disparate impact of the test for blacks. The Supremes ruling says that that's not good enough and that they discriminated by even acknowledging the disparate impact…."without some other justification".

The intent of the law in question, just as the intent of the law which was turned on it's head in the Lily Ledbetter case, is clear. For a very long time white majorities, particularly in police and firefighter outfits have discriminated against blacks through the sly use of tests meant to marginalize minorities. Title VII's intent was to attenuate this discriminatory practice.

Instead, 5 Supremes agreed that the Title VII rule was really written to discriminate against majority whites….and in effect, they scrapped the whole deal.

And this is no small deal. In effect, and I don't care what some double-talking conservatives will say about this matter, public employers now will be under pressure to protect and favor majority whites. Written tests will now be put together and weighted in order to protect the employer from being accused of favoring minorities…..which was the very intent of the Title VII rule in the first place.

If nothing else, go to the link I supplied at the top and scroll down to Justice Ginsburg's scathing dissent of the ruling by those 5 activist judges.

Remember this?

April 15, 2009, Foxnews.com…

The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.

That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.

Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings.

And now this from yesterday….

With one bullet, a gunman ended the life and the controversial career of abortion doctor George Tiller, killing him as he stood in the foyer of his church Sunday.

For years, abortion foes tried to put Dr. George Tiller out of business. One of the few American physicians who performed late-term abortions, he was targeted by violent extremists as well as principled opponents.

In 1986, his clinic was bombed. In 1991, it was blockaded for six weeks. In 1993, he was shot in both arms. In March, Kansas prosecutors tried him on charges of breaking an abortion law; he was acquitted. In May, vandals cut wires to security cameras and made holes in the roof of Tiller's clinic, Women's Health Care Services, a fortified single-story building where abortion foes keep daily vigil. Link

The domestic terrorist alleged to have executed Dr. George Tiller yesterday, Scott Roeder, has this background….

Police also obtained a photo of the suspect, who had a prior conviction for criminal use of explosives, which was overturned on appeal, according to court records

Roeder appears to be a full fledged member of the American Taliban. The same American Taliban that wantonly killed and maimed other Americans on American soil the last time we had a Democratic president.

The bitter savagery and hatred of the far right extremists over abortion….

Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and close friend of Tiller who said he was now "the only doctor in the world" who performed very late-term abortions, said Tiller's death was predictable.

"I think it's the inevitable consequence of more than 35 years of constant antiabortion terrorism, harassment and violence," he said. "I get messages from these people saying, 'Don't bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we're going for a head shot.' "
……

Eventually, his clinic evolved from family practice to abortions. At his trial, Tiller testified that over the years he and his wife had taken into their home about 10 "young girls . . . so they could have a safe place to continue their pregnancies." He also said that his patients were sometimes followed to their hotels and that members of his staff were picketed at their homes.

Under George W. Bush, these extremists only got two of the three radical Supreme Court Justices appointed that they needed to take away a woman's right to her own reproductive choices. The last two elections have left Republicans swirling down the drain and the extremist right knows that ending Roe at the level of the Supremes…is now unlikely anytime soon. Lawlessness and violence is what these American jihadists resort to when they can't get their way through the political process.

These are the people Napalitano's Homeland Security report warned us against….and the far right howled over how they were being singled out in some kind of political witchhunt.

Now a good man, one of three remaining late-term abortion doctors in the country, has been executed by a member of the American Taliban.

I've blogged extensively on the role the conservative movement and it's corporate media partners have been playing in stirring up domestic acts of violence.

GOP Media Has Blood On Their Hands, Propaganda Fueled Crime In Pittsburgh, Glenn Beck's "War Room" Inciting Violence,

In A Grave And Gathering Storm, I asked these questions….

" is it possible that the thuggish speech and printed word of our nation's fringe dead-enders on the right could actually be fomenting violence? Is this something we should be concerned about, especially in light of a Democratically led government?"

Also read Professor Huhn's blog on this topic today.

More here about Roeder and Operation Rescue.

Consider this post a language-syntax refresher for conservatives.

President Obama today…

"Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

Sentences like these are going to be extremely difficult for some conservatives to comprehend. I'm relatively sure that words like…"information will not be withheld just because I say so",…will sound like some foreign language jibberish to certain folks of the minority persuasion. For you see….to conservatives, presidents who don't withhold information aren't really presidents.

Conservatives don't fully recognize the Carter and Clinton presidencies. Never have. To conservatives, presidents are only presidents if they're Republican….and with W., that didn't even hold up. Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes would never in a million years say words like…"information will not be withheld just because we say so." Of course information will be withheld…..what the hell sense is it being president if you can't withhold information and keep lots of secrets? That's why we had Watergate, Iran-Contra and the soon-to-be investigation into the Crawford Cowpoke Gang. All of these GOP presidents withheld information, much of it implicating them in crimes, and did so on just their royal say so.

A word to conservatives here. We'll be patient as you get used to new, foreign-sounding-at-first, phraseology from President Obama.

Here's another….."separate authority". Say it with me…first word, sep-ar-ate….second word, au-thor-i-ty. Not so hard, really. I know, I know….believe me when I say that I know many conservatives whose eyes will glaze over at those two words when used by the president of the United States. Conservatives baptized in the deep waters of 'unitary executive' pools will most likely experience a sort of knee jerk reaction to a president using the words, "separate authority." The reaction will manifest itself in responses like this ….."There is no separate authority to the president. What's he talking about? Our nation is eternally at war and that means that there is no "separate authority"….there is no other authority but the president."

I'm here to help my conservative brethren. See….actually, there is no such thing as a "unitary executive" privilege elevating one man or woman above any and all "other" authorities. Calm down. I realize the word "other" is a more mature word, especially when used in conjunction with the word "authorities"…..but it shouldn't frighten you. It's okay. The Islamofascists won't get you in your bed if you acknowledge that there are, indeed, "other authorities" outside of the presidency.

Also difficult to comprehend will be, "well grounded in the Constitution." The difficulty is understandable in light of George W. Bush's regard for what he so patriotically called, "a goddamn piece of paper." Conservatives, at first shocked to hear about the Constitution, should not seek outside help for the ringing dissonance they encounter when hearing the words "well grounded" or "in the Constitution." Though it will take time, I believe the most drunken conservative kool-aid drinkers out there will, eventually, find that those words are all good.

I saved the most challenging for last. "Rule of law." Repeat it with me, "rule of law." Not so hard if you go slowly. This phrase by the new president will be the most difficult for conservatives, and even some of the zillions of centrists that David Broder keeps telling us are out there, to commit to memory and full understanding.

The president is, in reality, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. He isn't, as many folks have gotten used to, the law MAKER. Hyper down….I know this stuff is frustrating. The Congress MAKES the laws…..the president enforces those laws….and the Supreme Court reviews those laws comparing them to W's "goddam piece of paer", I mean, the Constitution. It's called….brace yourself for this…..separate yet equal powers. Also, most likely, a foreign sounding phrase to those who know for sure that Islamofascists are hiding everywhere in America, as well as counterintuitive to those who insist "everything has changed" since 9-11. In actuality, and please take this in the right way,…..nothing changed.

I think that will be enough for today. Brain drain, and that's what's required now, literally, is very exhausting. But don't forget to commit the new words and phrases to memory. "separate authority", "well grounded in the Constitution", "rule of law." We'll be using those words a lot over the next 8 years.

George W. Bush, on hearing the results of the Supreme Court ruling re-instating basic habeas rights to prisoners held for years in Guantanomo and elsewhere…

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'" Link

Gotta love the fearmongering-to-the-bitter-end part of Decider's comment, don't ya'?

George W. Bush, like John McCain, agreed with the four dissenting Supreme Justices who would have thrown a 900 year old basic human right into the historical dumpster, like so much garbage. The basic settled human right that a person detained or jailed, in this case for multiple years, has the right to have his charges brought before him in front of a neutral party…..a right as simple and as basic as habeas can no longer be tolerated by the likes of Bush, McCain, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

The four dissenting Justices obviously believe in extra-Constitutional presidential powers….and….have little respect for long held basic human rights.

John McCain agrees with the four dissenters because he's running for president and he thinks appealing to the vengeful and bloodthirsty mindset of the minority, who still support Bush, will help his electoral chances.

But George W. Bush has another reason for siding with the dissenters. It's the same reason he wants immunity for telecommunications companies who conspired with him to violate Constitutional protections against unlawful wiretaps. It's the same reason Bush didn't want a 9-11 Commission, only relenting after his hand picked stooge supervised the behind-the-scenes investigation. It's the same reason Bush's White House went after Joe and Valerie Wilson. It's the same reason why George W. Bush commuted the Scooter's prison sentence, after the Scooter was convicted of four felony obstruction charges in the Plame case.

It's all about trying to save George W. Bush's ass from any humiliating public revelations detailing the part he played in unlawful, and in some cases, outright pre-meditated criminal acts.

It always has been about that.

If Bush can't get Congress to fast track some patchwork response to the Supremes ruling…fat chance of that….then George will have his sins found out by the public through federal court deliberations concerning the detainees held in Guantanomo. It may take a while, but his sins will surface, in part because of the Supremes most recent bitchslapping of Bush in the detainees ruling. The third time, I might add, that the Supremes have bitchslapped Bush down for acting like an American king. And if Bush's sins come out publicly, all of America will see who he really is…..a narcissistic, cynical little man who made everything in his presidency about him and his failed GOP party, not the country.

A little man who ordered torture, illegal kidnapping and renditioning to foreign gulags, the denial of basic human rights, illegal spying on American citizens, conspiring to out a covert CIA agent during a time of war, and propagandizing Congress and the American people to lead the nation into his personal neo-con war and imperialistic occcupation of choice in Iraq.

Silly George is anticipating his very own personal presidential library down in the Loner State of Texas. Naturally it will all be stocked with fiction…unless….because of the Supremes ruling last week….all of Georgie's many criminal sins are revealed in judicial proceedings and Georgie finally has to face up to the music he, himself, created.

For those who might suggest Guantanomo is not under U.S. control and therefore the detainees we're holding there are not entitled to the most basic of habeas rights…

"In a concurring opinion on Thursday, Justice Souter said the ruling was 'no bolt out of the blue,' but rather should have been anticipated by anyone who read the court's decision in Rasul v. Bush in 2004. That decision, part of the initial round of Supreme Court review of the administration's Guantánamo policies, held that because the long-term lease with Cuba gave the United States unilateral control over the property, the base came within the statutory jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions." Link

McCain..on Friday…

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

"We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material." Link

Anonymous Liberal nails it…

"….the right to challenge the basis of their detention before a neutral fact-finder. This most fundamental of human rights has long been held to apply to non-citizens, and it is not even remotely comparable to the constellation of rights and procedural safeguards granted to U.S. citizens by other sections of the Constitution."

"But McCain has clearly made a strategic choice. He's decided that the key to winning in November is to play the terrorism card once more and try to convince people that his Democratic opponent is somehow in favor of bestowing all sorts of fancy rights on terrorists and/or just letting them all go. And in order to make that insultingly stupid argument, he's willing to abandon every sensible position he's ever taken on this subject."Link

This makes me sad for John McCain….in a way. Appealing to fear, at this point, is such a pitiful road to go down. McCain, once perhaps deserving of the "maverick" title, is becoming, in real time, only a shadow of himself in his pursuit of the presidency.

Sad to see.

On a somewhat similar note….

Recently I raised a personal concern/observation over right wingers resorting to language of violence when they disagreed with the person or persons who spoke the truth. Jimmy Carter spoke a bit of truth, hiding in plain sight, that Israel possessed 150 nukes. Many right wingers yukked it up by speaking of Carter's hoped for, violent demise.

This piece from the National Review Online can go in the same file….

A Courtroom, er, Battlefield We Can Win On [Andy McCarthy]

An old government friend emails with a practical response to the Supreme Court:

Let's free all Gitmo detainees…on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start. Link

I see a pattern forming.

One more…..

Justice Scalia said about the majority ruling preserving habeas rights to people we detain indefinitely and without charge….

“America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Link

These statements are the very definition of an activist judge. Scalia's one and only job is to determine Constitutionality. His biased words in deference to the executive branch, or more specifically George W. Bush, have no place in carrying out the job of determining Constitutionality.

His arguments sound like they were found on a right wing blog comment stream. "Everything has changed since 9-11 and the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

In a word….. lawlessness.

Final Note: The Akron Beacon Journal's editorial today on the Supremes ruling demonstrates an understanding of the Guantanomo detainee situation and a healthy respect for law and order and the Constitution.

UPDATED BELOW

On January 8th, 2008, The Reverend typed this….

How can it be explained away? How can the Supreme Court force an issue front and center, especially during a general election year, that IS NOT A PROBLEM IN THE SLIGHEST? The only answer I can come up with is that, once again, the conservative jurists know what's best for America in 2008, just like they did in 2000. And what they know that is best for America, just like in 2000, is that the Republican Party must be aided in whatever way the Supremes can lend a hand.

If the conservative majority rules that voter ID is Constitutional….it will be a declaration of 'open season' for every voter suppression trick in the book, and some that aren't. How the Supremes can rule that a law, which purports to prevent something that isn't happening, is Constitutional, without coming to terms with the pure political posturing of the law itself…..would be a terrible disservice to the nation. But it would help the Republican Party in their efforts to suppress Democratic voters….so I won't be surprised if once again, the Supreme Republican Court, intervenes in a general election season to the advantage of the GOP.

Link

Today….open season begins….

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. Link

The people's liberty and justice for all has been overthrown again, this time by a rogue Supreme Court seeking to help the declining Republican Party in their time of need.

There is little history in Indiana of….. in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart….

….in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

No existing problem, no history of voter fraud……doesn't matter…..the Roberts 20th century band of robe wearers rushed to make sure the Republicans could still game the upcoming election.

There can be no other explanation.

UPDATE:

The next president weighs in….and demonstrates why he'll be voted in as our next president. He has a real brain….not one clouded all up with some Republican frenzy to disenfranchise voters….

“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo identification law — one of the most restrictive in the nation,” said Obama in a statement. “The right to vote is one of our most privileged rights and important responsibilities as Americans. I filed a brief in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this law because I believe that it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups.”

Reality-based thought processes.

And once more on the timing…..it's less than ten days before Indiana voters go to the polls….doesn't anyone see any, like, conflicts of interest on the timing of handing down such a ruling? Add to the timing the fact that blacks and poor voters, most likely voters for Obama, will be affected the most by this ruling….and what do we have? A blatant attempt to rig yet another election cycle for the undemocratic Republicans.

Let's review Chief Justice John Robert's tender and caring feelings for the plight of the wealthy and powerful.

Today, from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post….

Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs — mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans — have received no punitive damages from Exxon.

A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages — a record level, for a record disaster — and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.

Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

What more could a poor, broken down, multi-national corporation with record profits have done?

Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."

Oops.

The Exxon Valdez spill "spoiled 1200 miles of Alaska's coastline" and these anti-American plaintiffs want Exxon to pay $2.5 billion in damages. These jokers want three weeks of profits from the world energy behemoth. The audacity of these fishermen can only be described as breathtaking.

The reason Bush nominated Roberts and then later, Alito, was to help the powerful and the wealthy in America, after all, Bush called these people, "my base". Conversely, Roberts and Alito(who had to sit this case out) were nominated to keep the weak and vulnerable from getting too uppity.

However, as neo-cons constantly are reminding me, Bush isn't on the ballot this year.

Well, yeah, he kind of is.

Here are the words describing how the GOP nominee for president, John McCain, really feels about judges like Roberts and Alito….

"Let me just look you in the eye," the Arizona senator said, "I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked." Link

Okay Straight Talker, we believe you.

If you like Justices who will continue to dismiss the complaints of the poor and unwashed while simultaneously favoring the beleaguered rich and powerful, then vote this year for John McCain, by all means.

From the Post article comes the moral of the Exxon-Valdez story.

Brian O'Neill, one of the Alaska victims' lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, Exxon had already won. "I guess the lesson you learn," he said, "is that if you're big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt." Link

Even though Exxon long ago "won", it's still necessary for Chief Roberts to continue to advocate for the most powerful. He can't let his judicial guard down. If he does the people would be in danger of receiving equal justice under the law. We really can't have that, now, can we? Roberts has to send a message throughout America. The message that the powerful and the wealthy need not fear huge damage awards for their negligence. Particularly if it's a case brought by the weak and vulnerable.

That's exactly what George Walker Bush, and John Sidney McCain, want their judges to do.

In today's post some background is needed on the little known and littler heard story of Republican felonious activity in the 2002 election in New Hampshire. I still find it curious that the 2002 felony convictions for vote suppression activity by the Republican Party is still kind of a secret to the American people.

Read this account, then watch the video……then we'll talk…..

The 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal involves the use of a telemarketing firm hired by that state's Republican Party (NHGOP) for election tampering.

During that state's 2002 election for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Robert C. Smith, the NHGOP hired GOP Marketplace, based in Northern Virginia, to jam another phone bank being used by the state Democratic Party and the firefighters' union for efforts to turn out voters on behalf of then-governor Jeanne Shaheen on Election Day. John E. Sununu, the Republican candidate, won a narrow victory. In addition to criminal prosecutions, disclosures in the case have come from a civil suit filed by the state's Democratic Party against the state's Republican Party (now settled).

Four men have been convicted of, or pled guilty to, federal crimes and sentenced to prison for their involvement as of 2008.

….

Police in Concord, the state capital, were notified by Democratic workers on the day of the election that they were receiving repeated telephone calls, terminating after five seconds, which were interfering with their efforts to reach voters and offer rides to the polls. For at least an hour and a half at midday they were unable to make any outgoing calls. Verizon was later able to stop most of these calls, but whoever had made them had violated state laws against telephone harassment.

State authorities found the calls came from out of state, and so brought in their federal counterparts. They were eventually traced to Mylo Enterprises, a Pocatello, Idaho-based company that ran phone banks.

….

James Tobin, then Northeast field director for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (NRSC), put McGee (GOP executive director) in touch with GOP Marketplace, a Northern Virginia firm run by Allen Raymond, which had been hired by the New Hampshire party for similar voter-turnout efforts. McGee had lied in claiming to be unaware of this.

….

Todd Hinnen, the prosecutor in Raymond's case, indicated to the court that Raymond had been contacted about the phone jamming idea by "a former colleague who was then an official in a national political organization." Later on that month, both he and the Union Leader reported that this unnamed third individual had a significant role in the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.

In an op-ed for the Concord Monitor, Smith called the phone-jamming "an outrage" and deplored the lack of Republican anger over "this despicable action by pathetic political hacks." He also implied that the phone jamming may have denied Shaheen victory.

….

Allen Raymond was sentenced to five months in federal prison on February 8, 2005, for his role. Link…worth reading

This little known story depicts the standard operating procedure of the Republican Party when elections are the topic. Republicans suppress Democratic votes, it's what they do…..like Florida 2000, Ken Blackwell's interference in Ohio 2004, the U.S. Attorneys' firing in 2006 because of their refusal to bring cases of voter fraud against Democrats where no evidence existed, or John Roberts rush to rule on new voter ID scams before the 2008 election.

All of this is part of the same singular strategy. Republicans don't much care if it's illegal, they simply know that if Democratic votes are not suppressed, the GOP doesn't have much chance of winning elections. While Democrats focus on registering new voters, Republicans focus on schemes and methods to suppress votes.

This activity by Republican operatives attempting to change the outcome of close elections through criminal means has now become so accepted and mainstream that Chris Matthews can invite a vote suppressing convicted felon, like Allen Raymond, onto his show and chatter with him about "the dark arts of dirty tricks" as if he's chatting about the weather.

Matthews seems comfortable giving national book-selling face time to a felon whose crime was illegally suppressing Democratic votes, attempting to control the outcome of a Senate race. The Hardball moderator says to Raymond, "you're great to come on". Meanwhile, Matthews is reciprocally pimping Raymond's new book, "How to Rig an Election".

Chris Matthews calls the felony act that Raymond carried out, "bare knuckle campaign tactics." Without the least self-awareness of how this all sounded to viewers, Tweety asks, "tell me how you rigged that election?" up in New Hampshire. Raymond goes on to speak very casually about how the Republican National Committee hired him to carry out the crime and what he did to suppress Democratic votes.

In the same way that establishment-right media people praised Scooter Libby for committing four counts of obstruction and perjury as he covered up for a White House crime against a political critic who told Americans that Bush lied…….

….in the same way that these establishment-right media people so wanted Bush to pardon the Scooter after he had been convicted and then praised their Leader when he did commute the prison sentence….

….is the same way establishment-right media members, like Matthews, take it for granted now that even if a guy like Allen Raymond was convicted and sentenced as a Democratic vote suppressing felon……he's always welcome on their programs to hawk books that tell the world how he did it. As long as the crime committed was AGAINST Democrats.

For the last number of years I have repeatedly stated that the Republican Party has become a criminal party that needs disbanded and re-organized. It isn't just a few bad apples here and there…..the criminality is now systemic.

Libby, Rove, Gonzales, Mukasey, Roberts, Alito…..on and on….are now EXPECTED to lie to Congress when asked questions under oath. Lying to Congress while under oath has become a badge of honor to Republicans.

In the case of Bush or Cheney…..flatly denying Congress any right to executive branch information during their term, or destroying potentially damaging computer tapes, e-mails, whatever…..all violations of the Constitution and our rule of law…. are just actions regarded by Republicans and media members as outward expressions of "resoluteness" and "toughness", …..but never what they really are, criminal or traitorous acts.

With this Allen Raymond appearance to hawk a book entitled, "How to Rig an Election", and the casual way in which Chris Matthews dealt with the topic of felonious vote suppression…..it now seems that another crime can be added to the list of crimes ACCEPTED and EXPECTED by Republicans and their supporters.

Just as calling for justice in the Libby case was pooh-poohed as only an attempt to "criminalize politics", so too, any felonious attempt to suppress Democratic votes is now being called "bare knuckle campaign tactics" and the "dark arts of dirty tricks"….but never a crime or a violation of the Constitution.

In other words, for Republicans and for those who serve Republicans, crimes…..any crimes…..that are committed to stop or impede the Democratic Party are not crimes at all. It's the same philosophy we've seen exposed in the torture episodes as well. The ends justify the means. Simple lawlessness.

While it is true that all politicians are not to be trusted…..when it comes to criminality, Republicans are now quite openly, casually and unashamedly, for it.

Supreme Court Justices make a difference. In 2000 they sure made a difference, didn't they? Now with the addition of the early 20th century minded Chief Justice Roberts and Strip-Search Sammy Alito, it looks like the Supreme Court, kind of like FOX "News", is only an extension of the Republican Party……

Not since the Supreme Court stopped the Florida presidential election recount in 2000 has a voting case been so significant, or so overflowing with partisan bile.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana’s strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one—not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state’s side in the dispute, nor any commission—has come up with a single case in the state’s history in which an imposter showed up and cast a vote. Link

The Supreme Court's role is to handle cases considered to be the MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGES to our country, not to the Republican Party. Perhaps the conservatives on the bench think those two are the same.

How can it be explained away? How can the Supreme Court force an issue front and center, especially during a general election year, that IS NOT A PROBLEM IN THE SLIGHEST? The only answer I can come up with is that, once again, the conservative jurists know what's best for America in 2008, just like they did in 2000. And what they know that is best for America, just like in 2000, is that the Republican Party must be aided in whatever way the Supremes can lend a hand.

If the conservative majority rules that voter ID is Constitutional….it will be a declaration of 'open season' for every voter suppression trick in the book, and some that aren't. How the Supremes can rule that a law, which purports to prevent something that isn't happening, is Constitutional, without coming to terms with the pure political posturing of the law itself…..would be a terrible disservice to the nation. But it would help the Republican Party in their efforts to suppress Democratic voters….so I won't be surprised if once again, the Supreme Republican Court, intervenes in a general election season to the advantage of the GOP.

Pay attention to this case. It could set the Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell, Kathryn Harris, Swiftboat hellhounds loose upon the American general election with brand new and exciting scorch-the-earth-of-minority-voters programs.