Public Trusts FDA More Than Supreme Court/Federal Judges

These charts are from the Morning Consult Poll -- done between April 10th and 13th of a nationwide sample of 2,208 adults, with a 2 point margin of error. 

The Case For A Federal Prosecution Of Donald Trump

There has been much in the news about the state of New York and the Manhattan District Attorney investigating Donald Trump. It looks like they are close to getting a Grand Jury indictment against the financial CEO of Trump's companies, and that will likely lead to criminal charges also being filed against Trump.

But that won't penalize Trump for his misdeeds while president, and that needs to happen. It should happen to make clear to all future presidents that they are not above the law. They are subject to the same laws that cover all other Americans.

The following is from the editorial board of The Boston Globe. They lay out the case for the Justice Department filing federal criminal charges against Trump.

Trump’s presidency didn’t just expose glaring legal weaknesses: It also made clear that our institutions are incapable of holding presidents accountable for breaking even our existing laws. If Congress had played the role the Founders envisioned, by removing Trump from the presidency after his criminality became clear in the Ukraine affair, that might have been enough of a deterrent to scare future presidents straight. But lawmakers didn’t.

So now there is only one way left to restore deterrence and convey to future presidents that the rule of law applies to them. The Justice Department must abandon two centuries of tradition by indicting and prosecuting Donald Trump for his conduct in office.

That’s not a recommendation made lightly. The longstanding reluctance to prosecute former leaders is based on legitimate concerns about the justice system being used to settle political scores. But filing charges against former leaders is not a radical step, either: Foreign democracies, including South Korea, Italy, and France, routinely manage to prosecute crooked former leaders without starting down a slippery slope to authoritarianism. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was recently found guilty of bribery, a decade after his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was convicted of corruption. France’s democracy and its image around the world remain intact. 

In the case of Trump, prosecutors would have plenty of potential crimes from which to choose. While Trump may be prosecuted for financial crimes he potentially committed before he became president, what is most important to go after are his actions during his time in office, especially those after the 2020 election, which culminated in fomenting a full-on, violent assault on American democracy.

First, there are Trump’s repeated attempts to obstruct justice, as documented in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the former president’s campaign ties to Russia. As Mueller himself put it, while the investigators operated under the guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted — a view this editorial board disagrees with — the point of their investigation was to “preserve evidence” for prosecutors to evaluate after Trump left office.

Second, there are Trump’s efforts to overturn the Georgia election results. Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state, in which he pressured the secretary to “find” enough votes to undo his defeat, was clear election interference, which is a violation of state and federal law. That means both Georgia and federal prosecutors can — and should — investigate the matter further.

Third, there’s Trump’s infamous incitement of insurrection, which he committed on national television. It is a federal crime to incite a riot or insurrection, and though Trump was impeached over this, he was wrongfully acquitted by the Senate, leaving the courts with the responsibility to hold him accountable. Even senators who acquitted him of the incitement charge alluded to the fact that his crime should be dealt with in the criminal justice system. “If you believe he committed a crime, he can be prosecuted like any other citizen,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a longtime Trump ally. (And depending on how the investigations go — if prosecutors have enough evidence to show that Trump gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists — there’s a chance sedition charges could be brought against him, just like the charges his supporters who stormed the Capitol are likely to face.)

To avoid a potential political tit for tat, the Department of Justice and state prosecutors must remain completely apolitical in their handling of Trump’s case. “His crimes should be investigated independently, and the president should stay a thousand miles away,” Norman Eisen, a former ethics czar in the Obama administration, said in an interview. That’s exactly what President Biden has done so far, and he should continue to separate himself and resist any urge to weigh in one way or the other.

Congress’s failure to hold Trump accountable is one reason to break with precedent and prosecute him now. Another, perhaps more obvious reason, is that Trump’s misconduct ought to be handled differently because it was different. There’s a far stronger case that he committed serious crimes in office than could plausibly be made against even the country’s most unethical previous presidents. One of the reasons no president in history has been prosecuted for actions stemming from his presidency is that none of them before the 45th tried to instigate a coup.

The reluctance to prosecute presidents is deep-rooted, and extreme caution does make sense. (The last thing that the country needs is for Trump to be charged, tried, and then acquitted.) But it cannot be the case that there is no line — no hypothetical act of presidential criminality that would not rise to the level of seriousness that merits setting aside our qualms. And if one accepts that there is a line, it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump didn’t cross it. The events of Jan. 6, and those that led up to them, were an extreme abuse of power that few ever imagined a president would commit. A commander in chief tried his very best to subvert democracy. He attacked his own country. Five people died. Allowing him to go unpunished would set a far more dangerous precedent than having Trump stand trial. To reform the presidency so that the last four years are never repeated, the country must go beyond passing laws: It must make clear through its actions that no person, not even the president, is above them.

U.S. District Judge Tosses Out Texas' Voter ID Law

“But the fact that a voter without an approved form of SB 14 ID and without a birth certificate, in order to vote, must pay a fee to receive a certified copy of his or her birth certificate, which is functionally essential for an EIC, violates the 24th Amendment as an impermissible poll tax.”

“The unconstitutionality of SB 14 lies not just in the fees the State charges for birth certificates, although that is part of it. It is not just about causing people to make extra trips — in many cases covering significant distance — to county and state offices to get their photo IDs, although that is part of it. It is not just about making people figure out the requirements on their own and choose whether to go to work or go get a photo ID, although that is part of it. It is not just about creating a second class of voters who can only vote by mail, although that is part of it. And it is not just about placing the administration of voting rights in the hands of a law enforcement agency, although that, too, is part of it. The unconstitutionality of SB 14 lies also in the Texas Legislature’s willingness and ability to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of a minority that is least able to overcome them. It is too easy to think that everyone ought to have a photo ID when so many do, but the right to vote of good citizens of the State of Texas should not be substantially burdened simply because the hurdles might appear to be low. For these Plaintiffs and so many more like them, they are not.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/10/09/6189209/federal-judge-blocks-texas-voter.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Those are the words of U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos (pictured) as she struck down the Voter ID law of the state of Texas. She found what many of us in Texas had been saying all along -- that the law was not passed to eliminate voter fraud (which is almost nonexistent in the state), but to suppress the votes of minorities (who are more likely to vote for Democrats). In addition to primarily being an effort to suppress voting by Republicans, she also ruled the law included, in effect, an unconstitutional poll tax.

A recent Supreme Court decision had ruled that states could not be singled out to be subject to the Voting Rights Act unless it was shown that the state had recently acted to discriminate against minority voters. The case in Texas was so obviously discriminatory against minorities that Judge Ramos says she will consider ruling that Texas must be put back under that law (which would mean Texas would have to continue clearing any voting changes with the U.S. Department of Justice).

This is huge since Texas could have as many as 600,000 people who don't have one of the required IDs, but are qualified to vote otherwise. Attorney General Abbott, who has a personal interest in this case (since he is running for governor this year), has said he will immediately appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and asked that Judge Ramos' decision be stayed until after the upcoming election.

Will Texas voters have to show a picture ID before voting this year? We'll have to wait and see what the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals does in the next few days before knowing that. But things just got very interesting in Texas.

(The photo of Judge Ramos above is from the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.)

The Declining Trust In The Branches Of U.S. Government

This chart is from the Gallup Poll, and it shows the percentage of the American public that has a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust in each of the three branches of government (in September of each year since 2001). The latest survey was done between September 4th and 7th of this year of a random national sample of 1,017 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

The trust in the judicial branch has fallen by about 13 points since 2001, but still has the trust of a significant majority of 61% of the public. But the dramatic changes in the legislative and executive branches make the judicial line look almost flat. Trust in the executive branch was as high as 72% back in 2002, but dropped 30 points to 42% by 2008. The election of President Obama raised it to 61%, but it has now dropped to 43%.

But even the executive branch numbers look good when compared to those of the legislative branch. That branch started with 67% trust in 2002 and has been on a steady decline since then. It now rests at a pitiful 28% -- a drop of 39 points. This is just one more indication of the public's anger with Congress -- an anger they could well take out on incumbents in November (and most of those incumbents are Republicans).

Judge Tosses Two Provisions Of Texas' Anti-Abortion Law

(The cartoon image above is by Bill Day at cagle.com.)

It took two special sessions of the legislature to do it (because Wendy Davis filibustered it to death in the first session), but the Republicans finally got their onerous anti-abortion law passed. They claimed the law was to protect the health of Texas women, but that was a lie since it did nothing to protect women's heal -- in fact, it hurt women's health in the state by closing down many heal clinics (the ones offering women the option of an abortion). And that is exactly what the Republicans wanted -- to make it much harder for any Texas women to choose to have an abortion (which is their constitutional right).

The two worst provisions of the law made it mandatory for any doctor performing an abortion to have hospital privileges within a certain small area, and required the health clinics offering the procedure to meet the stringent requirements of an ambulatory surgical center. These requirements have already caused 21 clinics to close (from 41 in June 2013 to 20 in June 2014), and when it went into effect next month would cause the closing of another 15 clinics -- leaving only 5 clinics open in the entire state (and posing a terrible burden on women who do not live near a huge urban area (like Dallas or Houston). This would require some women to travel 300 to 500 miles to exercise their constitutional right to choice.

Fortunately, the women of Texas got a reprieve from this onerous law. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel struck down both of these provisions of the law as unconstitutional. The judge said in his opinion:

The clinic closings attributable to the act’s two requirements will undeniably reduce meaningful access to abortion care for women throughout Texas…House Bill 2’s ambulatory-surgical-center requirement burdens Texas women in a way incompatible with the principles of personal freedom and privacy protected by the United State Constitution of the 40 years since Roe v. Wade. 

When viewed in the context of the other state-imposed obstacles a woman faces when seeking an abortion in Texas—including a sonogram requirement, a waiting period, the reduced number of abortion-performing physicians resulting from the admitting privilege requirement—the court is firmly convinced that the State has placed unreasonable obstacles in the path of woman’s ability to obtain a previability abortion. These substantial obstacles have reached a tipping point that threatens to “chip away at the private choice shielded by Roe”... 

This is only a reprieve though, and I'm sure the Republican-dominated state government of Texas will appeal the ruling. The good news is that since this is the decision of a federal judge, it can't be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court (made up entirely of right-wing Republicans). The bad news is that a federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court could go either way on the matter. Both the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have small conservative majorities, and have drawn a very nebulous line regarding a woman's right to choice.

Another State Falls In The March Toward Marriage Equality

It's like a logjam has broken, and now there is a torrent of federal judges willing to recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says -- that all American citizens have equal rights under the law (even if that upsets politicians and religious bigots). On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale struck down Idaho's constitutional amendment (passed in 2006) denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Judge dale wrote:

 “This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority... Idaho’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love."

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=%2F99%2F1687%2F&ihp=1#storylink=cpy

Of course, Idaho's governor and Attorney General both said they would ask for a stay to keep the ruling from going into effect on Friday, and said they would appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This means there will now be at least four different Circuit Courts of Appeal that have cases before them. States have already appealed similar decisions to the 6th, 10th, and 5th Circuit Courts of Appeal.

It is becoming ever more likely that the United States Supreme Court may finally be forced to make a decision regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriages -- a decision they have been avoiding for several years now. We can be sure that the losing side in all of those appeals court decisions will try to take their case to the Supreme Court -- and if any two of those courts disagree, then the Supreme Court will be forced to take the case up and finally make a decision.

Judge Tosses Out Michigan's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

(This image of Michigan draped in the LGBT Rainbow Flag is from Wikipedia Commons, where it was posted by Fry1989.)

Late Friday U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman issued a ruling that ended Michigan's ban on same-sex marriages (and adoptions). Michigan's ban was an amendment to the state constitution (called the Michigan Marriage Act) which had been passed by that state's voters in 2004. The judge wrote in his 31-page decision:

“Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

This makes Judge Friedman the fifth federal judge in the last four months to rule that a state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States Constitution. The first was Utah back in December. Then a judge tossed out Oklahoma's ban in January. In February, federal judges in Virginia and in Texas ruled the bans in those states unconstitutional.

The Michigan Attorney General immediately appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. That means there are now three cases that have been appealed and are pending in three different appeals courts. The Utah case is pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Texas case is pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It will be interesting to see what happens in these three different courts. Will they all agree, or will they make different decisions? If they disagree, then the United States Supreme Court will probably be forced to make the decision it has been avoiding for several years now -- whether these state bans on same-sex marriages violate the United States Constitution by denying same-sex couples equal rights. Will the Supreme Court try to turn back the clock (as a previous court did in the terrible Dred Scott decision), or will they finally admit that all Americans deserve equal rights under the law?

I may be an optimist, but I believe same-sex marriage bans will soon be eliminated in the United States as a whole -- the same way mixed-race marriages were a few decades ago. It is just time for it to happen.

Federal Judge Overturns Virginia Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

The states who want to ban same-sex marriage are starting to fall fast. Last month a federal judge in Utah ruled that such a ban violates the equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Only a couple of weeks later a federal judge in Oklahoma made that same ruling. Now a judge in Virginia has followed suit.

On Thursday, Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled in a 41-page ruling that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional saying:

"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage."

And other states may soon follow. A suit is being heard in federal court in San Antonio right now seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage ban in Texas. Many people, including me, believe the San Antonio court is likely to follow the lead of the federal courts in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia. These rulings are currently not being enforced, as the courts are waiting to see what happens in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (that is hearing Utah's appeal of the ruling in their state).

I may be wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling that marriage equality will be a reality in all states very soon. And that's a very good thing, since equality denied to any group can easily be extended to all groups -- and equality under the law is one of the most important tenets of a democracy.

Utah Court Decision Could End Same-Sex Marriage Discrimination Nationwide

On Thursday, a New Mexico Supreme Court decision made that state the 17th one to legalize same-sex marriages. Now only one day later, it looks like an 18th state has joined that growing list -- the state of Utah. And this could be the most important court decision in this fight for equal rights so far.

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Amendment 3 of the Utah state constitution, the amendment that barred same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional. He said:

“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. . .any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States.”

Of course, the state will probably appeal this court decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that court upholds Judge Shelby's decision, the United States Supreme Court will finally have to make a decision on whether the banning of same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution.

So far, the Supreme Court has avoided having to make a decision on that. When they overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that decision was limited in scope -- and only applied to the federal government (saying the federal government could not discriminate through DOMA). They did not rule on the constitutionality of the numerous state laws banning same-sex marriages.

So things will soon be in the hands of the federal appeals court. If that court overturns the lower court ruling, the Supreme Court could still avoid making a decision by just letting the appeals court decision stand -- and then the onus of this fight for equality will stay with the individual states, and will have to be won state by state.

But if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the lower court decision, the Supreme Court will have to make a decision finally -- either by refusing to hear the case and letting the appeals court decision stand (in which case it could be used to overturn laws in other states), or by hearing the case (and hopefully uphold the equality guaranteed by the Constitution).

Whatever happens, Utah (at least for now) has become the 18th state to allow same-sex marriages. Here is a list of those states:

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Iowa
5. Maine
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. Minnesota
9. New Hampshire
10. New York
11. Rhode Island
12. Vermont
13. Washington
14. New Jersey
15. Illinois
16. Hawaii
17. New Mexico
18. Utah
and
District of Columbia

A Federal Judge Finally Recognizes The Unconstitutionality of Government Spying

(The cartoon image above is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.)

After the tragic happenings on September 11th of 2001, the United States government acted out of fear, and with no regard for the constitutional rights of American citizens -- rights that the Founding Fathers considered important enough to put into writing. They passed the Patriot Act -- a law that allowed government agencies to bypass the "probable cause" safeguards that required a court order before invading the privacy of any person in this country.

Of course, the government assured citizens that the new law would not be used to spy on American citizens. They said those new powers would only be used to keep track of foreign terrorists, and Americans would only be spied on if they were in contact with those foreign terrorists. They lied! As is usual with government, any government, they abused their new powers -- taking them to the extreme, and spying on millions of American citizens (who were not terrorists, and had no contact with terrorists).

And they did it in secret. Although many of us on the left (along with many Libertarians) had expected this, and had warned our fellow citizens that abuses would occur and the Constitution would be violated, the enormous extent of the government spying was not known until Edward Snowden exposed it to the world. The government tried to label him a criminal (as did many on the right), but the truth is that he was just a whistleblower, who loved his country enough to risk his own safety and freedom to expose the massive and unconstitutional spying on citizens by the government.

Once this spying was exposed, one would have expected that our elected officials would act to curb it. But they didn't. They did nothing except to make excuses (out of fear that speaking out for constitutional rights would end their political careers). Personally, I consider them cowards, who violated their oath of office by harming instead of defending the Constitution.

Fortunately, there is at least one federal judge with the integrity and political courage to defend and uphold the Constitution. Judge Richard J. Leon, a George Bush appointee to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia, declared the massive NSA spying program to be unconstitutional yesterday, and issued a restraining order to stop the spying (although he stayed that order to allow the government time to appeal). Judge Leon said:

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."

The judge is right. Of course this is not the end of the fight for our constitutional right of privacy. The government will undoubtably appeal (since no government willingly gives up any power it has seized). We just have to hope now that there are more judges (at the appeals level and on the Supreme Court, where this will eventually go) with the integrity, intelligence, political courage, and love of country demonstrated by Judge Leon.

It's Time For The Senate "Nuclear Option"

It was just a few weeks ago that the Republicans were filibustering every nominee of President Obama -- not because there was any real objection to most nominees, but just because they wanted to damage the president (or force him to go along with at least some of their failed and mean-spirited agenda). Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) then threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option" (change Senate rules to allow the president's judicial and executive nominees to bypass a filibuster, and be approved by a 51 vote majority).

The Senate had an emergency meeting of all senators, and the Republicans backed down. They promised to allow a vote on presidential judicial and executive nominees, if Reid abandoned his plan to invoke the "nuclear option". And for a short time, they honored that promise -- allowing votes on several presidential nominees.

But, as Republicans have demonstrated numerous times in the past, keeping their word is not really a Republican value. And now, only weeks later, they have broken the promise they made. There are several vaccines on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and so far, the president has nominated four candidates to fill those vacancies (Pattie Millett, Nina Pillard, Caitlin Halligan, and Robert Wilkins). All four of these nominees have been filibustered by the Republicans -- and the Republicans say they will filibuster anyone the president nominates for that court, regardless of who it is.

The court is currently dominated by right-wing justices, and the GOP is afraid the Obama nominees would have a moderating influence on that court. They ignore the fact that when Republican presidents were loading the court with those right-wingers, the Democrats allowed a vote on every one of them. They think that only white Republican presidents have the right to nominate justices for that important court, and would deny President Obama his constitutional right to fill vacancies on that court (or at least allow his nominees to get a confirmation vote).

This is outrageous. The Republicans are trying to impose their failed right-wing agenda through misuse of the filibuster -- an agenda that the people soundly rejected in the last election. It is time for Majority Leader Reid and the Senate Democrats to finally use the "nuclear option", since the Republicans have shown their word is no good.

Reid is currently talking to his Democratic cohorts to make sure he has the votes to pull this off. So far, a few Democrats are balking (like Carl Levin of Michigan). They say if the Democrats use this option, then the Republicans will do the same when they get in the majority. That's a ludicrous argument -- and shows they haven't been paying attention to what has been going on in Congress since the election of President Obama. The Republicans have pulled every dirty trick in the book to obstruct everything the president (and the Democrats) have tried to do -- and anyone who thinks the GOP won't use this option if they get in the majority is just not living in the real world.

The Democrats showed they had some backbone during the government shutdown, and stood firm until the GOP caved. Have they now put those backbones back in the closet? Are they too gutless to play the same kind of political hardball the Republicans have engaged in for the last five years? We'll know in a few days.

Personally, I think they need to put those backbones to good use again -- and support the president's nominees, even if it means using the "nuclear option".

UPDATE --  This morning (Thursday) Senate Democrats invoked the "nuclear option". Now it will only take 51 votes to end a filibuster of most executive and judicial nominees (while stopping a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee or legislation will continue to require 60 votes). Congratulations are due to Harry Reid for showing some real leadership on this issue, and to Senate Democrats for refusing to knuckle under to the GOP obstruction of presidential nominees.

Judge Stops Texas GOP's Anti-Woman Law

Last summer, the Republicans in the Texas legislature was bound and determined to pass an anti-woman law that, if it went into effect, would close almost all clinics performing abortions in Texas -- thus denying Texas women the right to control over their own bodies. To accomplish this, a special session of the legislature was called.

But they failed to pass that odious law in that special session, primarily because State Senator Wendy Davis (pictured above on the left) filibustered the bill until the time allotted for that special session ran out. That didn't deter them though. A second special session was called, and some legislative rules were changed, and the bill was rammed through the legislature (and signed by the governor).

That's when Planned Parenthood, headed by Cecile Richards (pictured above on the right), stepped up to do their part for Texas women. They filed suit in federal court to stop two of the worst provisions of the law -- one that required doctors performing abortions to have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic, and another that required doctor's to follow federal protocols for using abortion pills (even though they are no longer considered the best medical practice).

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel issued an order overturning both provisions -- giving Planned Parenthood, and the women of Texas, an initial victory in this fight for women's rights. The judge concluded his decision by saying:

. . .the court will render a final judgement declaring that the admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her. The court will enjoin enforcement of that provision. Although the medication-abortion provisions do not generally place an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion, they do if they ban a medication abortion where a physician determines, in appropriate medical judgement, such a procedure is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The court will so declare and enjoin enforcement of those provisions in such instance.

The decision will undoubtably be appealed to a higher court by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, if for no other reason, because the teabaggers and fundamentalists want it to be appealed. Abbott knows that those are the people who control the Republican Party in Texas, and he badly wants to be the GOP nominee for governor in 2014.                                                                                                                                                            

KBR Will Go To Trial For Human Trafficking

The image to the left, and this story in general, are due to the efforts of fellow blogger Ms. Sparky (who is one of the best internet sources on the malfeasance of American corporations who made billions off the American invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan).

While it is public knowledge now that Vice-President Dick Cheney helped the company he once headed, Halliburton, to get government contracts to provide services for the troops in Iraq, it may not be widely known just how low the company and its divisions stooped to make  that money. There is currently a lawsuit in federal court accusing KBR (which was a division of Halliburton until 2007) of trafficking in humans.

KBR and its subcontractor, Daoud & Partners, have been accused of promising 12 workers from Nepal that they would get safe hotel work in Jordan. These workers paid money for those jobs, but when they arrived in Jordan (in 2004) their passports were taken and they were threatened. They were then (without their consent) transported to Iraq to work for KBR, where 11 of them were killed by insurgents. Their families have now filed suit in federal court, accusing KBR of human trafficking, and seeking unspecified damages.

Of course, KBR tried to get the case dismissed. They told the court that there was insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing by the company. But they got a surprise. U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison ruled that sufficient evidence has been presented, and set a trial date of April 14, 2014. In his ruling, the judge wrote:

“. . .the proffered evidence shows that each man was deceived about his promised job; each man was promised a hotel-related job in Jordan; each man’s family took on significant debt in order to pay recruitment fees; when the men arrived in Jordan, they were subject to threats and harm; their passports were confiscated; and the men were locked into a compound and threatened. . .”

“Plaintiffs have presented evidence that could lead a jury reasonably to find that the passport holding was coercive. Because this proffered evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of forced labor or trafficking, it is an issue of fact that should be submitted to the jury.”

If this accusation is true, and it looks like there is evidence that it is, then this represents a new low in ethical conduct for an American corporation -- the trafficking of humans to turn a corporate profit.

Plan B Should Be Available For Any Age

A couple of weeks ago, a federal judge in New York ordered that the Plan B contraceptive (commonly called the "morning-after pill") should be available over-the-counter (without any prescription) to all women -- regardless of age. It was no surprise that the GOP howled loudly at the idea, since many of them are opposed to any kind of contraceptive. But the most disappointing thing was the reaction of the Obama administration.

The White House has refused to completely follow the judge's order -- going only halfway. They decreed that Plan B would be available over-the-counter, but only to those 15 years-old or older. Those under 15 will still need their parents permission to buy the drug. This is nothing more than a lack of political courage, since the Plan B drug is very safe.

The judge's decision was not something out of left field -- not was it unreasonable. He simply did what most obstetricians and gynecologists have been recommending for quite a while now. And at the recent convention of the American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the doctors once again called for the drug to be made available to everyone over-the-counter. Here are some of their comments:

– Owen Montgomery, MD: “I would much rather have a 13- to 14-year-old girl who needs emergency contraception have access to it than come to my office with an unwanted pregnancy… In our clinics in the university, we see lots and lots of teenagers. And many of these young ladies have no access to good parental role models, and they need access to emergency contraception when they need access. And they can’t wait for permission from a judge, or someone else of authority.”

– Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University: “Emergency contraception is a really, really important part of our toolkit for contraception. It helps women who have emergencies, i.e., they aren’t using contraception at the time of sexual activity or they had a misstep with their contraception, like a condom break or slip.”

– Barbara S. Levy, MD, ACOG’s vice president for health policy: “There’s failure of other methods. There are rapes. There are other things that occur. Women need to be able to access emergency contraception and have the knowledge and understanding of how to use it, so we can prevent unwanted pregnancies and unintended pregnancies that happen, because life happens.”

– Laurie J. McKenzie, MD, of both the University of Texas and Baylor College of Medicine: “I find it very interesting that there are these concessions that are being made in terms of age limitation … There are more deaths associated with Tylenol overdose than there are with oral contraceptive overdoses or potential overdose with Plan B. There have never, to my knowledge, been any overdoses with hormonal contraception.”

– Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque: “Plan B should be over the counter… All emergency contraceptives should be over the counter with no age restrictions.”

GOP Obstructionism

Much has been discussed about the Republican efforts to obstruct the legislation proposed by President Obama and the Democrats. It has been unending and many times senseless -- like the Republicans killing the bill to help veterans find jobs (even though several Republicans had a hand in writing the bill). But the GOP obstruction has not been limited to legislation.

The two charts above, from Think Progress, shows this obstruction has extended also to the nominees made by the president to fill federal positions -- especially the federal District Courts and Appeals Courts. Note that the nominees in the charts above are "uncontroversial" nominees (meaning there is no reason either party has to delay their appointment). Their appointments have been delayed only because they were appointed by President Obama, and the GOP doesn't like the president and doesn't want him to succeed in any area -- even if it means that justice is delayed for American citizens.

This is just one more reason to vote the Republicans out of office this November.

Court Quashes Texas Voter ID Law

(On the map above, the states in green require a photo ID to vote, the states in yellow request a photo ID, the states in blue require a non-photo ID, and the states in gray do not have a Voter ID law.)

In the last legislative session, the Texas Republicans passed one of the most restrictive Voter ID laws of any state. They claimed it was to prevent widespread voter fraud (like someone voting more than once or using the registration card of someone else to vote). The problem with that reason is that there is no widespread problem of voter fraud. In fact, many more people are struck by lightning each year than commit voter fraud -- in every state, including Texas. Voter fraud was just the excuse for the law -- the real reason was voter suppression (since the Republicans designed the law to affect many more Democratic votes than Republican votes).

Yesterday, a three-judge panel in Washington D.C. threw out the Texas Voter ID law, calling it "the most stringent in the nation" and saying it violated the Voting Rights Act by affecting minorities more than others. They also said it posed a burden on the poor by requiring they spend money to get the required ID.

Texas Attorney General vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court. He said, "Today's decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana -- and were upheld by the Supreme Court." That is a bit disingenuous though, and the court addressed the approval of both of the laws those states passed.

First, Indiana is not covered under section 5 of the Voter Rights Act (VRA), while Texas is covered (because of its long history of denying minority voting rights). Because of that, Texas was required to prove they did not inhibit the voting rights of minorities in passing the law -- and both the Justice Department and the court said that Texas was not only unable to prove that but that the law they passed did affect minorities more than whites. The court held that the cases of Indiana and Texas are not analogous because Texas is covered under section 5 of the VRA.

The court also addressed the Voter ID law in Georgia (which actually received pre-clearance by the Justice Department), and how the Texas law was different. They said:

Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws. To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge. Indeed, Georgia’s voter ID law was precleared by the Attorney General—and probably for good reason. Unlike SB 14, the Georgia law requires each county to provide free election IDs, and further allows voters to present a wide range of documents to obtain those IDs. Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2- 417.1(a); Ga. Elec. Code 183-1-20-.01. The contrast with Senate Bill 14 could hardly be more stark.

Finally, during closing arguments, Texas’s counsel complained that they had been shouldered with an “impossible burden” in this litigation. Trial Tr. 7/13/2012 27:14. This may well be correct, but Texas’s lawyers have only their client to blame. The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that—at least to our knowledge—is the most stringent in the country. That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. And crucially, the Texas legislature defeated several amendments that could have made this a far closer case.

Ignoring warnings that SB 14, as written, would disenfranchise minorities and the poor, see, e.g., JA 1300-03; 1329, the legislature tabled or defeated amendments that would have:

• waived all fees for indigent persons who needed the underlying documents to obtain an EIC, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 30:17-31:7, 33:23-24;

• reimbursed impoverished Texans for EIC-related travel costs, JA 2139-42; 

• expanded the range of identifications acceptable under SB 14 by allowing voters

to present student or Medicare ID cards at the polls, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM)

34:21-24; JA 1246-47; 

• required DPS offices to remain open in the evening and on weekends, JA 1337;

and

 • allowed indigent persons to cast provisional ballots without photo ID. Trial Tr.

7/12/2012 (AM) 35:3-37:1. Put another way, if counsel faced an “impossible burden,” it was because of the law Texas enacted—nothing more, nothing less.

Texas can pass a Voter ID law. But it cannot pass a law that restricts the voting rights of the poor or minorities. In other words, Texas Republicans cannot attempt to suppress the votes of those they fear will vote against them -- and that is exactly what they tried to do. This was a good court decision and a reasonable one. I think it has a very good chance of being upheld by the Supreme Court. But we'll just have to wait and see, because the conservative-leaning court has made some bad decisions in the past (like Citizens United vs. FEC).

Texas AG Tries To Pull A Fast One

During the last legislative session, Texas Republicans tried to use their majorities in both legislative houses to create legislative districts that would unfairly favor the Republican Party. One of the aspects of the Republican redistricting plan would give the nearly all-white Republican Party all of the four new U.S. Congressional Districts the state got due to its population growth in the last ten years. In an effort to avoid scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department, the Republicans then bypassed the Justice Department and asked federal courts to approve their redistricting plan.

That hasn't worked out too well for them. The federal court told them to work out a compromise plan with minority groups and the Democrats, or be subject to a plan imposed by the court itself (at least for the coming election). Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Abbott announced that a compromise had been reached. He said the compromise would create two new Hispanic-majority districts (and evidently leave the other two new districts as white-majority Republican districts).

The problem is that this wasn't a "compromise" at all. To reach his ballyhooed agreement, the Attorney General simply left out any organizations that didn't agree with his "new" proposal -- including the Mexican-American Legislative Conference, the Black Legislative Caucus, and the NAACP. The Democratic Party also refused to give its blessing to the Texas AG's "compromise", saying:

Attorney General Abbott issued a statement outlining an agreement reached with some parties regarding the ongoing redistricting legal fight. We were not involved in the discussions that produced this agreement, we are not in agreement to the maps released by the Attorney General, and we do not expect that these maps will be used for the 2012 election. 

We're greatly disappointed the Attorney General did not deal in good faith with all parties involved. 

For the Texas Democratic Party, any maps that do not have the consent of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, and other plaintiffs are nonstarters. 

The Attorney General is clearly terrified that the DC court will find that the state’s maps are discriminatory in both effect and intent. Until there’s a legitimate agreement among the parties, we support the court continuing to do its work.

I have to agree with those opposing the AG's new proposal. Let's look at a few facts about the population of Texas. While the state did experience significant population growth, nearly 90% of that growth was due to a growth in the minority population. It was primarily due to Hispanic growth, but the African-American sector of the population also grew by 22%. In fact, the non-Hispanic white portion of the Texas population actually decreased as a portion of the total population, and now makes up only 45.3% of it while minority groups make up 54.7%.

How can it be right for a decreasing portion of the population (one that only made up 10% of the growth at most) to claim ANY of the four new seats, let alone all or even half of them? The answer, of course, is that it isn't right -- or fair. If the Republicans wanted to be fair (a concept they have yet to master), they would have drawn up a redistricting plan that gave ALL of the new congressional seats to districts with a minority-majority population. I personally think it should be three new Hispanic districts and one new African-American district.

Gerrymandering is wrong. And gerrymandering to reduce the voice of minorities in government is much worse -- it is illegal. But that is what the Texas Republicans are trying to do. It is time for the federal courts to slap them down.

Army Corps Of Engineers Is Responsible

For years now, the Army Corps of Engineers has denied any responsibility for the flooding and damage caused in New Orleans during and immediately after Hurricane Katrina. It's going to be much harder for them to claim that now, because a federal judge has disagreed.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood R. Duval has issued a decision, which says the flooding in the Lower 9th Ward and in St. Bernard Parish was not due to Hurricane Katrina but was directly due to the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly maintain a navigation channel known as the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO). The judge cited the Army Corps' "insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness" in not maintaining the channel properly.

In harsh terms, Judge Duval said the Army Corps has known for over 40 years that failure to properly maintain MRGO could cause the failure of the levee protecting the affected areas, and found that they were negligent in failing to do what they knew to be necessary to protect New Orleans. The judge ordered a damage payment of $719,000 be paid to a small group that had filed suit against the Army Corps in 2006.

But that payment may be just the tip of the iceberg. Over 100,000 people have filed claims with the Army Corps of Engineers, and this judgement makes it far more likely they will eventually be paid damages also. It is possible that this judgement could cost the federal government billions of dollars.

The Army Corps is not talking and neither is the Justice Department. They just said they are "studying" the decision. They will probably appeal and drag this out for many more years, but I hope not. This has drug on too long, and these people have suffered for too long. It is time to make it right.

The United States government failed the people of New Orleans, causing much damage and loss of life. They can't take back what was done in the past, but they can stop failing them now and do the right thing -- regardless of cost.

Doing the right thing is never too expensive.

Federal Court Overturns Handgun Ban

On friday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for District of Columbia struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. This gun ban had been in effect since 1976.

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence called the decision "judicial activism at its worst". Mayor Adrian Fenty said, "I am personally deeply disappointed and, quite frankly, outraged by today's decision". Fenty vowed that the city would appeal the decision.

For a while now, many progressives have tried to interpret the second amendment to mean that militias, and not individuals, have a right to bear arms. The court struck that idea down.

The court said, "The amendment does not protect the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people. If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did".

I believe the court was correct in its decision.

Let me be clear - I do not like handguns. I would be very happy if all the handguns in the world would disappear tomorrow. I have never owned a handgun and probably never will own one. Handguns are good for only one thing - shooting other humans.

In fact, as some of you know, I was the victim of a handgun attack myself about a year and a half ago. A desperate criminal, running from the police, shot me in the stomach and stole my car. I came very close to dying that day.

But regardless of how I feel about handguns or what happened to me, I can still read. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants individuals the right to own firearms. For a handgun ban to be legal, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Actually, the court was pretty reasonable in its decision. It left intact the provision that outlaws carrying unregistered weapons on the streets of our capitol, and also the provision that would prevent ownership by certain individuals (convicted felons, mentally ill persons, etc.).

Like it or not, our forefathers made gun ownership a right. This was not "judicial activism". The court simply upheld the Constitution as it is written.

(The picture above courtesy of Ken Lunde at http://www.praxagora.com/lunde/firearms.html)

Federal Courts Not Interested In Justice

When I was growing up, I was taught that the primary interest of the courts in America, especially the appeals courts, was to ensure that justice was done in our judicial system. Under the Bush administration, that is no longer true.

The primary purpose of our federal courts under Bush is to protect the dirty secrets of lawbreakers in the CIA and other government organizations. Consider the following case.

On New Year's Eve of 2003 Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was trying to legally enter Macedonia. He was kidnapped by CIA operatives and "renditioned" to a CIA-run prison in Kabul, because he was mis-identified as an associate of the 9/11 hijackers.

He was held there illegally, secretly and without charges for five months. While there, he was beaten and sodomized with various objects in an attempt to extract information that he did not have. In fact, after the five months of torture they realized they had kidnapped the WRONG PERSON!

The Bush administration has not denied that this happened. They are still convinced they have the right to do anything to anyone as long as they use the magic words "national security".

Khaled el-Masri felt he had been wronged - imagine that! He sued George Tenet, the CIA and the corporations who owned the airplanes used to illegally transport him to Kabul. But instead of hearing his legitimate case, the court dismissed it, saying the case could not go forward because it would reveal national security secrets.

He then appealed this outrageous dismissal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Surely he could get justice from them - right? Wrong! They backed up the ridiculous action of the lower court.

Judge Robert King, who wrote the cout's opinion, said that the case could only go forward by using "evidence that exposes how the CIA organizes, staffs and supervises its most sensitive intelligence operations."

ACLU attorney Ben Wizner probably puts it best when he says, "What's most troubling about this is it literally grants the CIA complete immunity to engage in any kind of misconduct."

It also shows us that under the Bush administration, the priorities of our federal judicial system have changed. The number one priority is to cover up crimes committed by government organizations. The second priority is to not embarrass the Bush administration. If we're lucky, administering justice comes in a distant third. Disgusting!