Oh, Arizona, how you do disappoint. Or not. Actually, you really just rise to my diminished expectations on a near-daily basis, and today is no exception. While Sheriff Joe's alleged corruption spills onto the front pages, the back page carries news of how Arizona courts fail to protect election integrity.

Recently I wrote about how Jan Brewer permitted Maricopa County -- the most populous county in Arizona and home to the worlds' most evil sheriff -- to break their own election laws in order to rush-report the vote counts to eagerly awaiting media outlets and viewers across the nation.

Continue reading »

Judge Henry Hudson owns a piece of the Donatelli firm Campaign Solutions, Inc., a right-wing go-to source for turnkey campaigns and donation collections. I wrote about their ties to the right-wing establishment back in August, when he first agreed to hear the case.

Since August, Campaign Solutions has made millions from Republican campaigns for candidates running on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).

As one of only thirteen investors, I'm certain this year will be a bang-up year for him, dividend-wise. Just have a look at their client list.

I'm not a big fan of playing the judicial activist/judicial bias card. But in this case, it seems clearly warranted. This judge stands to make a bundle of profit via his 1/13th investment in Campaign Solutions. Campaign Solutions profited much from the 2010 midterm elections and candidates who ran on the repeal of the health care law. It's not all that much of a leap to think maybe there's just a teeny, tiny bit of bias there.

He should have recused himself then, and he should be investigated to see if he has any other 'investments' that might have prejudiced his ruling.

There is at least one judge in Louisiana with some sense and respect for the law. NPR reports that U.S. District Judge Ralph Tyson has placed a temporary restraining order on the requirement that any woman seeking an abortion be forced to have an ultrasound first, and view the results of that ultrasound before having an abortion.

This is good news not only for women in Louisiana, but for women in other states where similar laws have been passed. While the key will be finding a judge willing to actually evaluate the facts in light of the Constitution, this is certainly a step forward.

The right wing has spent a lot of time working to get laws passed (mostly in Southern states) that are clearly discriminatory to women, violate their rights, and are just a stalking horse for an excuse to try and overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The assault on women's reproductive rights has been relentless in 2010.

Louisiana (temporary restraining order granted):

One of the new laws would block abortion doctors from participation in a state-run medical malpractice fund. The other would require women about to undergo abortions to first have an ultrasound examination and receive a photograph of the ultrasound image.

Guttmacher Institute Study:

Legislators in eight states introduced measures to require that ultrasound services be offered to a woman seeking an abortion. Missouri was the only state in which a measure was approved, and the governor is widely expected to allow it to go into effect without his signature. Three other states currently require providers to offer ultrasound services to women (see Requirements for Ultrasound).

Measures enacted this year in Utah and West Virginia place requirements on a provider who is performing an ultrasound in preparation for an abortion. The Utah law requires the provider to offer to show and describe the image to the woman. The new law in West Virginia is similar but explicitly allows the woman to choose whether or not to view the image. These two new laws bring to 10 the number of states with such provisions.

Finally, legislatures in three states—Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana—moved to enact or strengthen requirements mandating that women seeking an abortion first obtain an ultrasound. Oklahoma adopted the most stringent measure. It would require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on every woman obtaining an abortion, display the image to her and provide a verbal description; the woman would be entitled to “avert her eyes” if she did not want to view the screen. The measure is identical to one passed in 2008 that was overturned by a state court on procedural grounds. The new law, written to avoid the procedural issues, was nonetheless challenged immediately upon enactment, and enforcement is currently blocked pending the outcome of the litigation.

And of course, let's not forget the assault on the Affordable Care Act:

Meanwhile, legislators in 14 states (including states that already have laws applying to all private plans) introduced measures that would limit coverage of abortion through the insurance exchanges that will be set up under health care reform by 2014. Legislation has been enacted in four states. Arizona’s new law permits coverage only in cases of threats to the woman’s life or health, while Mississippi’s permits coverage only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Laws in Louisiana and Tennessee prohibit all coverage of abortion, with no exceptions. Legislation approved by the legislature in Missouri is awaiting action by the governor, and measures in Florida and Oklahoma have been vetoed.

Just one more reason to keep the wingers out of Congress and by extension, out of women's reproductive systems.

NOWHERE in the Constitution is the Senate required to provide an up-or-down vote on the President’s nominees:

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the President’s power of appointment. It reads:

“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” read on

Armed Insurrection

via Oliver Willis: "Priests for Life"

"The Terri Schiavo case has demonstrated that we are being governed by un-elected judges, and that the legislative and executive branches of government lack the will to stand up to them when they authorize acts of violence. The matter therefore, now rests with the people. When government fails to protect life, the people must do so directly. Today must mark the beginning of a new era of civil disobedience and conscientious objection, with simultaneous, determined efforts to curb the authority of the courts and restore government to the people through their elected representatives."

"The Schindler family had every right to fight for their daughter's life. Who ever convinced them that Randall Terry was the guy to lead the charge was very mistaken. Across the MSNBC screen last night I saw the word " Bomb threat." Since Terry has a history of violence towards abortion clinics, this is not surprising. More here"

The NY Times broke this story today :

"Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power...read on

Ted Kennedy let his thoughts be known about the use of the 'Swift Boat' PR Firm

Download | play -WMP

Roger Ailes (the good Roger Ailes)
In comments, Cybelle asks:

Bill and his lawyers are claiming that there was no "wrong doing". wtf? Sexually harassing an employee and threatening her _is_ "wrong doing". What world do these people live in? Or is that some kind of lawyer speak for "this is over"?

It's lawyer speak for you can buy anything for enough money.
The O'Reilly settlement contains a statement that the parties assert there was "no wrongdoing whatsoever" by any of the parties, which also means that O'Reilly is admitting Mackris and her lawyer were not trying to extort money from him. Which, implicitly, at least, negates the assertion that O'Reilly didn't do anything wrong -- O'Reilly is admitting that Mackris had good reason to demand 60 million (or whatever amount) from him based on his conduct. Or, to put it another way, that every accusation in his complaint was false.
demanded). The irony of this story is that we've finally found one of those frivolous lawsuits the right keeps bitching about. O'Reilly admits that his lawsuit against Mackris and his attorney has no merit -- they did nothing wrong. Perhaps the New York State Bar should look into whether Mr. O'Reilly's (and FOX's) attorneys knowingly filed meritless litigation, particularly since O'Reilly wasted judicial resources -- his motion hearings -- suing people who were guilty of "no wrongdoing." (Of course, that won't happen, because the courts love it when litigants settle voluntarily, and it's hard to imagine any third party who'd have a basis to bring a claim based on a meaningless recital in a private contract.)

O'Reilly claims he did what he did to "protect his family." It's heartwarming to see a man pay millions to deep-six tapes in which he is heard abusing an underling and/or himself -- for the sake of his children. Welcome to the All-Vibrate Zone.

If these veterans courts are anywhere near as effective as the drug courts (which produce much better results than the regular court system), this is good news.

But this progam will have to be balanced with legitimate legal questions. The ACLU has opposed it in Nevada, saying it creates a separate class of people charged with crimes who get different treatment because they're veterans:

Reporting from Tulsa, Okla. -- U.S. military veterans from three decades pass through Judge Sarah Smith's courtroom here, reporting on their battles with drug addiction, alcoholism and despair. Those who find jobs and stabilize their lives are rewarded with candy bars and applause. Those who backslide go to jail.

Smith radiates an air of maternal care from the bench. As the veterans come before her, she softly asks: "How are you doing? Do you need anything?" But if a veteran fails random drug tests, she doesn't flinch at invoking his sentence. She keeps a drill sergeant's cap in her office.

Her court is part of a new approach in the criminal justice system: specialized courts for veterans who have broken the law. Judges have been spurred by a wave of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, battling post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries and stumbling into trouble with the law. But advocates of the courts say they also address a problem as old as combat itself.

"Some families give their sons or daughters to service for their country, and they're perfectly good kids. And they come back from war and just disintegrate before our eyes," said Robert Alvarez, a counselor at Ft. Carson in Colorado who is advocating for a veterans court in the surrounding county. "Is it fair to put these kids in prison because they served and got injured?"

The few veterans courts in the nation are modeled on drug courts that allow defendants to avoid prison in exchange for strict monitoring. Most are only a couple of months old, and it is difficult to track their effectiveness, but the results from the first court, which opened in Buffalo, N.Y., in January 2008, are striking.

Of the more than 100 veterans who have passed through, only two had to be returned to the traditional criminal court system because they could not shake narcotics or criminal behavior, said Judge Robert Russell. That is a far lower rate of recidivism than in drug courts.

They're looking at adding this program in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Nevada and Eau Claire, WI. It's already operating in Tulsa.

Yet another legacy of the law-and-order Republican crowd:

Reporting from Brentwood, N.H. -- Come February, the red-brick Rockingham County Courthouse, one of New Hampshire's busiest, will arraign criminal suspects, process legal motions and otherwise deal with murders, mayhem and contract disputes. What it won't do is hold jury trials.

The economic storm has come to this: Justice is being delayed or disrupted in state courtrooms across the country.

Financially strapped New Hampshire has become a poster child for the problem. Among other cost-cutting measures, state courts will halt for a month all civil and criminal jury trials early next year to save $73,000 in jurors' per diems. Officials warn they may add another four-week suspension.

"It brings our system almost to a screeching halt," said county prosecutor James M. Reams. His aides are scrambling to reschedule 77 criminal trials that were on the February docket.

"All the effort to subpoena witnesses and prepare for those trials is right out the window," Reams said, frustration in his voice. "Internally, it's a monumental waste of time. We'll have to redo everything."

At least 19 other states, including California, have slashed court budgets and other government services as their economies have tanked, said Daniel Hall, vice president of the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit in Williamsburg, Va.

I just don't get it. Conventional political wisdom is that you must move to the center during a general election season. I don't agree with that--in fact, I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do right now when the vast majority of the nation by and large does not approve of how things are being done in Washington (9% Approval rating? Think that has anything to do with your capitulations again and again, Pelosi and Reid?), but it's hard to pierce that Beltway bubble to let through anything but the politics-as-usual stylings. However, it's a far cry from playing to the center and grabbing yourself some right wing frames and running with them. That makes no sense to me...is Obama thinking that he'll be able to get the 'Donald Wildmon vote contingent' this way?

Obama's desire to win these voters may be why, in a recent interview with Relevant magazine, ("Covering God, Life, and Progressive Culture") Obama seemed to be moving rightward on the issue -- rhetorically, at least -- saying:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

The language Obama used in that response seemed to remove "mental distress" as an allowable exception justifying a post-22 week abortion. [..]

Obama continued: "I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

But if Obama is saying that "mental distress" is already not a legal exception for abortion bans, then what was the point of what he told Relevant? He maintains he wasn't discussing any view that runs contrary to current abortion law, so it would seem he was just discussing a personal view -- that a woman, 8 1/2 months pregnant, shouldn't be able to get an abortion just because she's feeling blue.

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but the concept of the woman "feeling blue" and deciding on a whim after 6-7 months of normal, healthy pregnancy that she wants to end it is as much a fantastical creature created by the right as the Welfare Queen living large on government aid. It's insulting to women and their ability to understand what's happening to them.

And this is where I get really angry. Anyone who has paid attention to the relative non-issue of late-term abortions--the stuff that the right wing lives to distract and horrify the electorate with--knows that this framing of women deciding after more than 6 months that she's just not interested in being pregnant was designed as a slippery slope platform to hurt women from getting abortions, at any time. Jesse at GroupNews has more...