With Reservations

Well, talk about trying to hide behind a slow news day:

HONOLULU -- Two days before the deadline, President Obama signed a defense spending bill into law - while admitting he has "serious reservations with certain provisions" related to how suspected terrorists are held and questioned.

In a written statement, Mr. Obama makes clear he objects to sections in the National Defense Authorization Act that "regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

Despite his objections, Mr. Obama says he signed the measure, known by its initials NDAA, because it authorizes needed funding to defend the nation, support the military and renew "vital national security programs."

Among the provisions to which the president objects is a grant of permission for the indefinite military detention of terror suspects by the military.

Mr. Obama said he didn't ask for such authority and doesn't want it.

Here, if you are interested in reading what the ACLU has to say about it.

Unconstitutional or Unworkable and Unpopular?

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s 2010 health care overhaul law. With arguments in March and a decision in late June, all smack in the middle of the 2012 presidential race.

The Obama administration comments – purely legal:

In a statement issued soon after the decision, the Obama administration restated their argument that the mandate is perfectly constitutional

“We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.

Comments from those opposed to the law – political. The emphasis is mine.

“It is high time for the high court to strike down this unconstitutional, unworkable and unpopular law,” said Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown.

Anyone surprised?

The War-On-Women: The Tuesday Edition

And it goes on and on.

Mississippi is trying to the lead the way on the Personhood Amendment.  From CBS News:

A national effort to put abortion bans into state constitutions is looking for its first victory next month in Mississippi, where voters are being asked to approve an amendment declaring that life begins when a human egg is fertilized.

Supporters hope the so-called personhood initiative will succeed in a Bible Belt state that already has some of the nation's toughest abortion regulations and only a single clinic where the procedures are performed.

The initiative is endorsed by both candidates in a governor's race that's being decided the same day. While Mississippi is the only state with such an amendment on the ballot this fall, efforts are under way to put the question to voters in at least four other states in 2012.

From North Carolina, where a judge is considering whether to prevent portions of North Carolina's new abortion restrictions from taking effect while a lawsuit challenging them goes through the federal courts:

Lawyers for the state and abortion rights groups argued their cases before U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles for 2 ½ hours Monday in a Greensboro courtroom.

Abortion providers sued last month, saying the new law requiring ultrasounds be performed so that women are shown the images is unconstitutional. Bebe Anderson with the Center for Reproductive Rights told Eagles the law is too vague and could subject doctors to penalties. Senior Deputy Attorney General Faison Hicks said the information doctors provide patients is truthful and advances the state's interest for a woman to carry the fetus to term.

And from Anywhere (and Everywhere), USA a nation-wide push for the “heart beat bill”:

Abortion opponents have a new weapon of choice: the “heartbeat bill.” A coalition of anti-abortion groups told the Associated Press last week that it was pushing to enact laws in all 50 states that would make women listen to a fetus’s heart beat before they could abort. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has introduced a similar federal bill, The Heartbeat Informed Consent Act, in Congress.

When the Supreme Court decided Roe, critics of abortion vowed to get it overturned. They have not succeeded in that. But they have managed to pass a wide array of laws — some upheld by the courts, others struck down — making access to abortion more difficult. The Supreme Court has ruled that states can impose some restrictions, such as 24-hour waiting periods and parental consent requirements, but has struck down others, such as laws forcing women to notify their spouses. The heartbeat laws are the latest effort in a decades-long campaign that — as conservatives gain strength at the state level—appears to be gaining ground.

Personhood. Ultrasounds. Heartbeats. A grassroots war, based in the states, designed to render Roe vs. Wade utterly unenforceable on the local level.

Happy First Monday in October!

The Supreme Court has a busy week, this week.  From The New York Times:

The Supreme Court returns Monday to an overarching question: Are the federal courts the right forum for resolving societal problems? Last term, the conservative majority suggested the answer is no in closely divided cases about job discrimination, misconduct by prosecutors, fraud by mutual funds and other topics.

The court will have a chance to take up that question again this term, while likely considering the health care reform act, decency standards on broadcast TV, privacy and use of GPS devices to track criminal suspects, and other issues. Here are three cases to be argued this week that could reveal where the court is headed this term as it examines the interests of citizens confronting institutions.

On Monday, the court hears a case questioning how far a state can go in cutting Medicaid, the federal-state program providing medical care to the poor and disabled.  California has been sued by a provider for cutting reimbursement without regard to impact.

On Tuesday the court hears the question of whether those who are already in prison must be told of their Miranda rights – the right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, and that any statement can be used against them.

On Wednesday, a fascinating case:

Under the First Amendment, the government cannot interfere in a church’s management of “ministerial employees” when they perform religious functions. But is a teacher at a religious school that kind of employee?

A case on Wednesday is a dispute between Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the church’s school in Redford, Mich. When she became sick and turned down the offer of a modest payment to leave, the school fired her and she filed a grievance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she could sue the church for illegal retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The issue is whether enforcement of that law violates the church’s right to free exercise of religion. Ministers and other religious workers are barred from suing their church employers. Lower courts have said teachers are also barred from suing when they teach religious subjects or have a central role in the mission of the church.

Any guesses as to which way the Supreme Court will be tilting, this session?

This Week in American-Style Ridiculousness

Evidently, there are people out there who think not being able to name a Boston Red Sox player makes you unqualified to sit in the United States Senate:

Byron emailed over a press release from the Massachusetts GOP, which points out that Elizabeth Warren couldn't name a Red Sox player when she was asked yesterday.

The release goes on to compare Warren's comments to Martha Coakley's "infamous gaffe" in 2010, and calls it a sign that Warren "comes from a world of Harvard elitism and is far removed from the middle-class values she claims to represent."

Geez. Does the fact that I can name the entire line-up make me qualified to be President, and capable enough to fix the big f***ing mess we are in?

Iowa Congressman Steve King wants me to believe that unemployed folks are unpatriotic.



Oh, and something about using the New Testament as a planning document to lower unemployment.

My old Congressional District elected a Republican for the first time in a gazillion years, to fill Democrat Anthony’s Weiner’s seat. I moved to a neighborhood that is now in NY-9 when I was in elementary school n 1972. I was greeted by a school boycott, over a busing issue. Am I surprised by the election results? No. Why is anybody else?

Just weeks ago, Democrats were expected to retain New York's 9th congressional district seat in Tuesday's special election, despite the spectacle of Weiner's downfall. Weprin, however, committed a series of gaffes in the six-week run-up to the election, including blanking on the size of the federal deficit (he cast himself a fiscal crusader) and bailing out of a debate the day after the debt goof.

And lastly, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seems to be saving the best accusation, for last:



Socialism is all solutions emanating from Washington, DC. And Europe is a very, very scary place.

Learn something new, every day.

Islam: Religion and Law

I must say, I have not given Republican-2012-Presidential-nominee-wannabe Herman Cain the time of day. This however, is utterly fascinating:

GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain is taking his efforts to win Republican votes by disparaging Muslims to the level of performance art.

Cain reiterated his opposition to a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee yesterday on Fox News Sunday. Cain insisted that Islam is different from other religions because “fact Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law.”

CAIN: They could say that. Chris, lets go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying they’re objecting to. They’re objecting to the fact Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best, and I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro.

WALLACE: You’re saying any community, if they want to ban a mosque?

CAIN: Yes. They have a right to do that. That’s not discriminating based upon religion.

Does Herman Cain really not realize that other religions have their own set of laws, as well? Is he simply betting that other folks are too ignorant to know?

I suspect the average Catholic in Murfreesboro, Tennessee knows the Catholic Church operates under Canon law, and that they would be none-too-happy to hear a Presidential candidate say that would be a valid basis for a community ban on constructing a new Catholic church.

The World According to Oklahoma

If you missed it, Republican Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern gave quite a speech from her state’s House Floor this week. Part of the debate that ultimately ended in the Oklahoma House of Representatives approving a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate affirmative action in state government. She has apologized, but apparently faces no disciplinary action as of yet.

In her own words:

Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.

“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

Kern said women earn less than men because “they tend to spend more time at home with their families.”

How funny this should come on the heels of Donald Trump -- and other birthers -- now requesting President Obama release his educational transcripts. Because after all, he must not have wanted to study as hard, and knew the government would take care of him through affirmative action. Coincidental, no?

From Steve Benen, at The Washington Monthly, commenting on the speech. The emphasis is mine:

Seriously, that's what she said. Kern, defending opposition to affirmative action, went on to suggest African Americans may end up in prison because "they don't want to study as hard in school." She added, "I've taught school and I saw a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them."

Kern went on to argue that women earn less than men because "they tend to spend more time at home with their families."

This is the same state lawmaker who argued that homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism, and fought for a ban on Sharia law.

Honestly, where does the Republican Party even find people like this? Is there a website where a party can order cartoonish racists to serve in state government?

Where do they find these people, indeed? Unfortunately for the Republican party, these folks seem to be the only ones who can climb their ranks. Fortunately for the rest of us, they can’t go anywhere outside their ranks.

You can read more here, here and here.

A Big Win For Corporations

A lousy ending, to a lousy political day.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave corporations a major win Wednesday, ruling in a 5-4 decision that companies can block their disgruntled customers from joining together in a class-action lawsuit. The ruling arose from a California lawsuit involving cellphones, but it will have a nationwide impact.

In the past, consumers who bought a product or a service had been free to join a class-action lawsuit if they were dissatisfied or felt they had been cheated. By combining these small claims, they could bring a major lawsuit against a corporation.

But in Wednesday's decision, the high court said that under the Federal Arbitration Act companies can force these disgruntled customers to arbitrate their complaints individually, not as part of a group. Consumer-rights advocates said this rule would spell the end for small claims involving products or services.

Bye bye to whatever forms of corporate accountability were still left.  Let's see how in the world we consumers will be able to hold corporations accountable for any wrongdoing, now.  Look for lots and lots of signing away of our right to bring a class action suit.

More (And More, And More) From Arizona

From The New York Times:

Arizona lawmakers are proposing a sweeping package of immigration restrictions that might make the controversial measures the state approved last year, which the Obama administration went to court to block, look mild.

Illegal immigrants would be barred from driving in the state, enrolling in school or receiving most public benefits. Their children would receive special birth certificates that would make clear that the state does not consider them Arizona citizens.

Some of the bills, like those restricting immigrants’ access to schooling and right to state citizenship, flout current federal law and are being put forward to draw legal challenges in hopes that the Supreme Court might rule in the state’s favor.

And there's more:

The measures would compel school officials to ask for proof of citizenship for students and require hospitals to similarly ask for papers for those receiving non-emergency care. Illegal immigrants would be blocked from obtaining any state licenses, including those for marriage. Landlords would be forced to evict the entire family from public housing if one illegal immigrant were found living in a unit. Illegal immigrants found driving would face 30 days in jail and forfeit the vehicle to the state.

Do the citizens of Arizona really, really, really think communities full of homeless, uneducated children walking around unable to get treatment for communicable diseases is what they want?

Good luck with this one, folks.

On The Road To Marriage Equality!

In the midst of Wisconsin and Libya, some most excellent news today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday saying that the Justice Department will now take the position in court that the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down as a violation of gay couples’ rights to equal protection under the law.

“The President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law,” a crucial provision of the act is unconstitutional, Mr. Holder wrote.

As the article states, Congress and other parties could choose to defend the law. That means some courts could agree and follow. And the administration will continue to enforce the act unless and until Congress repeals it, or a court delivers a “definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.

But on the road to marriage equality, nonetheless!

Health Care Reform Divide In The Courts

Yet another Federal District Court decision.

A third federal judge upheld the constitutionality of the Obama health care law on Tuesday, reinforcing the divide in the lower courts as the case moves toward its first hearings on the appellate level.

Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia became the third appointee of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to reject a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Two other federal district judges, both appointed by Republican presidents, have struck down the law’s keystone provision, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014

The judge also tossed out a claim that the law restricts the exercise of religious freedom. I guess the mandate to buy health insurance doesn’t really conflict with the belief that God provides all. Good.

At this rate, if the case is ever heard by the Supreme Court, the justices will have lots and lots of information from lower court cases to consider.

Nevada, Chicago And Elsewhere

Ah, those pesky outside agitators are at it again. From Wisconsin Gov. Scott Brown’s “fireside chat” last night:

As more and more protesters come in from Nevada, Chicago and elsewhere, I am not going to allow their voices to overwhelm the voices of the millions of taxpayers from across the state who think we’re doing the right thing. This is a decision that Wisconsin will make.

Pure code for the complete and unadulterated demonization of the protesters. Equating the state workers with the “outsider” – strange, different, scary and the ultimate threat. Even Gov. Brown has to know that at the first sign of the slightest dissent, any dictator will blame outside forces. Fidel Castro did it for decades. The tiniest form of foment – blame the big, bad United States. I find Brown and his ilk despicable, but at least I give them credit for truly believing in what they are saying and doing. To a flaw.  You don’t see anyone going around accusing them of being abducted by aliens.

Funny, though how those outside agitators don't include billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.  Or their energy conglomerate  Or the nonprofit group they heavily finance.

Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.

The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits.

“We are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation,” he said.
What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.

State records also show that Koch Industries, their energy and consumer products conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., was one of the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who has championed the proposed cuts.

And, speaking of someone I (have to) believe, has to believe in what he says:



While Gov. Walker’s use of language may seem benign in comparison to Glenn Beck, it is not only anti-intellectual, but it’s downright dangerous. It’s as stone’s throw from demonizing the local firefighter as an “outside agitator” out of step with the mainstream constituency, to the conspiratorial ramblings of someone like Glen Beck.

Listen closely.

The Week That Was: Health Care Reform

Bounce. Bounce. Bounce. Bounce.

For those of you following the bouncing ball of court decisions resulting from challenges to the 2010 Health Care Reform Act, here goes.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Mississippi dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, stating the Lieutenant Governor and others who filed the challenge did not have legal standing to sue. While he did not rule on the legal questions, still good news for the Obama Administration. Especially coming from a judge nominated by President George W. Bush.

This comes on the heels of a decision earlier in the week by federal court Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, who struck down a key provision of the health care law – the requirement for Americans to buy insurance. In declaring that particular mandate unconstitutional, he ruled the rest of the law cannot stand without it. Hence, he said, the entire law should be struck down.

Five decisions thus far, and counting. Theoretically, we can see this 50 times. Sigh.

Health Care For All.

Brothers and Sisters?

The newly elected governor of Alabama, Republican Robert Bentley gave a speech this weekend at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once served as pastor. Me thinks he picked the wrong profession.

MONTGOMERY -- Gov.-elect Robert Bentley in a speech at a Baptist church this afternoon said he plans to be the governor of all Alabamians and be color-blind, but he also said people who aren't ''saved" Christians aren't his brothers and sisters.

“I was elected as a Republican candidate. But once I became governor ... I became the governor of all the people. I intend to live up to that. I am color blind," Bentley said in a short speech given about an hour after he took the oath of office as governor.

Then Bentley, who for years has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, gave what sounded like an altar call.

"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

Bentley added, ''Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

I don’t know about the good people of Alabama, but I for one could not care less about whether or not my governor thinks I am his sister. I could not care less if he wants to be my brother. Last time I looked, Alabama was not in great shape. Some of the worst health indicators in the country. A ranking of 47 out of 50 from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, in their aggregate analysis of the general health and well-being of children.

Lots of work to be done out of the governor’s mansion. For the sake of the people of Alabama, I suggest the governor-elect roll up his sleeves, and get to it. And stop all the talk about being colored-blind, and brothers-and-sisters, and whatever. And if he can’t stop yakking about what he shouldn’t be talking about, and start working hard at what he was elected to do, perhaps a change of profession is in order. I am sure there are a number of good seminaries out there glad to help him prepare for a place in the pulpit.

The Week That Was: The Constitution Edition

On the face of it, I was actually not too upset when Speaker John Boehner announced that Thursday’s House session would open with a reading of the Constitution. In all honesty, I don’t think it is a bad idea to take some time to read such important, foundational documents in public.  Especially now, when millions can watch it happening on television.  How totally cool, if you ask me.

Given however, that I am not naive enough to think it would not be all about politics, I was anxious to see how they would do. It would say an abundant amount about them, after all. I was secretly wondering, well – just how do Republicans read the Constitution, anyway? Literally, I imagined.

I was wrong. But at least they had a debate about how they would do it, before they actually did it…

The chamber's Republican leaders - who organized the first-of-its-kind event - had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots. But they didn't want to go all the way back: Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was running the procedure, said lawmakers would read a Constitution that had been edited to remove sections negated by later amendments.

"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," Goodlatte said. He said he had consulted the Congressional Research Service, among others, in choosing this version of the document.

Those changes meant the erasure of the 18th Amendment, for instance, which created Prohibition (it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment). It also meant that legislators would not read the original language from Article 1 that tacitly acknowledged slavery

That language, called the "three-fifths compromise," stated that representatives would be parceled out based on a count of all free inhabitants, excluding Indians, and "three-fifths of all other persons." Those persons were understood to be slaves.

Needless to say, some on the Floor of the House were none-too-happy about the editorial decisions.

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said he was opposed to making the changes, arguing that doing so would remove evidence of a long struggle to alter the document the Founding Fathers wrote. That Constitution in its original form also did not allow women to vote: That right came with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

"Many of us don't want that to be lost upon the reading of our sacred document," Jackson said. "The three-fifths clause would not be mentioned."

And then they all got bored and started fidgeting. Checking electronic devices. Leaving the chambers. Luckily, some “birther” added a bit of levity by going off the deep end during the reading of Article 2, Section 1, the mandate that only a “natural born citizen” be elected president.

So what does it say about Republicans that they think they can edit the Constitution on a day when the whole country is watching – and presumably, could be learning important civic lessons from the exercise? That they believe the Constitution is not to be taken literally? That they believe the Constitution can be subject to interpretation? That they believe the Constitution is a living document?

No. No. No. All it means is that they believe it is acceptable to try to re-tell large portions of American history they deem – for one reason or another – to be inconvenient to their present-day narrative. It’s not about erasing history, but rather about something more insidious. It is about shoving facts they don’t feel accurately represent their own personal historical experiences, into a corner. It’s about always taking to the tactic of marginalizing others, in pursuit of their own power. And as Rep Jesse Jackson reminds us with his statement about the decision to “editorialize,” they did all that today quite well today.

Passing the Ball

More bumps along the long, long road to making gay marriage legal in the State of California. Yesterday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said it needed advice from the California Supreme Court as to whether or not the sponsors of a voter-approved measure banning gay marriage even have the right to defend it in court.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The state Supreme Court was brought into the fray by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which heard arguments last month about whether Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative outlawing same-sex marriage, is constitutional.

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to appeal a federal judge's ruling in August that the measure unconstitutionally discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender. So the future of the case depends on whether Prop. 8's sponsor, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, has legal standing - the right to represent the interests of the state and its voters.

If not, the federal appeals court could uphold Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling and restore same-sex marriage in California - legalized briefly by a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling - without deciding whether Prop. 8 is constitutional.

Without the state of California joining in on the appeal, the work was left to the conservative sponsors of Proposition 8. So for now, the question remains whether or not they have the right to represent the people of California.

Under separate cover, the same court denied standing to Imperial County, which had also sought to enter the same case and defend the ballot measure. In good news, the court said the county did not have the type of authority over marriage necessary to join the appeal. A no-brainer, in my book.

Needless to say, Project Marriage does not represent this citizen of California. And thank heavens the court denied standing to Imperial County – despite the fact that 70 percent of its voters supported Prop. 8.

When was the last time I said the constitutional rights of a minority should not be left to the will of the voters?

On Condition of Release

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is in the news again. He has been under pressure from the national and Mississippi NAACP to grant early releases to Jamie and Gladys Scott, two sisters serving unusually long prison sentences for armed robbery. This week he did it.  Their sentences will be suspended. However, there is a twist to this story:  Jamie Scott, 38 requires regular dialysis. In a statement, the governor said Glady’s release is “conditional” on her donating a kidney to her sister.  No get-out-of-jail-free card, here.

By all accounts, the incarceration terms for these young, African-American women from Mississippi were particularly harsh. They have each already served 16 years of a life sentence. From the Washington Post:

The sisters were convicted of luring two men into an armed robbery that netted $11. Their three teenage accomplices, who hit each man in the head with a shotgun and took their wallets, have served their sentences and been released.

The national and Mississippi NAACP had been working for much of the year to win the release of the Scotts, who would have come up for parole in 2014. Barbour, who is weighing a run for president, announced his decision a week after he ran afoul of civil rights advocates.

The NAACP is happy:

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, who met with Barbour about the sisters' case, said the governor's office has made it clear Gladys Scott will not go back to prison if her kidney is not a match. Both sisters will follow traditional parole release procedures.

"This is a shining example of how governors should use their commutation powers," he said.

Medical ethicists, not so happy:

Dr Michael Shapiro, the chief of organ transplants at Hackensack University medical centre in New Jersey and chair of the ethics committee at the united network for organ sharing, said the organ transplant should not be a condition of release.

"The simple answer to that is you can't pay someone for a kidney," Shapiro said. "If the governor is trading someone 20 years for a kidney, that might potentially violate the valuable consideration clause."

The valuable consideration clause is meant to prohibit the buying or selling of organs. Shapiro said the Scott sisters' situation could violate that rule because it could be construed as trading a thing of value – freedom from prison – for an organ.

And then again, this might be all about the bottom line.

Jamie Scott's kidney dialysis treatment creates a substantial cost to the state, said Barbour.

Mississippi Corrections Commissioner Christopher B. Epps, who agreed with the decision to suspend the sentences, said Jamie Scott's three-times-a-week dialysis costs the state about $190,000 a year.

The operation would be covered by Medicaid, with federal government dollars. And the sisters plan on living in Florida after release, so any additional medical care will not be on the back of Mississippi tax payers.

Somehow, I do believe that on an intellectual level Gov. Barbour thinks these women should be set free.  But, he is somehow unable to do it without condition.  And given the ethical (and perhaps legal) considerations, this story is not going to go away.  Can't wait to hear how Gov. Barbour's handlers unpack this one.  Much, much spinning to be done.  Following this story, and others that come out of the Mississippi Statehouse in the coming year should be very intriguing.

End-of-the-Year Thank You!

I am not a big fan of end-of-the-year retrospectives, but since I cannot go to sleep without watching MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, I was treated to a fairly good 2010 review.

Rachel Maddow and her staff are justifiably very proud of all the reporting they did this year to assist in bringing the real-life stories of the men and women personally touched by the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy into our living rooms. You can watch the portion of last night’s show dedicated to these fine folks who have sacrificed so much of themselves for their country here.

Lt. Margaret Witt

I was particularly touched by (again) seeing the interview with Lt. Margaret Witt, a 17 year Air Force Reserve officer who after being discharged under DADT sued the Air Force. As a nurse, she saved countless lives. In September 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton – a George W. Bush appointee – ruled that she should be reinstated to her unit. This ruling gave hope to so many others who had either already been discharged under the policy, or feared for their careers.

What was in part SO remarkable about the ruling, were the comments made from the bench by Judge Leighton. Hugely empowering words that gave voice to the personal battles endured by those directly affected by this discriminatory policy. And their friends, families and loved ones who suffered along with them.

After ruling that retired Major Margaret Witt, a lesbian Air Force Reserve officer, should be reinstated to her unit, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton on Friday made the following comments from the bench:

Major Witt, you and I are unlikely to see one another again, in this context, anyway. I'd like to make a couple of points before you go:

1) I hope you will request reinstatement with the Air Force Reserves and the 446th [her unit]. You will provide the best evidence that open service of gays and lesbians will have no adverse effect on cohesion, morale or readiness in this or perhaps any Air Force or military unit.

2) You have been and continue to be a central figure in a long-term, highly charged civil-rights movement. That role places extraordinary stresses on you, I know. Today, you have won a victory in that struggle, the depth and duration of which will be determined by other judicial officers and, hopefully soon, the political branches of government. You said something in the trial that resonated with me. You said the best thing to come out of all this turmoil is the reaction of your parents when you told them of your sexual orientation: their love and support for you.

Not withstanding the victory you obtained here today, for yourself and for others, I would submit to you that the best thing to come out of all this tumult is still that love and support you have received from your family. You are truly blessed as a family and I am sure they will see you through whatever obstacles and difficulties you may encounter along the road ahead.

Sometimes it's not just about politics, or the law, or simply what is right. Sometimes it is in large part about people's every day lives. And how wonderful. Lt. Witt is expected to re-enlist in 2011. She can return to going about the business of saving lives.  She can return to her own life.

Thank you, Lt. Margaret Witt!

The Inevitability of Gay Marriage

Something is up with this White House and gay marriage.

First, President Obama goes on a huge segue about gay marriage during his press conference this week. He responded as part of a question on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” that secondarily addressed the issue of gay marriage. He really went at it, when he could have glossed over the second part of the question.

He personalized the question tremendously in stating that his views on the issue were evolving, almost assuming the average person could relate to him because they were presently engaging in the same type of thinking.

With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I've spoken about this recently. As I've said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.

At this point, what I've said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think -- and I think that's the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we're going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.

And then today, Vice President Joe Biden goes on Good Morning and says “gay marriage in the U.S is inevitable.” You can watch here.

From the L.A. Times:

"I think the country is evolving, and I think there is an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage," Biden said. Same-sex marriages are legal in five states and the District of Columbia.

So, what’s up? More than cozying up to the base?

Census Day Arrives

U.S. Census numbers are out today, numbers that will be used to reapportion seats in Congress. It is no surprise that the new political map will give more seats to the South and West, and take away from the Northeast and Midwest.

From the NYT:

On the surface, the Republicans would seem to have the advantage. Most of the states winning seats trend Republican, and most of those losing them tend to elect Democrats. What is more, Republicans will be in a strong position to steer the process, with Republican governors outnumbering Democrats 29 to 20, with one independent, come January. Republicans also gained control of at least 18 legislative chambers in the midterms last month.

“Republicans are in the best position since modern redistricting began,” said Tim Storey, an expert on redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But population gains in the South and West were driven overwhelmingly by minorities, particularly Hispanics, and the new districts, according to the rules of redistricting, will need to be drawn in places where they live, opening potential advantages for Democrats, who tend to be more popular among minorities.

And an extensive analysis from Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight:

The partisan patterns are by no means uniform. Democrats will benefit from growing Hispanic populations in some places, and some Republican-leaning rural districts in Farm Belt states like Iowa are losing population. Further, in the urban areas that are losing population, like Cleveland and New Orleans, the voters are so overwhelmingly Democratic that modest changes in boundaries will not harm Democrats much. But the trends should benefit Republicans over all, almost no matter how the new boundary lines are drawn

I am sure there will be lots more commentary in the coming weeks, and lots of fun ways to interact with the data!