Cartoon of the Day

Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution

A Loss of Innocence

Once again, the Supreme Court has effectively held that the concept of justice does not mean that justice should ultimately prevail in the halls of justice. Ruling in the DA's Office v. Osborne case, Supreme Court says convicts don't have right to DNA test, the Court found:

Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction, a split Supreme Court ruled yesterday, even though the technology provides an 'unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.'

In the court's first examination of how to treat the rapidly evolving field of biological testing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the 5-4 majority that it was up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right to testing that might prove innocence long after conviction.

The 'challenges DNA technology poses to our criminal justice systems and our traditional notions of finality' are better left to elected officials than federal judges, he wrote.

'To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,' he wrote. He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Calling it "a beaut of a decision from the increasingly brutal and inhumane conservative-dominated Supreme Court," Matthew Yglesias observes (as I have also), that the Court's decision compounds the errors that can occur with the win-at-all costs mentality that all too often exists in criminal justice system:

Obviously, the purpose of the established system of criminal justice is to use punishment of the guilty as a means of controlling crime. The general hostility of most people in the law enforcement and prosecutorial universe to exonerating evidence is a little bit hard to understand. The predominant thinking of Alaska in this case seems to be that the punishment of the innocent works as a close substitute for the punishment of the guilty, so that given the heinous nature of the crime the state has a strong interest in convicting someone or other of it irrespective of the facts. This is exactly the sort of madness and injustice we rely on the judicial system to rescue us from. But not the new Roberts Court!

See Conservative Justices’ Strange Enthusiasm for the Punishment of the Innocent.

Of course, this is precisely what I would have expected the Court to do after denying an appeal in the Troy Davis case last year. In that case, which I've written about several times before, there were compelling issues raised about guilt or innocence in that death penalty case and Davis' attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping for a ruling that the Eighth Amendment creates a right of an innocent person not to be executed. The appeal also sought a new hearing to present the new evidence in an effort to spare his life, which the Court declined to accept for consideration.

But what else could be expected from the Roberts court, as BuzzFlash notes, High Court's Supremely Flawed DNA Ruling Puts States Rights Before Due Process, Justice, Public Safety and Empathy:

At the Supreme Court of the United States Thursday, a 5-4 ruling against William Osborne seemed to confirm that ideology and lack of empathy trump everything else for some of the right-leaning justices now serving there. 'Although the right wing bloc obviously consider themselves on the 'law and order' side of the bench, their lack of empathy in this matter actually promotes lawlessness and needlessly puts women in danger,' one court observer wrote yesterday.

Likewise, Lawyers, Guns and Money, in This Is Your Court On Conservatives, adds:

Roberts and his right-wing colleagues share another longstanding trait of American conservatives: prioritizing 'state's rights' over human rights. And as in most cases, the benefits of this as applied to this case are hard to discern. While federalism may promote liberty in some respects, there is no tangible benefit to permitting states to imprison potentially innocent people when assessing exculpatory evidence would entail little expense. And interpreting the due process clause to give the defendant a right to present exculpatory evidence in this case can only be a threat to the 'sovereignty' and 'dignity' of the states if one believes that there should be virtually no federal supervision of the state criminal procedure, which the 14th Amendment precludes even if it wasn't a stupid idea on the merits. If preventing illegal detention isn't at the heart of due process, I'm not sure what is.

Noting the criticism of the case and of the conservatives who endorsed it, Glenn Greenwald observes that the Obama DOJ also continued to advocate this egregious position before the Court as originally proposed by the Bush Administration, Obama, the Right and defendants' rights:

[T]his was yet another case where the Obama DOJ sided with the Bush administration and advocated the position that the conservative justices adopted. The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger . . . .

* * * *

There may be justifications for what the Obama DOJ did (all other things being equal, government lawyers tend to prefer continuity in positions after changes in administration), but -- as is true for so many controversies these days -- it's rather difficult to heap all the blame on conservatives for something that the Obama administration itself embraces and is working to bring about.

What was not mentioned in Greenwald's piece is the fact that AG Eric Holder spoke out after the opinion was announced in favor of the use of DNA evidence. As reported by the Blog of the Legal Times, DNA Evidence Can Exonerate the Wrongfully Charged:

A day after the Supreme Court ruled defendants have no constitutional right to a review of DNA evidence in post-conviction proceedings, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. underscored the Justice Department position that seeks to expand access to DNA evidence in the courts.

* * * *

“And we are mindful that DNA evidence can be used to exonerate those who are wrongfully charged,” Holder said today. “Our mission at the Justice Department is not simply to win cases. It is to do justice, and science and DNA can help us accomplish this.”

Yesterday, Holder issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne that said, in part: “Constitutional rights are only one part of a fair and full system of justice. Simply because a course of action is constitutional does not make it wise.” Holder said in the statement that the Court “merely spoke about what is constitutional, not what is good policy.”

I'm not sure I agree that the constitution would not also require such a result, but I agree that it is good policy, at a minimum, to ensure that an ability to establish innocence is always guaranteed in our system of justice, at whatever stage in the process. As I mentioned before, with respect to the Troy Davis case, former Judge William Sessions noted:

Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote that the judicial system, “like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.” I agree. Especially when it comes to a human life, the courts should always be able to examine claims of innocence.

In Guns We Trust

Admittedly, I'm not much of a fan of the Terrorist Watch list, as I've mentioned before:

One of my major pet peeves (if you can characterize a desire to uphold our constitutional rights as a pet peeve) is the TSA's "No Fly List." My main objection is that The List is a secret list, with information gathered by the government from various sources (including, no doubt, the various illegal spying efforts that the FBI and others have engaged in), that has information about you that you are not permitted to see, challenge or be removed from. More Power than Law. The true size of The List is unknown. See, Big Brother Run Amuck: 435,000 Americans in "Terrorist" Database. Numerous errors have been reported, to no avail.

Despite my objections, I also believe that if we have to have The List, a process should be put in place that would allow a person who believes he is on The List to have a way to petition for review and removal, if appropriate. Rather than fix the problems with The List by paring down the numbers to those who may in fact be "terrorists," this over-inclusive list has grown even larger since I wrote about it 2 years ago. Back in 2007, the database contained over 400,000 names. Now, it's over 1 million.

Clearly, The List is riddled with problems. Yet, being on The List doesn't deprive one of all of our rights under our constitution. Thankfully, the right to buy and bear arms is a precious freedom that even The List cannot infringe.

A NYTimes article, On Terrorist Watch List, but Allowed to Buy Guns, reports:

People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.

In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

Responding to blogger Instapundit, who defends the gun purchase exclusion, No More Mister Nice Blog echoes my sentiments, in The Gun Is Sacred:

Well, terrorist watch lists are bad and Orwellian when they're full of mistakes and put together without due process. And the one we've got, yes, is quite flawed. I've criticized it repeatedly for ensnaring people just because they have common names, or merely share names with people who are under suspicion. And there need to be much better procedures for appealing inclusion on the list. But if we're using it to keep people off planes, or for any purpose at all, why is the gun so sacrosanct that it gets a carve-out? Oh yeah, I forgot: this is America, and the gun is God.

Yes, we must keep our priorities in order.

Above all, we believe in Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Arms.

A Pox on You

Don Wright, Tribune Media Services

After a busy start to the week, with the annual dinner meeting of a non-profit whose Board I recently joined and a celebratory dinner for a friend who was just appointed Dean of the University of Maryland School of Law, I've been plagued for the last few days with the worst of the worst -- a summer flu.

I suppose there's some consolation in the non-stop dreary, rainy weather that we've had, so at least I'm consoled by the fact that I'm not missing any prime pool time.

I have my own suspicions about how I contracted it. Last week-end in Scranton, I attended our Church picnic in McDade Park, but I left just as the priest began setting up for an outdoor mass. I believe a curse was put on me for skipping out early.

Of course, I've had no end of diagnoses and suggested remedies to try. The "advantage" of having physicians as clients, I suppose. However, can I say that I wasn't especially thrilled when an ER doctor client said that it sounded like I had swine flu & should get tested. Bed rest & lots of fluids were also recommended (and even a homeopathic remedy, believe it or not) -- as soon as I finished whatever project that the particular client had called about.

Luckily, it looks like on the fever & chills are gone, along with the sore throat. So I'm just left with the dull headache, fatigue and of course, the sniffles, coughing & sneezing. And with the pitter patter of the rain outside my window, I have no desire to go outside today, so I'm sure to get the all of the R&R I need.

Cartoon of the Day

Iran-I-am

(click to enlarge)

Sage Stossel, The Atlantic

Sailing Away

I'm back from a long week-end in Scranton for my nephew's Graduation Party. Another trip back in time as I wander the halls of the Tripp House. As I mentioned 2 years ago when my other nephew graduated, Ain't No Party Like a Scranton Party:

The trip to Scranton was a real trip down memory lane for me. The Graduation Party was held at The Tripp House, which is Scranton's oldest home. Even more, years before it was taken over by the Junior League and restored as an event venue, my grandmother lived there. My brothers and I went to the house early to help set up for the party, so I got to wander around the house and remember spending time there with Noni. Great memories.

The rest of the week-end was also filled with family-related activities. On Saturday, we attended a Church picnic at McDade Park and another graduation party that evening.
Scranton has some of the best state parks around. After the bucolic setting of McDade Park, on Sunday the family spent the day at Lackawanna State Park, where we went kayaking and canoeing. After the rest of the gang headed out on the lake, my brother & I sat with my parents for a while, before we decided to hop into our own canoe.

Of course, anyone who knows me knows that me in a canoe isnn't exactly a picture that easily comes to mind. I probably haven't been in a canoe since the days when we had our vacation house in the Poconos. In fact, after the shock wore of the faces of my niece and nephews when we caught up with them, I had to take pictures to prove to doubters that I really was sailing the lake in my canoe.

Cartoon of the Day

Tim Egan, Deep Cover

Cartoon of the Day

Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post Gazette

MoBo's Gotta Go

Another story that I've been wanting to write about is the dismissal of the criminal case against celebrity Pittsburgh coroner Cyril Wecht. As was reported by TPM, Wecht Charges To Be Dropped:

The charges against Dr. Cyril Wecht, the celebrity forensic pathologist and prominent Pittsburgh-area Democrat, will be dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush appointee who had been accused of pursuing a politically motivated prosecution against Wecht, [last week] filed a motion to drop the charges, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Wecht, the former Allegheny County coroner, was charged in 2006 with misusing his office for private gain. Last year, his trial ended in a hung jury.

Buchanan said in a news conference that her decision to ask for the charges to be dropped was prompted by a judicial ruling last month -- finding that crucial evidence was inadmissible because prosecutors' search warrants were too general -- which she said made it difficult to move forward with the prosecution.

Not happy about having to admit defeat, Buchanan couldn't resist taking a last swipe against Wecht. Lacking the professionalism of her office, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes that Buchanan added, Wecht charges dropped:

'He wasn't acquitted of anything. It was a hung jury.

'However, in our society, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.'

Dr. Wecht, at a news conference yesterday afternoon following the judge's signing of the order to dismiss the case, called Ms. Buchanan a 'sore loser.'

'Her record, her actions speak for themselves,' he said. 'She has no shame at all. Absolutely none. Evidently, whether it's biological, or genetic or an environmental, infectious contaminant of some kind, she is incapable of simply telling the truth, not to mention being a gracious loser.'

Dr. Wecht criticized the government for filing an 84-count indictment and whittling it down to just 14 counts before dismissing the entire case.

'What does that say about professional decency and ethical responsibility?' he asked.

Her conduct at the end -- and throughout the course of this partisan witchunt -- have earned her the scorn she deserves. Showing the degree of vindictiveness she exemplified, even the conservative Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune Review criticized her, Buchanan's big case slams shut for good:

The problem isn't that U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan lacks the courage of her convictions.

The problem is — after spending more than three years, and by conservative estimates more than $200,000 — she lacks a conviction against Dr. Cyril Wecht.

Given the resources her office devoted in the case against the nationally renowned forensic pathologist and former Allegheny County coroner, that's a significant problem.

Buchanan pursued Wecht with the same dogged determination the 17th-century residents of Salem, Mass., displayed in hunting alleged practitioners of the occult.

But Tuesday, she reluctantly announced she would drop public corruption charges against Wecht.

Buchanan had little choice, really.

Last year's seven-week Wecht trial ended with a hung jury. Before a retrial could occur, U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin recently ruled there was a bit of trouble regarding the evidence the government compiled against Wecht.

Owing to the use of improper search warrants, the evidence was inadmissible.

Oops.

Red-faced and empty-handed, Buchanan yesterday was left to star in her own personal version of every prosecutor's most terrifying horror movie: 'Dude, Where's My Case?'

See also, the Post-Gazette editorial, End of the road: More than the Wecht case should be over and Bush US Attorney Buchanan, of GOP ProsecutorGate Infamy, Gets Accused of Over-Prosecuting Dems by Richard Mellon Scaife's Paper.

As I've mentioned before: Because of my ties to Pittsburgh, I have followed the Cyril Wecht case for some time, which has been prosecuted by Buchanan amid claims of political prosecution. The Party's Out of Step. As I noted in another essay on Buchanan's refusal to leave, Bush League Leftovers:

I've written about Mary Beth Buchanan before and her adherance to the GOP party line, The Devotee. In fact, the partisan prosecution of Cyril Wecht of Pittsburgh earned the ire of former Governor Dick Thornburgh, a Republican, who testified in Congress against conduct of Buchanan. The Party's Out of Step. And the fact that she's a crony of former Senator Santorum -- need I say more? She was, of course, in good company in a department stacked with the likes of [Alice Martin of Birmingham] and other disreputible US Attorneys. See The Face of a "Loyal Bushie".

See Time to Go.

An old friend from my Pittsburgh days was also the attorney for Wecht, so I was delighted to see that he prevailed in such a high profile case.

But the best news about the outcome of this matter is that it removes any question of partisanship if Buchanan is now booted from her position by Attorney General Eric Holder. It's long overdue. As Will Bunch of AttyTood put it, One American job that should be shed:

The new president typically exercises the ability to appoint new U.S. Attorneys shortly after taking office; there are some prosecutors, like Chicago's Patrick Fitzgerald, who manage to rise above partisan politics, but Mary Beth Buchanan is not one of them. Aggressively and overtly political prosecutions of people like Wecht and former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman -- not unlike torture -- were more the hallmarks of a banana republic than the United States of America. The sooner the Obama administration moves to clean up Justice, the better.

Along with Alice Martin of Alabama, who has persecuted former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on flimsy charges, Buchanan should be on the top of the list of Gotta Goes. As the Tribune Review remarked:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced the replacement of a number of U.S. attorney holdovers from the Bush administration is imminent. Don't be surprised if Buchanan is among the first to go.

In the wake of this costly, colossal, time-consuming failure, Buchanan will leave the job with a dubious legacy.

She exits not with a Wecht, but a whimper.

Cartoon of the Day

Signe Wilkinson, Philadelphia Daily News

Screwball Sarah

I'm sure it's no surprise that the subject matter of my first return post is Sarah Palin. Like me -- she's back! A few friends & blogging buddies have emailed me, wondering why I haven't written about her Palinness.

I have to admit that I can't believe I'm still writing about Sarah Palin. It's amazing to me that she still manages to make the news with her royal rants on nothing. In fact, if our Palin-Be-Gone Wager hadn't ended in mid-March, I would have surely lost. Rather than a Palin Barbie, they should have made a Sarah Energizer Bunny.

Her Royal Governor, Sarah Palin, first made the news last week over her comments accusing the Obama Administration of trying to "control the people."




As she said (via Gort42), Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to "control the people":

In a speech introducing Michael Reagan — the son of former President Ronald Reagan — to an audience in Anchorage, Palin warned that the government is planning to "bail out debt ridden states" so it can "get in there and control the people."

"Since when can you get out of huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt?" Palin asked. "It all really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this economic policy is explained."

"We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she said. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people."

"Some in Washington would approach our economic woes in ways that absolutely defy Economics 101, and they fly in the face of principles, providing opportunity for industrious Americans to succeed or to fail on their own accord," she said. "Those principles it makes you wonder what the heck some in Washington are trying to accomplish here."

As Crooks & Liars notes, "[t]here's something pretty weird hearing the term 'Economics 101,' being uttered by Sarah because she showed little knowledge of economics on the campaign trail." Even stranger is the thought that the Democrats are out to "control the people." Really? Does the Obama Administration want to dictate who people can legally marry? Are the Democrats the party interested in restricting contraceptives? Banning abortion? And remind me -- which political party has been wiretapping citizens? Infiltrating the ranks of war protesters to spy on legitimate activities? Let's talk control. Really.

Palin's Anchorage speech has provided much fodder, well beyond the usual Malaprops. She also applauded Michael Regan, son of Ronny, for his ability to "screw political correctness." See "Screw Political Correctness" -- Sarah Palin in Her Own Words.

And then, of course, was the kerfuffle over the fact that she plagerized several remarks in the speech. As Geoffrey Dunn at Huffington Post notes, Palin Lifts From Gingrich in Anchorage Speech, along with a side-by-side comparison of the offending lines:

Sarah Palin's speech delivered in Anchorage on Wednesday -- the one in which she declared "screw political correctness" and wondered why "we have to pussyfoot around our troublesome foes" -- repeatedly lifted from an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley without attribution.

While Palin twice mentioned Gingrich in the speech (she never acknowledged Shirley), she frequently mixed her own remarks about Reagan with passages that appear to be pulled directly from the Gingrich-Shirley article.

And finally, in one of her famous "will she or won't she" moves, last night Sarah Palin deigned to put in an appearance at a GOP fundraiser after playing coy for a while. Dana Milbank reports, in Keynoter or Not, Palin Steals Spotlight at GOP Fundraiser:

First the Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee was invited to be the keynote speaker at the party's annual congressional fundraising dinner.

Then she was not the keynoter, replaced by former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Then she was invited to speak, again. Then that invitation was rescinded.

Then she let word slip out that she was unhappy about the whole state of events and was thinking of not attending at all.

Then -- after much public bickering between Palin loyalists and party officials -- she finally agreed to come, speaking slot or no.

As with everything Sarah, even her mere appearance at the event is the subject of controversy. Milbank says she was the center of attention at the event, while Politico says she was hardly noticed, Sarah Palin makes little splash at dinner:

Ending weeks of she-said, they-said drama, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin turned in a cameo appearance at the gala fundraising dinner for her party's House and Senate candidates in Washington Monday night.

But in spite of all the back-and-forth between her camp and dinner organizers leading up to the event, Palin's presence went little-noticed.

* * * *

If she hadn't walked quickly across the stage the outset and if her presence hadn’t been mentioned briefly in the remarks of some of the evening's speakers, it would have been hard to know that she had, in fact, shown up.

Oh Sarah, I'm so glad you're back.

(Video via Crooks and Liars)

Cartoon of the Day

Milt Priggee, Puget Sound Business Journal

She's Back

I haven't disappeared into the great beyond of the "ethernets" -- at least not yet, anyway.

Blogging has been light or non-existent for the past month or so due to my crazy schedule, both at work and home. Despite the fact that my blogging has suffered, most of the stuff going on in my life is good.

Work has been especially hectic, with the usual emergency client matters, as well as the latest technical difficulties compounding the problem. Trust me, I'm not complaining about the client workload -- especially when I see the severe problems faced by BigLaw these days. I realized many years ago that the big firm life was not for me, so I left before things got really out of hand and I've never looked back (other than with great relief).

On the other hand, technical difficulties at work continue to plague the office. We recently switched our phone system, moving to T1/PRI lines. Unfortunately, the transition has been anything but smooth. Our system has been down several days each week since the move two months ago. What makes it worse is the fact that the PRI lines hold not only our phones, but our internet & fax as well, so when they go down, we are totally shut down. No fun. The frustration and hassle of dealing with our work under these conditions has been burdensome and annoying, to say the least.

Outside of work, I've been on the road, visiting family in Scranton, Delaware & Pittsburgh for a funeral, wedding & graduation. Another trek to Scranton is scheduled for this week-end for more graduation festivies.

Our daughter is home for the summer & we've had to adjust to having her around again. Thankfully, she is also gainfully employed. Of course, her job is selling kitchen knives, so our assistance is required -- imposing on friends & family to listen to her sales spiel. But at least she has finally gotten a real paycheck & she's enjoying her job.

Besides that, my social life has been more active of late and I've even started going to the gym a few times a week after work, in my attempt to prepare for beach blanket sun & fun. In fact, with the beautiful weather on Sunday, I spent a good part of the day at the pool. Next to the beach, my favorite summer pasttime is the pool.

With all that's been happening in my life, most of my blogging has been written in my mind, with not much time to actually sit down & write it down to post. But I'm hoping things will calm down just a bit, so I can get back to my blogging routine.

(Sign via Gort42)

Quote of the Day

Limbaugh hasn't had a natural erection since the Nixon Administration; think he's compensating for something? Now, I wouldn't pick on him for any of this stuff, not his blubbiness, not his man-boobs, not his inability to have a natural erection—none of that stuff—to me, off limits until! until! Mr. Limbaugh, you turn that sort of gun on somebody else—once you start doing that, you're fair game, fat boy. Absolutely, you jiggly pile of mess. You're just fair game, and you're going to get it, too.

Ronald Reagan, Jr. from The Slog

(Via AMERICAblog)

Time to Commence

Today's the day for President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame's graduation, amid the protests of the small, but vocal anti-abortion activists.

Despite the media attention given to the "controversy" over his commencement, the reality is that the student body and a majority of Catholics do not oppose Obama's appearance at the university. Media Matters highlights the hypocrisy in Barack Obama, Notre Dame, and the Casey myth:

President Obama is scheduled to speak at Notre Dame's graduation ceremony this weekend, after more than a month of complaints from a small number of anti-abortion rights activists who have received media attention far disproportionate to their numbers.

Since the announcement on March 20 that Obama would speak, The Washington Post alone has addressed the controversy in 11 articles and columns. The New York Times has dealt with it in eight columns and articles. And as for television news segments, there have been too many to count.

Notre Dame's class valedictorian also dismissed the so-called controversy, noting in a Huffington Post piece, Obama Practices Catholic Values:

"This issue has not divided the campus by any means," says the Catholic, pro-life biology major who will be attending Harvard Medical School after graduation.

. . . Bollman stressed that her peers do not view the president's overall values as inconsistent with Catholicism. In fact, Bollman says Obama is practicing Catholic values in his administration. Like Jesus, Bollman says, Obama is trying to invite "everyone to the table."

A group of esteemed liberal Catholics have taken out a full page ad in the local South Bend paper welcoming the President. And, in what can only be seen as a show of support to the President of Notre Dame for asking Obama to be commencement speaker, the Class of 2009 chose him as Senior Class Fellow:

The University of Notre Dame’s Class of 2009 has selected Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the University’s president, as the Senior Class Fellow.

Voted on by seniors, the award is an “accolade traditionally given to a member of the Notre Dame community who has had a significant impact on the graduating class,” according to W. Joseph Brown, senior class president.

Media Matters also focuses on the irony of the protests, since Democrats have been criticized for years about former PA Governor Bob Casey:

For nearly 17 years, the media have told us that the Democrats' refusal to allow Casey to speak at their 1992 national convention because of his opposition to abortion was an exclusionary, closed-minded stunt that drove away potential supporters.

Adding to the irony is the fact that Casey's son, PA Senator Robert Casey Jr is the commencement speaker at King's College today as well and his appearance there has drawn the ire from Scranton Bishop Martino. King’s College’s invitation draws Martino’s anger. Casey, like his father, is a strong anti-abortion advocate. His real sin (besides being a Democrat) is the fact that he has supported President Obama.

The Catholic Church has always been against contraceptives and other forms of birth control (other than the mommy-inducing rhythm method), as well as abortion. Yet, it is only in the past few years that it has become the Church of the Anti-Abortion Faithful. It has an all-defining and all-consuming issue for the Church, overwhelming any other creed or article of faith that was once part of the Church's teachings.

This can be seen in the clergy's reaction to Obama's selection at Notre Dame. As the Rude Pundit notes, Why Is This Pro-Choice Commencement Guest Different Than the Others?:

As bullshit protests begin to build over President Barack Obama's upcoming speech at the graduation ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame, as the froth is whipped into a rich, thick foam by self-aggrandizing pro-life activists and desperate-for-relevance Catholic bishops, perhaps a bit of history of graduation activities at Notre Dame is in order:

In 1980, the commencement speaker was Carter administration Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a supporter of abortion rights.

In 1987, an honorary degrees were given to the pro-choice Coretta Scott King, Alan Simpson, and Rosalyn Carter.

In 1991, an honorary degree was given to Jane Pauley, a pro-choice supporter.

In 1992, protesters lined up as pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was given the university's Laetare Medal, "the oldest and most prestigious honor awarded an American Catholic," according to the Washington Post. President George H.W. Bush, giving the commencement keynote, went out of his way to praise Moynihan.

In 1993, an honorary degree was given to pro-choice judge Alan C. Page.

In 2000, the commencement speaker was then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who supports all kinds of family planning programs, including those where abortion is allowed.

You get the idea here? The Catholic Church: stinking with rank hypocrisy since Peter stood on a rock. And Catholics: the group that really puts the sheep in the flock.

I think that William Lindsey of Bilgrimage explains the real problem that underlies the Church's stance, in Notre Dame, Anti-Abortion Extremists, and the Pastoral Failure of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

I read about the activities of the “pro-life” extremists seeking to embarrass Notre Dame University for inviting President Obama to its commencement, and I am more than ever convinced that those staging such protests have little interest in cherishing life at all. That's not their game. That is not what this is about, the baby carriages filled with dolls covered in stage blood delivered to Fr. Jenkins’s door, the life-sized images of twelve-week fetuses placed at strategic locations around campus, the airplanes streaming giant photos of an aborted fetus.

This is about intimidation, about seeking to use fear, awe, shock as a technique to control others. It is about control, about a clearly identifiable sociological group who want to represent themselves as the voice of conscience for everyone, who sense that their control of others is waning, and who are willing to use fear as a way of reasserting their control. It is about a minority seeking to impose their will on the majority. It is about those who have for centuries claimed the right to write scripture and interpret scripture for the rest of us, continuing to assert that right in the face of claims that undermine the right.

As always with these things, it's about power & control. Or, as I've said before "Pay, Pray, Obey."

________

The commencement address will be live at 2 PM (EST) on the University of Notre Dame website.

Quote of the Day

“Dick Cheney was on the news this week, and he said that it would be a mistake for the Republicans to moderate their policies. He said they should remain true to their core principles: gay bashing, war profiteering and torture.”

- Bill Maher

Sarah's Simple Story

At yesterday's LLWL lunch, we engaged in our perpetual discussion on the winner of the Palin-Be-Gone Wager. No declared winner yet.

As part of the Sarah table talk, the discussion turned to Palin's upcoming book deal, her opportunity to finally tell her side of the story.

No title yet. However, some great contenders can be found at The Mudflats, with an opportunity to vote on a title. A few of my favs:

The Audacity of Hype
Palin Place
Beyond the Palin
Goodnight Loon
Sarah Vain and Simple
The Lyin’ The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Finally, David Letterman's Top 10 Surprises in Sarah Palin's Memoir:

Don't Know What to do About Yoo

As an update to my previous post about the Philadelphia Inquirer adding John "Mr. Torture" Yoo to its opinion pages -- The Conservative Corner -- there has been quite the reaction from near & far.

As the NYTimes notes, Ire Over a Columnist, an Author of Torture Memos:

When The Philadelphia Inquirer hired as its new opinion columnist John C. Yoo, an author of the Bush administration’s widely criticized legal memos on harsh interrogation techniques, it was probably inevitable that the decision would draw complaints.

The surprise was that it took months to provoke much reaction, in part because it took that long for readers to realize that Mr. Yoo, a Philadelphia native, was not an occasional contributor, as he had been for years, but a regular monthly fixture at the paper. The Inquirer hired him last fall for a year, but did not make a splashy public announcement, as it did in 2007, with former Senator Rick Santorum, who writes every two weeks.

As the Times added:

Harold Jackson, The Inquirer’s editorial page editor, said he was surprised by the sudden delayed anger directed his way over Mr. Yoo. He said the decision to hire a columnist was his, but that “Mr. Yoo was suggested by the publisher,” Brian Tierney.

“There was a conscious effort on our part to counter some of the criticism of The Inquirer as being a knee-jerk liberal publication,” Mr. Jackson said. “We made a conscious effort to add some conservative voices to our mix.”

A knee-jerk liberal publication? The only people who could possibly think that are those who stopped reading it long ago. The more recent people driven away did so because it was anything but. Will Bunch noted, in Definitely not a "knee-jerk liberal publication": "I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that 'knee-jerk liberal' thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, etc., but maybe that's just me."

As for Jackson being surprised about delayed anger? Gee, I don't suppose it might have had anything to do with the fact that no one knew. As Steve Benen says, YOO CAN'T BE SERIOUS:

This doesn't work at all. First, there was "delayed anger" because no one knew -- and the paper didn't announce -- that the Inquirer had actually hired Yoo until this past weekend. As a rule, people rarely complain about a development before learning about it.

And if that's not enough, the coup d'grace was:

Post Script: Tierney told the NYT few of his readers actually care about this: "I've gotten more mail recently on our making our comics smaller than I have on John Yoo." Here's hoping that changes fairly soon.

Blogger Philebrity proposes that we locals take action to express our displeasure through a boycott of the Inky so long as Yoo Know Who is part of the paper, Editorial: Boycott The Philadelphia Inquirer.:

But to give voice to one of the architects of one of America’s darkest moments ever is simply a bridge too far. As readers and colleagues in the media (however much some Inky folks might want to deny that simple fact), we are, to put it plainly, disgusted. This city has taken a lot of abuse from the Philadelphia Inquirer over the years, and via its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it stands to take more — who knows how much local businesses will get stiffed when all is said and done? This is more than insult to injury. To even have Yoo’s voice emanating from this city’s presupposed paper of record is a blight upon Philadelphia itself. And it’s here that we say, “Enough.” Please join us in boycotting the Philadelphia Inquirer from this point forward — both in physical form AND online — until the paper sees fit to remove John Yoo from its pages, and encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, Mary Shaw of Philadelphia Freedom Blog opposes the boycott, Why I oppose the Inquirer boycott:

In this country, John Yoo has the right to spew his vile nonsense, and the Inky has every right to publish his distasteful content. I don't have to read Yoo's columns if I don't want to. But I might want to. Because a key to defeating one's opponents in an argument is to understand the opponent's thought processes.

Hopefully Yoo's columns can provide us with some insights into the psyche of the torturer, and hopefully we can use those insights constructively to present better arguments to counter Yoo's talking points.

That is where we can be truly effective. Rather than boycotting the Inky, we should read each and every one of Yoo's columns. And we should respond to each column en masse with well-reasoned and well-written letters to the editor, in great enough numbers to ensure that some will get published.

I certainly agree with Mary Shaw's sentiments, but I know that there is no way that I would waste my time with the likes of Yoo (or Santorum). In my view, some ideas are so outside the realm of reason that they are worth responding to. In fact, I think part of the problem with our discourse today is that we have given a forum to people whose extremist views should never have received a platform.

I am definitely more in the boycott camp. I have chronicled the decline of the Inky since its purchase by PR mogul Brian Tierney in May of 2006. At various times, I have been annoyed enough to want to stop getting the paper -- like when Rick Santorum was hired. My husband was even willing to do so, even though he prefers to read the actual paper than the on-line version. The quality has also declined, much like the size of the paper itself, but there are still those reporters who manage to do a great job despite what has to be trying conditions. It is for that reason that I still hesitate to pull the plug. But I'm still thinking about it.

As for Tierney, I wish him nothing but the worst. And he is getting it from all over, since Inky's stance has earned it some delicious scorn. Gawker expresses it best, Philly Paper Has 'Only Despicable Republicans' Hiring Policy:

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a bankrupt paper run by a greedy Republican flack. They're going to save themselves by hiring America's most unpopular and/ or idiotic Republicans as columnists:

John Yoo, the Bush lawyer most famous for his Torture Memos, is now a bylined Inquirer columnist. Let's examine a list of the paper's recent high-profile Op-Ed page hirings:

• John Yoo.
• Rick Santorum.

See also, Did I Miss the Part Where John Yoo Actually Matters?

For more opinion on the issue, see:

Is Philly Inquirer also OK with Yoo's hypocrisy?

The Philadelphia Inquirer and John Yoo

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Yoo

Cartoon of the Day

Matt Davies, The Journal News

What's the Matter With Yoo?

The fact that I had to read about it elsewhere is perhaps most telling of all.

The editorial/op-ed section used to be the first stop on my daily perusal of the paper, which I read front-to-back (other than the sports section). No more. In fact, I no longer read the opinion pages of the Inquirer -- what I now not-so-affectionately refer to as the "Conservative Corner" of the paper.

In a recent piece by Steven Reynolds on Why the Philadelphia Inquirer is in Bankruptcy and its hiring of Rick Santorum as a columnist (coincidence? I think not), I commented:

Not to mention that Philly is a strongly Democratic town & the editorial page is now a GOP rag (I stopped reading it a while ago). Santorum, Krauthammer & Smerconish on the same masthead makes one think of the Washington (”Moonie”) Times, not the Inky.

[Brian] Tierney is supposedly trying to appeal to the suburbanites who were turned off by the “liberal bent” of the Inky, but he misunderstands that most don’t hold his hard right views. What’s particularly ironic about the choice of Santorum is that he was mainly defeated because the republicans in SE PA rejected his brand of conservationism. And, of course, it doesn’t help that he can’t express a complete thought in a rational manner.

Despite that, I was still surprised by the most recent addition to the Conservative Corner -- none other than Mr. Torture himself, John Yoo.

As Will Bunch reveals in his AttyTood blog, Inquirer defends the indefensible: A monthly column by torture architect John Yoo:

By late last year, the world already knew a great deal about John Yoo, the Philadelphia native and conservative legal scholar whose tenure in the Bush administration as a top Justice Department lawyer lies at the root of the period of greatest peril to the U.S. Constitution in modern memory. It was widely known in 2008, for example, that Yoo had argued for presidential powers far beyond anything either real or implied in the Constitution -- that the commander-in-chief could trample the powers of Congress or a free press in an endless undeclared war, or that the 4th Amendment barring unreasonable search and seizure didn't apply in fighting what Yoo called domestic terrorism.

Most famously, Yoo was known as the author of the infamous "torture memos" that in 2002 and 2003 gave the Bush and Cheney the legal cover to violate the human rights of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, based on the now mostly ridiculed claim that international and U.S. laws against such torture practices did not apply. Working closely with Dick Cheney, Cheney's staff and others, Yoo set into motion the brutal actions that left a deep, indelible stain on the American soul.

Yet none of that was enough to prevent my colleagues upstairs at the Philadelphia Inquirer -- with none of the fanfare that might normally accompany such a move -- to sign a contract with Yoo in late 2008 to give him a regular monthly column.

* * * *

Because Yoo's working arrangement with the Inquirer was never formally announced, even people who work here at 400 North Broad Street, the home of the Daily News and Inquirer,weren't immediately aware (myself included)that Yoo was now a regular columnist, joining an increasingly rightward-tilting lineup that also includes the likes ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (at $1,750 a pop), Michael Smerconish, a moderate Republican who is also a forceful advocate for torture, Kevin Ferris and others.

I've already written about the what's the matter with Yoo many times in the past, including a riff on an earlier op-ed piece, Yoo What?, in which Yoo audaciously argued that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by deciding issues of constitutional import in a manner that did not give sufficient weight to the President -- or even Congress. Of course, I'm sure he'd concede the error of his ways, now that there's a President of a different color in the House (that is, blue rather than red, of course). See also, The Horror of Yoo and Yoo Who.

Yoo's latest dribble for the Inky is to echo the latest GOP talking point, that "empathy" is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. John Yoo Argues for Neutrality, Needs Empathy. According to Orin Hatch, empathy is Code for activist. I realize that empathy is not a word in the conservative vocabulary. Not surprisingly, the Republicans believe that you have to be cold, cruel and souless in order to serve on the Court (think Thomas, Scalia and Alito).

Jonathan Valania of Phawker also has a compendium of opinion on the Inquirer's hiring of Yoo, HECKUVA JOB TIERNEY: Why Is THIS Man Bloviating About Supreme Court Replacements In The Inquirer?. As he says:

First Santorum, now Yoo. Increasingly, the Inquirer’s editorial page has become the place where the last eight years go to die. What’s next? Replacing Craig LaBan with Dick Cheney? Tom DeLay’s pitbull movie reviews? Karl Rove reviving the Marley & Me franchise?

One good thing. Yoo doesn't need a law license to write his discredited opinions on the law, so if Pennsylvania were to disbar him, as has apparently been recommended by the report for the DOJ on torture, he could still pontificate to the readers of the Inky, who appear to be matching the numbers of the GOP itself -- an ever downward spiral.