State of the Union registers at 8th grade reading level – Patriot Update

State of the Union registers at 8th grade reading level – Patriot Update

Obama Eligibility Challenges Spread to 6 States – Patriot Update

Obama Eligibility Challenges Spread to 6 States – Patriot Update

Torture and Impunity in US Courts | Common Dreams

Torture and Impunity in US Courts | Common Dreams

Global Web Censorship: Obama Sidesteps Senate Again

Home  »  1st Amendment  »  Global Web Censorship: Obama Sidesteps Senate Again

Jan 26, 2012 3 Comments ›› Staff Writer

When we reported previously on SOPA (Stop Internet Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), and the dangers of allowing the government the ability to shut down websites without due process of law, we didn’t realize that it was already too late. As it turns out, Obama has already signed a global agreement that will allow foreign countries – including China – to censor the Internet in the U.S. without due process. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1, 2011. Dozens of European nations have now signed the “agreement” as well. The EU nations claim that ACTA is a binding treaty; there’s just one problem now. Obama has violated the Constitution once again.

Under Constitutional law, treaties have to be ratified by the United States Senate. The Founding Fathers didn’t want to give the Executive branch the ability to enter into agreements with foreign nations unilaterally. Such an action could potentially be damaging to the individual states, so the Senate has to ratify these agreements. Under Obama’s ideology, states shouldn’t exist anyway, so it’s no surprise that he holds this particular LAW in contempt.

So what did he do? He’s telling Congress that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty. We’re not sure what an executive agreement is, but perhaps Obama means that it’s similar to an executive order, or more accurately, “by order of the king.”

For all intents and purposes, ACTA is far worse than the SOPA and PIPA proposals that U.S. lawmakers have shelved for now. There is still a danger that the House and Senate will pick up these laws at a later date, but for now our lawmakers have backed down after the vast majority of people expressed their distaste for these web censorship bills. ACTA, however, makes these bills look silly and childish by comparison.

The U.S. censorship bills would allow the government to shut down websites without due process of law. The Obama administration has already been asking YouTube to erase videos that are critical of the government, so let’s not pretend that the administration is doing this to protect intellectual property.

ACTA would give foreign treaty members the same ability, but against U.S. websites. Imagine that you run an online business, and you sell electronic devices. These devices are manufactured in China. One day, your Internet Service Provider receives a notice from the Chinese government. A Chinese company claims that an image that you use on your website to help sell one of these gadgets is a copyrighted image, and therefore you’ve committed copyright infringement. Your ISP is required by law under this treaty to take your website down.

It gets worse. Under the language in ACTA, a foreign company can require U.S. authorities to seize and destroy merchandise that is suspected of being counterfeited. Did you catch that? Without a court order, and without due process of law, a foreign company can claim that it SUSPECTS that a company is selling counterfeited goods. And this treaty which Obama calls an “executive agreement” would allow the Justice Department to seize your merchandise and destroy it. Business owners would not be given a chance to defend themselves in court or to prove that their merchandise is in fact authentic. The potential for abuse is staggering.

Mass protests are under way in Europe against ACTA. A group of hackers took down the Federal Trade Commission website in the U.S. in protest as well. Obama signed this treaty without even mentioning it to the American people. Then he had the audacity to claim that it wasn’t a treaty. Don’t be surprised if some of your favorite websites begin vanishing one day soon.

From The New York Times:

EDITORIAL

Filibustering Nominees Must End

Published: January 28, 2012

• RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• LINKEDIN
• COMMENTS (97)
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

The system for reviewing presidential appointments is broken. The Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the naming of judges and high-ranking executive branch officials. But the process has been hijacked by cynical partisanship and cheap tricks.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (97) »

This is not a new problem, but it has gotten intolerably worse and is now threatening to paralyze government, as Republicans use the filibuster to try to kill off agencies they do not like. The number of unfilled judicial seats is nearing a historic high.

It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators. We agree with President Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days.

This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution.

The president could be doing a better job of nominating judges expeditiously. Still, 85 federal judgeships are vacant, a number that has grown by 65 percent under Mr. Obama. Of those, the federal court’s administrators consider 31 to be “judicial emergencies,” which means other judges on courts with those openings have unmanageable caseloads.

Today, 18 judicial nominees wait for Senate votes even though they were approved by the Judiciary Committee, 16 unanimously. It can take a year for a nominee to receive a vote, an extraordinary hardship — since many cannot work while they wait — that threatens to reduce the pool of highly qualified candidates.

There are many examples. Goodwin Liu, a liberal law professor nominated last year to an appellate bench, was filibustered even though he was entirely in the legal mainstream, supported by conservatives including Kenneth Starr and Clint Bolick. His offense: He once dared to criticize Justice Samuel Alito Jr. as being too conservative.

Democrats used the filibuster to impose a two-year delay on President George W. Bush’s appointment of Jeffrey Sutton, a highly credentialed candidate, for a federal judgeship because of his doubts about Congress’s power to enact legislation protecting workers and consumers.

It is not just judicial appointments that are frozen. When Congress created a vitally needed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the financial reform law, Republicans in the Senate decided to block confirmation of a chief so the agency could not exercise its full regulatory powers.

This was not a matter of rejecting one choice for substantive reasons and asking for another. Republicans first told Mr. Obama that they would not confirm any head of the bureau unless he first agreed to gut its powers. Mr. Obama dropped his original choice, the highly qualified Elizabeth Warren, before she was named. Senate Republicans then blocked the confirmation vote for Richard Cordray, a strong pro-consumer leader and the bureau’s chief of enforcement. Mr. Obama gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, which means he will be able to serve only until the end of 2013.

Senators also use filibusters to block nonpolitical positions, like the administrator of the General Services Administration — to demand passage of a pet project, out of pique or, most troubling, as part of the Republicans’ electoral strategy to block anything Mr. Obama wants.

There was an attempt to deal with this seven years ago. A bipartisan group of 14 senators agreed to prevent judicial filibusters except under “extraordinary” circumstances after Republicans threatened to do away with the filibuster rule they now abuse so routinely. The center did not hold, and the agreement fell apart.

Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, during the 90-day period, hearings can be held, research conducted, objections raised, thunderous speeches given. But in the end, the senators will have to vote directly on the nominee, not hide behind the filibuster. This will require making confirmation hearings substantive events, not the Kabuki theater they are now.

We know it is risky. But the nation votes for a president, who needs to be able to appoint top officials and judges. The Senate needs to decide whether to give its consent or not. We can only hope that the president and the Senate will do that job responsibly, especially when both are controlled by the same party. Voters could then watch and reach their own judgments. And with fewer vacancies, government and the judiciary could do the nation’s work.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on January 29, 2012, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: Filibustering 

Supreme Court Fails to Communicate Effectively to Public, Law Scholar Argues

From The BLT:

JANUARY 30, 2012

Supreme Court Fails to Communicate Effectively to Public, Law Scholar Argues

The Supreme Court is guilty of a broad “failure to communicate” to the public it serves, constitutional scholar and law dean Erwin Chemerinsky said on Friday.

And this failure extends beyond the Court’s stubborn resistance to allowing camera coverage of its oral arguments. At almost every point of its decision-making process, according to Chemerinsky, the high court should be doing more to inform the public about what it does.

Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, was the keynote speaker at a symposium on the Court, the press and the public at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School. Scholars and journalists spoke on different aspects of the interaction – or lack thereof -- between the Supreme Court and the public.

The conference coincided with renewed calls for the Court to allow cameras in, this time for the upcoming oral argument on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Several requests for broadcast access are pending before the justices.

“People should be able to watch their government in action, and [the Supreme Court] is a crucial institution of government,” said Chemerinsky, who added that he thinks a First Amendment argument in favor of broadcast access could be made.

Chemerinsky said many members of the public think that the fate of the health care reform law will turn on issues of individual liberty, rather than on the Constitution’s commerce clause. Airing the oral arguments in late March would clear up that misunderstanding, Chemerinsky said, and would be a “tremendous civic education.”

The public would see nine “exceptionally intelligent” justices working hard to get the right answer, he said, asserting that televised oral argument would enhance, not diminish, the Court’s stature with the public. It might even encourage “better behavior,” Chemerinsky said. “Justice Thomas might ask some questions.”

Chemerinsky did not focus only on the long-running debate over cameras at oral argument, highlighting other deficiencies in its procedures. The Court has pointed with pride to advances in this area, including its web site, where decisions and oral argument transcripts are posted quickly. But Chemerinsky said much more is needed for the Court to explain itself better to litigants and to the public, in the interest of enhancing the Court’s legitimacy and public understanding.

For example, he said the Court owes litigants as well as the public some explanation why it has denied review in pending petitions. The “vast majority” of petitioners, even some that pose a circuit conflict, are denied review without learning why. That, he said, is an “extremely important failure to communicate.”

The Court could also be doing more to inform the public when it releases opinions, Chemerinsky said. It should be telling in advance which decisions it will be releasing – as courts in California and Canada do – to assist the press and commentators in getting ready to write about its decisions. The justices should also spread out the release of opinions “to allow the press to accurately report” on them, he added.

And to increase understanding of sometimes “dense and hard to follow” decisions and syllabi, Chemerinsky said the Court should hire a “clear writer” who would boil each decision down to a single paragraph that would be released along with the ruling.

Justices should also strive to make their opinions more concise, he said. There is a “perfect inverse correlation,” Chemerinsky said, between the decrease in the number of cases the Court decides with opinions, and the increase in the length of those opinions.

Other presenters at the conference sought to drew correlations between the justices’ personal experiences and their views on the media.

Conference host and Brigham Young professor RonNell Andersen Jones, formerly a clerk to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, explored the seeming inconsistency between the Court’s “overwhelmingly press-protective” decisions and its “access-stingy” policies relating to its own work. One explanation, she said, is that the Court can exercise “a colossal amount of control over their operations.”

Boston College Law School professor Mary-Rose Papandrea spoke about the justices’ “quite cautious” approach to new technology in their decisions and in their personal lives. She said “my beloved boss” Justice David Souter, for whom she clerked, recently said – perhaps jokingly – that he had tried to use an iPad, but hid it in a closet because he could not figure out how to turn it off.

By Tony Mauro

Posted by Sam Skolnik on January 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

TRACKBACK

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20167615af2cd

From ADF and FOX News:

Evidence Mounts Against Justice Kagan For Recusal In ObamaCare Suit

By Ronald Rotunda

Published January 26, 2012

| FoxNews.com

•   Print
•   Email
•   Share
• inShare8

Last month, Chief Justice Roberts gave his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, but it was quite different from prior ones. For the first time, it focused on when Supreme Court Justices should disqualify (or “recuse”) themselves from a case because of a conflict of interest. He acknowledged that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges applies to all federal judges except Supreme Court Justices. However, he assured us that the Justices do, in fact, look to this Code for guidance, and follow it, along with the federal statue, federal advisory opinions, and court precedent.

All this comes hard on the heels of those calling on Justice Elena Kagan to disqualify herself in the ObamaCare litigation because of her role, as Solicitor General, in preparing its constitutional defense. These calls have intensified with the release of recent emails. Justice Kagan’s supporters respond that she testified in her confirmation hearings that she had nothing to do with ObamaCare.

First, her phraseology was much more precise. She said she would only recuse herself from any case in which she “officially formally approved something,” or “served as counsel of record” or “played any substantial role.” But the statute requires disqualification if Kagan, as a federal employee (she was the former Solicitor General) “participated” as an “adviser” on a matter, even if she did not give any formal advice. She also must disqualify herself if her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, the Obama Administration has turned over some emails but it refuses to turn over many others because, it says, these emails are “protected by the attorney work product doctrine.” That doctrine, the DOJ affidavit explains, covers discussion by “OSG” (Office of Solicitor General) lawyers about “legal issues, arguments, and strategy concerning anticipated” litigation over ObamaCare. So, the DOJ is simultaneously claiming that it completely walled off Kagan from any discussions involving the constitutional defense of ObamaCare, while admitting that Kagan was participating in emails discussing “legal issues, arguments, and strategy concerning” the anticipated ObamaCare litigation.

In March of 2010, there are a series of emails to or from Kagan; the subject line of all of them is “Health care litigation meeting.” The DOJ refused to disclose these emails because they discuss legal arguments for the “expected [health care] litigation.” If Kagan hermetically sealed herself from discussions on shaping defenses for ObamaCare litigation, why is she repeatedly sending and receiving emails shaping defenses for ObamaCare litigation? The Government refuses to release these emails, on grounds of a litigation privilege, while claiming that it erected such a solid wall around Kagan that she never would send or receive such emails. This wall must have more holes than Swiss cheese. If we can read theses emails, we will learn if the legal theory developed in those meetings is the legal theory that Kagan adopts when she rules on the case.

A week after the president announced her nomination to the Supreme Court, a DOJ press officer emailed the Deputy Solicitor General and asked if Kagan had been involved in the preparations for health care litigation. Notwithstanding these earlier emails, he responded, a minute later: “No she never has been involved in any of it. I've run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.” A few minutes later, he forwarded that email to Kagan.

One would think, if Kagan’s Deputy was correct, that Kagan would simply say, “of course,” or, perhaps nothing. But that is not what happened. Less than two minutes later, Kagan wrote: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy [the DOJ press officer], you should not say anything about this before talking to me.” What is there to “coordinate”? Why would Kagan suggest that they have to get their stories straight? And why “talk” instead of using emails (which leave a paper trail)?

The Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a Compendium of Selected Opinions, to guide federal judges on ethical issues. One section deals with “prior government employment.” The typical fact scenario is a government employee (often a U.S. Attorney) who becomes a judge. Several pages summarizing prior ethics opinions all say the same thing: if the U.S. Attorney was personally involved in a pending or impending matter, she must disqualify herself, and the parties cannot waive that disqualification; if she was not personally involved, but the impending matter was in her office (under her responsibility), she must disqualify herself, unless the parties waive the disqualification.

At the very least, Kagan must disqualify herself because her office was involved with the prospective ObamaCare litigation. However, the parties could waive this disqualification. Of course, if Justice Kagan was personally involved, she will be in the category where the parties cannot waive disqualification.

Justice Kagan should also follow Supreme Court precedent on this issue. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943). Justice Jackson refused to participate because the case began in 1939, he became Attorney General in 1940, and thus he “succeeded to official responsibility for it.” Therefore, he disqualified himself and wrote his opinion because “I desire the reason to be a matter of record.” The remaining question is if Chief Justice Roberts was correct when he assured us that the Justices follow their own precedent on disqualification.

Mr. Rotunda, co-author of Legal Ethics (published by the American Bar Association & West Pub. Co.), is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/26/evidence-mounts-against-justice-kagan-for-recusal-in-obamacare-suit/#ixzz1l0R4nEDq

Bishop blasts secularist intolerance, calls for ‘assertive action’ to defend Church

From ADF and CatholicCulture.org:

Bishop blasts secularist intolerance, calls for ‘assertive action’ to defend Church

January 27, 2012

From Our Store: Witness of Suffering (eBook)

Noting that “American Catholics have in recent decades become remarkably passive even in the face of relentless hostility from the media, the entertainment industry, and now from some politicians,” Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria has issued a pastoral letter on secularism.

The letter, issued on January 8, received a wider audience when it was published in the January 26 issue of Origins.

“The Catholic Diocese of Peoria now exists in a political reality that is increasingly secular in outlook and today is often specifically hostile to the convictions of our Faith,” the bishop wrote. “Atheists and secularists have long realized that the Church of Rome is perhaps the largest single institution that still stands in the way of a completely secularized society. In Illinois where politics are notoriously corrupt and whose governmental agenda is so singularly ineffective, intrenched political power happens to be concentrated in a single region that for generations has been immune to reform. This situation has given determined special interest groups a unique opportunity to impose their views on everyone else as they endeavor to exclude faith from any role in the public forum.”

Bishop Jenky continued:

As your Bishop, I now believe it is critically necessary to raise an alarm among the faithful regarding growing threats to our religious freedom due to theincreasing steps toward radical secularization taking place in Illinois. Beside the abrupt exclusion of Catholic Charities from childcare and adoption services and increasing attempts to intimidate Catholic healthcare, I am also concerned about possible future moves that could be made against the independence of our Catholic schools and other public ministries of our Diocese. Eventually it may come to pass that our fidelity to the Gospel of Christ and to Catholic tradition may place us in direct conflict with recent legal definitions of the State of Illinois. There are certainly some in our state whose commitment to [atheistic] secularism is so intense that they may well try to restrict the Church’s role only to the sacristy and sanctuary.

I am especially scandalized by some “Catholic” politicians who willingly collaborate with efforts to restrict the civil liberty of the faith tradition from which they were originally sprung. Many of those in office who were taught to read and write in Catholic schools, now seem entirely indifferent to the consciences of those Catholics who live their faith. On Ash Wednesday, they like to be conspicuous with crosses on their foreheads, but the true Cross of Christ seems far from their hearts and minds. They enjoy parties on March the 17th and wearing green sweaters but in effect are ashamed of Saint Patrick’s unwavering zeal for the Catholic Christianity. They like photo opportunities with the hierarchy, but break their word to them without a moment’s hesitation. They may still use the rituals of Catholicism to mark their happy and sad occasions, but apparently would sell their soul for a vote or a dollar. What does it benefit a person to gain the whole world but lose their soul (Mark 8:36), but eternal loss for the sake of public office in Illinois is an extraordinarily foolish deal with the devil. Such people certainly need our prayers, but they should no longer be able to take our friendship or our support for granted …

Even when our institutions are attacked and our most sacred beliefs held up for scorn, many Catholics sadly remain silent. As your Bishop, it is therefore my duty before God to call faithful Catholics into more assertive action in defense of our religion and those public ministries which we hold to be the work of Christ.

“Loyal believers are called upon not only to defend the Faith but even to defend the very concept of faith in the face of aggressive secularism and increasingly intolerant atheism,” Bishop Jenky concluded. “It now seems to be the unbelievers who apparently hope to initiate some new kind of inquisition designed to entirely exclude God from the public forum. In the face of growing hostility, practicing Catholics need to recognize that the choices we make and the witness we either offer or withhold will have both temporal and eternal consequences for each one of us. Christ the Lord has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church he founded on the rock of Peter’s faith (Matthew 16:1), but he also warned that at the end of time he will deny those who deny him (cf. Matthew 10:33).”

“Catholicism is filled with enormous spiritual richness, a cohesive intellectual tradition, and a remarkable commitment to charity and service. It is the Faith for which we should be ready and willing to give our hearts and even to offer up our lives. It is also the Faith by which we all certainly will be judged before the throne of Almighty God.”

From The Los Angeles Times:

EDITORIAL

Another misstep in the fight over crosses

The Senate should reject a House-passed bill that would allow religious symbols on war memorials.

• 
• 
• Comments

  37

• Share24

The 42-foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego is seen Aug. 14, 2006. (Los Angeles Times)

• ALSO
• Courting Episcopalians
• Should the crosses at Camp Pendleton come down?
• Crosses and the Constitution
• Are Christmas trees still a religious symbol?
• One nation, under Gods
• God and man and William F. Buckley
• See more stories »

Ads by Google

• Sell Us Your JewelryVisit Us At A Location Nearest You For A Private, Cost-Free Evaluationwww.CircaJewels.com

January 29, 2012

The Supreme Court has long struggled with the question of whether the 1st Amendment prohibits the display of religious symbols on public property, sometimes producing seemingly contradictory decisions. Now the House wants to add to the court's work. Last week, it approved a bill allowing religious symbols on war memorials. The bill was introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine) after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the 43-foot cross atop San Diego's Mt. Soledad an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The legislation may seem innocuous on first reading. Its key passage says that "religious symbols may be included as part of … a military memorial that is established or acquired by the United States government." That language summons images of gravestones in military cemeteries on which a cross (or Star of David or other religious symbol) has been engraved. But such displays are already legal and common. The bill is in fact aimed at something else: structures that a reasonable observer would see as an endorsement of Christianity.

That was the way the 9th Circuit characterized the Mt. Soledad cross, which is on land owned by the federal government. Although the cross is now encircled by more than 2,000 plaques commemorating individual veterans, the court wrote that "there is no comparable memorial on public land in which the cross holds such a pivotal and imposing stature, dwarfing by every measure the secular plaques and other symbols commemorating veterans." The cross is visible from miles away and, as the court put it, "towers over the thousands of drivers who travel daily on Interstate 5 below." To say that the memorial "includes" the cross would be disingenuous.

It is impossible to know how the Supreme Court would regard Hunter's bill, or the cross itself. Its decisions on the constitutionality of religious displays on public property are not a model of consistency. And at least some justices seem to accept JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy's unconvincing argument in an earlier case: "A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this nation and its people." Members of other religions would beg to disagree.

However the Supreme Court rules, members of Congress have their own obligation to abide by the 1st Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion. The bill passed by the House would put Congress' imprimatur on displays on public property that give preference to a single religion. The Senate should reject it