Summer Reading 2011: "The Conservative Assault on the Constitution"

By Erwin Chemerinsky

Score: 4.5 / 5
Category: Law, Constitutional Law, History

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts: Prof. Chemerinsky proves once again why he is one of the (if not THE) most influential constitutional scholars of our generation.  This books outlines a number of 5 - 4 decisions from the Burger, Reinquist, and Roberts courts that have taken the country away from the promise created by the Warren Court, and in a very conservative direction.  Indeed, with the exit of O'Connor and the addition of Alito, the 5-4 votes have become even more predictable, and even more dangerous for basic civil rights.

The book itself is what you would expect.  Impeccably well researched and thoughtful, but represents the opinion of a constitutional scholar who believes in a broad interpretation of the constitution and a power federal government.  This fact does not make his insights any less valuable, however, I found that I did not always agree with him on everything.  Prof. C argued, exceptionally well in almost every instance, for the defense of basic rights we have come to rely on, such as Miranda, Access to the Courthouse, Privacy, etc.  However, the point at which I found myself diverging with his view was when he would suggest there were numerous constitutional rights we have not yet discovered in the Constitution.

For instance, he begins the book with a discussion of how Conservatives have undone the promise of Brown v. Board, and re-segregated most inner city school.  I completely agreed with his belief that the 14th Amendment prohibits the negative use of Race, but not the positive use of race (think "using race to oppress one race (negative) vs. using race to equalize the rights/privileges/opportunities of the races (positive)).  This is not the first time that I have heard this argument with regard to the intent of the 14th Amendment's drafters, yet it is a reality ignored by the conservative block, despite their claims of fidelity to intent.

Where I diverge from Prof. C is when he calls for a Constitutional right to Education.  I do not believe such a right exists in the FEDERAL constitution.  Education was left to the states, and I believe that is a correct practice.  Even though we might wish to impose a liberal view on many of the backwards states through federal control, there is always the danger that the reverse might happen.  Conservatives might take control of government and impose a terrible education system on progressive states (in fact, this has happened over the past 40 years, e.g. NCLB).  Each state should be free to create their own systems, and free to interpret a right to Education out of their own State Constitutions.  But the Federal Government should stay out of education as much as possible, lest we inadvertently allow the Texas Textbook Massacre to spread to progressive states and corrupt their education systems.

There were a few other instances where I found I did not agree, but it was almost always limited to situations where Prof. C wanted to CREATE new constitutional rights.  I agreed in every instance where I wanted to preserve or expand rights that already existed.  Like Prof. C I believe that more freedom is almost always a good thing (though the expansion of Gun rights may be an exception).

Overall, GREAT book, very informative and educational.  The only reason it doesn't get a 5 is because he goes just slightly further than I would be comfortable with, but If we had someone like this on the Court, we would certainly be in a better position than we are at present.  An excellent, and very fast read.  Worth the few hours it will take you to finish.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court"

By Jeff Shesol

Score: 5 / 5
Category: Law, Presidents, Supreme Court, History, Educational

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts:  This was a really interesting about about the New Deal period.  Too often we learn about the "court packing plan" without actually learning the facts about the plan or the surrounding circumstances.  This book fills the gap perfectly.

The book opens with a long explanation of FDR's first term in office, his political rivalries, and the conservative intransigence that would later characterize the conservative block on the Court.  Of particular interest is the American Liberty League, which bears a striking resemblance to today's TEA Party.  The League spouted a return to "constitutional principles" and "small government."  This call worked well in a time when FDR was expanding the size of the federal government and the power of the president.  Unfortunately for them, they quickly became a caricature of themselves and lost all credibility (much like the TEA Party of today).  In his second election he decimated the Conservative opposition.

With his victory in both the executive and legislative branches, the Conservative block on the court dug their heels in and the two moderates (C.J. Hughes and J. Roberts) migrated to the conservative block on a number of occasions giving them the commanding 5 or 6 vote majorities they needed to overturn the president's agenda.  The actual court packing plan itself went through many stages and court packing wasn't even a realistic option until later in the process.  Many congressmen preferred constitutional amendments limiting the power of the court or giving congress a veto over court decisions.  When court packing did become the plan, FDR didn't want 15 justices, he wanted one justice for each justice over 70 years of age.  The number of new justices just happened to be 15.  Realistically, FDR was only one justice away from a stable majority, so he didn't need to add 6 to make his agenda work.  He just wanted a strong majority that could completely dominate the Conservative justices.

What is particularly interesting is how forcefully FDR continued to push his court packing plan even after Hughes and Roberts switched to the liberal block giving FDR the majority he so desired.  Fortunately, the congress saw the change on the court as a good solution that didn't involve passing an unpopular and potentially damaging bill that would certainly turn the court into a political football (or at least more so than it already is).

The perspectives of the justices through their personal corespondences with friends, family, and clreks are also a very interesting part of the book.  It's quite interesting to hear the vitriol of Justice McReynolds, and the reverence of Justice Brandais for the institution of the court (who opposed the plan even though it would have given him a majority).

This is an excellent book for those interested in history and the law, presidential power, and/or the Supreme Court.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Idiot America"

By Charles P. Pierce

Score: 4 / 5

Category: Quasi-Politics, Entertaining, Funny, Informative but Not Educational

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts: This was a fun book.  There was nothing really new in the book.  No information that I didn't already know (though if you haven't heard of the "creation museum" then you should probably read this book for his description of it).  What really makes this book awesome is the author's wit and sarcasm, and the way that he points out all of the ridiculousness that should be obvious.

In particular I enjoyed his three principles of idiot America.  It's so true, and once you read the book you start to see the principles at work with every news story in the media today.  It's very much a "truth isn't what it used to be" book, that points out the many ways that conservatives in particular have glorified idiots and idiot ideas, even to the extent of demonizing knowledge/education itself.

I especially appreciated his "behind the scenes" thoughts and discussions on hot topic political issues.  It's the kind of thing you'd expect normal reporters to do, but (shockingly?) never happens.  He goes to the Hospice where Terry Schiavo died and talks to the workers about the incident.  His discussion of this section is especially powerful, since he exposes some of the terrifying things that were done in the name of saving someone who everyone in the hospice knew had already been dead for years.  In fact, she an autopsy confirmed that she had been dead long before the whole uproar even began.  So divorced from reality were the "pro-life" devotees that they were willing to fight (and in some cases even kill) to save someone who was already dead.

I also loved his discussion of "talk radio" though I will let you read/listen to that yourselves.  I could not possibly do justice to his take on the evolution of talk radio.

Overall, this is a very interesting book, though I would not recommend people use it to educate themselves about any of the issues within.  It is better as an excellent (and hilariously entertaining) supplement pointing out the glaring problems with the conservative/idiot beliefs on a number of issues.

Buy It on Amazon

Common Sense

Falling From Grace: Obama's Tax Cut Compromise

So, I've been generally disappointed with the President for some time now.  He gave us health care that largely supported the status quo, and while 30 million americans will now be forced into the health care system, and premiums may decrease for 100 million more, the benefits are largely in favor of the major health care organizations, not to mention without a public option there is still very little competition to ensure that prices don't continue to increase astronomically.

Then he back tracked on Repeal of DADT.  Then he dropped the close of GitMo.  Then he conveniently kicked the can on Afghanistan.  Now we've got a finance regulation bill, that does little to curb the already rampent abuse.

In 2002 George Bush had all but eliminated the major regulations in place to protect our economy from this kind of recession, passed sweeping $3 trillion tax cuts aimed predominantly at the wealthy, and sent us to war.  in 2008 we hired a guy to fix all that... you'd think by now he would have gotten to one of those three.  (oops, sorry I suppoose he did "end" the war in iraq...unless you count those 50K troops still there...details).

So we've gotten a lackluster president at best, and suddenly he's pissed at us.  Sorry buddy, that's not how this works.  You want our support, you do what you were elected to do, and pandering to the Republicans wasn't just low on our list, it really wasn't there.  So you'll have to excuse us if we are kinda pissy right now.

Anyway, lets stick to this Tax Compromise and lets explore whata just happened.  Unemployment benefits are about to lapse.  Tax cuts for everyone are about to lapse.  The only one of those two that was an issue was Tax Cuts.  You know how I know that unemployment was not an issue?  simple.  If Republicans vote against extending unemployment, who loses?  DUH!  Republicans would face enormous backlash.  So, really, they were going to cave on that issue, they were just playing games.

So what happened, they took a position everyone knew they were going to back down from, and Obama caved... Yeah, perfect opportunity to hang the republicans out to dry and Obama caved... This is politics 101, I'm not saying that it's right to extend unemployment, I'm saying it was going to happen, period.

So let's explore what the Republicans got for being dicks.  They got the tax cuts for their wealthy supporters AND they got to vote yes on unemployment which will help them politically.  What did Democrats get?  they lost on tax cuts when they were right, and they got unemployment benefits they were going to get anyway.

How is this a win for both sides?  The democrats should have eaten the Republicans' god damn lunch!  This should have been a HUGE win for the democrats!  They should have gotten their unemployment AND stuck it to the Republicans on tax cuts.  Here's the message "Republicans hold your employment benefits hostage so they can kick back millions to wealthy donors."  WHO THE WAS GOING TO WIN THAT ARGUMENT?!

So no Mr. President, I'm not pissed that you are compromising, I'm pissed that you are giving them your f***ing lunch money on issues you not only can win, but on issues where you are guaranteed a win!

On a side-note the NONPARTISAN Congressional Budget Office predicts that extending the tax cuts would increase the deficit by $700 Billion over 10 years and $4 Trillion over it's lifetime (if fully extended).

Oh and if you are currious about the economic impact of the Bush Tax cuts, only about 7% of those tax cuts came back as increased revenue to the federal government, the other 93% was taken entirely as debt so we could give handouts to the wealthiest Americans. (See "Why We're Liberals" by Eric Alterman)

Just so we are all aware of who won, here were some of the people who opposed this compromise that have come out in just the past 24hrs.

On The Left:
The AFL-CIO
Former DNC Chair Howard Dean
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - Conservative Democrat
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
Steve Hildebrand, Deputy National Director of Obama's Presidential Campaign

On The Right:
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

So, you're compromises is pretty much universally disgusted by the left, including at least one high profile conservative Democrat, and at least one Republican.  So no Mr President, we will not shut up while you seed control of the government, policy, and our economy future to a party that was voted out of office 2 years ago, and wasn't even re-elected (in the senate) a month ago despite your miserable failure as a President.  It baffles me the extent to which this President seems to completely disregard his responsibility to this country by continuously handing over decision-making power to the people who f***ed it up in the first place!

Here is a depiction that seems to represent my anger (and the anger of a lot of other people: see comments on Huff Po)

Step-up Mr. President or step-aside and let us elect a real liberal in 2012.  As it is I wont be voting for this president in the primaries, and I'm certainly considering doing something I've never done before: Campaigning for the other guy just to prove my point.

Common Sense

UPDATE (12/08/10):
The following people have now also come out against the compromise.

On the Left:
Rep. Barnie Frank (D-MA)
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) - Also suggesting he may not support the president's re-election
Keith Olberman (Anchor - MSNBC)
Arianna Huffington (Founder of Huffington Post) - Not that I like her

On the Right:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) - Has also promised to Fillibuster if it comes up for a vote
Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) - Though she clearly doesn't understand what the compromise actually does (who's shocked by that?)

(Side-Note: I would like to take this opportunity to say, I never thought I would see the day when I would agree with Michelle Bachman on ANYTHING!  I am truly disgusted by this turn of events and it should suggest just how far the President has fallen.)

In addition, VP Joe Biden was hounded by House Democrats at a meeting today held in the hopes of rallying support.  The following reps expressed serious concerns, and will likely oppose the deal:
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. Chris Wan Hollen (D-MD)

So far the only people to openly support the deal are a handful of people who have kept their mouths shut because they know it is a bad deal, Speaker Pelosi, The President, His Staff (who are really the only people making the case for the compromise), and Sen. Mitch McConnell.  Not exactly the company the president should be seeking right now.

If you ask me, whatever political capital he had left, is now gone.  Whatever good faith he maintained with the base that he has spent 2 years ignoring is now gone.  The voices in favor of a primary challenger are growing stronger, and this compromise will haunt him for the rest of his first term.

UPDATE (12/10/10)
Bernie Sanders Quasi-Filibusters on Friday
Though he is not preventing any legislation from being considered or being voted on, he will be spending the entire day talking, reading letters from constituents, and otherwise educating people on the truths behind this deal.

Some interesting facts:
The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy affect < 5% of the US population
The estate tax affects < 0.3% of the US population (only affects the mega-rich)

Furthermore, Obama now claims that these cuts will not create a single job in the US.

So let's review:
Extending the Bush tax cuts will...
NOT create a single job;
cost $700 billion over 10 years;
that will be almost entirely borrowed (93%); and
affect < 5% of the US population.

IF you are interested in who is opposed to the deal, the tally of Democratic votes in the House is 68-11 against the compromise


And I'm supposed to be rewarding the president for a 2-year extension just to get 13 months of unemployment benefits?  How about no...
 
In Short: Democrats may filibuster in the Senate, and more than 25% of House democrats have vowed to vote no.

What The F*** Has Obama Done So Far?

In honor of this new website promoting Obama's achievements, I'd like to point all the things he has FAILED to do while in office that he should have been doing.

(1) Failed to repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
(2) Failed to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act
(3) Failed to have a public option included in the Health Care Bill
(4) Failed to beat back a Democratic-sponsored amendment to the Health Care Bill attacking women's rights
(5) Failed to remove and replace key Bush-era officials controlling (suppressing) science policy
(6) Failed to pass comprehensive Climate Change legislation
(7) Failed to discredit and brush off the Tea Party
(8) Failed to defend the left-wing and mainstream media from Republican/Fox Noise attacks
(9) Failed to exit the war in Afghanistan during the first term of his presidency
(10) Failed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison
(11) Failed to forcefully respond to the Texas Textbook Massacres
(12) Failed to restore protective regulations on corporations
(13) Failed to prevent 3 Big Banks from absorb all their competitors and creating a de facto monopoly
(14) Failed to realize that its a bad idea to mess with the tax code
(15) Failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform
(16) Failed to protect latino citizens from racial profiling

Just generally failed to turn the country in a more liberal direction (the mandate he was given in 2008)
During his presidency Republicans have gained ground in nearly every area they have put up a fight.

Honestly, I plan on voting against Obama in the Primaries in 2012.

I still haven't decided if I will vote for him in the general,

Common Sense

Media Malpractice: Fox News Rejects Pro-DADT Repeal Advertisements

But they are totally fair and balanced right?  It's not like they are trying to push an agenda.  Who would ever suggest such a thing...

Huffington Post

Common Sense

TeaBaggers: Polls Show Tea Party values are NOT shared by "average" Americans

There's a shock!  Where the hell was this information 18 months ago?  Where was this information last summer when the media across the spectrum was treating the Tea Partiers like the God-sent representatives of the people?  Where the hell was this information when it could have been of some use?!

As far as I'm concerned this is just more evidence of the extreme cowardice of the left-leaning media.  They have become so unjustifiably afraid of being bashed by Fox Noise, that they are no longer doing their jobs!

Exibit A: NYT Investigation of incoming GOP Senator drops AFTER election

Exibit B: Tea Baggers are NOT "average" Americans

Two articles that could have been damning to the Tea Party Republicans, and we don't hear about it until after the damage has been done.

WTF!

Common Sense

Texas Priest Hires Hitman to Kill Child who Accused him of Abuse

Apparently these are the moral people we are supposed to emulate...

There isn't really anything to say about this.

Huffington Post

Common Sense

The Vatican: Condoms are A-OK*

The Vatican has loosened the leashed on it's sad, ignorant flock today.  For the first time, the Vatican has sanctioned the use of condoms, but so far, only as a means of combating HIV.  Apparently, they believe that it is the lesser of two evils.  I still don't see how the rubber shield is evil, but I suppose in the brainwashed mind of the Christian person, it makes perfect sense.


Huffington Post

All mocking aside, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the Vatican to the 20th century.  Perhaps sometime soon they can join us in the 21st century, though I'm not holding my breath.

Common Sense

Religious Right: "It's more patriotic to kill the enemy than to save fellow soldiers"

Christian Right Activist Blasts Medal of Honor as 'Feminized'

Click Here

Moral teachings from the Religious Right: We should only honor those soldiers who kill others, not those who save others.

Is there anything less Christian?

Common Sense