Tag Archives: supreme-court

GOP Recognizes Paul’s Following With Leadership Post

The New York Times reports during his “20 years in Congress,” Rep. Ron Paul has staked out the lonely end of 434-to-1 votes against legislation that he considers unconstitutional, even on issues as ceremonial as granting Mother Teresa a Congressional Gold Medal.” Now “it appears others are beginning to credit him with some wisdom — or at least acknowledging his passionate following. After years of blocking him from a leadership position, Mr. Paul's fellow Republicans have named him chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, which oversees the Federal Reserve as well as the currency and the valuation of the dollar.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us/politics/13paul.html?_r=1&ref=us added by: Radical_Centrist

Gov.-elect John Kasich wants to overhaul collective bargaining law

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Public employees who go on strike over labor disputes should automatically lose their jobs, says Gov.-elect John Kasich. “If they want to strike they should be fired,” Kasich said last week. “I really don't favor the right to strike by any public employee. They've got good jobs, they've got high pay, they get good benefits, a great retirement. What are they striking for?” 12Share 47 Comments Kasich has made it clear that dismantling Ohio's collective bargaining law will be a top priority of his administration. In particular, Kasich is going after binding arbitration rules often used to settle police and fire department salary and benefits disputes that he says are costly and bankrupting cities. That in turn drives up the state's share of funding for local government budgets. “You are forcing increased taxes on taxpayers with them having no say,” Kasich said. The Middletown City Council recently passed a resolution asking the Ohio General Assembly to revise the state's collective bargaining law. City Councilman Josh Laubach, who authored the resolution, said the city had to dip into reserves to pay police and fire costs this year and is expecting a $2.5 million increase in safety personnel in 2011 despite adding no new positions, according to the Middletown Journal. But state labor groups have said the incoming governor is wrong, and they are ready to fight him on any attempts to repeal or alter the nearly three-decade-old collective bargaining law. Terry Gallagher, executive director of the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, a group representing about 7,500 policemen, including patrolmen in Parma, Berea, Fairview Park and Westlake, called Kasich's comments “foolish.” “Arbitration is a fair way of doing things — you have a neutral person come in and listen to both sides and make a decision,” Gallagher said. “Kasich doesn't want us to strike and he doesn't want us to collectively bargain, so what is law enforcement left with? Collective begging is what it would amount to.” The 1983 collective bargaining law, which gives public employees a right to unionize, was implemented by a Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Richard F. Celeste. The law, and a 1989 Ohio Supreme Court ruling that addresses it, requires cities to automatically enter into binding arbitration when in a dispute with its safety forces and abide by whatever decision that mediator hands down. added by: figgdimension

US Government Claims Right to Kill Americans Anytime and Anywhere

(The+Media+Freedom+Foundation)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher The Obama Administration currently asserts it has the right to kill any American they deem a threat or terrorist without judicial review. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the ALCU currently are challenging this notion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This lawsuit stems from the killing of Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s son (who was an U.S. citizen) who was targeted and killed by the United States Government. It is interesting to note that according to CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kabriaei “The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government’s claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration’s claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing”. The ACLU and CCR hopes the will court rule the U.S. Government can only kill a U.S. citizen if there is a proof of an imminent threat to life. “If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state,” said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented arguments in the case. “It’s the government’s responsibility to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, but the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution.” Title: Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones Publication: CommonDreams.org, November 8th, 2010 Author: ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights URL: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/08-4 Faculty Evaluator: Cynthia Boaz, Sonoma State University Student Researcher: Jason Corbett, Sonoma State University For more information on the case, including fact sheets and legal papers, visit: www.aclu.org/targetedkillings and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings added by: treewolf39

Julian Assange: "Don’t Shoot Messanger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths."

By Julian Assange WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks. IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign. Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public. I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth. These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth. WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately? Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption. People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it. If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely. WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables. Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be “taken out” by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be “hunted down like Osama bin Laden”, a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a “transnational threat” and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me. And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US. Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small. We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings. Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not. Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: “You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!” Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it? It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published. But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts: ► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too. ► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran. ► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available. ► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”. ► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament. ► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees. In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth. Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-reve… http://newmediadays.dk/media/profiles/2009/julian-assange.jpg added by: ThatCrazyLibertarian

Mass Arrests in DC: We Shall No Longer Be Crucified Upon the Cross of Coal

***************************************** VIDEOS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!!! ***************************************** Over one hundred protesters from the Appalachian coalfields were arrested in front of the White House today, defiantly calling on the Obama administration to abolish mountaintop removal mining. As part of the Appalachia Rising events, the coalfield residents took part in a multi-day series of events to bring the escalating human rights, environmental and health care crisis to the nation’s capitol. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth leaders Teri Blanton and Mickey McCoy, the first arrested in today’s nonviolent act of civil disobedience, were joined by allies from around the country, including NASA climatologist James Hansen. Meanwhile, protesters led by the legendary Rev. Billy Talen staged a nearby sit-in at the office of the PNC bank, which remains one of the last major financiers of coal companies engaged in this extreme form of strip-mining in Appalachia. In a stark reminder of the national connection to the coalfields, the Obama administration officials looked on from their White House offices, as their electricity came from a coal-fired plant generated partly with coal stripmined from Appalachia. As a litmus test of the administration’s commitment to science and the rule of law, Appalachian residents are calling on the EPA to halt any new permit on the upcoming decision over the massive Spruce mountaintop removal mine. Mountaintop removal coal only provides, in fact, less than 10 percent of all coal production. Fed up with the regulatory crisis and circumventions by outside coal companies, coalfield residents have been rising up against reckless strip-mining practices against the country, from Alaska to Alabama to Arizona. In southern Illinois, scores of black crosses were found at coal mines, strip mines, coal-fired plants, coal ash piles, and at the Southern Illinois University Coal Research Center. Citing Illinois as the birthplace of the coal industry, and “ground zero in the Obama administration’s plan to dangerously experiment with carbon capture and storage technologies for coal-fired plants,” a new Black Cross Alliance campaign announced plans to construct symbolic black crosses at coal mining and coal-burning landmarks in the state and across the nation to serve as a public warning: It is no longer acceptable for the Obama administration–and state and regional government officials—to be complicit in maintaining deadly coal mining and coal-burning communities as shameful national sacrifice areas in 2010. Invoking William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech, the Black Cross Alliance called on the Obama administration and the state of Illinois to halt billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for multinational coal corporations, and bring an end to the scandalous coal wars in Illinois by re-investing in a sustainable clean energy policy for the future for the coalfield regions. The Black Cross Alliance declared: You shall not crucify us any longer upon a cross of coal. “While the rest of the nation–and world–launches into the exploding new global market of clean energy development and green jobs,” the Black Cross Alliance asked, “why have the coalfield regions in the country been left out of the renewnable energy movement and slated for a new generation of increased coal production?” For more updates on Appalachia Rising, see: www.appalachiarising.org ***************************************** VIDEOS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!!! ***************************************** added by: toyotabedzrock

FBI Raids Peace Activists (and Boosts the Anti-War Movement)

If the FBI was hoping to silence the anti-war movement by raiding the homes of activists across the country, as critics claim, they don't appear to have succeeded. In fact, the bureau may just have given the movement — which indisputably waned with the election of Barack Obama — the spark activists say it needed. Last week, FBI agents raided a half-dozen homes and offices of activists in Minneapolis — all organizers of protests outside the 2008 Republican Convention — and the homes of two others in Chicago, part of what the bureau claims is an investigation into whether members of the anti-war movement provided “material support” to designated terrorist organizations, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and Hezbollah. Around a dozen others were also reportedly issued subpoenas to testify before a grand jury next month. “It’s an attack on all of us,” says Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the group Code Pink, speaking to Change.org outside FBI headquarters in downtown Washington. Around 40 activists demonstrated outside the building on Tuesday in a show of solidarity with those raided. Benjamin says those targeted by the FBI were only supporting peace processes in the Middle East and Colombia, and that the bureau is really engaged in more of a fishing expedition than real terrorism investigation. Indeed, despite last week's raids and salacious allegations, not a single arrest was made. “These were search warrants only,” said FBI spokesman Steve Warfield. But if the goal was to divide and silence the anti-war community, Benjamin says they sure haven't succeeded. “They made a big mistake because they picked Minneapolis and Chicago,” she says, “two places where there are huge progressive communities, very tight communities, and areas of the country where people are very proud of their First Amendment rights and their independent spirits.” In a sign of the strength of activist communities there, hundreds of activists on Monday rallied outside federal buildings in both cities to protest the FBI's raids. Solidarity rallies were also held across the country this week, from Salt Lake City to Philadelphia. Yet despite the fact that all those targeted in the raids were members of explicitly anti-war organizations — and avowed proponents of non-violence — they could still face criminal prosecution thanks to the government's extremely broad definition of what it means to provide “material support” for terrorism, a definition that extends to counseling others to embrace peace. While the law is ostensibly aimed at actual terrorists and their supporters, former President Jimmy Carter said in a statement released by the ACLU this past that the government's interpretation of “material support” — upheld by the Supreme Court this past June — threatens the humanitarian work not only of his own Carter Center, but “the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence.” The “vague” wording of the law, he said, “leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.” But at Tuesday's rally in Washington, protesters — chanting “FBI, stop the raids, we won't back down, we're not afraid” — said the government's investigation into activists' alleged support for terrorism would only spur them to redouble their efforts to oppose U.S. militarism. One speaker, Rev. Graylan Hagler, a long-time progressive activist and senior minister at the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in northeast Washington, said the raids were a sign not of the government's strength, but of its fear of dissent. “I’ve got news for you: in the eyes of the FBI, each of you who are standing out here — you’re terrorists,” said Harlan. “Why? Because you bring terror to the status quo.” While the government promotes injustice at home and abroad, “we choose to stand on the side of justice. And we choose to be in solidarity with people who are oppressed. They will come after us, but I’m going to tell you, we will not be silent.” Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, meanwhile, says the terrible irony is that while the FBI raids peace activists, “the real terrorists are walking freely right here in Washington, DC, and around this country — the ones that took us into these disastrous wars. And it’s absolutely outrageous that those of us who believe that we shouldn’t be bombing other people around the world and we shouldn’t be supporting dictatorial regimes are the ones whose homes are raided.” But there may be a bright side, she says, as the FBI's raids have drawn attention to — and appear to have awoken — the previously moribund anti-war community. “I think it was a huge mistake and I think we can use it to our advantage to reenergize our movement.” added by: pinkpanther

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Anti-Death Penalty ‘Advocate’?

Good Morning America’s Jim Sciutto on Friday suggested Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an example of a human rights “advocate” opposed to the execution of a woman in Virginia. The odd aside came from just one day after the Iranian leader blamed the United States for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Sciutto related the details of Teresa Lewis, who was executed on Thursday for plotting to kill her husband and stepson. The ABC reporter then asserted, ” But advocates, from crime novelist John Grisham, to Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, questioned whether she deserved the death penalty .” [MP3 audio here .] A transcript of the September 24 segment, which aired at 7:05am, follow: ROBIN ROBERTS: The state of Virginia carried out the death penalty last night in the state’s first execution of a woman in nearly a century. Now, executions aren’t terribly uncommon in Virginia. This is the third one in 2010. But, this particular case is re-igniting the debate over crime and punishment. Jim Sciutto is in Jarrett, Virginia with more on this. Good morning, Jim. JIM SCIUTTO: Robin, good morning. We’re hearing of an harrowing scene inside L block just behind me last night. Eyewitnesses described Lewis as terrified and trembling as she entered the chamber. She turned down a sedative offered to death row inmates. A guard tapping her on the shoulder to calm her as she was put to death. It’s here, inside this cramped death chamber, where Teresa Lewis became the first woman executed in Virginia in 98 years. LARRY TRAYLOR (Virginia Department of Corrections): The execution of Teresa Lewis has been carried out in the manner as described by the laws in the commonwealth of Virginia. SCIUTTO: Just outside, supporters, including her minister of seven years, kept a sad vigil. When you met with her for a final time, did you have a sense that she was ready for this? REVEREND LYNN LITCHFIELD (Lewis’ minister): She resigned herself to this. And she knew for seven years that this was a good possibility. But she didn’t want it. SCIUTTO: Teresa Lewis confessed to a horrible crime. Plotting with her lover and a friend to kill her husband and stepson, to collect on a $250,000 life insurance policy. TERESA LEWIS: I just wish I could take it back. And I’m sorry for all the people I’ve hurt. JIM SCIUTTO: But advocates from crime novelist John Grisham to Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, questioned whether she deserved the death penalty. She did not pull the trigger. The men who did got life in prison. And, crucially, court-appointed doctors found she has an IQ of just 72, with the moral judgment of a 12 to 14-year-old. RICK WILSON (American University Law School): The practice of the death penalty in the United States is incredibly sporadic. One justice of the Supreme Court said, it’s almost like being hit by lightning. SCIUTTO: For the victims’ families, it is not random at all. But just punishment for murder. CATHY LEWIS (victim’s daughter): A lot of people are not taking into consideration that it was my father and my brother that paid the ultimate price.

Continue reading here:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Anti-Death Penalty ‘Advocate’?

Fla. Gay Adoption Ban Unconstitutional

A Miami appeals court on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that found the Florida ban on adoption by gay people to be unconstitutional. According to The Miami Herald, “The unanimous 3-0 decision deals a critical blow to Florida's 33-year-old law banning adoption by gay men and lesbians, and most likely sends the case to Florida's highest court for resolution.” The opinion stated, “Given a total ban on adoption by homosexual persons, one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that homosexual persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents. No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument. “To the contrary, the parties agree 'that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents.'” The decision from the third district court of appeal in Miami will allow Frank Martin Gill, the gay father at the center of the case, to keep the two sons he and his partner adopted in 2009 after fostering the boys for several years. Legal analysts expect the case to move to the Florida supreme court, where it will ultimately be decided. added by: TimALoftis

Hand Dancing

I don't even know where to begin… added by: Almibry

Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal

(AP) At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal. The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997. The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members. “I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'” state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. “Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party.” Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook. But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the “Crime” section of the GOP platform. It states: “We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.” Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana. Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said. “There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court,” Greenwood said. Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position. “To me, that statement legally is hollow,” said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. “The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass.” Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent. “It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party,” Abbott said. “It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is.” Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents. “I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it,” he said. “Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?” added by: TimALoftis