Tag Archives: supreme-court

Better Late Than Never: Rachel Maddow Taken to Task From Unlikely Quarter – The Huffington Post

It’s not often I see something on The Huffington Post I look forward to reading. Here’s an exception. In a post ungrammatically titled “Why Has the New York Times and Rachel Maddow Misled Us?”, novelist and essayist Richard Greener on Thursday wrote a stinging rebuke of a Times’ June 8 editorial and Maddow’s coverage on her show the following day of the Supreme Court emergency order intervening in Arizona’s political matching funds law. The specifics of Greener’s criticism of the Times and Maddow can be found by following this link to his post. (A video clip of the Maddow segment in question can be found here ). Greener laid it on thick when it came to Maddow, initially describing her as “always intelligent, smart and savvy and usually 100 percent credible” before going after her assertions about the court’s action. He concluded that “only two explanations remain for Rachel’s bad behavior” — One is, she’s just another TV entertainer, another pretty face in a long-line of million-dollar talking heads. She shows up, gets her make-up on and she performs her ‘show’ for the camera. Unsaid, is that she hasn’t a clue what the program’s about and perhaps doesn’t care very much. After all, it’s show business and it’s her living we’re talking about. It’s only ‘acting’ isn’t it? Second is she read the order. She knows perfectly well what it says. But she had a reason to do what she did, the way she did it. I don’t want to believe the first possibility. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know Rachel Maddow and I never will. But I kinda like her. I think she’s cool. And, I admit it — I usually agree with her. But I really don’t want to believe the second because its (sic) so fundamentally dishonest, deceptive and downright creepy that it makes me a little queasy. Greener deserves credit, as does The Huffington Post, for publishing this, knowing full well that many if not most of the readers on the site are also inclined to agree with Maddow. Where I part company with Greener is in his description of Maddow as “usually 100% percent credible.” Leaving aside the many examples on NewsBusters that undermine this claim, one need not venture far from the Maddow segment that Greener criticizes to see further evidence of this. The day before Maddow’s take on the Supreme Court action, Maddow interviewed Las Vegas Sun columnist and cable-show host Jon Ralston. The interview ended with a minor but telling error on Maddow’s part when she thanked Ralston for coming on her show ( click here for audio) — MADDOW: Jon Ralston, columnist for the Las Vegas Sun, host of ‘Face to Face with Jon Ralston,’ and as a political dean of the press corps in Nevada you’ve got one of the best jobs in American politics. … Except that Ralston works in journalism, not politics. Unless the person saying this sees no distinction between the two. What followed from Maddow on Wednesday and Thursday, however, was egregious. On Wednesday’s show, the same one featuring the segment criticized by Greener, Maddow revisited her verbal jousting with John Birchers at last winter’s CPAC gathering in her attempt to tar GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle with guilt by association ( audio here ) — MADDOW:  Seeing the John Birch Society back in the heart of the conservative movement has been sort of a trip. I mean, once they got over the impulse to try to pretend that they are not now and never were crazy about stuff like fluoride, they then got right back into the business of being super-paranoid, highly-imaginative conspiracy theorists about stuff like fluoride. These guys really believe if we’re going to get serious about stopping communist mind-control plots, we must oppose the dreaded Bolshevik fluoride in the water. Here’s the most amazing thing, though. The John Birch Society now, in that view, has a very highly placed champion, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle — fighter against fluoride! Really! In 1999 the Nevada state assembly passed a bill requiring the fluoridation of water in two Nevada counties. Then-assemblywoman Sharron Angle tried to block fluoridation in one of those counties. According to an account in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, ‘Angle said she simply does not like fluoride.’ A day later, Maddow embellished on the basis for Angle’s opposition to fluoridation ( audio here ) — MADDOW:  Now that Sharron Angle has won the Republican nomination for Senate to run against Harry Reid in Nevada, now the fun part. Now the fun part is watching the national Republican political establishment try to figure out what to do with Sharron Angle. Try to figure out how to balance that national Republican frothing, clamoring, heart-racing desire to beat Harry Reid with the fact that their candidate against Harry Reid thinks that fluoride in drinking water is a conspiracy and recently suggested that beer should be illegal. Sow’s ear, can you become a silk purse? Can you?! To recap: Maddow on Wednesday — Angle’s opposition to fluoridation, according to the newspaper Maddow cited quoting Angle, is personal distaste. Maddow on Thursday claims as “fact” that Angle believes fluoridation is a “conspiracy” — as in Bolshevik. Sharing Angle’s concern, by the way, is that scurrilous right-wing rag Scientific American, which ran an article titled “Second Thoughts on Fluoride” in 2008. Guess they’re in on the conspiracy too. Maddow is “usually 100% percent credible”? Hardly. More like, slippery as an oil slick.

View original post here:
Better Late Than Never: Rachel Maddow Taken to Task From Unlikely Quarter – The Huffington Post

More Liberal Media Figures Say ‘Bravo to Them’ For 40-Year ‘Success’ As Al and Tipper Gore Separate

There were more examples this week of liberal Gore-friendly media outlets trying to smooth over Al and Tipper Gore’s separation. In their “Conventional Wisdom” box Newsweek gave the Gores a sideways arrow: “Famous public smoochers calling it quits after 40 years. Still, they stayed classy.” Time ran a big picture of the 2000 smooch, and underneath Belinda Luscombe wrote “In a leaked e-mail to friends, Al and wife Tipper — whose lascivious smooch on the 2000 campaign trail is etched in the public memory like an awkward childhood experience — announced they ‘have decided to separate’ after 40 years of wedlock, a duration so robust that most statisticians will still count the Gores’ marriage as a success.” On Monday’s edition of the NPR talk show Tell Me More  with Michel Martin, former Washington Post health editor Abigail Trafford also broke out the “Bravo to them” line about the 40 years:   MICHEL MARTIN: Are you as surprised, as so many of the rest of us are, by this news about Al and Tipper Gore? TRAFFORD: Oh, well, you know, of course. We’re all surprised. We’re always shocked when people – we have a certain image of them and they split up. But you know, you never know what goes on inside a marriage. And I think we should sort of turn this around. You know, 40 years is a great accomplishment. It’s not as though you can take away those 40 years. I say bravo to them. And this is one of the differences between divorce that occurs late in life and early divorces. In late divorces, you can’t erase the past. That’s still a glorious past. MARTIN: You’re saying that the 40 years together is still a victory and an accomplishment of which they should be proud, even if the marriage didn’t go the distance. TRAFFORD: Exactly right. Absolutely. Sally Quinn, the first to blame George W. Bush for the breakup, took the rejoicing to an extreme last Sunday from ther perch at the Washington Post On Faith page in an article titled “The Gift of the Gores.”  Rejoice. Al and Tipper have split up. I know, I know. Separation and divorce are supposed to be bad. Marriage is a sacrament to many, a promise and a moral commitment to God and each other. Certainly everyone I talked to was shocked that the Gores were letting go of that commitment. “How sad” was their initial reaction. But there’s another way to look at it. The Gores have handled their decision to separate with dignity and grace. In doing so, they have given us all a great gift — an opportunity for a deeply important and mature conversation about the changing nature of marriage in a time when women have equal opportunities, when people are getting married later in life and when life expectancy is much longer. Not only should we respect their decision, but in some ways we should rejoice in it. Quinn repeated the Bush line: Her role as wife of the Congressman, the Senator, the Vice President and the presidential candidate was all-consuming. Then, just as she was about to become First Lady, a role that would give her the clout to make a difference, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush. Al won the election but lost the presidency, a devastating turn of events that sent him into a deep depression. Imagine what that must have been like for Tipper. Her entire life had been tied to his career. Suddenly, it was all gone. “Poor Al,” everyone thought. “Is Al OK? How’s Al taking it?” What about Tipper? Not only did she lose her career, but she lost her husband, too, at least emotionally. After he came out of his depression, Al’s new career as Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist kept him traveling the globe. His new interests were not hers. Tipper had been the good wife for 40 years. Now it is time for her. Quinn insisted the Gores made the right decision to marry, and also the right decision to separate, and even though she was writing for the “On Faith” page, she made no reference to that old notion that what God has joined, let no man separate .

Original post:
More Liberal Media Figures Say ‘Bravo to Them’ For 40-Year ‘Success’ As Al and Tipper Gore Separate

WaPo Devotes 60-Paragraph Front Page Story to Workaholic Kagan, Pays Little Attention to Her Philosophy

Borrowing a line from one of her Harvard colleagues, the Washington Post entitled its June 10 front-page profile of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, “Her work is her life is her work.”* But the 60-paragraph story by staff writers Ann Gerhart and Philip Rucker shed barely any light on the judicial philosophy that Kagan’s life work demonstrates. Instead, Gerhart and Rucker presented a gauzy profile that rehashed the usual trivia — Kagan loves poker and the opera — while painting Kagan as a workaholic who still has time to lend an ear or a shoulder to cry on to friends in distress: She has arrived at the age of 50 in a blaze of accomplishment. But her achievements can obscure how relatively narrow her world has been.  She made her life the law and became consumed by it — and happily so, by all accounts. Her parents are no longer living, and she sees her brothers, Marc and Irving, Yale University graduates who teach public school in New York City, usually at holidays. Most of the people in Kagan’s life are important people, bound to her in tightly drawn concentric circles. Her friends are elite lawyers of a certain set or Democratic operatives with staying power. She cultivates their company, holds their confidences, gives them the best presents and solicits their ideas, said several friends among the four dozen people interviewed for this article. Many high-energy super-achievers strive for a sanctuary of home or hobby or nature away from the relentless pressures of the workplace, even as they bang away on their BlackBerry and brag how little sleep they require. Kagan seems to be the rare person who has moved fluidly up and through the corridors of power with no apparent need for this separate sphere. “Her work is her life is her work,” says Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor. He credits her with grafting a sense of community onto the school’s prickly and insular culture in her six years as dean.  “To call her a bloodless organization person running her organization would be a terrible mistake,” Fried says of Kagan’s ceaseless entertaining, dinner-going and speech-giving while dean. “She did those things with real affection, not just for the institution but for the people.” Yet the friendship her intimates describe seems curiously one-sided; it is one in which Kagan gives freely of her support but seeks none in return. “I went through a very contentious divorce,” says Laurence Tribe, another Harvard Law professor who has known Kagan for more than 20 years, “and she was one of the very few people I could talk to about it. It’s because you could trust her. She made me feel that I would get through it. “She’s a great listener, and I think that will endear her to her fellow justices,” says Tribe, who is on leave from Harvard while working at the Justice Department. “She’s likely to make them feel that she cares what they think.” That’s great, but Kagan is not up for a marriage counselor gig, she’s nominated to the highest court of law in the land. It’s not wholly illegitimate for the media to devote some resources to exploring the personal and social dimensions of a Supreme Court nominee’s life, but ultimately these details are of little or no consequence to the job itself. Yet today, Post editors gave their front-page readers what essentially amounts to a Style section profile in lieu of a meatier profile that might examine the liberal leanings discernible in Kagan’s work product. *the headline for the online version reads, “Kagan has many achievements, but her world has been relatively narrow.”

Originally posted here:
WaPo Devotes 60-Paragraph Front Page Story to Workaholic Kagan, Pays Little Attention to Her Philosophy

Matthews Perverts Tea Party Movement: Participants View Federal Government as British Occupiers

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’s ratings lag  far behind those of his competition, Fox News’ Glenn Beck, on a regular basis . So is he perhaps trying to become the anti-Glenn Beck to bolster his stature in the cable news world? On MSNBC’s June 9 “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Matthews commented on the Gadsden flag , as if it represented an attitude that viewed the federal government as a occupying force, comparable to pre-Revolutionary War America. “You know that Gadsden flag, the ‘Don’t Tread on Me Flag’ with a rattlesnake is so important,” Matthews said. “They believe, a lot of people in the right – that the federal government has replaced the British as the occupying force in North America and they have to be ready to fight it. It’s serious business.” But the scary thing, according to Matthews, is these people he has caricatured have guns. “Some have the guns, some don’t,” Matthews said. “Some have the Tea Party aspect. But it’s always that flag, ‘Don’t Tread on Me.’ They believe Washington is London.” And while it has been documented that the media have repeatedly – and unsuccessfully – tried to correlate violence with the Tea Party movement, Matthews continued to play the “scary business” card – that this movement was trying to circumvent the role of the Supreme Court as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. “The scary part of this is, do they really believe in self-government in the end – self-government?” Matthews said. “Or is the government always going to be the enemy? And the other scary part is the Supreme Court doesn’t get the right to determine what’s constitutional. They do. And they’ve got guns. Serious business.”

See original here:
Matthews Perverts Tea Party Movement: Participants View Federal Government as British Occupiers

Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

In his June 9 “case study” feature for Time.com, Adam Cohen, formerly of the New York Times editorial board and Time magazine, tackled the question “Are Liberal Judges Really ‘Judicial Activists’?” Cohen’s short answer: yes, but so are conservative judges, and it’s the conservatives on the Supreme Court that have been on an activist kick lately. To bolster his argument, Cohen complained that judges must of necessity make judgment calls about vague elements of U.S. law and the Constitution. You know, vague stuff like, wait for it, the First Amendment (emphases mine): Roberts and the rest of the court’s five-member conservative majority have overturned congressional laws and second-guessed local elected officials as aggressively as any liberal judges. And they have been just as quick to rely on vague constitutional clauses. Earlier this year, in the Citizens United campaign-finance case, the court’s conservatives struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from spending on federal elections. Once again, they relied on a vaguely worded constitutional guarantee. That “vaguely worded constitutional guarantee” reads as follows: Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. What part of that is vague? Congress has no business abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The amendment says nothing about whose freedom of speech, and congressional attempts to fence in that freedom of speech to individuals alone, and not corporate entities, is a pretty clear violation of the text of the amendment’s prohibition against speech abridgement. Indeed, as the majority in Citizen’s United made clear: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content….The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. Cohen also considers “vague” the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause: In a 2007 case, the conservative majority overturned voluntary racial integration programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Good idea or bad, the programs were adopted by local officials who had to answer to voters. But the conservative Justices had no problem invoking the vague words of the Equal Protection Clause to strike them down. In that controversy, the two school systems involved were purposefully engineering the racial demography of schools within their districts to correct what was perceived as racial imbalance. In other words, some schools were too white, others too black, in the eyes of policymakers. Whereas Brown v. Board ruled that de jure segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment protections because segregation by law was inherently unequal, liberal proponents of the Seattle and Louisville plans defended the respective school districts’ obsession with the skin color of its school populations.  Here’s how Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes recorded the logic of Chief Justice Roberts in the Court’s opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. : “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a plurality that included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons.” He added: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  Those crazy conservative justices and their radical activism, upholding the implications of Brown v. Board of Education!

Go here to see the original:
Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

Interracial Marriages At an All-Time High, Study Says – CNN

By Stephanie Chen, CNN June 4, 2010 3:29 p.m. EDT Photo: Priya Merrill, 27, and husband Andrew Merrill, 30, married in August. They are part of a growing trend of interracial marriages. (CNN) — The first time Priya Merrill, who is Indian, brought her white boyfriend home for Thanksgiving in 2007, the dinner was uncomfortable and confusing. She still remembers her family asking if Andrew was the bartender or a family photographer. The couple married last August, and her Indian family has warmed up to her husband despite their racial differences. “I think we get the best of both cultures,” said Merrill, 27, of New York. She added, “Sometimes I just forget that we're interracial. I don't really think about it.” Asian. White. Black. Hispanic. Do race and ethnicity matter when it comes to marriage? Apparently, race is mattering less these days, say researchers at the Pew Research Center, who report that nearly one out of seven new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. The report released Friday, which interviewed couples married for less than a year, found racial lines are blurring as more people choose to marry outside their race. “From what we can tell, this is the highest [percentage of interracial marriage] it has ever been,” said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer for the Pew Research Center. He said interracial marriages have soared since the 1980s. About 6.8 percent of newly married couples reported marrying outside their race or ethnicity in 1980. That figure jumped to about 14.6 percent in the Pew report released this week, which surveyed newlyweds in 2008. From what we can tell, this is the highest [level of interracial marriage] it has ever been. –Jeffrey Passel, Pew senior demographer Couples pushing racial boundaries have become commonplace in the U.S., a trend that is also noticeable in Hollywood and politics. President Obama is the product of a black father from Africa and a white mother from Kansas. Supermodel Heidi Klum, who is white, married Seal, a British singer who is black. But not everyone is willing to accept mixed-race marriages. A Louisiana justice of the peace resigned late last year after refusing to marry an interracial couple. However, studies show that support for interracial marriages is stronger than in the past, especially among the Millennial generation. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, about 85 percent accept interracial marriages, according to a Pew study published in February. Scholars say interracial marriages are important to examine because they can be a barometer for race relations and cultural assimilation. Today's growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a contrast to the overwhelming attitudes 50 years ago that such marriage was wrong — and even illegal. During most of U.S. history, interracial marriages have been banned or considered taboo, sociologists say. In 1958, a woman of black and Native American descent named Mildred Jeter had married a white man, Richard Loving. The couple married in Washington, D.C., instead of their home state of Virginia, where state laws outlawed interracial marriages. The couple was arrested by police. Their case made its way to the Supreme Court in the case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, where the justices unanimously ruled that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional. In the decades after the court's ruling, the U.S. population has been changed by an unprecedented influx of immigrants. The growing numbers of immigrants, said Pew researchers, is partially responsible for the increase in interracial marriages. The Pew Center study released Friday found that marrying outside of one's race or ethnicity is most common among Asians and Hispanics, two immigrant groups that have grown tremendously. About 30 percent of Asian newlyweds in the study married outside of their race, and about a quarter of Hispanic newlyweds reported marrying someone of another race. David Chen, 26, of Dallas, Texas, is Taiwanese. He is planning a wedding with his fiancee, Sylvia Duran, 26, who is Mexican. He says race isn't an issue, but parts of their culture do play a role in their relationship. They will probably have a traditional Chinese tea ceremony at their wedding. “The thing that we really focus on is our values and family values,” instead of their race, he said. “We both like hard work, and we really put a focus on education.” The African-American population also saw increases in interracial marriage, with the number of blacks participating in such marriages roughly tripling since 1980, the study said. About 16 percent of African-Americans overall are in an interracial marriage, but researchers point out a gender difference: It's more common for black men to marry outside of their race than for black women. The gender difference was the reverse in the Asian population surveyed. Twice as many newlywed Asian women, about 40 percent, were married outside their race, compared with Asian men, at about 20 percent. “We are seeing an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic country,” said Andrew Cherlin, professor of public policy and sociology at Johns Hopkins University. “The change in our population is bringing more people into contact with others who aren't like them.” The Pew Center also found education and residency affected whether people married interracially, with college-educated adults being more likely to do so. More people who live in the West marry outside their race than do people in the Midwest and South, the survey found. Cherlin explained why education has helped bridge various races and ethnic groups: With more minorities attending college, education, rather than race, becomes a common thread holding couples together. “If I'm a college graduate, I am going to marry another graduate,” Cherlin said. “It's of secondary importance if that person is my race.” We are seeing an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic country. –Andrew Cherlin, professor at Johns Hopkins University Technology is also making it easier for people to date outside their races, said Sam Yagan, who founded OkCupid.com, a free Internet dating site. He said his site, which receives 4 million unique visitors a month, has seen many interracial relationships result from people using its services. Adriano Schultz, 26, who is Brazilian, met his wife, Theresa, who is white, through the site in 2006. A year later, the couple married. “I don't feel as if ethnicity for us was a big issue,” said Schultz, of Indiana. “It was more about personalities and having things in common that really drove us together.” Yagan attributes the increase in interracial relationships to the Internet, which makes it easier to connect with someone of a different race. People who live in a community where race is an issue can meet someone of another race more privately, than say, instead of having to start their relationship in a public setting. “You don't have to worry about what your friends are going to think,” he said. “You can build the early parts of the relationship.” added by: EthicalVegan

House repeals "Don’t ask, Don’t tell"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grHLcTA5VMaxM1KPtvrf3OTOfZuQD9… The House has voted to repeal the 1993 law known as “don't ask, don't tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military. The House vote Thursday came several hours after the Senate Armed Services Committee took the same course and approved a measure repealing the policy that prohibits service by gays who openly acknowledge their sexual orientation. The House was a victory for President Barack Obama, who has pushed for a change in military policy, and for gay rights group who have made an end to “don't ask, don't tell” their top legislative priority. Republicans voted overwhelmingly against lifting the ban, saying Congress should wait until the Pentagon completes a review of the impact of a repeal on military life and readiness. added by: SageRockandRoll

The 100 Hottest Women

Megan Fox, Emmy Rossum, and Kim Kardashian made it onto Maxim's Hot 100 and that means they're in “We've Got You Covered,” Conor Knighton's weekly roundup of magazines. Also ready for their cover shot: Kate Gosselin, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood boob jobs, “The Bachelorette,” Bear Grylls, and Broken Social Scene. We've Got You Covered is a recurring segment on Current TV's weekly television show, infoMania. In each episode of We've Got You Covered, Conor Knighton catches you up on everything you need to know about what's in this week's magazines. For more We've Got You Covered visit: http://current.com/groups/weve-got-you-covered/ and Current TV. infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Erin Gibson, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10 pm Eastern and Pacific Times and can be found online at http://current.com/infomania/ or on Current TV. And make sure to check out our facebook profile for special features at http://facebook.com/infomania . added by: Conor_Knighton

Obama Administration Supports Vatican Immunity

I have made no secret of my contempt for President Obama's refusal to hold Bush administration officials accountable for war crimes. Dick Cheney is a war criminal who belongs in prison, and President Obama has made a serious mistake by refusing to seek justice in our names. Though this decision, he has undercut any claim to moral authority he might otherwise have. No matter what good he may accomplish – and I do not deny that he may still accomplish some good – Dick Cheney will remain an albatross around his neck. It was in this context that I stumbled across some disturbing news from Raw Story. Evidently, the Obama administration wrote a brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Vatican's claim that they are immune to lawsuits brought in cases where Catholic clergy raped children. Not only has our president refused to investigate the illegal torture of suspected terrorists, he now agrees that the Vatican should be spared the trouble of being sued for enabling child rape! http://www.atheistrev.com/2010/05/obama-administration-supports-vatican.html Link to RawStory http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0525/obama-backs-catholic-church-immunity-claim-sexu… added by: TomTucker

Why Is the White House Hiding Elena Kagan’s Family? [Speculation]

The Times is reporting that journalists are being prevented from speaking with the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan . Specifically, Times journalists. What is Obama hiding from the press? Come, join us in rampant speculation! More