The Blog

Nan Aron: Let the Hearing Begin

2009-07-10T20:50:29Z

The Senate Judiciary Committee will convene Monday morning at 10:00 a.m. to begin the hearing on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The hearing will be a consequential moment in our history, but not so much because the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor is on the line. Barring some unforeseen and very unlikely event, Republicans will quickly back off attacks on Judge Sotomayor herself. They recognize that it is politically dangerous to criticize her given her appealing personal story of rising from a housing project in the Bronx to the pinnacle of our judiciary through enormous talent and hard work, her record as a moderate who feels bound to follow the law strictly on the bench, and her ethnicity and gender.

Instead, they will use the occasion to promote their distorted view of the law - not what it is but what they would like it to be in a republic ruled by hard-right judicial activists such as Chief John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. For that reason, the week will offer an enormously important contrast between the nominee and her supporters and this ominous Republican vision.

So, what are the themes that Republicans will raise in response to Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

First, they will highlight the Ricci case, the challenge by white firefighters to New Haven's voluntary effort to avoid discrimination against minority firefighters. Judge Sotomayor, of course, sat on a panel of the Second Circuit that summarily affirmed the lower court's decision that New Haven's decision to scrap a test for promotion of firefighters to avoid disproportionately excluding black and Hispanic applicants was consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Repudiating decades of settled civil rights law, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in a 5-4 opinion. The five conservatives on the Court, who have traditionally been hostile to claims of discrimination by minorities, created a new rule and broke with standard practice by directing judgment for the white firefighters, rather than sending the case back to the lower court so that New Haven could prove that it met the new standard. While Republicans will criticize Sotomayor's participation in the panel decision and will bring in the lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, to testify (surely they would not suggest that empathy for Ricci should influence the result), the fact remains that 11 of 21 judges who reviewed Mr. Ricci's claim ruled against him. Judge Sotomayor can hardly be considered out of the mainstream or at fault for failing to apply the law that the conservatives made up when the case reached the Supreme Court.

Republicans will also use the hearing to promote guns. In their continuing quest to ensure that every American is armed, they will criticize a decision in which Judge Sotomayor, sitting on a unanimous panel of the Second Circuit, held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which ensures against federal limitations on an individual right to bear arms, does not prohibit state limitations on guns. Unfortunately for Republicans, the Supreme Court has held the very same thing three times. To find fault with Judge Sotomayor's decision, her critics have to argue that she should have thrown the rule of law to the winds and ignored Supreme Court precedent. Even conservative icons of the bench, Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, have agreed with Judge Sotomayor on this issue. That, however, is unlikely to stop conservatives from using the occasion to lecture about the sanctity of the Second Amendment as a guarantee of fundamental rights.

Republicans will also raise questions about abortion - even though Judge Sotomayor has never ruled on abortion and does not have any known public statements on the issue. In any event, support for Roe v. Wade, which is the law of the land, can hardly be a ground for disqualification from the Supreme Court. There will be no traction in criticizing Judge Sotomayor on this issue, but Republicans are likely to use the opportunity to burnish their anti-choice credentials, as if anyone had any doubt.

Republicans will criticize Judge Sotomayor for two decisions involving takings of private property by local governments. Again, both decisions are based directly on Supreme Court precedent - namely the Court's controversial but binding decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Because Kelo has proven unpopular, however, Republicans will try to tie Judge Sotomayor to it in a critical manner, even though it remains the law of the land, which she, as a judge, is required to apply.

Republicans will also use Judge Sotomayor as a foil to fulminate against importing international law as the basis for deciding domestic legal issues. Judge Sotomayor has been very clear that she does not believe that the law of other nations or international law offer a basis for decision in the courts of the United States. Indeed, there is nothing in any of her opinions that suggests otherwise. Republicans, therefore, will attempt to misconstrue a speech she gave in which she allowed that good ideas may arise outside the United States and we should be receptive to them. That is a far cry from endorsing international sources of law as binding in the United States.

Finally, Republicans will attack the activities of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDEF), which Judge Sotomayor served as a member of its Board of Directors prior to going on the bench. PRLDEF is an outstanding organization that has done exceptional work in promoting civil and constitutional rights. It operates in the great tradition of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and other public interest legal organizations that have helped America to fulfill its promise as the cradle of liberty and opportunity. Republicans should be ashamed of trying to score political points off of Judge Sotomayor's commitment to the proud tradition of public interest law.

In sum, next week will do more than allow Americans to learn more about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, it will also present an opportunity to examine the legal agenda of the hard-right. In contrast to the sterling nominee who will sit in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee as the embodiment of the opportunities that America, because of its values and laws, provides to those who work hard, the ultraconservative legal agenda will appear small, ungenerous, mean-spirited, and exclusive.

Let the hearing begin.

Claudia Ricci: VP Biden & Silbelius Hear Health Care Woes from Small Biz Owners

2009-07-10T20:21:58Z

Vice President Joe Biden and Health Secretary Kathleen Sibelius sat down at the White House today to talk about health insurance woes with small business leaders. Once again, the picture is crystal clear: we must fix the health care system in the U.S. and we must do it this year.

It's not just an economic imperative, the Vice President said. It's a moral issue as well.

The five small business owners, who joined an audience of many more, told Biden about the sharp increases they've seen in insurance premiums (upwards of 40 percent in the last three years alone). They also spoke about the guilt they feel when they cannot offer their employees' families insurance coverage.

One woman told the Vice President that she and her husband and three children have no insurance. When her son, a teenager who plays sports, broke his arm a year or two ago, the hospital bill came to a whopping $17,000.

Even when employees have insurance, the co-pays, deductibles and unreimbursed fees can add up to thousands of dollars a year.

Clearly, the Vice President said, many Americans lay awake at night, tossing and turning, worrying about what happens if they get sick.

Secretary Sibelius noted that even though we spend more than most countries on health care, we aren't the healthiest of nations. For the first time in recent history, she said, we face the real possibility that our children's generation will face a worse health profile than the present generation.

Jodi Jacobson: House Committee Zeroes Out Traditional Sources of Ab-Only Funding, Removes Ban on Syringe Exchange

2009-07-10T20:20:42Z

Originally posted on RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Last night, the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies passed the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations bill and in doing so eliminated traditional sources of abstinence-only-until marriage programs. Powerful Appropriations Committee Chair Congressman David Obey (D-WI), and a long-time supporter of abstinence-only programs, shepherded these changes through the process.

The committee also eliminated a ban on syringe exchange programs for HIV prevention among users of intravenous drugs. These programs, proven by evidence from throughout to be one of the single most effective HIV prevention strategies, was nonetheless banned for many years due solely to ideological opposition and false charges that such programs encouraged further drug use. Ironically, the House committee did what the President promised to do but later backtracked on doing: The White House has reneged on promises made during the campaign to eliminate the ban on syringe exchange.

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, on which some $1.5 billion has been spent by the U.S. government over the past 10 years, have been widely and deeply discredited and have contributed to a rise in both teen pregnancies and a rise among youth of sexually transmitted infections including but not limited to HIV infections.

The complete elimination of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, and the replacement of these programs by evidence-based comprehensive sexual health education programs (which also emphasize abstinence and delay of sexual initiation among youth but also equip youth with the knowledge and skills to live safe, healthy sexual and reproductive lives throughout their entire lives) has been a central goal of the public health and human rights advocacy communities for years.

What is still not clear as of this writing however is what will replace these programs, and whether abstinence-only-until marriage programs will continue to receive federal funding through other budget lines. Language in the bill is still being analyzed by experts in the public health advocacy community, according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and it is as yet not clear what kinds of funding will be provided under the new teen pregnancy initiative proposed by the White House and incorporated into the House bill.

The bill states:

Included within this bill is $114.5 million for a new teenage pregnancy prevention initiative that will support both evidence-based and other approaches, such as abstinence, to reducing teen pregnancies, which are on the rise. These approaches will be systematically evaluated, generating new knowledge about the effectiveness of a variety of approaches to addressing rising teen pregnancies.

Advocates have had several concerns about this initiative, including what appears to be a limited approach to teen pregnancy prevention as the key outcome, rather than a broader approach through comprehensive programs which would focus on preventing teen pregnancy but also preventing sexually transmitted infections, building negotiation skills, increasing safe behaviors, addressing sexual violence and coercion, respect and responsibilty, and address the needs of gay, lesbian and transgender youth whose needs are not addressed within the narrow confines of "teen pregnancy prevention."

According to one expert:

We don't know what exactly this [language] means yet and [neither the congressional staff nor the advocacy community have] seen the actual language yet. [So we are not] sure if this leaves the door open for ab-only funding (like the president's language did).

We will update you as soon as greater clarity is gained on the implications of the House committee's language.

Congressman Obey championed the elimination of the ban on needle exchange. In a statement prepared by the Chairmen's office, he was quoted as saying:

This bill deletes the prohibition on the use of funds for needle exchange programs. Scientific studies have documented that needle exchange programs, when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention for reducing AIDS/AIV infections and do not promote drug use. The judgment we make is that it is time to lift this ban and let State and local jurisdictions determine if they want to pursue this approach.

The bill will now move to votes by the full Committee and the full House of Representatives.

Lloyd Chapman: U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Challenged to Put Up or Shut Up on Contracting Abuses

2009-07-10T20:06:08Z

I must have irritated the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC) the other day when I issued a press release that acknowledged they were opposing a bill I wrote to stop the flow of federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms.

Several regional and state Hispanic chambers have endorsed H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA). The bill will halt the flow of over $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms and thousands of other large businesses. Apparently, the USHCC has been contacting Hispanic chambers that support H.R. 2568, and pressuring them to drop their endorsements.

After the American Small Business League (ASBL) publicized the USHCC's opposition to H.R. 2568, the USHCC fired off a response, which referred to the ASBL as an "obscure group." I found that to be rather comical, considering the fact that both the President of the USHCC Augustine Martinez, and Chairman David C. Lizárraga were quoted in the chamber's response. If the ASBL is so obscure, why did the chamber get so riled-up?

In its press release the Chamber claims that it has maintained a "longstanding commitment to comprehensive and substantive federal contracting reform" and that Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D - NY) is the "principle champion" of reform on small business contracting issues.

Here is the truth. The USHCC has never objected to the diversion of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms in any way, shape or form.

Since 2003, over 15 federal investigations have been released which found that every year billions of dollars in federal small business contracts have been diverted to Fortune 500 firms, and thousands of other large businesses around the world. There have been over 400 stories on this issue in the mainstream media. Every major newspaper in the country has covered the abuses along with most of the major television networks like ABC, CBS and CNN.

In 2005, the SBA Office of Inspector General released Report 5-15, which referred to the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants as, "One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration [SBA] and the entire Federal government today."

I have been working to help Hispanic-owned small businesses for 20 years; maybe that is why Entrepreneur Magazine said I might be a modern-day César Chávez for small businesses. The ASBL has been working with hundreds of Hispanic chambers of commerce across the country to help stop the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.

What has the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce done to address these rampant abuses? NOTHING!

As far as the claim that Congresswoman Velázquez is the "principle champion" of reform on small business contracting issues, nothing could be further from the truth. Congresswoman Velázquez has been on the House Small Business Committee for years, and the Chair of the Committee since January of 2007. She has never introduced a single piece of legislation to halt the flow of federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms. To the contrary, after receiving major campaign contributions from the National Venture Capital Association, Velázquez rammed a bill through the House, H.R. 2965, that will divert even more federal small business contracts to some of the nation's wealthiest investors.

So let me say this to Mr. Martinez and Mr. Lizárraga at the USHCC; you're delusional if you sincerely believe your organization represents the three million Hispanic businesses in America. I have talked to hundreds of Hispanic business owners and Hispanic chambers of commerce across the country that want nothing to do with the USHCC. They believe the Hispanic Chamber is more concerned with the political agenda of your "corporate partners" than the average Hispanic owned small business. Your opposition to H.R. 2568 is a prime example.

So I'm challenging Mr. Martinez and Mr. Lizárraga's to put up or shut up. If the U.S. Hispanic Chamber is such a big small business advocate, show me. Let's see your press releases, your articles, your television appearances, your lawsuits or the legislation you have written to stop the flow of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to some of the largest corporations in the world.

If you can't do that, your press release is blatantly false and misleading, and you should endorse H.R. 2568 and help bring an end to the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.

Rupert Russell: Ensign Scandal Reminds Us of the Double Standard Placed on Gays and Lesbians

2009-07-10T19:47:40Z

The John Ensign scandal, like all those that have come before it, has been framed by the perpetrator and their defenders, as personal matters requiring respect for privacy from public scrutiny. They talk of their personal misgivings, the task ahead of rebuilding their relationship with their wife, children, constituents, staff, and Jesus. And that we, as understanding citizens, should give them the freedom and the privacy to do this.

The problem is that rarely have these affairs been private matters. They fall short of the narrowest definition, of legal activity between two consenting adults, ignoring larger culturally accepted but not legally stipulated aspects of their position such as maintaining the public trust or honoring their elected office. The crimes committed by David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton and now John Ensign include perjury, bribery, extortion, and using prostitutes. Although these crimes are not seriously denied and largely accepted in the consensus of conventional wisdom, only one so far left office.

My issue here is not that we do not prosecute our politicians adequately - we can save that for another day - but the double standard that is placed on heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The anti-equality argument rests upon the premise that the private relationships between two consenting adults when they are of the same gender has major and profound public implications for society at large. In particular, the legal recognition of such relationships as marriage poses a threat to all marriages and therefore the fabric of society. But, according to Vitter and Ensign and their defenders in the Republican party, when they are of "opposite" genders and have broken a litany of laws in the process of their extra-marital activities, we should close off questions of their public implications.

So all heterosexual relationships are public problems and all heterosexual relationships are private matters - regardless of the laws or even moral behavior - of the individuals concerned.

Remember that Republican moral warriors David Vitter and John Ensign have been 'proud' obstacles in the way of advancing civil rights for gay and lesbians, and Bill Clinton, despite starting off with good intentions, signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. This is more than a double standard imposed on homosexual relationships, but the worst combination of personal hypocrisy with political expediency that has become the means by which millions of Americans are disenfranchised from their full access to civil rights.

Chris Rodda: O'Reilly Needs To Get His Facts Straight About Flyover Denial

2009-07-10T19:37:01Z

Earlier this week, I wrote, on behalf of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), about the Air Force's decision to deny the request for a flyover at the Nampa, Idaho "God and County Festival." After two years of exposing the military's practice of providing support for blatantly sectarian events, MRFF saw the decision to deny this request as a signal that the military might finally be starting to follow its own existing regulations, and congratulated the Obama administration and the Air Force for making the right decision. Well, needless to say, FOX News didn't see this as the right decision, and, in typical FOX fashion, painted it as an egregious attack on religion by Obama.

First there was Gretchen Carlson's Fox and Friends segment with Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition lying through his teeth about the festival not being a promotion of Christianity (see video below).

Then came the use of the event by Bill O'Reilly in his little rant about Obama's secularism:

O'Reilly, who apparently did no more research than watching Gretchen Carlson's segment before shooting off his mouth, bloviated:

"...But to diminish spirituality by denying the folks in Idaho a flyover is simply stupid. There is no specific religion in play at that festival. ..."

No specific religion in play?!?!? Obviously, O'Reilly didn't bother to visit the event organizer's website and actually read the mission statement of the festival.

The Mission of the God and Country Festival

Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We believe this Festival, started in 1967, is an incredible tool to share this Good News by strengthening the fabric of our society through our connection to family and country.

We want to encourage believers everywhere to get out in their communities, not just to strengthen each other, but to encourage family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers to learn more about who Jesus Christ is and what He's done for each and every one of us.

To borrow a phrase from Michael Boerner of Mission Media,

In order to witness to people, you have to do the following:

Bless people
Fellowship with them
Meet their needs
Present the Truth

This, in a nutshell, is what the Treasure Valley God and Country Festival attempts to do. The stated purpose of the Festival is to meet the following goals:

Develop a sense of community spirit in a relaxed, social atmosphere, making all citizens of the Treasure Valley feel welcome in friendship.
Present a safe, pleasing, and inspiring fireworks display to commemorate our country's independence.
Dedicate a significant portion of the program to emphasizee, particularly to young people, the precepts on which our country was founded: Individual rights, belief in God, a representative form of government guided by an assemblage of laws created by elected individuals, sanctity of human life, and all other rights outlined in the Constitution and its supporting documents.
Present the Good News of Jesus Christ in a clear and concise manner.
Avoid any pretense or appearance of a political rally.
Remind those who attend of their good fortune to live in a free society and also their responsibilities to maintain the freedoms which they enjoy.

We are attempting to meet steps one and two, to bless people and fellowship with them, through music, kids' activities, and teens' activities.

After we have done that, we attempt to accomplish step three, to meet their needs, by promoting community activities such as "Communities in Action," and other organizations whose goal is to meet peoples' needs with a Christian heart.

At the end of the evening, we move to step four, presenting the Truth. Each year, we ensure that the message of the Gospel is presented, and information is provided for those who have heard and want to know more about Jesus Christ.

Right, Mr. O'Reilly, an event whose mission statement begins with "Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ" doesn't have any "specific religion in play."

Event director Patti Syme was also very clear in her statement to the Idaho Press-Tribune that this was a Christian event.

"Yes, it's about as Christian as you can get -- we believe in promoting Christianity," Syme said. "And we have no plans to change that."

Here's the Fox and Friends segment with Rev. Patrick Mahoney. (When Mahoney refers to the Daily Kos praising the Obama administration for the decision, he's talking about my post from earlier this week, linked to above, which was cross-posted at Kos and stayed on the rec list all day.)

Andy Plesser: Believe It: How a Little Video Blog Powered the Agenda for Election Reform

2009-07-10T19:32:33Z

A cheap camera, dogged determination, and a smart video blog strategy has created a national dialogue about election form in the United States.

At the Personal Democracy Forum in New York last week, I interviewed Jacob Soboff, who created the Why Tuesday advocacy campaign. The organization set out to change the national voting day from Tuesday to the weekend in an effort to build greater voter participation.

Without press credentials or special access, Jacob managed to tape segments with all of the 2008 presidential candidates and created tremendous attention for the election reform movement.

Although not much has happened in changing election day, the campaign has raised considerable attention for the subject which had been largely ignored. Let's hope the effort continues.

You can find this post on Beet.TV.

Andy Plesser, Executive Producer

Richard Klass: "Did Anyone Survive the War?"

2009-07-10T19:27:43Z

A few weeks ago while showing the Vietnam War Memorial to some out of town visitors, a young man's voice startled me. This ten or twelve year old surveyed the more than 58,000 names on the wall, Including 16 of my Air Force Academy classmates, and asked his dad "did anyone survive the war?" "Yes, I thought, I did but barely."

But the question deserves a better answer, especially in light of the recent death of Robert S. McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War and later its remorseful critic.

It is an axiom that no one who goes to war returns as the same person. The changes can be as trivial as the thrill of a first view of a new country thousands of miles from home. Or it can be as profound as holding a dying friend or staring into the eyes of someone you have killed. But in a very real sense, no one survives the war.

The changes wrought by war are often so small as to be undetectable except on close examination by those who knew the individual before the war. A certain ease to anger. A reluctance to discuss the experience. A frequent sense of being in another place. But too often the returning soldier is a far different person even if there are no visible wounds. This is especially true of those who have seen combat. Another axiom of war is that soldiers do not fight for King or country, nor for God or flag. Those in battle fight for themselves and their comrades, to achieve victory and bring the group home intact. Only this explains the heroism of those who risk and often lose their lives for others or to retrieve a dead comrade's body. The worst experience of war is not to be in danger or wounded, it is to see friends die while you still live. The second worst experience is to kill.

We see the changes wrought by war in the 200,000 homeless veterans sleeping on our streets each night, the bulk of them Vietnam era veterans. We see it in the hundreds of thousands of Vietnam era post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases and the estimated 300,000 cases we will soon see from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even deeper in the shadows are the suicides, divorces and family abuse that the war experience triggers. And, tragically, we see it clearly, if we will look, in the tens of thousands of severely wounded whose bodies and lives will not be whole again.

No, no soldier survived Vietnam and no one will survive the current wars, unscathed.

Nor did Robert S. McNamara survive. He lost his belief in the power of intellect and reason to control events in another culture and country. He lost his confidence in numbers - body counts, bomb tonnage - to accurately portray the course of a conflict.
But at least at the end he had some comprehension of the scale and genesis of his failures. There is no indication as yet that the other contender for most arrogant Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has or will reach a similar point.

My current concerns are not on the geo-strategic level. What neither Mr. McNamara nor Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to understand or appreciate was the effect of the war on the participants. By all means we should learn from the strategic mistakes made in Vietnam and Iraq. We must understand what motivates our opponents and the limits of what can be achieved with military power. But let us also understand what war does to the warriors. What stresses are caused by being attacked, by killing and by seeing others killed. Let us be prepared to deal with those consequences from the beginning, not as an afterthought. Let's make sure as many as possible survive the war with as few visible and invisible scars as possible.

###

Wendy Weiser: Can We Register Voters Better? Yes.

2009-07-10T19:23:25Z

We talk about promoting democracy around the world, but neglect the infrastructure of our own democracy. This is most visible in our antiquated voter registration system.

Voter registration is the gateway to voting. But our registration system relies on 19th century practices, and, leaves millions of eligible voters out of the political process. Recent Census reports show that 30% of eligible Americans aren't registered to vote. Most major democracies do far better; a recent Brennan Center study of voter registration systems around the world shows that Canada, France, Germany, and Great Britain each register well over 90% of their eligible citizens.

Voter apathy does not explain our low registration rates. In the 2008 elections, 2 to 3 million eligible Americans attempted to vote, but were thwarted by voter registration problems; an additional 9 million were unable to register because of registration deadlines or residency rules, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard and MIT testified before the Senate Rules Committee this year. Voter protection hotlines consistently say voter registration is the problem would-be voters report most often. And election officials report that registration problems are the number one reason that provisional ballots are not counted.

So why do we lag so far behind other countries in voter registration? Unlike other major democracies, the United States places the onus of voter registration on individual citizens. Plus, our system is based principally on paper forms, which compounds the problem. Every voter, every time they move, must fill out new forms which must then be delivered to appropriate election officials, deciphered, processed, and entered into a database; the forms typically arrive together in huge volumes, right before an election. This system is ripe for error, duplication, and waste; worse, the system ends up disenfranchising millions of eligible voters.

It doesn't have to be this way. Our study of twenty voter registration systems around the world -- the most comprehensive such study to date -- finds that in nearly every democracy surveyed, government helps assure that every eligible citizen is registered to vote. Only four countries other than the United States -- the Bahamas, Belize, Burundi, and Mexico -- place the burden of voter registration on individual citizens.

Other democracies use a variety of methods to register voters, but the most common method -- and one which is readily adoptable here -- is by compiling lists of unregistered eligible citizens from other government lists. Canada, which has a decentralized federal system similar to ours, automatically adds every 18-year-old and other citizens to its voter rolls using information from other government agencies. And, it continually updates voter records with data from other government agencies, a practice followed in several other countries. To insure government mistakes don't prevent any one from voting, Canada has a procedure for citizens to register or update registrations on Election Day. Less than 7% of Canadians are unregistered, in contrast with 30% of Americans, and the vast majority of the records on the Canadian voter rolls -- unlike ours -- are accurate and up-to-date.

This common-sense approach -- automatic registration, permanent registration through electronic updates, and an Election Day list correction procedure -- would add 50 to 65 million eligible voters to the registration rolls here; it would also save taxpayers money and ensure our voter rolls are more accurate and less susceptible to fraud and manipulation. Canada and Australia both substantially reduced their election costs when they modernized their voter rolls -- and, they recouped their low transition costs almost immediately.

Can this be achieved in the United States? Absolutely -- and it wouldn't even take that long. States already have the necessary infrastructure -- centralized voter registration databases and government agency lists capable of electronically sharing information. With a minor upgrade to our registration system, states can use reliable and accurate information in other government databases to automatically add eligible citizens to the voter lists and keep their information current. That is how many other countries build their voter rolls, and it is also largely how the U.S. Selective Service System creates its list. Fail-safe procedures before and on Election Day will ensure that any government mistakes are caught and corrected.

There is the political will to do this: election officials and political actors of all stripes support voter registration modernization. In the June 25th issue of The Washington Post, the chief lawyers of both the Obama and McCain campaigns editorialized in favor of modernizing the registration system -- a reform that addresses the concerns of both major parties. The Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, has already held a hearing on the problems with the voter registration system. Now is the time for Congress to take the next step to solve those problems and make voter registration modernization a priority this year.

Michael J. Berland: Obama: the Natural Born Leader

2009-07-10T19:19:28Z

As the representative of General Motors' new majority owner -- the U.S. government -- and the chief officer of the major banks in the US, President Barack Obama has become a de facto chairman of sorts and can now add 'Captain of Industry' 'to his resume. Although Obama was not elected nor even appointed to these roles, his leadership style is perfectly suited for this complex challenge and many of the other similarly tangled problems facing the country today.

Obama is what we in our recent research on the various success archetypes among leaders at the top of their fields, have come to define as "a Natural Born Leader." That phrase is not new. However, we believe we've defined the finer points in a new way and that President Obama exemplifies that definition.

On the campaign trail, even his opponents recognized that Obama had an awesome power to inspire, a telltale trait of a Natural Born Leader. Those who have dismissed Obama as a superficial orator -- satisfying on the stump but lacking in true leadership -- have missed the point entirely: leadership by inspiration is a major -- perhaps the major -- aspect of Obama's success archetype. People who characterized Obama's Cairo recent speech as "just public relations," don't understand that for Natural Born Leaders, inspiration is a valid product in and of itself.

And by leading through inspiration, leaders like Obama can focus on that big-picture view from above -- no fear of heights there. They thrive on high, unlikely to be easily frustrated or intimidated by complexly hierarchical organizations, like the federal government.

Moreover, Natural Born Leaders believe in the power of process, but are fully comfortable delegating authority over that process to others. Obama has shown an early fondness for policy czars with bulging portfolios of responsibility -- even recently creating a new
one to fight cybercrime. Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to totally restructure the financial system almost. Leaders like Obama see the success of their delegates as their own and have no fear of rivals.

For many Americans, Obama's leadership style is why he was such a welcome change. While Obama is supremely self-confident in the power of process -- and in his own power to be the master of that process, George W. Bush was supremely self-confident merely in his goals.
Admittedly, many Americans shared Bush's goals, such as "winning the war on terror." But when Bush seemed unable to explain how to achieve those goals and the precise measures of success, people lost patience with Bush and his party.

George W. Bush's success archetype is what we've dubbed an Independence Seeker, who always needs new challenges and lacks patience for complex hierarchies, implementation or accountabilities. Independence Seekers can do great things. But they can also go too far (declaring "Mission Accomplished" prematurely) and might not be the best fit for the Oval Office. And Obama's transparency and clarity felt fresh after George W. Bush's blustering (or worse) about the "whys" and blundering about the "hows" in many matters military and otherwise.

So, last November, it was in direct contrast to Independence Seekers Bush and his proxy Sen. John "maverick" McCain that Obama had such appeal. And the most recent New York Times/CBS poll shows Obama maintains a 63 percent job-approval rating -- which Gallup noted was much better than his three immediate predecessors at the same point in their first terms. (Natural Born Leaders tend to inspire loyalty of feeling; they don't have to demand it.)

Yet there are also substantial challenges that Obama will need to surmount because of being a Natural Born Leader. The New York Times' poll analysis noted "a distinct gulf exists between Mr. Obama's overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed." Andcritics on both sides of the aisle have said he is taking on too much; even Vice President Joe Biden teased the president for his alleged messiah complex at the Gridiron dinner in March. "He can't be here tonight, because he's busy getting ready for Easter," Biden told the crowd, "He thinks it's about him.

Therein lies perhaps the greatest risk of Obama's leadership style: Natural Born Leaders put personal priorities last -- even when those personal priorities could benefit others. Obama did not run for president only to oversee stress tests on financial service firms or the negotiation of bond covenants with carmakers.

Until his speech in Cairo and his recent initiative on reforming health care, the President had focused largely on crisis management, doing little in the way of leadership to advance his pet
"legacy-making" policy issues from campaign trail. So from a political point of view, he needs to hit it out of the ballpark with results and soon, on health care in particular, to show what he can do beyond being responsive and reactive.

How the president balances his response to crises on the one hand and legacy policy initiatives on the other will likely determine the success of his presidency and the outcome of an incumbency election in 2012 and whether Obama the Natural Born Leader can be re-born as a strong two-term president.

Michael J. Berland and Douglas E. Schoen are co-authors of "What Makes You Tick? How Successful People Do It -- And What You Can Learn from Them" (HarperCollins, June 2009). As partners at Penn, Schoen & Berland, the leading strategic political and corporate communications company, they conducted research for the world's top brands and political leaders in more than 80 countries.

Reproductive Justice: A Crisis of Deception: Crisis Pregnancy Centers, A Special Report

2009-07-10T18:36:12Z

This special report on Crisis Pregnancy Centers is a joint project of RH Reality Check, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Stuart Productions. These three organizations will be joined by Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) for an audio press conference on crisis pregnancy centers on Wednesday, July 8th 2009.

Stuart Productions

This week and next, the powerful House Appropriations Labor Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee is conducting hearings on its FY 2010 spending bill. President Obama has made his intentions clear. The President's FY 2010 budget calls for a return to science-based initiatives and an end to federal funding for abstinence-only education programs. The question is will Congress follow his lead?

As women's and comprehensive sexual health care advocates, we hope so.

For eight years the Bush Administration and Congress funneled $1 billion-plus to failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Even after the Democrats assumed control of the House, Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-WI-7) managed to direct more and more fistfuls of cash to the abstinence-only education industry.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's own commissioned report on federally funded abstinence-only education programs concluded they do not delay the onset of sexual activity. In other words, they don't work. The report found that young people educated under abstinence-only curricula are more likely than their peers to think condoms don't help prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes and HPV.

The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) recently published a letter on its website for its supporters to send to Representative Obey beseeching him to continue funding abstinence-only education.

The letter states:

"...the President's (budget) request would remove an important primary prevention skill-building message to 2.5 million students each year. With 1 in 4 teen girls having at least 1 STD and the teen birth rate beginning to inch upward, it is vital that teens receive skills that will equip them to make the healthiest choice for their sexual health. Only abstinence education provides these skills."

A whopper of a conclusion -- given the evidence, given the facts, given the truth. This is the definition of Non Sequitur.

Their concern about rising teen pregnancy rates and STI's strikes us as disingenuous given where the money's been going. So-called crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) or fake clinics have received a substantial portion of abstinence-only federal appropriations. In fact, the number of these bogus clinics has dramatically increased because of it. Among the most cynical of medical charades, CPCs simulate the appearance of comprehensive women's health care facilities. While advertising under "abortion services," CPCs routinely lure young women -- especially targeting women college students and low-income women -- into their facilities with offers of free pregnancy tests and "options counseling."

In reality, a vast number of CPCs promote scientific and medical fallacies about the consequences of abortion and birth control to intimidate women out of seeking these services. These lies range from the most outrageous -- that abortion causes breast cancer and suicide - to the most irresponsible -- that condoms will not protect you from HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

These claims are blatantly false.

The National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization definitively state there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. As noted on the NCI website, for example:

[O]ver several decades a considerable amount of research has been and continues to be conducted to determine whether having an induced abortion, or a miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortion), influences a woman's chances of developing breast cancer later in life.

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report.

Multiple studies, including one released last summer by the American Psychological Association, confirm there is no credible evidence between an elective abortion and mental health problems. And, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the consistent use of condoms is a highly effective method of preventing HIV/AIDS in addition to helping reduce the risk of transmission for many sexually transmitted infections. The flagrant deceit documented in the video accompanying this article will shock most people -- regardless of their political persuasion.

A review of the websites of some of the largest CPC recipients of federal funding reveals these centers perpetuate these offensive, ideologically-driven misrepresentations and scare tactics thanks to the public dole. One federally funded CPC feigns to offer "...accurate and factual information about your pregnancy options" online.

But listed under Risk #1 -- Breast Cancer, the first of the 'documented medical risks' of abortion, the website falsely claims, "...there is credible evidence to link abortion to (breast) cancer," and "Abortion interrupts the natural process of breast development, leaving the breast with more cells that can become cancerous." Under Risk #4 --Suicide, the website misleadingly states, "Research shows there is an increased risk of self-harm, suicide attempts and suicide (twice as likely) for women who have had an abortion." Finally, under the heading "Spiritual/ Moral Consequences," the website ominously declares, "Having an abortion may affect more than just your body and your mind -- it may have an impact on your relationship with God."

So what is it going to be?

Will Congress continue to place the health and lives of young women (and men) on the line by pumping millions of dollars into failed abstinence-only education programs while almost half of the 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occurring each year are among young people ages 15-24? Will more taxpayer dollars go to fake women's health clinics while scientifically and medically-proven family planning programs continue to be grossly under-funded? Will we continue to subsidize facilities that may frighten women with misinformation and lies?

The time is now to stop this crisis of deception. Take action today and tell House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. David Obey we can't afford to continue funding for abstinence-only education programs, including fake clinics, that are harming our young women and men.Or call Representative Obey's office directly and urge him to end abstinence-only education funding in the Labor HHS FY 2010 budget.

There is no time to waste.

-- By Kathy Spillar of The Feminist Majority

Originally published on RHrealitycheck.org

Nan Aron: Demolition Specialists: The Supreme Court's 2008/2009 Term

2009-07-10T17:48:47Z

The 2008-2009 term was certainly a busy one for the Supreme Court. It decided 79 cases, 23 of which, according to SCOTUSblog, were split 5-4. Of those 5-4 decisions, 16 were divided along ideological lines. A newly-available Alliance for Justice analysis of the term reveals that "the most ominous theme of the term was the repeated planting of bombs by the Roberts wing of the Court designed to detonate in future terms, including preparations to throw out the Voting Rights Act, eliminate disparate impact violations, dismantle campaign finance law or further erode the rights of criminal defendants."

Ricci v. DeStefano is an example of this approach to dismantling civil rights laws. Alliance for Justice Legal Director Bill Yeomans, an expert in civil rights law who spent decades enforcing civil rights laws with the Department of Justice, provided an insightful analysis of Ricci, which I'd like to share with you today.

Bill Yeomans on Ricci: Supreme Court Rebuilding Barriers?

In Ricci v. DeStefano, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck a blow against this nation's most effective weapon for eliminating discrimination from our workplaces: the disparate impact standard of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Over the strong dissent of four justices, the conservative majority held that New Haven, CT engaged in intentional discrimination against white firefighters when it rejected the results of tests for firefighter promotions because they disproportionately excluded African American and Hispanic candidates.

In 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., a unanimous Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibited employment practices that had a disparate impact on minorities and were not necessary for the job. In Chief Justice Burger's words, Title VII prohibited "employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups..." Some tests were intentional devices to exclude minorities and women, while others were the result of sloppy employment practices. After Griggs, it was no longer necessary to prove that employers intended to discriminate. The focus was on whether hiring and promotion criteria tested for skills that were necessary to perform the job; no calculus tests for sanitation workers or strength tests for accountants. Griggs launched a generation of progress that uprooted entrenched discrimination and desegregated many of our nation's major police and fire departments.

Private plaintiffs, public interest litigators and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division broke down barriers to minority employment by pursuing litigation and negotiating consent decrees against dozens of states and localities, many of which hired on the basis of legacy, subjective criteria, or flawed employment tests that excluded qualified minority applicants. The result was more professional police and fire departments whose effectiveness increased because they looked more like the communities they served. Chicago, which operated segregated fire houses in 1974, increased African American representation in its fire department from 4% to 20% by 1995. In Los Angeles, the fire department went from 96% white in 1974 to more than 50% nonwhite by 2002, while in Boston minority representation in the firefighting ranks increased from 1% in 1974 to almost 40% by 2000.

Don't let these numbers fool you, however. As New Haven's own situation attests, discrimination and lack of minority representation on fire and police squads is still a very real problem. Though New Haven's population is more than 50% nonwhite, minorities only have an 18% representation in leadership roles within the fire department. Only one of 21 fire captains is African American. This disparity is what New Haven was trying to address.

Opponents of civil rights enforcement, however, are not concerned with these inequalities and fought from the start to eliminate disparate impact enforcement. They contended falsely that it led to quotas. They won a Pyrrhic victory when the Supreme Court, including Ricci author Justice Anthony Kennedy,, severely curtailed the effectiveness of disparate impact lawsuits in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio. The groundwork for this assault on Title VII was laid in Ronald Reagan's Department of Justice by young anti-civil rights activists, including John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Fortunately, Congress responded by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which incorporated the disparate impact standard into the text of Title VII.

The Court's ruling in Ricci is the latest chapter in the efforts of right wing ideologues to subvert the disparate impact standard. The Court created a new standard, stating that the New Haven needed a "substantial basis in evidence" before it could reject the results of a test that had the overwhelming effect of excluding African Americans and Hispanics from promotion as firefighters. In effect, the Court said that the City would have to prove the case against itself and establish that it had committed a disparate impact violation before it could withdraw the test and start over by searching for a less discriminatory alternative. While the obligations of Title VII remain in full effect, the Court's decision is bound to prove to be a disincentive to employers who want to comply voluntarily with Title VII, but don't want to prove that they have violated Title VII.

In a striking departure from principles that govern appellate review, the Court reversed the case outright, rather than following its usual practice of sending the case back to the lower courts to apply the facts to the new standard in the first instance. The Court's eagerness to impose its judgment was unseemly.

It now falls to the executive branch -- through the Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Labor -- to craft new guidance that will minimize the damage inflicted by the Court's ruling and ensure that Title VII's protections remain robust. Should those efforts come up short, Congress may have to consider whether it must step forward yet again to give force to Chief Justice Burger's simple statement in Griggs that, "[t]he objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII is plain from the language of the statute. It was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees."

For more analysis of this term and the impact Sonia Sotomayor could have upon the Supreme Court, please take a look at our in-depth end of term review.

Charles D. Ellison: Same Old Philly ...

2009-07-10T17:37:18Z

The real problem with the recent Valley Club swimming pool incident is that, if you're from Philadelphia, it comes as no surprise. We might wear that Ill Town badge with gritty pride, but we know what the deal is and has always been.

Philly Inquirer Columnist Annette John-Hall's breath of dismay in her article titled "Ugliness in the Water at Valley Club" implies a decent spin on the whole affair. "I thought I had fallen into a time warp. Like a lot of people, I had to pinch myself when I heard that the Valley Club, a predominantly white Montgomery County swim club, had disinvited a group of predominantly black and Latino city children from using its pool." While it's definitely true the affair prompts the need to "pinch" yourself, John-Hall may not have grown up in the same Philadelphia.

Or, maybe she did and it's just those pesky editors at the Inquirer putting on the "post-racial" heat. I'm going to put it down for the moment, because I really do love and miss my hometown. It's really a great, legendary town and I wouldn't trade my childhood in it. But, many of us dispossessed, cynical and downright jaded folks of Philly color are rather familiar with the tainted legacy of Illadelph's mighty (yet bankruptcy-challenged) daily newspapers. It's worse than that. Can't forget how they mass jacked most of their Black reporters out of jobs last year. And we know all too well how Philly's newspapers always reflected the bigoted attitudes of their predominant readers.

There's a certain amount of strength we draw from growing up in a town like that. And, when I meet other Philadelphians (Black and White) in other places around the country, the subject of race always comes up, directly or indirectly. Recalling that cool, old school South Philly Italian cat I met in Idaho one sunny corporate retreat week.

"What school did you go to," he says, slapping on that familiar and friendly past South Street affability.

I mention that really White suburban private school I ended up getting a scholarship to because going to Philly public schools was like entering prison everyday.

"Huh?" he laughs. "You're not a REAL brotha!"

We belted out hearty, signature Philly laughs. And, for some odd, really Philly reason, we were best friends for the remainder of that week. He looked out on the horse rides and mountain hikes. Really took me under his wing. Old school Italian Philly. He kept it real, as I did. I couldn't help but ask him how many brothas he jumped back in the day. He gave me that look, nodded, and laughed again. 'Nuff said.

You can't fool Ill-town citizens with the "ish" of a post-racial world. The one thing you always dig about White Philadelphians is they don't hold back on that. Notice how Valley Club President John Duesler responded about changing the "complexion" of the pool? That's Philly. You think this guy is going to return media calls? Please - think again. And as a North Philly native, it's not all that surprising given Ill Town's legacy. It's called the "City of Brotherly Love" and we bask in the delight of a long sought after baseball championship, revel in the rudeness of our fanatical sports loyalty, and feed off cheessteaks like bass heads, but there's always been an ugly scab of racism that flows through Philly veins. That's the Philly we grew up with and still know; that plain-spoken, steely segregated union town where the racial and economic demographics are very clear cut. You know where the Black neighborhoods are. You know where the Latino neighborhoods are. And, there's White ethnic neighborhoods that you, still, just can't take a leisurely stroll through.

I was recently both amazed and relieved to hear from a family source about a tennis court near the edge of Northeast Philly. Apparently, they're allowing Black kids to play there. Why did I give a split second stare of incredulity when hearing that? Because, I recall a tense moment in 1989 when a couple of us ventured from the rather Blacker part of North Philadelphia in search of better courts right across the SEPTA rail tracks. And, that's when a thick gang of teen skinheads-in-training pulled a lynch mob on us, running us back across tracks. We didn't get the memo ...

And, can't forget a mix of other interesting humiliations at the hands of Philly's finest, beefy boys in blue. Those were the days, fam.

And, even though I transplanted to D.C., I'm regularly told that not much has changed. It's an ongoing, wry joke amongst Black Philadelphians (those who stayed and those who left): the town never changes. Well ... Center City did. It looks real nice downtown. Sorry they haven't done much in North or West Philly. Southwest is always on fire.

It's not going to change that much in a city where 50% of the Black men are unemployed. Despite the fact nearly half the town is Black, elected its 3rd Black mayor and African Americans have a significant cultural, economic and political presence in the town, the racial tension is real thick. Which is one of the reasons Philly White folks have kept Mumia Abu Jamal on death row for so long, but always come short of executing him. It's the fear of a bottled rage being unleashed.

So, don't act so surprised, family. Don't get so emotional. It's Philly.

Jessica Catto: WALKING THE WALK: Step It Up, Mr. President. No Time to Fall Behind

2009-07-10T17:25:23Z

By Jessica Hobby Catto

President Obama talks the talk on energy conversion but it is time to start walking the walk. And I don't mean stroll. I mean training for a marathon. Time's a-wasting.

While the topic is not at the top of the list of everyone's preeminent worries, it soon will be, and then all the horses will have left the barn for higher ground. Right now most of the big industrial countries agreed in Italy to limit the earth's temperature to a 2 degree rise Celsius. China and India are not holding hands with the group yet, but it is only a matter of a little more time. The Chinese are ever more aware of what their own pollution is doing to them.

So, right now, and I mean right now, call the five largest oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP America, ConocoPhillips, Chevron), coal companies (Peabody Energy, Rio Tinto Energy America, Arch Coal, Foundation Coal, CONSOL Energy), and utility companies (Excelon, Southern, FPL Group, Dominion Resources, Duke Energy) to Washington in August before you go on vacation. Start with lunch at the White House. Have National Science Advisor John Holdren address the group with the facts about carbon emissions: the fate and cost we face if we do nothing, and the options we have to ameliorate the situation. He is a most persuasive speaker and can answer any questions with authority and knowledge.

Ask Jane Lubchenko, who heads National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to go over the state of the oceans with lots of visuals and graphics. Ask the companies to step up and do something big for their country. Make them part of the solution, not the problem. Enfold them in your arms. Make the hug snug.

For twenty years, I have sat on various environmental boards and in seminar discussions with many of the chief executive officers and chief operations officers of the energy companies. Most of them genuinely want to be helpful. A President can do a great deal more to effect converting words to actions than any NGO. Ask each of them to come up with a game plan to reduce emissions in their own companies by 20% in eight years, more if they can.

If the companies do it together, there will be no advantage for one or more to hang back. Appeal to patriotism first, and then offer tax incentives with heavy emphasis on their renewable energy departments. The carrot first and....well, Rahm Emmanuel can think up the stick part. A little Lyndon Johnson arm-twisting would go a long way.

At the recent Aspen Ideas Festival, conferences on U.S. energy vulnerability abounded. As did talks about how to sequester or store carbon in order to protect the earth from the effects of higher and higher carbon emissions on our daily bread, water, and air. Or the more green we protect on earth, the more carbon is gobbled up by the green expanses and the more protected our air and water.

When we talk of health care, we should factor in the effects of climate change: heavier storms, floods, drought, dirty air, water and food shortages, not to mention migrations from sea level rises and lack of food. These problems may seem far off, but only to people on a boat called the Queen of the Denial.

Urgency is here. It is hard for us to understand that fact because we cannot see foul air or suffer the consequences yet of water shortages. But this is going to be a global campaign. We need to mobilize our citizenry, our military, our energy companies, our schools and churches. We need to do many things, not just one, and we need sustained leadership from our President.

The military can help by keeping in touch at the highest levels with the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture Departments for guidance on how to keep the 29 million acres of land our armed forces own green and unspoiled. Climate change probably has been studied more carefully by the Pentagon than any other department, except for NOAA and NASA. They could be great partners and collaborators in slowing the climate crisis.

Schools can help by teaching methodologies for energy saving and the science behind earth's rising temperature. We can help by using LED lights, insulating, watching our gas consumption and energy efficient appliances. Our churches can help by emphasizing God's gift of earth to us and our need to honor and cherish it.

Now, the drum roll, please. This is the hour for rebirth of energy sources, just as it was at the turn of the 20th century. This is the time for new fortunes and a new future. Time is short and our situation precarious. The critical conversion from fossil fuels to renewables must take place in the hearts and minds of entrepreneurs and investors as well as in the factories. Leadership and vision from the President is fundamental.

Mr. President, act now and act with your special brand of fluency. If you assign the energy companies a leading role in climate control, you will have slam-dunked the biggest ball in the biggest game of all time.

Doug Kendall: Key Moments to Watch at the Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings, Part II of a Live Blog Preview

2009-07-10T17:17:12Z

Supreme Court confirmation hearings are mainly about the back and forth between Senators and the nominee. That's the constitutionally-mandated "advice and consent" dance: Senators get to ask long and often muddled questions and nominees get to give carefully crafted answers that do not reveal how they would rule in any particular case. And if there are any big surprises next week, they will likely come during the questioning. Will there be a made-for-TV "gotcha" moment when Judge Sotomayor is asked something that catches her off guard, despite the grueling hours she has put in to prepare for the hearing? Will a quick-footed response by the Judge turn the tables and put her critics back on their heels?

But questioning is not expected even to begin until Tuesday morning -- with all of Monday devoted to opening statements -- and at past hearings, outside witnesses such as Anita Hill have played a critical role. In this second of two posts (the first is here) previewing my live blogging for Huffington Post next week, I look at what could be some of the key moments in the hearings.

Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement

Monday's most dramatic moment will come when Judge Sotomayor gives her opening statement. While she gave brief remarks at the White House when her nomination was announced, the opening statement that she gives at her hearing will be more important and more difficult: here, Judge Sotomayor will make the affirmative case for her confirmation while subtly answering and disarming her critics.

In this, her best model may be Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., who drew on his years of advocacy before the Supreme Court to eloquently set the stage for his hearings with his "judges are like umpires" metaphor. "Umpires don't make the rules," Roberts said. "They apply them." In answering questions by Senators, Roberts came back to this metaphor again and again, building so strong a case for confirmation that even progressive stalwarts such as Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold felt moved to vote in his favor.

Sotomayor's task is to emulate Roberts, but do him one better. Roberts' "judges as robotic arbiter" is attractive, but incomplete. Supreme Court justices do more than call balls and strikes, they decide the most difficult legal questions in ways that often affect the lives of millions of Americans. And, as Judge Sotomayor put it in a speech given in 1999, the goal of our legal system not simply to decide cases, but to provide "justice," "an elegant and beautiful word that moves people to believe that the law is something special."

In that inspiring and so far unnoticed speech, Judge Sotomayor assesses what doing justice means in our court system where "the law commands a result, a result that leads to a winner and therefore a loser." To think about justice, she tells a group of young and aspiring lawyers:

...you must constantly step out of the role you are in and not just listen to your adversaries but learn to appreciate their perspectives... To be fair, to seek truth is not easy. It is the hardest task you face. Justice asks you not only for a fair result but for a commitment that you will pursue justice fairly in every step you take as a lawyer.

Notice two critical moves by Judge Sotomayor in this speech. First, she talks about what President Obama calls empathy -- the ability to appreciate the perspectives of all those who come into the legal system -- but explains that this is not a stand-alone criterion but rather a central ingredient of what all Americans see as the goal of our court system: Justice. Second, she makes clear that empathy and the rule of law are not at all in tension, but rather two indispensable components of our system of justice.

An opening statement along these lines on Monday would both speak powerfully to American values and defang a central claim Judge Sotomayor's opponents will surely make: that she will rule based on feelings rather than the rule of law. Such a statement would one better her future Chief and could set Sotomayor on the way to an easy confirmation.

Senators' Opening Statements

On Monday, before Judge Sotomayor officially takes the stage, each of the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee will have an opportunity to make an opening statement and thus attempt to shape the rest of the proceedings.

For Republicans, the objective is to use the opening statements to frame the hearing around the carefully selected portions of Judge Sotomayor's record that they believe give them their best chance to portray her as an out-of-the-mainstream "liberal judicial activist."

The easy approach for Democrats would be to use their time to highlight Judge Sotomayor's extensive qualifications and record, and rebut attacks that have already been leveled against her. But that would simply set the story line Republicans want: hearings focused on their objections. As I argued in the first part of this preview, a more aggressive and better approach would be to use this rare time when the public's attention is focused on the Supreme Court in order to call out the Court's conservatives for rulings that ignore constitutional text and history and that strike down or limit important federal statutes enacted to protect the civil rights, safety, interests and well-being of Americans. Some Senators on the Committee, notably Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter, have already begun to tell this important story. They can establish the need for Justices like Sotomayor on the Court, and start winning the broader battle over the future of the Supreme Court, by turning the Sotomayor hearings into a referendum on the activism of the Roberts Court.

The Senators' opening statements will also be fascinating to watch because of the significant recent changes to the makeup of the Judiciary Committee. Stalwarts such as Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy are no longer on the Committee. Old hands such as Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy remain, but in different roles (Hatch is no longer chair or ranking member and this is the first time Leahy has chaired a Supreme Court nomination hearing). One old hand has even switched sides of the aisle (former Chairman Specter). And, of course, there are several completely new faces on the Committee, the newest being the just-sworn-in Al Franken.

And so the Committee's lineup raises many questions and much to look out for. How will Jeff Sessions perform on the tightrope he's walking of courting his party's right-wing base while at the same time trying to appear to be fair and open-minded to the nominee? Will the new members prove to be able questioners? Can Al Franken, who is not a lawyer, use his communication skills to effectively explain why ordinary Americans should care about the Supreme Court? Will Sheldon Whitehouse, a former United States Attorney and State Attorney General make a name for himself using his skills as an advocate? The bright lights will be on, but we don't know who will shine and who will flame out.

Outside Witnesses

Outside witnesses have played a major role in some previous Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Everyone remembers Anita Hill of course. But Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe's testimony against failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was perhaps even more momentous. Justice Thomas was confirmed anyway; you could argue Tribe's testimony against Bork prevented both these legal titans, one from the left, one from the right, from ever sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Alito's nomination received a considerable boost by the fact that his progressive colleagues on the Third Circuit came to Washington to testify on his behalf.

But outside witnesses only matter if confirmation is in doubt after the nominee testifies. (Can anyone out there name a witness for or against Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Ginsburg?) If Judge Sotomayor is even just competent in her own appearance, the hearing room will be half empty during Frank Ricci's testimony late in the week. Which brings me to the most notable name on either side's third party witness list: Mr. Ricci, the "victim" of Judge Sotomayor's most notorious ruling.

Mr. Ricci will surely garner the lion's share of whatever media spotlight remains focused on the tail end of the Sotomayor hearings, but the question is what good this attention will do for the Senate Republicans who have asked Mr. Ricci to testify. Yes, he has a sympathetic story. But do Republicans really wish that Judge Sotomayor had bent the law and prior rulings of her Circuit to rule in Ricci's favor? By so nakedly relying on the sympathetic facts of Mr. Ricci's case in advocating against Judge Sotomayor, Republican Senators will hopelessly muddle their larger assertion that President Obama wants judges with empathy, while they want judges who follow the law. That is, if anyone is still listening.