If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
The Blog
I could spend months detailing my differences with John Derbyshire regarding American race relations. However, one of his observations about politics and race is uncomfortably true.
Ethics further tarnish the ebony robes of this court. Though the Supreme Court justices are not held to the same high ethics standards as lower judicial magistrates, ethics must be considered when evaluating their decisions and opinions.
The fate of our health care is in the hands of the most partisan, pro-corporate court in a generation.
How can a sentient judge, responsible for casting a deciding vote in a 5-4 case -- that is widely said to be the most important of the decade -- sit through the proceedings mute for six hours?
In response to my offer to a debate or public discussion, the Koch brothers, hiding behind their attorney, wrote, "We are confused about what there is to debate." Well, I'll tell you.
Due to the rarified air of the highest court in the land, the arguments were solemn, dignified and incisive. "Obamacare Sucks!" "Does not." "Does So." "Does Not." Like that, only in elevated lawyer language.
Sadly for America, there is far too much money, and far too little sunlight, in a government that most voters believe, correctly, is corrupted by money that buys democracy in the dark.
No matter how the Supreme Court rules on health reform, one thing is certain: the court is now viewed largely as a suspect partisan institution alarmingly contented with its own impropriety.
Facts destroyed 'motivated reasoning' in my case. Could this happen to other conservatives? That depends on conservatives being willing to subject the views they hear and read to strict scrutiny, to ask themselves if they're really hearing the truth from the talkers.
As Justice Clarence Thomas and his Supreme Court colleagues prepare for hearings on a landmark health care reform law, it's time for the IRS to investigate the tax status of a nonprofit group Thomas' wife founded in 2009.
When the Court ruled in favor of the State of Texas and ordered a three-judge panel in San Antonio to redraw maps they had drawn in November, did nine justices vote to uphold a racial gerrymander that violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act?
The case was argued by a 27-year-old female lawyer from Texas -- Sarah Weddington. Female lawyers were so rare in those days that the Supreme Court lawyers' lounge didn't even have a ladies room. There were no female judges. Weddington faced a wall of older men.
Today the New York Times asked for input on "whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." The response among my peers has been fairly unanimous: Are you f-ing kidding me?
What was all the Herman Cain mudslinging is about? Obama and the DNC want to face Romney or Gingrich because that's the only way they win. Now that Cain is gone, they got their way.
In spite of substantial evidence to the contrary, the message from Chief Justice John Roberts of late is that he sees no ethics problem at the Court and that no reforms are needed or desirable. This is unfortunate.
