Meg Whitman's Stunning Hindsight

So I was driving to L.A. today and I saw a Meg Whitman billboard, in Spanish. Luckily for you, I took four years of Spanish in high school. The billboard's exact words were - and of course I'm paraphrasing - "No on Prop 187 and no on Arizona's law".

Now that's political courage: coming out against a 16 year old ballot measure that was long ago declared unconstitutional. She's not pandering at all. I'm sure it's just that she's been seething about this injustice since 1994. And since it never went into effect, you can understand why she's bringing it up now. Oh, you can't? Hmm.

I understand Meg's next plan is to capture the African-American vote with a billboard that touts her support of the 13th Amendment.

Oh, and by the way, in case any of my conservative friends are reading this... unlike you, Meg Whitman is against 187 and against Arizona's law. She just doesn't like to brag about it in English.

Dear Conservative Hypocrites

Dear Conservative Hypocrites (that would be virtually all of you),

A recent Supreme Court ruling came down 7-2 involving habeas deadlines in death penalty cases. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Sam Alito sided with the majority, with Scalia and Thomas, big shock, dissenting. That's right... the four arch conservatives disagreed with each other!

Which begs the question: Since you believe justices are supposed to simply "call balls and strikes" and "impartially interpret the law", which of your four conservative heroes are the radical "judicial activists" in this case?

Thanks in advance for your no doubt intellectually honest answer.

Best,

Adam

Prop 8 Closing Arguments

Vaughn Walker, the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (California's Prop 8 trial), put written questions to the two sides in advance of closing arguments, which begin tomorrow, June 16th.

Arch conservative Ted Olson and his strange bedfellow ally, liberal David Boies, are representing the plaintiffs - and doing the Lord's work. They submitted their answers to Judge Walker and took it upon themselves to respond to all of the questions, theirs and those put to the defense. The link to a .pdf is below. Maybe it's only interesting reading to Court watchers and armchair legal nerds like myself, but reading the document brought me to tears. It is a thing of rare Constitutional beauty. Whereas the defense claims are all based on emotion and shoddy post hoc justifications for discrimination, Olson and Boies present hard, crystal clear legal facts. Anyone who claims to value the Constitution - or individual liberties - should read their brilliant argument and cherish it.

I have no doubt that Prop 8 will be overturned at the district level, and the ruling will likely be upheld at the 9th Circuit level. There is still doubt, however, as to how the Supreme Court will rule (although it will almost certainly be 5-4 one way or the other). It's a shame that the conservative wing of the Court is composed of such extreme judicial activists, because the arguments on display here are rock solid, and the established case law is clear. It would take an outrageous act of absolute judicial will to keep Prop 8 in tact, but this Court has shown itself absolutely capable of such activism (see Bush v. Gore). There's no question that the conservative cabal is more than happy to ignore the law when it wishes to achieve a specific political end. That being said, I am cautiously optimistic that Anthony Kennedy, whose ruling in several key cases on point favor the plaintiffs, will be the deciding vote in finally ending the disgraceful discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens, who are clearly being denied the equal protection of the law.

To be sure, both sides are passionate and emotional about this issue. But just looking at the law, only one side has a valid, air-tight, no nonsense Constitutional argument.

That gorgeous argument can be read here.

But Wait, I Thought the GOP Respected The Will Of The People

Remember when the GOP went apeshit because Congress and the President were ignoring the polls and pushing for the passage of health care reform? We heard a lot about how Democrats were "jamming" their legislation "down the throats" of the American people. That phrase, in fact, became a major conservative talking point and they repeated it ad nauseam whenever they saw a warm body with a notebook or a camera. See, never mind that when George Bush ignored the polls he was a "leader"; somehow, what Obama was doing was different. He's ignoring the will of the people, they wailed, and he's doing so at his peril! One of the loudest proponents of this nonsense was, of course, orange-hued House Minority Leader John Boehner who was practically apoplectic that the White House and the Democratic majority would legislatively accelerate when the citizenry supposedly wanted them to slam on the brakes.

Well it should come as no surprise to you, dear reader, that ideological consistency is not exactly the hallmark of Republican party groupthink.

Because what did John Boehner and all but five House Republicans do today? They voted against the repeal of the deeply discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Their stance is not at all surprising, of course, but there's one thorny little fact they can't escape: a whopping 78% of Americans recently polled support the repeal effort. 78%. More than 3/4 of the country want this thing gone and yet Boehner and his caucus voted en masse to keep it in place.

Gee, could it be that during the health care debate, the GOP's outrage at Democrats ignoring polls was... fake? Manufactured? Cynical? Could it be that when it suits them, conservatives in Congress are more than happy to turn a blind eye to what the vast majority of the country wants?

We should all call or email leader Boehner's office and ask him: "In light of all the polls, sir, why are you insistent on ignoring the will of the people and jamming this despicable policy down our throats?"

Ah, maybe it's not even worth it. Because luckily for all of us, Boehner and his hypocritical and irrelevant (at least for now) caucus will once again be on the losing end of a major legislative battle... not to mention the wrong side of history.

Rand Paul's America Would be Fine With "No Blacks or Dogs Allowed"

I certainly have some small "l" libertarian sympathies. Actually, I have quite a few of them - but only to a point. Extremists like Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul of Kentucky show the limitations of doctrinaire libertarianism in a humane, organized society.

Paul, while theoretically decrying racism of any kind, admits to opposing the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. His logic? Private businesses are private and, as such, have the right to do whatever they damn well please, even if society finds their practices abhorrent. Any regulation or intrusion on the part of the government, Rand seems to argue, is tantamount to ownership of the business. The People don't own it? Then we get no say.

Naturally, this argument is absurd on so many levels I barely know where to begin. Obviously, the federal government has the right - and the obligation - to protect its citizens from the abuses of those who do business here. Despite the fact that we are a free market economy, it's a regulated market... and for damned good reasons. The belief that private enterprise should have absolutely no restrictions on its behavior is a position well outside of the political mainstream. And as we've seen from the recent abuses of Wall Street and the country's biggest banks, the government "keeping its nose out of it" can bring the entire economy to its knees and practically destroy the country. But we need to butt out?

And what about pollution? Or poisoning? Or fraud? If the government is empowered to decide that business owners are prohibited from acting in a criminal manner - which clearly it is - then who is to say what can or cannot be considered a crime? The vast majority of Americans supports making racial discrimination a non-starter when it comes to business practices on our soil, yet extremists like Dr. Paul don't believe we should have a say, except as it relates to where we spend our money. (And isn't it funny that corporations want to be treated like "people" when it comes to, say, political advertisements and contributions, but want special protections when it comes to breaking the law?)

Why is it that conservatives believe that owning a business is a right and not a privilege? We the People own the playing field and we get to decide the rules of the game. We are allowed to protect ourselves. We are allowed to decide what kind of nation we want to be. It is not our obligation to allow individuals who form companies in our country to run rampant and harm us. As FDR said, "Let us not forget that the government is ourselves and not an alien power over us". And whether the regulations come from the federal, state or local level, businesses need to be licensed and there are certain reasonable (and probably some unreasonable) ground rules they must adhere to if they want the privilege of setting up shop within our borders and taking advantage of all that the amazing American enterprise system has to offer. But of all the plausibly unreasonable restrictions placed on businesses, not racially discriminating is hardly one of them.

We are a nation of laws, and even many supposedly purist Libertarians like Dr. Paul claim to respect the rule of law. Yet they seem to believe that laws should only apply to individuals. Murder? Of course it should be illegal. Bank robbery? Throw away the key. But the minute a private business is involved? If it's the bank that's robbing us? Paul and his ilk suddenly switch tacks and claim that the government shouldn't get any say whatsoever in that business's practices. Or maybe SOME practices, okay, but not when it comes to civil rights laws. But the minute one makes allowances for some government intervention, then one's argument pretty much disintegrates. Why restrictions on fiduciary practices but not, say, hiring practices, or who you can or cannot exclude as a customer? Dr. Paul's ridiculous position can't possibly survive even the slightest amount of critical scrutiny, because, as his recent muddled backpedaling has shown, his logic is as tortuous as my colon... and just full of shit.

Laws are laws are laws, be they criminal or civil. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with making anyone who wants the great privilege of doing business in America to obey a few simple rules. Ought one of those rules be that business don't discriminate on the basis of race? It's an absolute no brainer. Yet Rand Paul's America would welcome restaurants which say "No Blacks or Dogs Allowed". He wouldn't eat there, of course, but he doesn't think he has a choice in the matter as to their existence. Thank God he's wrong.

See, there's that pesky Constitution - the one Rand Paul claims to cherish so deeply. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government wide latitude in regulating businesses - powers that have been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court, especially as it relates to civil rights laws. Even so, Paul's argument doesn't seem to be one of states rights vs. federal intrusion. His argument would seemingly apply to states and municipalities as well. If you believe that no government entity has the right to tell a business how to behave, then really it doesn't matter what government we're talking about. As even the most ardent "Tenther" must admit, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution provides that powers not granted to the feds are reserved to the states or the people. So how about state laws barring discrimination in private business? Or a public referendum? Would Paul object to those too? Sounds like it. Which is why his argument holds no water. You can't profess to love the Constitution while decrying many of its main precepts.

The bottom line is, We the People have every right do decide for ourselves, through legislation, how individuals and businesses must behave if they wish to live and function and profit in our society. We regulate individual behavior and we regulate collective behavior. Sure, you could claim that taking away your right to steal from the corner store is a violation of your freedom, but you'd get no sympathy; instead, you'd be run out of town on a rail. Why should a business's behavior be treated any differently?

Any way you look at it, it's pretty difficult to reasonably argue that the business of America is none of America's business.