Romney’s Failure on Immigration

As one Congressman illustrated in a display in the House floor where he showed photos of Hispanic looking celebrities and notables who were U.S. citizens in contrast to others who were "white" looking immigrants and/or not citizens, picking who is the immigrant and possibly illegally in the country is often little more than racial profiling.  And candidly, Arizona's immigration statute was all about racism at its base.  Thus, a bold response condemning racist immigration policy was needed.  Yet Mitt Romney failed the test.  Most likely because his party's base is increasingly made up of racists and bigots.  In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson - a conservative - slams Romney's failed leadership and boldness on the immigration issue that simply is not going to go away and which as the nation's demographics change will increasingly hurt the GOP's electoral chances.  Here are highlights: 

[T]he [Supreme] court’s immigration decision — and Mitt Romney’s positioning on the issue — that throws the brightest light on the presidential race. And the glare is not kind to the challenger.

Romney is being careful and reasonable on immigration in the midst of a five-alarm political fire. Latino support for Republicans has been dropping since conservatives blocked President George W. Bush’s attempt at comprehensive immigration reform. Romney accelerated the descent by pledging to veto the Dream Act as president. His polling among Hispanics now bumps along at about 25 percent — a level that seems inconsistent with winning Colorado, Nevada or perhaps even Florida. 

On immigration, President Obama’s boldness of late has been Napoleonic. The French emperor is hardly a model for a democratic statesman, given the coup of 18 Brumaire and all that. But he knew how to throw his strength at an opponent’s weak point at a decisive moment — which Obama did with his mini-Dream Act. It was a questionable use of executive power. But after weeks of political stumbles, Obama proved capable of an audacious stroke. And it is not likely to be his last. A campaign proud of its micro-targeting has plenty of demographic groups left to motivate.

The contrast is instructive. The Obama campaign is often tactically weak — an exercise in endless speeches, overmatched spokesmen, blame-shifting and expectations-lowering. But the president is capable of ambitious repositioning.

[I]t should concern Republicans that the Romney campaign has shown little appetite for strategic boldness — the ability to shift an argument, exploit a weakness or appeal to an unexpected audience. Immigration is the most urgent example, but there are others. What innovative policy has Romney announced to reassure suburban women? Or to drive home his appeal to Catholic voters, whom Obama seems intent on alienating? Or to persuade working-class voters that he is committed not just to economic freedom but also to upward mobility?

This absence of strategic ambition may reflect a strategy — that the election should be only a referendum on the Obama economy. If so, it is a serious mistake. Very few coast to the presidency based on the failures of others.

Admittedly, Romney's problem is the extremism of today's GOP.  In order to win other voters, Romney will have to take positions that are anathema to the prejudice and bigotry filled GOP base.  So far, Romney has pandered to that base rather than expand his appeal.  Hopefully, it will be a fatal mistake.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Second Guessing the Supreme Court on the Health Care Ruling

I've mad it pretty clear that I favor a continuation of what the GOP likes to deride as "Obamacare."  In fact, I'd go even further and state that we need a single payer nationalized system along the lines of France and some other European countries that pay far less over all for health care, have quality health care delivery and provide preventive care.  Nothing less will force the medical professions, hospital systems that play monopoly like games with hospitals and referring physicians to stop raping those with health insurance to make up for the millions of Americans who have no health care coverage.  Andrew Sullivan looks at what some of the predictions on tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling will look like. 

SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein bets the mandate will survive:

I believe the mandate will not be invalidated tomorrow. Far less important, I expect the principal opinion will be written by the Chief Justice; a majority of the Court will find it has jurisdiction; and the challenge to the Medicaid expansion will be rejected.

Tomasky differs:

This is easy. I take the darkest and most cynical possible view of the conservative majority; I believe, as I've written, that they are politicians in robes (with the partial exception of Kennedy); as such, I believe that they will behave here like politicians, and they will render the decision that will inflict the maximum possible political damage on Obama and the Democrats. That means overturning the mandate 5-4.

Walter Dellinger bets they'll split the baby:

[A] compulsory mandate would be unconstitutional but a financial incentive that leaves the choice to the individual would be OK. The practical effect would be to uphold all the operative provisions of the Affordable Care Act, while firmly planting a liberty flag that would limit future Congresses.

Andrew's own prediction:   It will strike down the mandate alone.

I don't presume to know, especially given the partisanship behavior of Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.   Personally, I simply know that what we had before the AHA was totally inefficient cost wise and broken and not working for many millions of Americans. If AHA is struck down, something needs to be done to deal with the broken health care system.  It's unfortunate that many voters cannot grasp that we are already paying for the uninsured through hospital bills that are sky high compared to the rest of the world and a system that ignores preventive care and puts off treatment until hugely expensive catastrophic illness has developed. For the same over all expenditure we could have a system that doesn't treat far too many citizens as disposable garbage and could rein in costs for those with health care coverage.

New Campaign Ad Highlights Obama's LGBT Rights Efforts

While it will surely cause lots of flying spittle and near convulsions among the Christofascists and their political whores within the GOP -  including Mitt "I Had Five Great Grandmothers" Romney - a new Obama campaign ad is highlighting the advances in LGBT rights that have taken place in Obama's first term - even if often in reaction to fears that the LGBT ATM might be closed down.   The associated video (set out below) is entitled "Keeping His Word: Equality for LGBT Americans"  and includes references toObama's signing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Obama's positions needless to say are in sharp contrast to those of Mitt Romney which I summarized in a post earlier in the week:

Romney, of course, opposes marriage equality. Romney supports DOMA. Romney has pledged to write anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution. Romney opposed the repeal of DADT. Romney opposes the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Romney opposes adoptions by same-sex couples

One can only assume that Obama is seeking to play to the majority of Americans who now support marriage equality.  A group that includes Hispanic voters, the youth vote, a majority of Roman Catholics and a majority of moderates.     In contrast, Romney's positions pander to religious fanatics and aging white bigots.  Given the GOP's increasing religious extremism and racism one has to wonder when being a card carrying member of the KKK or membership in Opus Dei or the Southern Baptist Convention will become a prerequisite for GOP membership (of course, a lobotomy might soon also be a prerequisite)..

 

Anti-Gay Bigot Jennifer Keeton Gets Another Judicial Smack Down

It's been a while since I wrote about Jennifer Keeton (pictured at right) - the former student at Augusta State University in Georgia who was kicked out of that university's Counselor Education Program because she refused to participate in counseling sessions with gay patients. Gays, you see, purportedly are offensive to Keeton's Christian faith.   Not surprisingly, Keeton advocates that gays subject themselves to reparative therapy - a form of therapy condemned by every legitimate medical and mental health association in America.  

Following her dismissal, Ms. Keeton quickly became the darling of Christofascists and filed a federal lawsuit alleging that she was suffering from discrimination because of her religious beliefs.  This week a federal court handed down its ruling that dismissed all of Keeton's claims.  That's right, every one of them.  The full 65 page opinion can be viewed here.  Keeton's case is but one of many examples of far right Christians demanding special rights that would allow them to trample of the civil rights of those they dislike be they gay, non-Christian, etc.  Fortunately, the Court saw her claims to be unadulterated bullshit and bigotry.  Here are some highlight's from the Court's ruling:

The central issue before the Court, though by no means simple, is straightforward - that is, whether, according to Keeton's allegations, the actions of ASU faculty and officials and the policies they relied upon trespassed boundaries set by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the prevailing law to the facts alleged, the Court concludes that they did not.

Keeton contends that the challenged policies are overbroad and operate to chill protected speech by discouraging her and other students from exercising First Amendment expressive rights for fear of penalty. The Court disagrees.

On their face the challenged policies target only professional conduct, not expressive activity as such. To illustrate, each of the challenged provisions under the ACA and ASCA Codes targets professional personnel, either "counselors" or "the professional school counselor."  .  .  .  .  Because neither the text of the challenged policies nor the factual allegations put forth by Keeton give rise to a realistic and substantial threat to protected speech, her First Amendment overbreadth claim is DISMISSED.

The imposition of a counselor's personal values in the context of the counseling profession, particularly within the bounds of the counselor-client relationship, is antithetical to the primary responsibilities of the counselor as set out in both the ACA and ASCA Codes (and incorporated into the Counselor Program Handbook),
and this conduct is expressly and plainly forbidden.  .   .  .  the Court merely holds that the language of the challenged policies is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Keeton's conduct, and therefore her facial due process challenge to those policies fails as a matter of law and must be DISMISSED.

Keeton first claims that she was discriminated against because her speech was issued from a Christian viewpoint. In support of this position, she maintains that the remediation plan "limited the viewpoints she could express, denigrated her religiously-based views, and punished her for comments she made" to faculty members. .  .  .  .  When read as a whole, Keeton's allegations show only that "the remediation plan was imposed because she expressed an intent to impose her personal religious views on her clients, in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics, and that the objective of the remediation plan was to teach her how to effectively counsel GLTBQ clients in accordance with the ACA Code of Ethics."

Keeton's conflation of personal and professional values, or at least her difficulty in discerning the difference, appears to have been rooted in her opinion that the immorality of homosexual relations is a matter of objective and absolute moral truth. The policies which govern the ethical conduct of counselors, however, with their focus on client welfare and self-determination, make clear that the counselor's professional environs are not intended to be a crucible for counselors to test metaphysical or moral propositions.  .   .  .  .  the Court concludes that the remediation plan is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to ASU's legitimate pedagogical interests. The claim of viewpoint discrimination is therefore DISMISSED.

Keeton's allegations do not show that imposition of the remediation plan was substantially motivated by her personal religious views. The plan was instead imposed "because she was unwilling to comply with the ACA Code of Ethics." Keeton, 664 F.3d at 878. As a result, the retaliation claim is DISMISSED.

"Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates," and "[wihen someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements."  .   .  .  For the above reasons, Keeton's compelled speech claim is DISMISSED.

In this case, Keeton's allegations fail to show that her faith motivated the faculty's imposition of the remediation plan.  .  .  .  .  the only inferences available are that the ACA and ASCA Codes were promulgated by field experts to ensure professional counselors respect the dignity and promote the self-determination and welfare of clients; that the Codes were incorporated into the Counselor Program in large part to secure and maintain the Program's accreditation; and that the remediation plan was imposed on Keeton because her conduct violated, or threatened to violate, a core principle of the Codes, namely separation of personal and professional values. .  .  .  .  Keeton has failed to present allegations reasonably suggesting that the remediation plan was selectively imposed upon her because of her religious beliefs; therefore, her free exercise claim is DISMISSED.

Finally, Keeton claims that faculty violated her equal protection rights by intentionally discriminating against her based on her religious speech and beliefs. .  .  .  .  In this case, Keeton has failed to state an equal protection violation.  .   .  .  .  Keeton's allegations do not show that the remediation plan was imposed on the basis of her religious views. Instead, the plan served as a pedagogical tool employed to facilitate her compliance with ethical codes governing the profession she sought to join.  .   .   .  .   Given its pedagogical duty to train future counseling professionals, ASU had a rational basis for imposing the plan to ensure compliance with professional standards of conduct

I hope I haven't bored readers, but as an attorney, I like to see a well reasoned opinion.  As for Keeton, perhaps she can take up basket weaving or some other mindless pursuit.  It would seem the best option given her apparent simple mindedness.

Mitt Romney's Continuing Lies

Mitt Romney's willingness to lie and pander to religious extremists knows no limits.  The image above does a great job at underscoring this reality.  In signing NOM's marriage pledge, Romney conveniently ignored not only his own family background, but also all the polygamists in the Old Testament, not to mention the regions of the world where polygamy still occurs.  I think the man would claim that black was really white if it would get him the vote of some moron.  We do not need him in the White House - or any elected office for that matter.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

From Image Amplified

Republican: Voter ID Laws Are ‘Gonna Allow Governor Romney To Win’

Even though there is virtually no data to support the GOP claim that voter fraud is a problem, GOP controlled legislatures - including the Virginia General Assembly - have been aggressively passing voter ID laws to fight the non-existent problem.  Now, one GOP Congressman has been honest enough to state what the real goal of these laws has always been: diminish minority voting so that the GOP candidates - particularly Mitt Romney - have a better chance of winning.  If you're black, Hispanic or some other non-white race, they simply do not want you voting.  Think Progress looks at this candid confession by Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (pictured at left).  Here are highlights:

This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election. 

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Voter identification efforts disproportionately affect low-income voters of color, a typically Democratic demographic. Despite insistence by Republicans that the efforts are needed to prevent misconduct on election day, voter fraud is less likely than being hit by lighting. 

Texas GOP Makes Anti-Gay Hate Part of It's Party Platform

Apparently, the Republican Party of Texas is trying to make the Republican Party of Virginia look moderate.  Why else would it have adopted a party platform that does everything but state that LGBT citizens should either be stoned in the nearest church parking lot or expelled from the United States - or at least Texas?  The newly adopted Texas GOP platform ends any pretense that there is any recognition of the concept of the separation of church and state in the Lone Star state in GOP circles.  Indeed, the entire platform which can be found here looks like a Christianist version of Sharia law.  Some of the platform not surprisingly also shows contempt for the voting rights of minorities.  Here's a sampling of the platform's position on gays and gay civil rights (i.e., we have none):

Homosexuality:  We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Family and Defense of Marriage:  We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman.

Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):  We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior. 

Judicial Activism in Marriage:  We support marriage and oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists.

Enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act:  We support the enforcement of the State and Federal Defense of Marriage Act by state and federal officials respectively, and oppose creation, recognition and benefits for partnerships outside of marriage that are being provided by some political subdivisions.

Marriage and Divorce:  We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no-fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.

Family Values:  We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.

Voter Rights Act: We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized. 

Religious Symbols:  We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

Right To Life:  All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children.

Controversial Theories:  We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Texas Republican in short want a Christian version of Iran.  Note how "life origins and environmental change" are "controversial theories."  And yet some readers wonder why I cannot in good conscience support the GOP in any form shape or manner.

Antonin Scalia, the Lawless Supreme Court Justice

Following his statements and opinions, I increasingly see Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a menace to the nation.  The man is out of control and increasingly unhinged - in fact to the point where he thinks he is above any and all rules.  You might even say that he's become the Dick Cheney of the Supreme Court ranks except for the fact that even Cheney seems less crazy.  Scalia increasingly shows himself to be a political extremist and somehow thinks his personal beliefs trump the Constitution not to mention the long held views on judicial propriety.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at this increasingly lawless justice.  Here are highlights:

It has been widely assumed—including by yours truly—that calling Supreme Court justices “politicians in robes,” as I did just last week counts as an insult. But as of Monday—almost surely before, but without any question as of Monday—Nino Scalia wants precisely to be thought of as a politician in a robe. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from his churlish and self-aggrandizing and probably unethical tirade against President Obama’s recently announced immigration policy. And while the court majority’s ruling (from which Scalia of course dissented) represents a pretty solid victory for the Justice Department, the narrow win for the state of Arizona on the controversial “where are your papers” part of the law makes it quite possible that these very issues will come to the court again, after Scalia has taken his political position. Just as Zola famously said “J’Accuse!,” I hope the liberal legal groups are already practicing saying “Recuse!”

As a rule, Supreme Court justices don’t comment much on current events (and if they do, they usually do so elliptically). As a rule, Supreme Court justices never comment on matters that they have reason to think might come before them.

But the rules aren’t for Scalia. He refused to recuse himself back in 2004 in the case involving the secrecy of Dick Cheney’s energy task force. He had, you’ll recall, gone hunting with Cheney (emerging, as far as we know, unscarred). I’m not naive enough to think for a second that Scalia’s personal loyalty to Cheney was purchased with a few rounds of duck ammo. After all, the case was the one in which Cheney asserted that he was in essence beyond the law’s reach, which is fine with Scalia if you’re a conservative, ducks or no ducks. And of course he and Clarence Thomas are somehow allowed to attend highly political gatherings put together by the Koch brothers too, without any consequences.

And what if, someday, the Obama immigration directive comes before the court? Even conservative blogger Ed Morrissey flagged this as problematic. 


The Court’s liberals are nicely old-fashioned that way. They believe in the small-r republican virtues (even, at times, when it’s naive to do so). But for the conservatives, and for Scalia most of all, legal propriety is absurdly quaint. He doesn’t answer to a nation. He answers to a cadre, a vanguard, of which he is a cherished member, which is about as likely to say no to him as the College of Cardinals is to the Pope, and to which all outside criticism is the chirping of crickets. The crickets will be chirping awfully loudly in the coming days, and I hope at least that this self-satisfied martinet gets an ear-splitting headache.

It is far past time that ethical constraints be placed on the justices, starting with Scalia, Thomas and Alito.