Skip to content

Time to stop these activist judges!

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Okay, I’ll start this by admitting that I’m not the most experienced federal litigator in the world, but I find this puzzling:

The City of Dallas voted Wednesday to immediately remove a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public park, but the work was abruptly stopped by a federal judge.

Soon after the vote, workers in hard hats and yellow vests cordoned off the area around the Lee monument, which stands in Robert E. Lee Park, a green space in Dallas that is bounded on one side by Lee Parkway.

But their efforts came to a halt when Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a temporary restraining order halting the statue’s removal, according to Richard Hill, a spokesman for the city. A hearing on the proposed removal of the monument was scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Thursday, according to The Dallas Morning News.

via The New York Times

Liberal judges are constantly accused of being “activists”, and I suppose there’s a marginal chance this judge is a liberal, though given the fact that Texas judges have been selected by whackjob Republican Senators for the past 27 years or so, that seems doubtful.

Here’s my question: How does a federal court have jurisdiction to involve itself in this case?

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear two general categories of cases. The case must involve a “federal question” or there must be diversity of citizenship between the parties (i.e., the plaintiff must be from one state and the defendant from another). In the latter case, the plaintiff must also establish that there is an “amount in controversy” of $75,000.00 or more. It is unlikely that anyone is in a position to claim that he or she will be damaged to the tune of $75,000.00 by the removal of this statue, and it’s hard to see how a citizen of another state would have standing to bring the action in the first place.

How, particularly in the land of state’s rights (I know-state’s rights only applies when it suits their purposes) is the decision of a municipality about statuary a federal issue? What federal statute or right is implicated in the City Council’s decision to remove this statue? If the City of Boston wants to remove the Make Way for Ducklings statue (which, heaven forbid), does it need permission from a federal judge? Could a judge require a city to put up a statue on the petition of a random racist? Let’s turn it around, could a federal judge forbid the erection of a statue proposed by a municipality?

I can conceive of an argument for an affirmative answer to my last question. Back when a lot of these statues were erected, they symbolized, as they do today, the triumph of Jim Crow and the subversion by local authorities of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you could make something of that. But how do you argue that taking down a symbol of hate and repression presents a federal question? Imagine too, the reaction we’d hear from Tucker Carlson and his ilk if a judge ordered the removal of one of these statues If the local authorities refused to do so.

This movement to remove monuments to hate and treason is one of the few hopeful signs of the age of Trump. This activist judge should step aside and let the enlightened people of Dallas do the right thing.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Only one side!

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Almost everyone on the left is aware of the “both sides” mentality of the mainstream press. Why, there are some bloggers who specialize in exposing the absurd lengths to which the media will go to insist that “both sides” are equally bad. (I highly recommend driftglass, see one of his many great takedowns of David Brooks here.) You know how it goes. Does the Republican Party cater to racists, and has it done so for the past 40 years? Well, what about the Democrats, who … who, well, who refuse to feel the pain of those racists, or something. There’s always something.

So, this morning I picked up the Boston Globe and read this headline: In age of Trump, politics has become a game with no shame So, naturally, I figured, somewhere in the article we would be assured that both sides are guilty of Trump’s transgressions, which in this case consist of refusing to admit he is wrong or apologize to those he has wronged, regardless of mountains of proof that he is wrong or that an apology is in order. The story documents the fact that lots of Republican politicians throughout the country are following Trump’s lead, and standing by outrageously false claims or outrageous and baseless insults directed at political opponents.

But, guess what?!!!! The article tells it like it is. I looked in vain for even a hint of an assertion that Democrats are doing it too. It’s not there! Could this be the beginning of the end of both siderism, or is this just the work of a new young journalist who has not yet caught on to the rules?

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Great Advice, Steve!

Friday, September 1, 2017

By now, anyone who is not an idiot, knows that Trump is an idiot. (In fact, it’s the first word that pops into the heads of most Americans when you mention Donald Trump) But lest you think that his advisers might outshine him so far as rationality or common sense is concerned, think again. Consider neo-Nazi (oh, why the “neo”, let’s just say Nazi) Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s “advisers”, though no one can quite put their finger on what exactly his credentials are to be giving advice to anyone. I mean, just look at the guy:

Okay, that ad hominem attack out of the way, let’s get back to cases.

It seems that Donald Trump authored a letter firing James Comey before Ron Rosenstein did so. On a scale of 1 to 10, how stupid do you think that was? Remember this scene from This is Spinal Tap?

Stephen Miller apparently advised Trump that he should go ahead and write that letter. Now, Mueller has it, and it’s dollars to donuts it contains incriminating evidence against the idiot. Every time he opens his mouth about Russia, Trump digs himself in deeper. Here’s hoping Miller hangs around for a while.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

Injustice in Georgia

Friday, September 1, 2017

This seems totally unfair:

A Cobb County, Georgia police officer is being investigated after dash cam footage showing him making questionable statements during a suspected DUI traffic stop was released. During the stop the officer, dealing with a nervous but not uncooperative passenger, had this interaction:

Officer: Use your phone. It’s in your lap right there.

Woman: OK. I just don’t want to put my hands down. I’m really sorry, I’m just—

Officer: –You’re just really [unintelligible]

Woman: –no, no, no I’ve just seen way too many videos of cops—

Officer: –But you’re not black. Remember, we only shoot black people. Yeah. We only shoot black people, right? In all the videos you’ve seen, have you seen the black people get killed?

Woman: Yeah. 

Officer: You have.

via Daily Kos

I understand the poor guy has retired rather than go through the investigation. So unfair. Why should he be punished for telling the truth?

DISCLAIMER: Should anyone stumble onto this blog who might take the above seriously, please look up the word “sarcasm”.

Addendum to disclaimer: Yes, believe it or not, some people are incapable of recognizing sarcasm.

Filed in Equal Justice, Sarcasm | | Comments (0)

Watch what they do, not what they say

Saturday, August 26, 2017

The American media continues to refuse to face the reality that is the modern Republican Party.

It is simply a matter of historical fact that the Republican Party is and has been the party of racism since at least 1968. There is no getting around that fact. Yet this morning the Boston Globe highlights a meaningless resolution from the RNC condemning hate groups. This resolution was passed by the way, while another one has been proposed in Congress (by Republicans, of course) making it clear that so far as the Republicans are concerned, both fascists and anti-fascists must be condemned.

Worse than the text of the Globe’s article is the headline in the paper (not used on line). Here’s a picture. Leads you to think they’ve actually done something, doesn’t it? (This is the front page story, by the way)


As bad as they were, the Nixonites at least had a somewhat valid point when they urged the press to “watch what we do, not what we say”.  (Of course, what they did was bad too) We don’t need to watch what modern Republicans do, we can recall what they’ve done. Just for starters they appointed racist Supreme Court judges (even a black one), who have eviscerated the Voting Rights Act. They have failed and refused to do anything to revive that act. They have systematically changed voting laws to disenfranchise black people. They have engaged in dog whistle politics for years, most famously when Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi talking about states rights and in the Willie Horton ads.

This resolution is simply saying that they desperately want to go back to whistling and that the screaming should stop. Anyone with a brain knows that, so that’s how it should be covered. There is absolutely no reason why this resolution should be considered a sincere act of contrition on the part of the Republican Party, at least not one meriting absolution for their past and current sins. The precondition to that is a full confession, and they have yet to make that.

Filed in Media, Republicans | | Comments (0)

Nose deep in the big muddy

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

We all know about stopped clocks. If they can be right twice a day, it stands to reason that Donald Trump can be right once in his life, which actually happened when he opined that we should get the hell out of Afghanistan. It also stands to reason that this rare occurrence couldn’t last, and that while he would not retreat from building walls, destroying health care, or coddling racists, he would likely retreat from the one sane position he advocated (though not all that loudly) during his campaign and even after January 20th.

Many on the left have been slow to criticize the Afghanistan mess because Obama actually ran on pressing the war there and could never bring himself to simply get out. It was probably the fact that Obama stayed in that led Trump to his initial position that we should get out. Trump has a weird fixation on Obama, his jealousy of Obama leads him to want to reverse everything Obama ever did.

It should be obvious that it makes no sense to pursue a war in which no one can even define victory (Tillerson to Taliban: “We may not win, but neither will you”), while at the same time producing material extremists can use to recruit terrorists elsewhere. If we could bomb our way to victory, as Trump seems to imply we will, the Russians would still be there and in control.

So, I find myself in somewhat bizarre company here, as Steve Bannon has already taken up the cudgel against Trump on this one. Hell, even Fared Zakaria has refused to pronounce Trump’s speech “presidential”, as he did the bombing raid on Syria, instead recognizing the corollary of Tillerson’s statement that “Trump just signed on to the forever war”.

This is one of those times that I somewhat regret that we no longer have a draft. The comfortable can safely stay out of harm’s way, so we can prosecute endless and fruitless wars without much blowback. Had we had an all volunteer force in Vietnam, we’d still be there.

Filed in Empire, The Donald | | Comments (1)

A sick puppy

Monday, August 21, 2017

The mainstream media are finally beginning to say out loud what so many of them have recognized since before the election: that Donald Trump is a sick puppy.

Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein tweeted last week that “important Republicans” and higher ups in the intelligence and military communities had been “increasingly saying in private that @realDonaldTrump is unfit to be president.”

That was on Tuesday. By Thursday, GOP Sen. Bob Corker, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, questioned Donald Trump’s fitness aloud with a quote that ricocheted around Washington at lighting speed.

The president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs to demonstrate in order for him to be successful…

By Sunday, CNN’s Brian Stelter devoted an entire segment to mounting questions about Trump’s mental suitability to function as leader of our nation.

“Is the president of the United States a racist? Is he suffering from some kind of illness? Is he fit for office? “And if he is unfit, then what?” Stelter asked on the program Reliable Sources. Bernstein appeared on the segment, providing more details about the chatter he mentioned earlier in the week.

via Daily Kos

Of course you heard it here first. Well, you might not have heard it here first, but you heard it here before you heard it on CNN. Still, better late than never, though one must wonder whether this ever would have come to the surface had Trump not equated Nazis with people opposed to Nazis.

I thought this picture, which appeared in the post to which I’ve linked, was interesting.

We are all familiar with the trope that the presidency ages people quickly. We’ve seen the before and after pictures, which sometimes seem to show dramatic changes over the course of a comparatively few years. This picture, I’d submit, shows a Trump that has changed in only a few months. In the case of other presidents it’s the stress of handling the responsibilities of the job. In the case of Trump, that probably has little to do with it. In his case, he’s having trouble handling the fact that he is not getting the adulation that he believes is his due. He appears to have believed that if he were elected president the world, or at least the country, would worship him. Why he would believe such a thing, particularly after the way he treated Obama, is a mystery to anyone who thinks rationally, but Trump does not think rationally. Narcissist that he is, he really believed he was different. He’s finding that it’s not easy to be a total fraud, as he has been all his life, when the spotlight is always on you. When he was a loud mouthed real estate developer he was merely an amusing sideshow. Even his criminal behavior, at its base no different than the criminal behavior of his less loudmouthed ilk, went uninvestigated. (Why spend resources going after white collar crime when its easier and cheaper to go after the wretched of the earth?)All that has now changed, and he can’t cope, nor can he control his behavior so as to mitigate the revulsion people feel for him. Never have we had a president so widely loathed nor have we had a president whose very sanity was openly questioned (and rightly so) in the major media. He can call it fake news all he likes, but it’s eating away at him. It is literally impossible for him to control himself, so he will provoke even more disgust as time goes on. Only Trump, given his present situation, would let it be known that he’s even considering pardoning Joe Arpaio. Only Trump, given his present situation, would actually do it. But I’m guessing he will, and that will be just one more milestone on the way to the inevitable wholesale breakdown.

We constantly hear that Trump’s base will never desert him, which is probably true for a large portion of that base. But there’s a portion of the right that can’t abide a politician that exposes it for what it is. How else explain that even graduates of the loathsome Liberty University are returning their diplomas to protest Jerry Falwell Jr.’s support for Trumps defense of Nazis. There are some things you’re simply not supposed to say out loud. But Trump can’t help himself, and as the pressure mounts, he’s more than likely to become even more unhinged.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

You learn something new every day

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Deray McKesson, of Black Lives Matter fame, and I, have something in common. We both went to Bowdoin College. Today he tweeted that he was proud of Bowdoin for taking down a plaque honoring Confederate alumni. I guess I’m proud of the college too, but I have to say I’m also a little embarrassed.

When I went there I knew very little about Bowdoin’s Civil War history. I can’t recall ever seeing the plaque in question. I think at some point I heard something about Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, one of the heroes (on the Union side) at Gettysburg. I think I even had a seminar in his former home. But the Vietnam war was raging, and Chamberlain was more known on campus for being the college president that mandated that every student had to participate in the 1870s equivalent of ROTC. The students actually went on strike, something that didn’t happen again until the nationwide student strike after Kent State.

Anyway, I was shocked to learn that the plaque in question was placed in 1965, at the end of the Civil War centennial. I assumed it had been erected back in the mists of time. Look, you might say, even back in 1965 people, especially white people, weren’t sensitive to the issues that are being debated today. Times were different. All true. But, gag, guess whose name is on that plaque along with the other traitors? Ready?

Jefferson Davis!

My alma mater gave him an honorary degree before he betrayed his country in order to preserve slavery. So, technically, he was an alum, but even in 1965 you’d think they’d think twice about putting his name on a plaque up in the northernmost state in the continental U.S. Did it never cross their minds to simply rescind the honorary degree, or conveniently forget about it? They should have done that in 1861.

But to quote Mr. Dylan: “..you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears, take the rag away from your face, now ain’t the time for your tears.

Yes, indeed, this would all be bad enough, but consider this. The college will replace the current plaque:

This panel will update and replace a previous panel installed in the Pickard lobby in the fall of 2015 that explained Bowdoin’s connections to the Civil War and described the College’s relationship with Davis. It was at that time that the Bowdoin Board of Trustees agreed unanimously to discontinue an award in Davis’s name that had been presented annually from 1973 to 2015 to a student or students excelling in constitutional law, and to return the full value of the award’s endowment to the original donor, the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

In 1973, the year after I graduated, the College started giving an award in Davis’s honor for, of all things, excellence in constitutional law, paid for by a group of racists. And they kept giving it until 2015! There are deposits of irony there that I simply can’t mine. It’s hard to believe they were able to get away with it back in ’73. There was already a fairly active and outspoken African American society and 60s radicalism had not yet been totally squashed. In all those years, did it never happen that the winner of that award was a person of color, who by Davis’s lights should have been toiling on a plantation? How do you give an African American an award named after Jefferson Davis? Maybe they handed it out in the dead of night, and never told the honoree about it. Maybe they just called it the “Davis” award, and left out the “Jefferson”. Whatever.

Well, I’m still a loyal alum, and like McKesson I’m happy that Bowdoin did the right thing, but absolutely stunned that it had the need to do so.

Oh, one more thing. Fondly do I hope, fervently do I pray, that the college does not see fit to give a degree to the current occupant of the White House.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

Meanwhile, under the radar

Saturday, August 19, 2017

It may very well be that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican Party from within. He is apparenlty (whether intentionally or not, who can say?) fomenting a civil war in the party, and he is certainly setting the stage for an electoral turnaround that even the Democrats may not be able to blow. So, things may be looking somewhat good for the long term, (The Democrats do have a track record, after all) but lets not forget about the short term.

Donald Trump is widely acknowledged to have accomplished absolutely nothing, but that’s not the case for his cabinet. Since Trump doesn’t care about policy, the odds are that he ceded the choices for cabinet positions to Pence and his ilk. The result is, that apart from the dunderhead Rick Perry and the empty headed Ben Carson (who has permanently ended the use of the cliche “you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to…” thereby ceding that terrain to rocket scientists), the cabinet is full of fairly competent, albeit evil, people. While Trump distracts, they operate as unobtrusively as they can and have been quietly screwing the people of this country, in service to corporate interests.

Case in point in today’s Times:

The Trump administration is pushing to scrap a rule that would have made it easier for nursing home residents to sue nursing homes for injuries caused by substandard care, abuse or neglect, bringing its campaign to relax federal regulations to the delicate business of care for older Americans.

The push would undo a rule issued by the Obama administration that would have prevented nursing homes from requiring that consumers agree to resolve any disputes through arbitration rather than litigation. Nursing homes routinely require consumers to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of admission to the home.

via The New York Times

Bravo for the Times for bringing this up, though it’s far from the front page. But we’re not likely to hear about it again until the rule becomes final. As with all the other evil done by Trump’s cabinet, it flies mostly beneath the radar.

Arbitration actually makes some sense in the context in which it originally arose: dispute settlement between business interests. The arbitrators were paid by both sides and they had no incentive to be biased in favor of either side. Not so with business vs. consumer arbitration. The arbitrator knows precisely who is paying his or her salary, and who has the power to see that he or she never arbitrates again should the decision go the wrong way. It just doesn’t pay to rule for the consumer. This type of mandated arbitration makes Kafka’s The Trial look like due process. The fix is in from the start. It’s true, as the Trump folks claim, that arbitration “allow[s] for the expeditious resolution of claims without the costs and expense of litigation”, but they forgot to add that it also relieves the business interest from ever being held responsible for its negligence or malfeasance.

This is just one example of what is happening in this country. I’m overjoyed that the people of Boston beat back the Nazis, but while we concentrate on that very real threat, our country is being silently destroyed from within.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Time to call a fascist a fascist

Sunday, August 13, 2017

I’ve written before (some might say ad nauseam) about the inability of the Democrats to push a consistent message; the ability of the right to label themselves in palatable ways (they’re “pro-life”!); and the willingness or helplessness of a compliant press to go along with their labeling.

We’re seeing that in spades so far as the fascists among us are concerned. They have branded themselves “white nationalists” and a compliant press had gone along. I was struck by this article (hardly an outlier) in the Boston Globe, in which the phrase is used repeatedly to describe people who are undoubtedly fascists. After all, they proudly displayed Nazi and fascist symbols in the banners they carried, though in the linked article we learn only that “Confederate flags and other banners” made an appearance. As with the concession of the term “pro-life” to a political movement that is anti-abortion and anti-people, the use of the term “white nationalists” concedes too much to these fascists. It obscures their racism and for many Americans (I just read somewhere that 25% of Americans think the sun goes around the earth) the term “nationalist” probably sounds patriotic.

It may be asking too much for the press to call a fascist a fascist, but they should at least come up with a term of their own, rather than going with the term the fascists want them to use. How about “avowed racists” or something of that sort? As for the Democrats, they should be avoiding the terms “alt-right” and “white nationalist” and call a fascist a fascist. Fox won’t like it, but we should be way past the point where anyone cares what the people on Fox say about Democrats. (I’m assuming by now they’ve arrived at a way to blame yesterday’s carnage on Obama.) In fact, the Democrats should simply be calling Fox the propagandists that they are. One of the reasons the press is so subservient to Republicans these days is that for years the Republicans (and they’re still doing it) labeled them the “liberal media”. It was mildly true at one point (facts do have a well known liberal bias), but nowadays they bend over so far backwards that the opposite is true. So it worked, and it might work for the Democrats if they only made some noise about it.

Filed in Language | | Comments (0)