Abc 7 News

News and Video. Top Stories, World, US, Business, Sci/Tech, Entertainment, Sports, Health, Most Popular.

Judicial Empathy and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

PrintPrintEmailEmailPDF   PDF
Over at Liberty & Power, historian Paul Moreno, author of the superb Black Americans and Organized Labor, has a long and fascinating post looking at the problems with several previous empathy-driven Supreme Court nominations. As Moreno notes, President Theodore Roosevelt told his friend and ally Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge that it was "eminently desirable that our Supreme Court should show in unmistakable fashion their entire sympathy with all proper effort to secure the most favorable possible consideration for the men who most need that consideration." To that end, Roosevelt appointed progressive hero Oliver Wendell Holmes to the Court in 1902. Here's Moreno on how that worked out:
Roosevelt particularly liked Holmes' opinions in labor cases, for he expressed more sympathy for labor unions than most judges of his day. But TR was mostly interested in Holmes' views on the emerging American empire. Shortly after the Spanish-American War, President Theodore Roosevelt was concerned that the Supreme Court might insist that all constitutional guarantees extended to our newly-acquired empire-in popular parlance, that "the Constitution follows the flag." In 1902, TR sought and obtained a pledge from Holmes that he would not apply this standard. Holmes then lied to the press about his secret meeting with the President. He dutifully voted with the majority in the so-called Insular Cases, which held, for example that the right to a jury trial did not extend to Filipinos or Hawaiian....

For most of his career, Holmes really didn't believe that there were any constitutional limits at all to government power. He advocated the complete separation of law and morality, writing, "I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether," he wrote, "and other words adopted which should convey legal ideas uncolored by anything outside the law." He continued, "Manifestly... nothing but confusion of thought can result from assuming that the rights of man in a moral sense are equally rights in the sense of the Constitution and the law." Essentially, he thought that the majority had the power to impose its will on the minority, for good or ill. In 1873 he wrote that "It is no sufficient condemnation of legislation that it favors one class at the expense of another, for much or all legislation does that.... Legislation is necessarily a means by which a body, having the power, puts burdens which are disagreeable to them on the shoulders of somebody else." Holmes himself confessed in 1919 that he had come "devilish near to believing that ‘might makes right.'"
Much more here.









Judicial Empathy and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]


Judicial Empathy and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Source: Murder News]


Judicial Empathy and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Source: October News]

posted by tgazw @ 10:54 PM, ,

Bill O'Reilly fantasized, on the air, about getting his hands on Dr. Tillman

PrintPrintEmailEmailPDF   PDF

O'Reilly really wanted to get his hands on Tillman. Media Matters found the clip:


Just a figure of speech? Yeah. Wink, wink.











Bill O'Reilly fantasized, on the air, about getting his hands on Dr. Tillman

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]


Bill O'Reilly fantasized, on the air, about getting his hands on Dr. Tillman

[Source: News Paper]


Bill O'Reilly fantasized, on the air, about getting his hands on Dr. Tillman

[Source: Mexico News]


Bill O'Reilly fantasized, on the air, about getting his hands on Dr. Tillman

[Source: Rome News]

posted by tgazw @ 10:35 PM, ,

Dean: Bypass Bipartisanship On Health Care

PrintPrintEmailEmailPDF   PDF

My full post out of the first day of the America's Future Now! conference in DC is below. But I wanted to highlight Howard Dean's strong push for a public option, which I wrapped into the story:


During a lunchtime press conference, Howard Dean, recent past chair of the DNC and a doctor, said that it's more important to have a public plan than a bipartisan plan. "Bipartisan," he said, "is not an end in and of itself."


He said that Republicans haven't helped Obama with the stimulus package nor do they seem poised to offer an assist with approving his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the nation's highest court.


"If they're in there to shill for the insurance companies, I think we should do it with 51 votes," Dean said, suggesting that it be accomplished via budget reconciliation.


Dean added: "The American people voted for real change. They knew exactly what he was proposing when he was on the campaign trail."


(JENNIFER SKALKA)





Dean: Bypass Bipartisanship On Health Care

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]


Dean: Bypass Bipartisanship On Health Care

[Source: Weather News]


Dean: Bypass Bipartisanship On Health Care

[Source: News 4]


Dean: Bypass Bipartisanship On Health Care

[Source: 11 Alive News]

posted by tgazw @ 10:23 PM, ,

A collective fawning

PrintPrintEmailEmailPDF   PDF

Robert Samuelson finds that the American media's infatuation with Barack Obama is one of the great unreported stories of our time. He observes that Obama has inspired a collective fawning ; Samuelson manfully seeks to rectify it. He observes that the main check on Obama's power comes from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals. The infatuation matters, Samuelson writes, because Obama's ambitions are so grand.


James Lewis agrees. "Stalin himself couldn't have wished for a more slobbering press corps," writes Lewis. For contrast with the American media, Lewis presents Telegraph "polemical commentator" Gerald Warner: "Barack Obama: all the bad guys are giving President Pantywaist the finger." To be fair, however, Ralph Peters had much the same to say yesterday in the New York Post.











A collective fawning

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]


A collective fawning

[Source: Nbc News]


A collective fawning

[Source: Wb News]

posted by tgazw @ 10:07 PM, ,

Progressives Divided?

PrintPrintEmailEmailPDF   PDF

WASHINGTON -- They might have the WH and Congress, but progressives - gathered this week for a four-day conference billed as "America's Future Now!" - aren't universally pleased with the Obama administration.


As a coalition of liberal groups announced their union today behind an unprecedented $82M grassroots and advertising campaign to push for health care reform, some consternation remains in the Democratic base about if Pres. Obama is pursuing a sweeping enough package. Others expressed dismay with his decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.


During the question and answer portion of a panel about "The progressive movement in the Age of Obama," held at the Omni Shoreham and featuring Organizing for America director Mitch Stewart and Change to Win chair Anna Burger, among others, Burger was interrupted by a female audience member who barked from the darkened ballroom: "Why not single-payer?"


"It would be great to have single-payer, but I don't think that's going to happen this year," she said, adding that whatever plan is ultimately adopted, Democrats seem to be moving toward a public option plan that allows people to opt out of the system, will make a difference in people's lives.


A few minutes later, Deepak Bhargava, with the Center for Community Change, interjected, "I think many of us think the single payer system would be the best system," he said, drawing enthusiastic applause from many activists in the room.


But then he pivoted. "It is a step on the path," he said.


A step isn't enough for everyone. After eight years of assailing Pres. Bush's leadership, progressives are regrouping in an effort to leverage their newfound fortune - a WH in Dem hands and a Senate just one-vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority. They even had to change the past name of the annual confab from "Take Back America."


Some today sounded a broad caution that progressives shouldn't quiet their call for change just because Obama is at the helm or Congress is dominated by members of the president's party.


The best gift the left can give Obama, said MoveOn.org's Ilyse Hogue, is a "vibrant, vocal progressive movement."


While Roger Hickey of Campaign for America's future suggested that an "inside and outside strategy" modeled on the civil rights era efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Pres. Johnson in the 60s, will help the Democrats shepherd their policy plans through Congress, Hogue suggested the entire movement shouldn't fall in line behind consensus proposals if they don't go far enough or Democrats just because they're Democrats. She named Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), in particular, as one whose stance on the Employee Free Choice Act remains in question.


"With all respect to Roger, I think our job is not to be inside or outside," she said. "It's to take the doors off the hinges and smash the walls down."


Progressives have reason so far to be pleased with Obama. From his public support for "card check," as EFCA is called, to his signature of a new equal pay law, he is making good on several campaign promises. But health care - and the shape of the plan he ultimately endorses - could create a fault line in the movement of people who worked so intensely to elect a one-term junior senator from IL.


Much of the focus of this week's conference seems to be creating unanimity behind shared goals - even if not all can be achieved. A video of Obama addressing the group in '06 and '07 was played for the crowd.


"It's going to be because of you that we take our country back," he said, at a past conference. The clip was set to upbeat music.


And several participants mentioned Obama's background as a community organizer. The message to attendees, of course, was that he knows what you do, he's done it himself, and he knows how critical it is to getting approval for his agenda.


But during that same question and answer session, a male audience member yelled, "Afghanistan!" apropos of nothing being discussed.


So for some on the left, the president isn't fulfilling all of his campaign promises and is starting to disappoint. Others suggest any divide is overstated. Hogue, for one, said that the media loves to fan the flames of "hot Dem on Dem action," as she called it.


"The famous firing squad in a circle, I don't think we're anywhere near that," said Helen Brunner, a DC resident attending the conference.


Change to Win's Burger put it differently. "Are there days when I wake up and think, could he have done more or could he be further out there? Absolutely." She said there will be more days like that, but noted still that Obama is a "transformational" president.


"We have to make him successful," she said. "We have to make him the best that he can be."


As for that massive push for health care reform, the groups supporting the effort include Health Care for America Now, the AFL-CIO and Change To Win, the Children's Defense Fund, MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change, Rock the Vote, National Women's Law Center, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Democracy for America. The money will be used for grassroots organizing (troops are already on the ground in 46 states) and a sizeable advertising campaign.


During a lunchtime press conference, Howard Dean, recent past chair of the DNC and a doctor, said that it's more important to have a public plan than a bipartisan plan. "Bipartisan," he said, "is not an end in and of itself."


He said that Republicans haven't helped Obama with the stimulus package nor do they seem poised to offer an assist with approving his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the nation's highest court.


"If they're in there to shill for the insurance companies, I think we should do it with 51 votes," Dean said, suggesting that it be accomplished via budget reconciliation.


Dean added: "The American people voted for real change. They knew exactly what he was proposing when he was on the campaign trail."


(JENNIFER SKALKA)





Progressives Divided?

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]


Progressives Divided?

[Source: News Reporter]


Progressives Divided?

[Source: Broadcasting News]


Progressives Divided?

[Source: Abc 7 News]

posted by tgazw @ 9:38 PM, ,

Multimedia

Top Stories

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links


Sponsored Links

Archives

Previous Posts

Links