Illinois state Sen. Suzi Schmidt (R) is taking heat for using her political office to bury domestic abuse reports made by her husband, Robert Schmidt. Several Lake County police reports and 911 recordings describe at least three incidents since last December in which Schmidt threw “a bunch of stuff” at her husband and locked him outside in 32-degree weather, rammed her Cadillac into his car at least three times, and — most recently — bit her husband drawing blood and hit him with a wireless phone.

Schmidt’s behavior culminated with a preemptive 911 call where she used her former position as Lake County Board Chairman to ask the Lake County Sheriff’s Department to turn a blind eye to her violent behavior. The Lake County Board controls the sheriff department’s budget:

DISPATCHER: “Lake County Sheriff, Allison.”
SUZI SCHMIDT: “Hi Allison. This is Suzi Schmidt the – I was the Lake County Board chairman for ten years. Listen, I’m having a little problem with my husband right now.”
DISPATCHER: “Like a domestic problem?”
SCHMIDT: “Yes, but it’s fine so if he calls you – Bob Schmidt – you can ignore him.”

Police reports on 911 calls paint a picture of a marriage in trouble:

ROBERT SCHMIDT: “We were arguing and then she just starting coming at me and swinging and scratching at my face and then when I tried to fight her off she bit me on one arm.”
SUZI SCHMIDT: “You bet I did.”
ROBERT SCHMIDT: “And I kept on trying to fight her. Did you just hear her? She said ‘you bet I did.’”
SUZI: “You had me on the floor hitting me.”

Schmidt also said on the 911 call that her husband “is afraid of me because he knows I have connections.” Local police report that Schmidt “stated due to the fact she is a state senator, she believes Robert is attempting to derail her career.” She released a statement saying, “I never intended to inappropriately use my title. However, I apologize if any of my comments during this very emotional time seem inappropriate.”

Her fellow Republicans, however, are not buying it and are pressuring her to resign. Illinois GOP Party Chairman Pat Brady said, “We’re in agreement that Suzi needs to make an evaluation in the next couple of days on what she wants to do with her career politically and we think that’ll come in the next couple of days.”

State Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R) called Schmidt’s actions “extremely troubling.” “As public officials, we are held to a higher standard. We cannot and will not tolerate abuse of the public trust,” she said in a statement. “I am currently engaged in conversations with Sen. Schmidt as she makes important decisions regarding her personal and professional life.”

A judge in Georgia has granted a stay of execution for Marcus Ray Johnson, who was scheduled to be executed tomorrow, in order to give the defense time to perform DNA testing. Amnesty International had been seeking to stop the execution, citing unresolved doubts about the conviction, and today a judge agreed:

Judge Willie Lockette granted a stay of execution for Ray Johnson to check into DNA evidence in the Angela Sizemore murder in 1994.

Judge Lockette said he was just granting a stay. He was not granting new DNA testing or new trial. He said he will hold a hearing again February 1, 2012. The stay will give the defense time to review evidence and consult with experts.

Police last week discovered a box of never-before-seen biological evidence that could allow DNA testing and had requested a postponement on those grounds.

Georgia’s criminal justice system became the center of worldwide attention last month when the state executed Troy Davis despite lingering questions about his guilt, and the state is now set for a replay in the planned execution of Johnson. As with Davis, Amnesty International reports, “there is no physical evidence linking Johnson to the 1994 murder in Albany, Ga., of Angela Sizemore.” The case is built on the testimony of eyewitnesses, which are notoriously flawed to begin with, and in this case, the witnesses didn’t actually see the crime.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has such a poor understanding of the Constitution that even the conservative blog Redstate complained her views are “either ignorance on display or dishonest pandering.” She jumped on the absurd claim that health reform violates the Constitution even before conservatives settled upon a reason for making that false claim. She offered a deeply confused argument claiming that the Department of Education is unconstitutional. She’s pledged to openly defy the Supreme Court if she disagrees with its decisions. And she even once suggested Census forms are unconstitutional.

Bachmann’s now bringing her crackerjack understanding of the nation’s founding document to the so-called super committee responsible for coming up with a plan to cut the nation’s deficit:

“I think it’s wrong and unconstitutional to hand over the entire budget to 12 people,” she said of the 12-member bipartisan panel. [...] “We wouldn’t consider spending more money than what we took in. That’s the kind of thinking that has to return to Washington DC,” she said. “That’s why the super committee is such a bad idea.”

It’s not even clear from this statement that Bachmann understands what the super committee is. If Bachmann is upset that the federal government is “spending more money than what we took in,” then one would think that she would support a committee created to impose misguided austerity upon the nation.

Moreover, Bachmann is simply wrong that the super committee “hand[s] over the entire budget to 12 people” — something that actually would make it unconstitutional if it were true. Any bill that emerges from the committee must still be passed by both houses and signed by the president, just like any other law.

Simply put, Bachmann has no real interest in evaluating whether the super committee — or anything else for that matter — is actually unconstitutional. She’s just completely convinced that the Constitution must be read according to her most uninformed whims.

GOP presidential contender Gov. Rick Perry (TX) has seen his front runner status slip from his grasp after a series of bad debate performances and revelations that for years he’s hosted friends and lawmakers at a family hunting camp called “Niggerhead.” That report has prompted more investigations into Perry’s complicated record on racial issues.

Now the Associated Press is reporting that Perry has consistently defended the use of Confederate symbols during his tenure as a top-ranking state official:

Eleven years ago, when the NAACP stepped up a campaign to remove the Confederate battle flag from statehouses and other government buildings across the South, it found an opponent in Rick Perry.

Texas had a pair of bronze plaques with symbols of the Confederacy displayed in its state Supreme Court building. Perry, then lieutenant governor, said they should stay put, arguing that Texans “should never forget our history.”

It’s a position Perry has taken consistently when the legacy of the Civil War has been raised, as have officials in many of the other former Confederate states. But while defense of Confederate symbols and Southern institutions can still be good politics below the Mason-Dixon line, the subject can appear in a different light when officials seek national office.

The sensitive issue will rear its head again this fall when a state board Perry appointed will decide whether to allow specialty Texas license plates featuring the Confederate flag. The measure has been pushed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization Perry has supported over the years. Perry wrote to the group in March 2000 that, “although this is an emotional issue, I want you to know that I oppose efforts to remove Confederate monuments, plaques and memorials from public property.”

Perry’s great-great-grandfather David H. Hamilton fought for the Confederacy at Gettysburg with the First Texas Infantry. Perry once issued a “Message from the Governor” honoring Confederate brigadier general Lawrence Sullivan “Sul” Ross on what would have been his 169th birthday — despite accusations that Ross was behind the murder of black prisoners of war in Mississippi.

The Confederate battle flag has been chief target for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and many institutions have scaled back their use of it out of consideration for how offensive and even threatening it is to the millions of black Americans for whom it represents slavery and a past of horrific oppression and exploitation. The floor of the Texas Capitol’s rotunda still bears the seal of the Confederacy, and statues on the grounds memorialize Robert E. Lee and Confederate soldiers.

The NAACP says lawmakers’ defense of Confederate symbols amounts to a “glorification” of the pre-Civil War South. Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington Bureau, says her organization is fighting this “romanticism around the Old South.” “It’s a view of history that ignores how racism became a tool to maintain a system of supremacy and dominance,” Shelton said.

The GOP’s top presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry (TX) recently discovered that his occasional compassion for undocumented children is a serious liability with the Republican base. But the other candidate from Texas, Rep. Ron Paul (R), appears to have learned that lesson long ago. Going far beyond opposition to any kind of DREAM Act legislation for children, Paul actually questions the validity of the Constitution because he doesn’t believe children born in the U.S. should automatically be U.S. citizens.

Mediaite reports that in an interview with Univision’s Al Punto on Sunday, Paul told host Jorge Ramos that his idea of immigration reform is a “program of assimilation.” But when Ramos asked Paul whether he liked the idea that those born on American soil are automatically citizens — an idea enshrined in the 14th Amendment — this “strict constitutionalist” declared, “No, I don’t think that should be automatic.” When Ramos pointed out that conflicts with the constitution, Paul argued “it depends on how you interpret the constitution”:

RAMOS: As you know, children of undocumented immigrants who are born in the United States are citizens Is that ok?

PAUL: I just think the mere fact of stepping across the border and having a child — and I’m an O.B. doctor and I’ve had to take a lot emergency deliveries and people came for the sole purpose of that. No, I don’t think that should be automatic. I think we should have more control of our borders.

RAMOS: So you want to change the constitution, is that what you’re saying?

PAUL: Well it depends on how you interpret the constitution. “Under the jurisdiction” is the big issue there, and that’s why so often debated. What does “under the jurisdiction” mean? If you’re illegal, you might not be considered under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

Watch it:

Paul has long sought to demolish the 14th Amendment. The chief sponsor of a bill to deny birthright citizenship to any child born to an undocumented parent on American soil in 2007, Paul reiterated the need to “attack the benefits” of undocumented immigrants by ensuring “no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birthright citizenship.”

The irony here is that, in advocating for the most radically nativist immigration policy, Paul is attacking the one document he swears to live by: the Constitution. Under the 14th Amendment, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” As TP Justice editor Ian Millhiser notes, the language is “unambiguous” and is reinforced by the Supreme Court. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and in Plyer v. Doe, the High Court “firmly rejected the notion that persons born in the US are not citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.”

What’s more, the 14th Amendment’s “under the jurisdiction” language simply means that a person is subject to the laws of the U.S. If a child born on U.S. soil is not under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws, then the government has no authority to deport that child. And if illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws as Paul suggests, then they can break U.S. law without consequence — which is certainly not the case.

When Ramos informed Paul that his unconstitutional position would lose him Hispanic support, Paul said “the idea that I have to kow-tow” to “a special group” by giving them “special privileges” is “unnecessary.” “I don’t want to punish anybody because they belong to a group, but nobody should get a special privilege either,” he said. Apparently to Paul, basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution now count as “a special privilege.”

Earlier this year, Speaker John Boehner’s (R) office announced that American taxpayers would pay former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act — at a cost of $520 per hour of legal work. Clement’s original contract, however, included a $500,000 cap on the amount Clement could charge the United States to help protect discrimination. Less than six months later, Clement appears to have blown through that cap, and the House GOP now anticipates that he will take another $1 million from the American people:

The [House of Representatives] agrees to pay [Clement's law firm] for all services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement a sum not to exceed $750,000.00. It is further understood and agreed that, effective October 1, 2011, the aforementioned $750,000 cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding, $1.5 million, upon written notice of the [House] to the [firm].

Clement is one of the nation’s top litigators, so Boehner has certainly not spared any expense in ensuring that unconstitutional discrimination against gay couples receives the best legal team available. The same cannot be said, however, for programs that actually benefit the American people. At the same time that the House GOP is writing enormous checks to keep anti-gay discrimination alive, they are pushing sharp cuts to education, job training and health care.

In other words, John Boehner’s plan is to create lucrative jobs for hard-right attorneys, and leave the rest of the nation out in the cold.

ThinkProgress filed this report from a town hall in Hampton, New Hampshire.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) presidential campaign has been dogged for the past two weeks over allegations that his administration has been insufficiently cruel to undocumented immigrants. As governor, Perry signed into law a bill that allowed children of undocumented immigrants in Texas to pay in-state tuition at state universities. His presidential rivals slammed Perry’s decision, and GOP primary voters have followed suit, leading to a precipitous drop in the polls for Perry.

In response, Perry’s adopted the garbled position of defending his past humanity toward undocumented immigrants while simultaneously trying to demonstrate to Republican primary voters that he, too, wants to ensure that undocumented immigrants have as few rights as possible. Perry recently noted that he supported Arizona’s right to pass its draconian immigration law (a move Perry opposed last year), opposed driver’s licenses for undocumented migrants, and even advocated sending American troops into Mexico to fight the drug war.

Perry went further on Saturday, however. Discussing immigration with a constituent in Hampton, Perry returned to his signature tactic — blaming his state’s insufficiently harsh immigration policies on the feds:

We have for decades had a federal government that has absolutely failed in its constitutional duty to defend our borders. That is why Arizona has had to pass laws that it passed, and I supported their right to do that when the federal government sued them. I’m a governor, I don’t have the pleasure of standing on the stage and criticizing. I have to deal with these issues. I have to deal with real time, real issues. The federal government forces us to give health care to individuals in our state, regardless of their legal status. The federal government forces us to school young men and women, regardless of their immigration status.

Watch it:

Despite Perry’s assertion to the contrary, it’s not the “federal government” that forces Texas to give undocumented children an education, it’s the Constitution. Moreover, undocumented immigrants enjoy only minimal access to health care under federal law. They are generally ineligible for Medicaid or CHIP — although they can thank Ronald Reagan for signing the federal law that requires emergency rooms to stabilize all patients regardless of legal status.

Strangely, Perry’s complaint about being “forced” to give young children an education and give sick people health care, “regardless of their immigration status,” preceded a thoughtful, progressive argument in favor of giving in-state tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants.

Given Perry’s verbal contortions on the issue of immigration, the question remains: is Perry the governor with tolerance and compassion for undocumented immigrants (and especially their children), or is Perry the presidential candidate who complains about being forced them give health care and primary education? Will the real Rick Perry please stand up?