The chairs of the Congressional Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific American Caucuses each released statements condemning Montana federal Judge Richard Cebull for, in CBC Chair Emanuel Cleaver’s (D-MO) words, sending a “blatantly racist” email comparing President Obama’s conception to bestiality. Significantly, CHC Chair Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) strongly suggests that Cebull should no longer be a judge after this incident:

The actions of Chief Judge Cebull promote destructive and hateful attitudes that have no place in civil discourse and show a staggering lack of judgment. Federally appointed judges have a special responsibility to show impartiality so that Americans can maintain their trust in our nation’s legal system. We put laws in place to ensure all Americans are treated without bias and without racist overtones. It is gravely disappointing that Chief Judge Cebull failed to show the qualities his position as a federal official requires and that the American public deserves.

To say that this type of behavior is indefensible and deeply disturbing is really to scratch at the surface of a deeper issue. His defense of his actions reveal that he clearly that he does not even understand that comparing interracial marriage to bestiality is racist and no matter what his intentions were, his actions were racist. To paraphrase Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. laws may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. Given this display of overt racism, it would appropriate for Chief Judge Cebull to ponder whether his continued service as a federal judge has been irreparably compromised and that another career may be more appropriate for someone with his views and temperament.

Rep. Gonzalez appears to be the first elected official to suggest that Cebull is no longer fit to remain a judge. Given the nature of Cebull’s actions, however, he is unlikely to be the last.

Joe Arpaio, the Arizona Sheriff who has drawn the interest of Republican presidential candidates and federal criminal prosecutors alike, revealed the results of his months-long investigation into President Obama’s birth certificate today and concluded that the document is mostly likely forged. The Maricopa County Sheriff even has a “person of interest,” though he refused to reveal the name. “A fraud has been committed,” Arpaio’s volunteer chief investigator warned. “The document is fake.”

In a lengthy and delirious press conference that relied on a mix of pseudo-science and innuendo, Arpaio and his dower band of volunteer investigators rolled out a series of films that depict documents being Xeroxed and scanned into Adobe software to supposedly show that someone forged Obama’s birth certificate. “This is serious. This is very serious,” the investigator said. The probe was apparently also aided by serial fabulist Jerome Corsi, of the birther-obsessed website WorldNetDaily.

At the close of the event, Arpaio acknowledged that many would see his investigation as “silly, pointless, trite,” but said, “I hope that maybe you’ll have a change of opinion.”

However, Arpaio and his “posse” not only expect Americans to believe that the president forged his birth certificate, but that he did a really terrible job of it. Apraio’s posse uncovered so many apparent errors hiding in plain sight that it seems impossible no one would have found them before.

Arpaio was careful to say he is not accusing the president of breaking the law, but said there is “enough evidence to support probable cause.” He’s considering calling for a Congressional investigation or other law enforcement probe. A Republican state lawmaker was even on hand the lend his credibility, and said several of his colleagues were also interested in perusing the matter.

Perhaps this is not surprising from a man embroiled in so many scandals that there’s a 6,000 word Wikipedia article dedicated to “Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office controversies.” Some will say that Arpaio should probably be using his office’s taxpayer-funded resources to investigate the hundreds of child sex-crimes that he and his deputies neglected, but that’s a matter for Maricopa County voters.

What’s more troubling is that so many mainstream Republicans, especially those running president, have been so eager to associate themselves with Arpaio.

The Wisconsin state Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services and Revenue will hold a hearing today on a bill authored by state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R) that would force the sate to say that “nonmarital parenthood” contributes to child abuse and neglect, and distribute official literature saying as much. His legislation would add the bolded portions to Wisconsin state law:

Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Single parents make up about a third of all Wisconsin parents — all part of a grand leftist conspiracy, according to Grothman. “The Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government,” he explained last July.

Grothman previously wanted to cut all funding for kindergarten for four-year olds, and introduced a bill that “would change state law retroactively to eliminate the claims of 173 children who are lead poisoning victims,” so it seems Grothman doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to child welfare.

Grothman was a vocal supporter of Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) anti-union bill last year and called activists protesting the bill a “different breed” and “slobs.” Activists tried to recall him, but fell short. (HT: Wonkette)

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 instructed the FDA to develop new cigarette labels that include “color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.” Yesterday, a federal judge in DC struck down these labels on the ground that they violate the First Amendment’s protections against compelled speech:

A fundamental tenant of constitutional jurisprudence is that the First Amendment protects “both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” . . . In the arena of compelled commercial speech, however, narrow exceptions do exist and allow the Government to require certain disclosures to protect consumers from “confusion or deception.” Indeed, courts apply a lesser standard of scrutiny to this narrow category of compelled speech through which the Government may require disclosure only of “purely factual and uncontroversial information.” . . .

[A]fter reviewing the evidence here it is clear that the Rule’s graphic-image requirements are not the type of purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures that are reviewable under this less stringent standard. To the contrary, the graphic images here were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks; rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking.

As a matter of constitutional law, this is not crazy. The First Amendment does provide robust protections against compelled speech, and there is no exception to the First Amendment simply because a lot of people don’t like the plaintiff.

Sadly, however, many federal judges don’t seem to get this, at least in the context of abortion. A few weeks ago, the Fifth Circuit upheld a Texas law mandating government-compelled speech by doctors. Texas law requires doctors to tell their patients medically-irrelevant information, such as stating that the fetus has a heartbeat and discussing “the presence of external members and internal organs,” before they may perform an abortion. In other words, the law forces Texas doctors to advocate for the government’s anti-abortion agenda no less than the FDA labels require cigarette companies to advocate for an anti-smoking agenda, and yet the Fifth Circuit upheld the law on the grounds that the First Amendment is weaker in the face of laws that “express[] a preference for childbirth over abortion.”

Nor is this case an isolated incident. The Eighth Circuit upheld a law requiring doctors to tell their patients that abortion will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” a statement that is both controversial and of uncertain factual basis — and thus would easily fail First Amendment scrutiny under the standard articulated by the judge in the tobacco case.

Simply put, if it is unconstitutional to require tobacco companies to print graphic anti-smoking labels, than it must also be unconstitutional to force doctors to parrot the state’s views on the abortion debate. America does not have one constitution for wealthy corporations and another, inferior constitution for everyone else.

The following is the fourth of a multi-part series by Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor at The American Prospect, on the National Rifle Association’s exaggerated role in American politics.

In the first three installments in this series (read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), I discussed the myth of the NRA’s power: how its money, endorsements, and vaunted organizing ability don’t provide anything like the electoral victories so many believe. In this final installment, I address the contemporary status of guns in America. For all the cultural weight and mythology about firearms, the truth is that gun ownership has undergone a long and steady decline. Demographic shifts suggest that in the future, that decline will only continue and perhaps accelerate. And as contentious as the gun issue often appears, there is widespread agreement that gun ownership can and should be limited in various ways. Though a majority of Americans believe in a broad right to own guns, they also support universal background checks, permit requirements, and measures to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.

If you’ve been following the issue of guns over the last few years, you know that these have been good times for gun advocates. In a landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court settled a longstanding question by declaring that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. Under Barack Obama’s administration, the only pieces of legislation on guns have expanded gun rights; for instance, gun owners are now allowed to bring firearms into national parks as a result of legislation Obama signed in 2009. The assault weapons ban passed under Bill Clinton expired in 2004, and despite early indications the Obama administration might try to renew it, they have made no moves to do so. Yet a few weeks ago, top National Rifle Association official Wayne LaPierre told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference not to believe their eyes. “All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” LaPierre said, echoing comments he has made many times before. “All of what we know is good and right about America, all of it could be lost if Barack Obama is re-elected,” he added. “It’s all or nothing.”

LaPierre’s apocalyptic warnings may be absurd, but they serve a specific organizational purpose: to convince the NRA’s constituency that the issue is of the highest urgency, and only the NRA can stop the end of freedom. Some of the premises on which the NRA’s argument about the nature of America’s gun culture rests, however, are based on widely-held misconceptions. The NRA’s picture of America – a gun-loving nation where public opinion is firmly on their side and only a small cadre of elite liberals seeks to restrict unlimited gun rights – is entirely misleading.

There is no question that Americans own more guns, and use them more often to kill each other, than citizens of any other advanced Western democracy. As of 2007, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reported that there were approximately 294 million guns in the United States, nearly one for every man, woman, and child in the country: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns (these figures are discussed here). Though crime rates in general have been on a steady decline since the mid-1990s, according to the CDC more than 10,000 Americans are still murdered every year with firearms; add in suicides and accidental deaths, and the number exceeds 30,000.

Nevertheless, these statistics obscure a trend that has gone largely unnoticed: fewer and fewer Americans own guns. Data from the General Social Survey show that rates of gun ownership have been decreasing steadily for three decades. In 1977, 54 percent of American adults lived in a household that contained a gun. By 2010, that figure had declined a full 22 percentage points to 32 percent.

The explanations for this drop vary; a declining interest in hunting and the steady exodus from rural areas to suburbs and cities almost certainly play a role. Whatever the combination of causes, there have been steady declines in gun ownership among all age groups. Of particular note is the decline among young adults. In the GSS studies in the 1970s, around 45 percent of respondents under 30 years of age reported that their household owned a gun; in the most recent surveys that number has fallen below 20 percent, a decline of more than half. The decline has also occurred among all birth cohorts.
Read more

Chief Judge Richard Cebull, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal district court in Montana, admitted yesterday to sending a racist email forward comparing President Obama’s conception to sex with a dog:

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the email joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’” [...]

Cebull said his brother initially sent him the email, which he forwarded to six of his “old buddies” and acquaintances.

He admitted that he read the email and intended to send it to his friends.

“The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan,” Cebull said. “I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.“

Cebull’s email is inexcusable, and his explanation for sending it only makes things worse. At best, Cebull has admitted that he despises President Obama so much that he lacks the ability to exercise basic judgment when confronted with an opportunity to insult the president. This hardly a suitable trait in a man whose sole job duty is to exercise judgment.

Worse, Cebull’s poor judgment does not simply compromise his own reputation, it also undermines the very integrity of our legal system. Federal judges hear many, many race discrimination cases, and a good judge will deem many of these cases lacking in merit and rule that no discrimination took place. Every time Cebull does so — or has done so in the past — is now tainted by the question of whether his decisions were rooted in the law or in his own racial animus.

Nor does Cebull’s claim to not hate black people, only our black president, make the situation any better. Federal judges are also called upon to evaluate the legality of a president’s actions at times — often in highly charged and controversial cases. Every time Cebull is asked to judge the Obama Administration is now also tainted.

It’s not at all clear how Cebull can remain on the bench in light of this taint. The legitimacy of the law depends upon litigants being able to trust the unbiased motives of the men and women entrusted with judging. Cebull’s actions strike directly at the heart of that trust.