On the rainy night he was gunned down by George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin was walking back to his father’s house from a nearby 7/11 with a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. Zimmerman was advised by police not to confront Trayvon, but ended up shooting someone whom he referred to as one “these a**holes.”

In trying to portray his client in as sympathetic terms as possible, Zimmerman’s new attorney Mark O’Mara said this evening that Zimmerman is “troubled by everything that has happened.” O’Mara added, “Truly, it must be frightening to not be able to go into a 7/11 or into a store and literally to be in fact a prisoner wherever he was.” Watch it:

What is more frightening is to innocently die for going to 7/11.

Politico yesterday ran an op-ed from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) in which he criticized President Obama’s statement cautioning against cases where “an unelected group of people . . . somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” According to Smith, “the president’s comments reveal a fundamental lack of respect for the judicial branch.”

Hitting President Obama for questioning the wisdom of judicial activism is especially bold for Rep. Smith, who one year ago this week said almost the exact same thing about marriage equality: “Who in our system of government has the power to decide fundamental questions like what marriage means; unelected judges, or the people?” Nor was this the first nor last instance of Smith engaging in the very same attacks on the courts that he accuses President Obama of:

On Marriage Equality: Immediately after a federal judge in California ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional in August 2010, Smith issued a statement attacking him for failing to remain impartial — claiming that “Judge Walker’s ruling places personal political ideology above the right of the people to pass laws.” And then last year, after President Obama announced that his administration would no longer seek to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Smith lambasted judicial activism during a hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

On Religion: Smith, along with two other House Republicans, was the driving force behind two amendments passed in 2003 that specifically forbade the enforcement of the ruling of a federal circuit court. A working group was co-created by Smith to “once and for all reassert [the] authority of Congress, and remind the judiciary of who they are, as outlined in the Constitution.”

On Judicial Activism of Any Kind: “Judges continue to substitute their own political views for the law, and we must push back,” Rep. Smith told attendees of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration conference in 2005.

It’s unclear what in the last few weeks has led Rep. Smith to fully embrace the authority of the courts after years of threatening to defund the enforcement of their rulings, alleging misconduct and using every opportunity to invoke “judicial activism” as the greatest threat to our democracy. And Rep. Smith was equally unperturbed when Republican presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon all criticized the judiciary during their administrations.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) launched a national grassroots campaign today aimed at putting an end to laws like the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law that left Trayvon Martin dead and George Zimmerman a free man. At a press conference in Washington, DC, Bloomberg, along with Florida lawmakers and civil rights leaders, called on Florida to repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws (which Bloomberg characterized as ‘Shoot First’ laws) and for other states to repeal or prevent similar Shoot First laws.

Mayor Bloomberg heavily criticized the National Rifle Association for their involvement in passing Shoot First laws, which often immunizes people who feel their life is being threatened if they shoot their perceived assailant:

Florida was the NRA’s first target, and it succeeded in pushing the bill through the legislature over the objections of leading police and law enforcement… In reality, the NRA’s leaders weren’t interested in public safety. They were interesting in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own hands and face no consequences for it. Let’s call that by its real name: Vigilantism.

Watch it:

Civil rights leaders from the NAACP, National Urban League, VoteVets, and ColorOfChange took up the banner of Mayor Bloomberg’s “Second Chance On Shoot First” push. At the press conference, they stressed the importance of Shoot First repeal and prevention, as well as the need to hold the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) accountable for its role in prioritizing and pushing such laws.

Florida, where Trayvon Martin was killed, is one of twenty five states where Shoot First laws exist. Bloomberg exposed exactly how dangerous they can be, citing the steep jump in justifiable homicides — cases where a person who kills someone else is deemed to be legally justified in doing so. ThinkProgress generated a graph from those numbers:

A website was launched in conjunction with Bloomberg’s announcement today. Along with giving details on which state legislators supported a version of a Shoot First bill, it has a petition which read, “I strongly encourage all elected officials who originally supported these laws to consider the evidence and call for reform.”

Late last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested in a tweet that President Obama is “stupid” because Grassley objected to the president’s recent comments on judicial activism. President Obama’s comments warned that conservatives have historically rejected the idea that an “unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” — a position that Grassley himself held as recently as 2011.

At an event in Dubuque, Iowa yesterday, Grassley backed off his claim that the first black president of the Harvard Law Review lacks intelligence:

“I had a comment; I should have been a little more diplomatic,” Grassley said, referring to his controversial tweet and drawing laughter from the gathering of about 50 people, “because the president is an intelligent man.”

Grassley added later, “He said something stupid. I say something stupid. We all say something stupid from time to time.” . . .

“What bothers me is the fact that (Obama) knows all about Marbury v. Madison (a historic case that established judicial review) and the Constitution allowing the courts to be independent and in the process of independence to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional,” Grassley said. “He shouldn’t have done it, and he knows that. And I think that he ought to apologize to the American people for not respecting the independence of the judiciary.”

Grassley is right that all people, including elected officials, sometimes misspeak and say something that does not accurately convey their meaning. In Obama’s case, he said something which could plausibly be interpreted as claiming that judges can never strike down a federal law, and then elaborated on that comment shortly thereafter to clarify that he did not intend something that is obviously false. President Obama’s full statement, that there are no modern precedents for judges second guessing Congress’ economic policy judgment such as the Affordable Care Act, cannot reasonably be disputed.

Nevertheless, Grassley seems determined not to take his own advice, even as he backs off his most insulting claim that Obama is “stupid.” Grassley’s claim that Obama needs to apologize is ridiculous, especially because it is hard to distinguish Obama’s remarks from years of anti-judicial rhetoric from George W. Bush.

Earlier today, the Romney campaign responded to a question about whether their candidate supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act’s protection of equal pay for women with an awkward six second silence, followed by a promise to “get back” with an answer about whether or not Romney actually supports equal pay for women. The campaign has spent the rest of the day engaged in ham-handed damage control — first by putting out a statement saying that he is “not looking to change current law,” then by releasing statements by Republican congresswomen who previously voted against the Ledbetter Act.

 

Yet for all of Romney’s equivocating on whether or not he actually believes that women should be paid the same amount as men who do the exact same job, Romney cannot hide two important facts. The Ledbetter Act was only necessary because of a 5-4 Supreme Court decision which overruled decades of precedent protecting equal pay for equal work; and Romney promised to appoint more justices like the ones who voted against Lilly Ledbetter.

Last November, Romney listed four sitting Justices as the models he will follow if he gets to appoint a justice of his own — Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Every single one of these justices voted against Lilly Ledbetter and against equal pay for women in the workplace. Just like they have voted in favor of corporate immunity from the law on issues ranging from forced arbitration to enabling corporations to buy and sell elections.

But, of course, Congress overruled the Supreme Court’s error in the Ledbetter case when it passed the Ledbetter Act, and Romney now says that he doesn’t want to change “current law.” So doesn’t that mean women’s current rights to equal pay are safe?

Not if Romney gets to appoint any more conservative justices. Just months after Congress spanked the Supreme Court by overruling their attack on women in Ledbetter, the five conservative justices handed down a very similar opinion stripping many older workers of their right to be free from employment discrimination. Worse, in taking away many older workers’ ability to protect their jobs, the Court left no doubt that it was thumbing its nose at precedent. Although longstanding law clearly established that the justices’ assault on older workers was wrongly decided, the Court’s conservatives choose to ignore this law because “it is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today in the first instance.” In other words, now that conservatives are in charge, they are free to do whatever they want.

Given that the conservative justices renewed their attack on workers so soon after the Ledbetter Act became law, and that they did so in an opinion that expressly stated that they do not care about precedents or established law, women simply cannot be sure that these same justices won’t hand down another decision much like Ledbetter if given the opportunity to do so. Mitt Romney may claim that he does not want to change “current law” in a way that harms working women, but if he gets to add more justices like Roberts or Scalia to the Supreme Court, he won’t have to. The Supreme Court will do it for him.

According to several experts in Florida law, Sean Hannity could be compelled to testify about his conversations with George Zimmerman. Tamara Lave, a professor of criminal law at the Universtiy of Miami who also practiced as a public defender for 10 years, told ThinkProgress it’s a “no brainer.”

Under Florida Law, there is a “qualified privilege” for journalists that protects their conversations with sources. But this priviledge can be overcome, per Florida Evidence Code 90.5015:

A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that:

(a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought;
(b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and
(c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.

Here’s how Hannity described his conversation with George Zimmerman:

Now yesterday I was contacted by an individual that we in fact believe was George Zimmerman. He reached out to me, we spoke on the phone about his case, and I agreed not to report on the contents of that conversation.

Lave said that, in her opinion, the qualified privilege could “easily” be overcome under Florida law because Zimmerman’s statements about the incident are “relevant and material to unresolved issues.” Further, there are no “alternative sources” for his statements to Hannity and there is a compelling interest for disclosure in a potential manslaughter case.

Lyrissa Lidsky, an expert in media law at the University of Florida and the author of a book on the First Amendment, said that she also believed the factors in the Florida law would be resolved “in favor of forcing Hannity to disclose the information.”

Michael Seigel, Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the University of Florida, agreed, stating that Hannity “may very well have opened himself up to subpoena.” Kenneth Nunn, another criminal law professor a the University of Florida, concurred and said he didn’t think the journalist’s privledge could be made successfully by Hannity.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) faces a run on its membership as Kraft, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Intuit, the Gates Foundation and, as of yesterday, McDonald’s broke ties with the conservative organization. While some companies are refusing to distance themselves from ALEC’s involvement in Voter ID legislation and support for the “stand your ground” laws that may play a pivotal role in the defense of Trayvon Martin’s shooter, newly released SEC documents show that shareholders are increasingly uncomfortable with their companies’ involvement in the conservative organization.

Newly filed SEC documents show that shareholders at five publicly traded companies are launching their own resolutions, to be voted on at upcoming annual meetings in May, calling on the companies to disclose their contributions to tax-exempt organizations, like ALEC, that write and endorse model legislation.

At the UPS annual meeting on May 3, in Wilmington, DE, shareholders will vote on a proposal calling on the board to “authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually” disclosing the companies legislative and lobbying activities. A supporting statement reads:

UPS spent approximately $14 million in 2009 and 2010 on direct federal lobbying activities, according to disclosure reports. (U.S. Senate Office of Public Records). In 2010, UPS also spent at least $384,279 in 4 states that require lobbying expenditure disclosure (according to state disclosure reports). These figures may not include grassroots lobbying to influence legislation by mobilizing public support or opposition. Also, not all states require disclosure of lobbying expenditures to influence legislation or regulation. And UPS does not disclose contributions to tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation, such as the company’s $25,000 contribution to ALEC’s annual meeting (http://thinkprogress.org/politcs/2011/08/05/288823/alec-exposed-corporations-funding/).

Such expenditures and contributions can potentially involve the company in controversies posing reputational risks.

The UPS board urged shareholders to “vote AGAINST the proposal” because “UPS already has effective policies for the appropriate disclosure and oversight of the Company’s lobbying and political activities.”

According to SEC filings, nearly identical proposals — all citing ThinkProgress’s Aug. 2011 story — will come up for votes at the May annual meetings of the Altria Group, Union Pacific, Peabody Energy and Kraft Foods. All of the boards recommended that shareholders vote against the proposals.

Altria and Peabody both contributed at the “Chairman” level to ALEC, requiring a $50,000 contribution per year. UPS contributed $25,000 (“Vice Chairman” level) and Kraft and Union Pacific each contributed $5,000 (“Director” level).

Wendy’s, the nation’s newly crowned second largest fast-food restaurant, announced that they too have declined to renew their membership in corporate front group ALEC for 2012. The company sent out a tweet last night from its official account, saying that their withdrawal from ALEC had been anticipated for several months. “We decided late 2011 and never renewed this year. It didn’t fit our business needs,” read the message.

Wendy’s joins a quickly growing list of large corporations and other institutions that pulled their support and funding from ALEC, a conservative organization that has helped draft controversial voter ID bills in dozens of states. Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, Intuit, Kraft, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wendy’s fellow fast-food giant McDonalds all previously announced that they would drop ALEC as well.

As Mother Jones reports, the news that Wendy’s is turning its back on a group like ALEC is surprising and significant, given the company’s history of political activism:

Wendy’s departure is arguably more significant than McDonald’s given Wendy’s past support for conservative and staunchly pro-industry causes. For instance, Wendy’s International has funded the Center for Consumer Freedom, a phony grassroots group that fights regulation of the food and beverage industries. And Wendy’s political action committee has given significantly more of its money in recent election cycles to Republican lawmakers than Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The recent wave of departures from ALEC’s member rolls is attributable at least in part to progressive advocacy group Color of Change, which has targeted companies that do business with ALEC for its efforts to expand voter suppression laws and “stand your ground” laws.

When George Zimmerman’s attorneys announced they were withdrawing from the case because they had not been in contact with him for several days, they cited a phone call Zimmerman had made to Sean Hannity directly. (Hannity has been using his show to mount a public defense of Zimmerman’s actions.)

“We believe that he spoke directly with Sean off the record and he’s not even willing to tell us what our client told him,” said Hal Uhrig, one of the attorneys who had been representing Zimmerman.

On his radio show Monday, Hannity explained that he had an “off the record” conversation with Zimmerman. The conservative host also came to Zimmerman’s defense. “I spoke to George Zimmerman, and I’m not going to reveal the contents of that conversation, but I have confirmed yes, he was a mentor to minority children. Now if you were racist, I don’t think you’d be a mentor to minority children,” Hannity said.

Then on his Fox News show last night, Hannity again discussed his phone call with Zimmerman, saying he had promised not to report about their conversation and knew nothing about Zimmerman’s relationship with his attorneys:

Now yesterday I was contacted by an individual that we in fact believe was George Zimmerman. He reached out to me, we spoke on the phone about his case, and I agreed not to report on the contents of that conversation. That’s it. I know nothing about his relationship with his now former attorneys.

Watch what Hannity said on his radio and televison shows:

At the press conference yesterday, Zimmerman’s attorneys told people who are looking for him to expand their search beyond Florida, despite earlier assurances that their former client was in the state. The family of Trayvon Martin, who Zimmerman said he shot and killed in self-defense in February, had expressed concerns that Zimmerman would flee the state.

Following the uproar over John Derbyshire’s racist rant that led to his firing last week, National Review ended its relationship with another racist writer today. Robert Weissberg, who was a contributing writer to the magazine for years, was fired for his ties to the white nationalist group American Renaissance.

“Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism,” National Review editor Rich Lowry said in a post today. Though National Review may not have known, Weissberg’s involvement with the group is clearly stated on his Wikipedia page. And the fact that National Review’s vetting process is so weak that they routinely published two openly racist authors for years raises serious questions about who else they may be publishing and what ideas those writers may share.

Also a retired professor of political science, Weissberg once called for a “politically viable alternative to white nationalism” at American Renaissance conferences, at which Weissberg has an attendee and been a speaker. He has received extensive praise from the group. A cached copy of the group’s website from shortly after one conference reveals that Weissberg played to the group’s racist tendencies during his speech:

The first speaker Saturday morning was the always stimulating Robert Weissberg, Emeritus professor of University of Illinois at Champagne, who proposed “A Politically Viable Alternative to White Nationalism.” He argued that any movement that is explicitly based on white racial identity is “dead on arrival,” and must be repackaged in order to win successful recognition. The reality—that racial nationalism “is intuitive and written in our genes” [...]

Prof. Weissberg argued that an “80 percent solution” would be one that enforced the “First-World” standards of excellence and hard work that attract and reward whites. He pointed out that there are still many “Whitopias” in America and that there are many ways to keep them white, such as zoning that requires large houses, and a cultural ambiance or classical music and refined demeanor that repels undesirables. This approach to maintaining whiteness has the advantage that people can make a living catering to whites in their enclaves.

Prof. Weissberg went on to argue that liberals are beyond reason when it comes to race, that explaining the facts of IQ or the necessity of racial consciousness for whites “is like trying to explain to an eight-year-old why sex is more fun than chocolate ice cream.”

Weissberg’s attendance at the conference was not a one-off occurrence. He’s talked before about “the stupid black” (WARNING: link contains offensive language) in relationship with the Jewish community, and talked about the “shortage” of white males on college campuses.