Hans von Spakovsky withdraws as FEC nominee.
Today, Hans von Spakovsky — President Bush’s nominee to the FEC and a lighting rod for criticism over his history of voter suppression at the Justice Department — withdrew his nomination. The Senate had blocked Spakovsky over concern about his tenure at the DOJ, where he unilaterally approved stringent voter ID laws and blocked investigations into voter discrimination. View Spakovsky’s resignation letter here.
Conservatives Dismiss CA Gay Marriage Decision By Falsely Attacking ‘Unelected Judges’
Conservatives Dismiss CA Gay Marriage Decision By Falsely Attacking ‘Unelected Judges’
Responding to the California Supreme Court’s decision yesterday overturning the state’s ban on gay marriage, congressional conservatives attacked the decision by calling it the result of “unelected judges” turning over the will of the people.
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House Minority Whip, charged in a statement that “unelected judges” are trying to “substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people”:
Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), piled on, saying that “unelected judges” had “irresponsibly decided to legislate from the bench.”
But, in making their rush to judgment about the CA decision, both Blunt and Feeney have the basic facts wrong about how California’s judicial system works. SmartVoter.org, a resource of the League of Women’s Voters, makes clear that California’s Supreme Court justices are “confirmed by the public at the next general election” after being appointed and “justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.”
In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:
- Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.
- Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.
- Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.
- Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes that Feeney’s statement on the decision also engages in “coded gay baiting” when he informs “Florida’s hardworking families” that he “will continue to fight to prevent San Francisco taxes and values from infiltrating our community.”
Pence Derides Torture Critics As Advocating ‘Oprah Winfrey Methods’
Pence Derides Torture Critics As Advocating ‘Oprah Winfrey Methods’
Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the Bush administration’s use of torture. During the hearing, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) scoffed at what he called the “Oprah Winfrey methods” of interrogations built on long-established relationships — the same method used to successfully interrogate Saddam Hussein. He also seemed to defend waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a 9/11 mastermind:
Some have said relationship-building interrogation techniques are preferable and even more reliable in the long run than stress methods. … I can tell by your grin that you acknowledge the somewhat absurd thought that you could move people who have masterminded the death of 3,000 Americans by Oprah Winfrey methods.
International lawyer Philippe Sands, who recently published a book on Bush’s interrogation program, replied by stating simply, “Coercion doesn’t work.” He cited the British fight against the IRA, and said the use of torture “extended the conflict” by 15 to 20 years:
The thinking in the British military and the thinking across the board politically — it’s really not a left right issue, it is a broad consensus in the United Kingdom — is that coercion doesn’t work. That the experience of the United Kingdom, which moved in the early 1970’s to use techniques that were very similar to those that were used on Detainee 063, putting stress positions, humiliation, and so on and so forth, didn’t not work. The view is taken in the United Kingdom that it extended the conflict with the IRA probably by between 15 and 20 years.
Watch it:
Sands also rejected the term “war on terror,” which he said “transform[s] criminals into warriors.” He said by using such language, “you create a context in which they are able to recruit in their struggle.” Despite some attempts in 2005 to shift away from the term, President Bush has maintained his determination to call the fight a “war on terror.” Britain dropped the terminology language in December.
Though the right wing refuses to believe that torture does not work, experts agree with Sands’s assessment. As Gen. David Petraeus said clearly last year, “Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone ‘talk;’ however, what the individual says may be of questionable value.”
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
House votes to subpoena Addington.
This morning, the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, to compel him to testify about the administration’s interrogation programs. He has said he will agree to testify if subpoenaed. The AP also reports that John Yoo, author of legal memos that sanctioned torture, has reversed course and agreed last night to testify before the committee as well, along with Douglas Feith and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Former CIA Director George Tenet “is still in negotiations with the committee, according to House Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell.”
Spakovsky: Supreme Court voter ID ruling ‘vindicates the Bush Justice Department.’
Spakovsky: Supreme Court voter ID ruling ‘vindicates the Bush Justice Department.’
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “that states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots.” The ruling, which opens “the way for wider adoption of a measure that Republicans say combats fraud,” is now being touted by President Bush’s stalled FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky as vindication for the politicization of the Justice Department under President Bush:
“This decision not only confirms the validity of photo ID laws, but it completely vindicates the Bush Justice Department and refutes those critics who claimed that the department somehow acted improperly when it approved Georgia’s photo ID law in 2005,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and a former Justice Department official.
In 2005, over the objections of a team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts, von Spakovsky approved Georgia’s voter ID law, which a federal judge ultimately compared it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.
Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’ Provision? ‘No.’
Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’ Provision? ‘No.’
Last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted his first broad-based television interview, to Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes. There he explained that the torture of detainees does not violate the 8th Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because, according to Scalia, torture is not used as punishment:
STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
Watch it:
Scalia’s parsing of the 8th Amendment blindly ignores reports showing that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was about humiliation and punishment, not information-gathering. In 2004, the Washington Post reported MPs involved in the abuse “said detainees were beaten and sexually humiliated as punishment or for fun.” A recent New Yorker profile of one of the soldiers there confirmed that “mostly what interrogators wanted when they asked for ’special treatment’ was punishment: take away his mattress, keep him awake, take away his clothes.”
What’s more, as Human Rights First points out, torture raises other constitutional questions besides 8th Amendment violations:
[I]t seems Justice Scalia has forgotten about the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Furthermore, a court holding a witness in contempt for refusing to cooperate with a judicial proceeding is, in fact, quite different than an interrogator resorting to physical abuse when a prisoner refuses to talk.
Scalia has repeatedly latched on to the “red herring” idea of a ticking time-bomb scenario to justify torture. He approvingly cites torture-happy Jack Bauer, the fictional star of “24,” and recently he declared it would be “absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face.”
Scalia on Bush v. Gore: ‘Get over it!’
This Sunday, CBS’s 60 Minutes will air an interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who discards his usual disdain for the press to hawks his new book, “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.” When reporter Leslie Stahl asks about the infamous Bush v. Gore decision, Scalia lashes out, “Get over it. It’s so old by now.” Watch it:
Scalia has said in the past, “I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there.”
Rove blasts Abrams in 2,100-word diatribe.
In a more than 2,100-word letter containing 58 separate questions and written on April 13, Karl Rove blasted MSNBC’s Dan Abrams for reporting earlier this month on his alleged involvement in the politicized prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, and for using the testimony of Republican operative Jill Simpson. Some excerpts:
– “Did you ever consider that the Governor’s security detail might have taken note of an ample-sized, redheaded woman who kept showing up at his events with a camera?”
– “In fact, it seems you believe that the absence of any concrete evidence is itself evidence of the conspiracy. If you don’t have any proof Karl Rove did it, that absence is proof enough. I am that good.”
– “As a matter of fact, I had other things to occupy my time in the White House in 2002 rather than ’structuring’ a campaign for an Alabama gubernatorial candidate.”
Perhaps it was at this point that Rove decided to reverse himself and refuse to testify before Congress on the matter.
Specter: ‘Retroactive immunity is exactly wrong.’
Specter: ‘Retroactive immunity is exactly wrong.’
In an interview with the Washington Post editorial board yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed “frustration at Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s unwillingness to compromise.” “”Mukasey is non-negotiable,” said Specter, pointing to Mukasey’s refusal “to budge from the Bush administration’s position that telecommunications companies must be granted retroactive immunity for their past cooperation with intelligence operations.” “I think retroactive immunity is exactly wrong,” added Specter. “How can you ask for retroactive immunity in a context where you don’t even know what you’re immunizing?”
Rove’s attorney says Rove would testify if subpoenaed in Siegelman case.
Rove’s attorney says Rove would testify if subpoenaed in Siegelman case.
Last night on 60 Minutes, former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman said the congressional Judiciary committees should call on Karl Rove to testify about his case. Tonight, Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin said Rove will testify if subpoenaed by Congress. MSNBC’s Dan Abrams reported:
ABRAMS: We asked this question to his attorney: Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case? The answer we got — “Sure.”
Watch it:
Abrams noted Karl Rove