Think Progress

Louisiana justice who refused marriage license to interracial couple resigns.

Last month, Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell stirred controversy when he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because he believes that such marriages don’t usually last very long. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. Now, the Louisiana secretary of state’s office says that Bardwell has resigned:

A Louisiana justice of the peace who drew criticism for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple has resigned, the secretary of state’s office said Tuesday.

Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, was widely criticized after he refused to grant a marriage license to Beth McKay and Terence McKay, an interracial couple who ultimately got a marriage license from another justice of the peace in the same parish.

The McKays hired an attorney and protested the justice’s actions.

Despite a national uproar and a call by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for him to lose his license, Bardwell, 56, said in October that he had no regrets. “It’s kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven’t done wrong,” he told CNN affiliate WAFB.

Civil rights organizations had called for Bardwell to resign while Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) had called for him to be dismissed. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), on the other hand, would only go so far as to say that Bardwell “should follow the law as written.”

T. Boone Pickens: U.S. ‘entitled’ to Iraqi oil.

Oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens has in recent years been involved in efforts to develop alternative energy. He has even developed his own energy independence plan, dubbed “The Pickens Plan,” which on its website proudly pledges to reduce “our dependence on foreign oil” and enhance our national security. Yet in remarks to Congress yesterday, Pickens revealed that he is just as interested as ever in tying our national security to oil interests in the Middle East, suggesting that American oil companies are “entitled” to Iraq’s oil because we spent blood and treasure invading the Arab country:

T. Boone Pickens told Congress on Wednesday that U.S. energy companies are “entitled” to some of Iraq’s crude because of the large number of American troops that lost their lives fighting in the country and the U.S. taxpayer money spent in Iraq.

Boone, speaking to the newly formed Congressional Natural Gas Caucus, complained that the Iraqi government has awarded contracts to foreign companies, particularly Chinese firms, to develop Iraq’s vast reserves while American companies have mostly been shut out.

“They’re opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world … We’re entitled to it,” Pickens said of Iraq’s oil. “Heck, we even lost 5,000 of our people, 65,000 injured and a trillion, five hundred billion dollars.”

Unfortunately for Pickens and others who feel that the U.S. can freely exploit Iraq’s oil because we invaded it, the U.S. is a signatory to the Hague Conventions, which specifically bar the confiscation of private property by occupying powers. And while Pickens is right that the invasion cost us tremendously in both blood and treasure, it is Iraqis who have suffered the most. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the war, millions fled the country, and the nation’s infrastructure remains in tatters.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Hate crimes bill will lead to Nazism, legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Led by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) last night, lawmakers convened for a special session of floor speeches urging a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Rather than participate positively in the discussion, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) took to the floor to deliver a hate-filled response. Gohmert fired off a litany of attacks, calling the DADT repeal “perverse…social experimentation” and that soldiers are being “held hostage by a sociological attack.” His rant included a bizarre argument that the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill would lead to a legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality. Later in the speech, after reading lengthy passages from the Bible against homosexuality, Gohmert said that taking away “moral teaching in America” would create a situation similar to that of Germany in the “1920’s and 1930’s” when a “little guy with a mustache” took over:

GOHMERT: If you’re oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...] But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920 and 1930’s. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.

Watch it:

Several times in the speech, Gohmert credited the conservative Christian “C Street” leader Chuck Colson for inspiration. Oddly, Gohmert also meandered into a self-defensive monologue about how he is not racist because he once voted for Alan Keyes, the birther leader who has said that President Obama is “a radical communist” who “is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

DoJ official finds it ‘surreal’ to have to respond to Franken’s concerns about Patriot Act.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Committee member Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) used his question-and-answer period to investigate the provision that authorizes “roving wiretaps,” expressing concern that the law does not require federal authorities to identify the target with specificity before proceeding with surveillance. Franken then read the Fourth Amendment to one of the panelists, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, emphasizing that, “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” “That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision meets that constitutional requirement. The Washington Independent’s Daphne Eviatar reports what happened next:

Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

Watch it:

Court rules that KBR employee’s gang rape wasn’t a personal injury ‘arising in the workplace.’

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.” Mother Jones reports:

Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.

One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.

“We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract.

Inhofe: ‘There has never been a case of torture’ at Guantanamo Bay.

Yesterday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) held a town hall meeting with his constituents in Grove, Oklahoma, where he unleashed a tirade of hyperbolic remarks against Obama administration policies. At one point he even suggested that Obama is “obsessed” with releasing terrorists into the United States, and claimed that there has “never been a case of torture” at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp:

He is also alarmed, he said, by the proposed closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama administration wants to shutter the camp because of its association with torture.

Inhofe said: “There has never been a case of torture there. The people there are treated better than in the federal prisons.”

He continued, “I don’t know why President Obama is obsessed with turning terrorists loose in America.”

As the Center for Constitutional Rights has documented, there have been countless cases of detainees being abused and tortured at the prison camp. Detainees have been beaten, deprived of sleep for weeks, sexually harrassed, and shackled to the floor for days at a time. Inhofe’s statement at the town hall is only the latest in his political broadsides. He has in the past suggested that Obama is “un-American,” that the mentality of Middle Easterners is “worse than Nazism,” and that the conditions at Guantanamo Bay are humane.

Gonzales backs Holder’s torture investigation.

In an interview with the Washington Times today, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales defended Eric Holder’s decision to investigate CIA interrogation abuses, despite claims by Vice President Cheney that it is an “outrageous political act.” “As chief prosecutor of the United States, he should make the decision on his own, based on the facts, then inform the White House,” said Gonzales, whose tenure was marked by intense political meddling on the part of White House officials. More from the interview:

We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists. And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it’s action in prosecuting the war on terror.

Listen here:

Of course, Gonzales said he was reassured that Holder was interested the “one percent of actors” who went beyond the legal authorization and not the 99 percent who “are heroes and and should be treated like heroes for the most part.” No doubt that Gonzales puts himself in that 99-percent group.

Kerry: Holder is ‘not pursuing a political agenda’; he’s ‘doing what he believes the law requires him to do.’

Today on Fox News Sunday, Vice President Cheney attacked Attorney General Eric Holder for opening a “preliminary investigation into whether some CIA operatives broke the law in their coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists.” Cheney called it an “outrageous political act,” “intensely partisan,” and “politicized.” But on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) pointed out that President Obama has been a bit more reluctant to open an investigation. Holder’s decision to nevertheless move forward is actually a welcome break from the days of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who made all his decisions based on political guidance from the White House:

KERRY: I think there is a little bit of a tension between the White House itself and the lawyers in the Justice Department as they see the law and as what their obligation is. In a sense, that’s good. That’s appropriate, because it shows that we have an attorney general who is not pursuing a political agenda, but who is doing what he believes the law requires him to do. And we have an administration, on the other hand, that is balancing some of those other issues.

Watch it:

The only reason Cheney thinks the investigation is partisan is because he disagrees with it. Holder is doing what an attorney general is supposed to do — following the law, not political considerations.

Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.

Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die.  One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

Obama Justice Department files new DOMA brief, calling the law ‘discriminatory’ and in need of repeal.

The Obama administration has been seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay couple in California challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In June, the Obama Justice Department’s brief defending DOMA infuriated LGBT activists because it referenced incest and child rape when talking about marriage equality. Today, however, the Justice Department has filed a new brief making clear it believes DOMA is “discriminatory” and should be repealed. The White House even put out a statement from Obama on the matter:

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

Chris Geidner looks deeper into the brief, concluding, “Those who assert that the Obama Administration did not even need to file a brief will be dissatisfied with the brief because it essentially incorporates the earlier arguments into this reply brief and continues to defend DOMA as a legal matter. But, for those many people who believe that the government, in a situation such as this, does have a responsibility to defend the law, this brief makes clear the distinction between opposing a policy and defending a law.”

Senate confirms Sotomayor.

By a 68-31 margin, the Senate has confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Latina Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sotomayor’s swearing-in ceremony could take place as soon as tomorrow. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) released a statement praising the confirmation:

The confirmation of this immensely qualified individual, with her long history of public service, is an historic moment for the Senate, the judiciary, the Hispanic community, and each and every American. Her life story is the essence of the American dream. Regardless of our differences, this is a moment in which we can all celebrate the belief that in America, all things are possible. History will recall this time when we crossed paths with the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor, and when the country took yet another step forward in fulfilling the promise of our great Nation.

Disgraced Bush-Era U.S. attorney still drawing a government paycheck.

At the height of the crony Bush Justice Department era, the President appointed a 33-year-old attorney named Rachel Paulose, whose sole qualifications for the job appeared to be personal connections to high-ranking Justice Department officials, as the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota. Her tenure was an unmitigated disaster. Paulose mishandled classified information, retaliated against employees who were “disloyal,” and she “allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms ‘fat,’ ‘black,’ ‘lazy’ and ‘ass.’” At one point, four of her top lieutenants voluntarily demoted themselves in protest of her mismanagement of the office. Nevertheless, Paulose has somehow found a new job representing the United States in court. According to Main Justice, Paulose was hired last March as a senior trial counsel in the SEC’s Miami regional office. In light of her poor employment history, it’s unclear why Paulose was able to get this job now that her close friend Monica Goodling is no longer calling the shots.