Something's missing, but not surprising that it is…..

When it comes to all of these international meetings of powerful heads of State such as the recent G8 Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, one issue in particular seems to be always left out or rarely acknowledged. Access to reproductive health care in relation to poverty, is an issue these very influential leaders apparently pay little or no attention to at all when it comes to these highly publicized gatherings. I suppose because it mostly effects women and girls it’s “unimportant” or too inconvenient to discuss.

Via Planned Parenthood

[…]One issue is missing, though, and it’s not being talked about by Brad Pitt or Bono, let alone President Bush or Great Britain’s Prime Minister Blair: access to reproductive health care.

Access to reproductive health care can be scarce in the developing world, and without it women, in particular, are trapped in poverty.

They cannot avoid unintended pregnancies, which keep them out of the work force, create more mouths to feed, and present constant physical risks to their health.

And without access to reproductive health care, women cannot protect themselves from HIV/AIDS. Once infected, they can rarely afford anti-retroviral medication, so not only do they usually die, but they often leave their children orphaned, meaning their oldest daughters must then take over raising the remaining children.

Governments around the world must prioritize reproductive health care as a means of poverty reduction. The United States should be in the lead on this, but unfortunately our government is far from a leader.

That’s for damn sure.

While on the domestic front our government is cutting Medicaid, restricting access to abortion, and pushing abstinence-only sex education, on the global front it is cutting international family planning funding, restricting access to abortion overseas, and pushing medically unsound abstinence-only sex education as a way of preventing HIV/AIDS around the world.

And we can thank Dubya’s good ole Global Gag Rule for this. I’m also aware that the knee-jerk and very ignorant response to the dilemma of women in Developing Nations who keep having repeated unintentional pregnancies after another and being infected with HIV, is to ‘stop having sex.’ However in these countries, women can be raped into submission by their husbands or other men who feel entitled to penetrating their bodies. And this is usually either legal or not acknowledged, or dealt with (if so, then rarely) by ruling governments these countries.

Poverty can be crippling, but it can also be overcome. Access to family planning and reproductive health can help women and families everywhere escape poverty and better their lives.

No, world leaders can’t help women in this particular sphere. Helping women and ensuring and promoting their reproductive rights is considered to be a “special interest” issue, and so unimportant. Lest we forget, it’s simply too “emasculating” for our heads of State here and around the world to do this anyway. Besides, if you want to keep your country’s womenfolk from getting too uppity, just deny them their reproductive rights and make them even more vulnerable to poverty. And though it may seem this serious lack of reproductive rights and health care only takes place in Developing Nations such as within Africa, under this administration’s politics and Congress, our nation is *slowly* but beginning to emulate the very same extremist anti-reproductive-rights/health-care policies we see in the Developing World. If Roe is overturned, Griswold will be next, and Bush’s Global Gag Rule reigns even at here. American women and girls are not immune from this. However, no woman or girl, regardless of what nation they hail from, should suffer under a government that has contempt for their sex having control over their reproductive destinies and choices.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Gender and the Economy, International issues | 4 Comments

Appeals Court Finds "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

From the New York Times:

The decision, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, was the first that an appeals court has issued on the ban, which Congress approved in November 2003 with the strong backing of President Bush.

The ruling, written by Judge Kermit Edward Bye and joined by Judges James B. Loken and George G. Fagg, found the law unconstitutional because, while making an exception to the ban to protect the life of a pregnant woman, it made no such exception to preserve her health.

That an appeals court has now ruled on the matter moves the law one step closer to a likely review by the Supreme Court, perhaps in the coming term. In a rare point of agreement between adversaries in the abortion debate, advocates on both sides said the stakes had now been raised even further in Mr. Bush’s selection of a nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The Eighth Circuit’s ruling rests heavily on a decision by the Supreme Court, which, in Stenberg v. Carhart five years ago, struck down such a ban that had been enacted by Nebraska. Before Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last week, the balance on the court in favor of a constitutional right to abortion was 6 to 3. But in Stenberg, the majority was only 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voting to sustain the state ban and Justice O’Connor’s vote making the majority.

(Related post from the archives: Judge Richard Kopf’s decision overturning the PBA ban, which the Eighth Circuit has now upheld.)

It’s scary to think that, probably, the Supreme Court will rule that women’s health does not matter.

And it’s impressive how successfully pro-lifers have manipulated this issue. The legal controversy is not, and never has been, whether or not “partial birth” abortion (whatever that means) can be banned. It can be. If the Republicans hadn’t obstructed it, a PBA ban would have become law years ago, and the Courts wouldn’t have objected.

The primary legal controversy about PBA bans is, does protecting women’s health matter? The Supreme Court, in Carhart, said “a State may promote but not endanger a woman’s health when it regulates the methods of abortion” and that “the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences.” In other words, they ruled that women’s health matters.

Republicans passionately oppose the idea that women’s health matters, and therefore have blocked PBA bans that protected the mother’s health. I find their view barbaric.

Posted in \"Partial Birth\" Abortion, Supreme Court Issues | 7 Comments

"Alas" is back online, and the comments are open for business.

Post away, you wonderful bastards and bastardettes!

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 3 Comments

No Comments on "Alas" This Friday, Saturday or Sunday

This weekend “Alas” will be moving to its new host. To facilitate the move, I’m going to have to freeze comments starting Friday. (To be precise, I plan to turn off comments at midnight Pacific time, Thursday night). If all goes well, comments will be working again by Monday morning (maybe sooner), and our bandwidth problems will not reoccur.

Once again, if you’d like to contribute towards the costs of “Alas,” feel free to click on the screaming punk dude in the sidebar. Contributions go towards paying for the “Alas” server(s) bill, plus towards being able to tip the expert who’s helping moving the enormous “Alas” database of comments. Many thanks to everyone who’s already contributed; it’s really appreciated.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 4 Comments

So what constitutes extraordinary circumstances?

The deal made between seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators during the nuclear option showdown on Capitol Hill preserved the usage of the filibuster to block judicial nominees, but only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Very well then,….so what constitutes “extraordinary circumstance(s)?” No surprise, some senators have differing opinions on what can be classified as an extraordinary circumstance and warrant the use of a filibuster to block judicial nominees.

With Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation, Senators on both sides have begun to discuss the potential impact of the so-called “nuclear option” and the deal that took it off the table in May. The deal struck by seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators preserved the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees in “extraordinary circumstances,”? the definition of which was left up to each of the 14 Senators. At the time, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, asked the question, “Will saving women’s lives, women’s rights, and civil rights be considered such an extraordinary circumstance?”?

Now Senators disagree about what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances.”? Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the signers of the deal to avoid the nuclear option, said on FOX News Sunday that to him, ideology would not be considered an extraordinary circumstance ““ rather, such a circumstance would have to be “a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person…”?

There’s that magical word: ideology. When does that matter when it comes to judicial nominees?

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), another member of the deal, agreed through a spokesperson that “ideology is not an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ unless you get to the extreme of either side,”? according to the Washington Post. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) believes that “a pattern of irresponsible judgment, where decisions are based on ideology rather than the law, could potentially be ‘extraordinary’,”? according to a spokesperson’s interview with the Post. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), on the other hand, told the Post, “In my mind, extraordinary circumstances would include not only extraordinary personal behavior but also extraordinary ideological positions.”?

Under the terms of the deal to avoid the nuclear option, three of the worst far-right Circuit Court of Appeals nominees who had been blocked by Senate Democrats were allowed simple majority votes. On FOX News Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that this means that those three judges, and judges like them, do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CBS News’ Face the Nation that the Supreme Court is a “totally different ball game”? than the appellate courts. He said that a nominee like Janice Rogers Brown, who was confirmed under the nuclear option deal to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, would “probably be filibustered.”?[…]

So just as a reminder, we’re shit out of luck folks.

Posted in Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 3 Comments

Misogynistic Cops Gone Wild

In the current Willamette Week, Portland’s more mainstream “alternative” paper, there’s a story on four of the most abusive cops in Portland. Although the author didn’t make a point of this, what struck me is that three of the four committed abuses which had strong elements of misogyny.

Christopher LaFrenz: Bargoers said LaFrenz, then a four-year cop, called a man playing pool “pussy” and “vagina boy,” challenging him to fight for no apparent reason. Ordered to leave, LaFrenz’s group confronted the pool player outside at closing time. One of the group-possibly LaFrenz-head-butted the man, causing a golf-ball-sized swelling next to his eye. Bystanders broke it up, but when Hillsboro police investigated, LaFrenz hired a lawyer and refused to cooperate. Due to differing witness accounts, nobody was charged.

“Vagina boy?” What kind of thought process leads to using “vagina boy” as an insult? Sheesh.

David Golliday: Golliday’s drunken actions at a bawdy Halloween party attended by off-duty cops and prosecutors sparked a yearlong investigation in 2001. Another cop’s fiancée told investigators Golliday grabbed her breasts and reached under her skirt, and later sent cops to her home to pressure her not to complain. He was accused of grabbing at other women, too, as well as swearing at a female district attorney. […] Golliday was demoted from sergeant but not charged.

A third cop profiled in the article, Joseph Hanousek, is best known in Portland for being caught on video pepper-spraying a female protector and seeming to laugh about it. He’s also been accused of helping prostitutes avoid arrest in exchange for sexual favors:

In 1996, due to a technical glitch, a ham-radio operator overheard Hanousek talking to a prostitute on his cell phone, and told police the cop seemed to be trading information about upcoming prostitution sweeps for the promise of fellatio.

I don’t doubt that there are many decent cops out there, but the profession also seems to attract some misogynistic, macho assholes.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 33 Comments

Ode to that wonderful document written in 1776

Via An Eighth, The Declaration of Independence 2005. Oh and,…*Happy belated Fourth of July everyone!*

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[…]

Go ahead and read the rest. Something to remember while Dubya Bush is spouting his usual ominous-foreshadowing-rhetoric while listing potential Supreme Court nominees.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 1 Comment

Supreme Court Appointment: We've Already Lost

Le’ts face it: It’s not possible for Democrats in the Senate – not even if they’re 100% united, which they aren’t – to block a right-wing, anti-Roe Bush nomination to the Supreme Court.

My email and blog-reading lately has been stuffed full of calls to action – Call your senator! Donate! It’s time to get mobilized! From the LA Times:

Meanwhile, the liberal People for the American Way will “definitely be spending millions of dollars” if necessary to fight an objectionable nominee, vice president Elliot Mincberg said. The National Abortion Rights Action League transformed its website Friday so that visitors could donate time and money to a Supreme Court vacancy campaign.

I have to wonder – why? When it comes to who replaces O’Connor, we’ve already lost. The Republicans have a strong voting majority, and if necessary, they’ll use the “nuclear option” to prevent the Democrats from staging a successful filibuster. And if every single liberal in the country writes their senators, you know what? The Republicans will still have all the votes they need.

The Democrats have lost election after election after election, and when you lose that often you don’t get to choose Supreme Court justices. Nor do the Republicans have a politically realistic option of backing down; their base, so forgiving in so many ways, would never forgive a replacement for O’Connor whose opposition to Roe is less than total. Ed Kilgore has an accurate take on the situation:

This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn’t pay up, they’ll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party.

Sure, they care about other issues, from gay marriage to taxes to Iraq, but abortion is the issue that makes most Cultural Right activists get up in the morning and stuff envelopes and staff phone banks for the GOP. And for decades now, Republicans have told them they can’t do anything much about it until they can change the Supreme Court. With a pro-choice Justice stepping down, the subject can no longer be avoided. And thanks to the Souter precedent (and indeed, the O’Connor and Kennedy precedents), there’s no way Bush can finesse an appointment that’s anything less than a guaranteed vote to overturn Roe.

Some people may respond that I don’t appreciate how essential this might be. Look, I agree – it’s unbelievably essential. But just because it’s essential we win doesn’t mean we have the ability to win.

Let’s not fool ourselves – O’Connor’s replacement will be a loyal conservative, anti-Roe and predictably right-wing in all of her or his opinions. There is no way we can prevent this outcome. Knowing this, it’s hard for me to be enthusiastic about letter-writing or fund-raising based on trying to influence who replaces O’Connor. Wouldn’t it be better to reserve our energy for campaigns that aren’t completely, utterly hopeless?

P.S. Don’t take this as my saying that Roe is lost. Even with O’Connor’s vote replaced by a pro-life vote, there remains a 5-4 majority in favor of Roe (or, strictly speaking, in favor of Casey). People thought Roe was dead during Reagan, too – and that was about 20 years ago.

Links via Balloon Juice, which has an interesting list of quotes from conservatives, and Pressthink.

Posted in Supreme Court Issues | 160 Comments

What women who value their reproductive rights have lost

With Justice O’Connor’s retirement, we have lost something on the highest court in the land. On CNN, I heard one of the anchors refer to her as a “classical moderate”, who ‘drove the other justices crazy because she didn’t have a consistent philosophy’ when it came to handing down rulings. This weekend so far, I have received numerous “alert emails” from pro-women’s-reproductive-rights organizations such as NARAL: Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, all of which foreshadowed the arduous battle that lies ahead for those of us who value women as autonomous human beings, deserving of civil rights and liberties–that should not be trumped and declared null and void the moment they become pregnant or suspected of being pregnant. Because you know, women’s humanity and civil rights/liberties become too incovenient for the ideologies of conservative politicians and religious zealots to permit, once they become pregnant or should they ever in their lives. Being a pre-menopausal female in this country–in this political and ideological atmosphere–is slowing but surely becoming a liability and even a threat to a woman’s (and even girls’) own civil rights and liberties. It is truely unfortunate that we live in a society that enjoys playing misogynist politics with women’s bodies, sexuality, and lives. No surprise at all that the perpetrators behind this are mostly men (with their female enablers by their side of course, don’t forget them).

Now, here is Justice O’Connor’s opinion from the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, via Pandagon and MediaGirl:

Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition, and so, unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

RE: ‘men mostly being the perpetrators behind misogynist anti-choice politics,’ here’s some brilliant commentary from Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon (with a link to Culture Kitchen)…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–the repeated insistence that human life begins at conception is not grounded in any theology or science other than the one that insists that men are the center of existence and women are merely handmaidens made for men’s use. To insist that something is a baby when the sperm meets the age is a nice way of saying that a man’s effort is the one that counts, and even more tellingly, it’s a way to discredit the hard work and emotional rollercoaster that pregnancy really is. Abortion rights–the right of a woman to say I am not going to make a baby–mean our society understands fully that it is women who make babies, our bodies that nourish and build new humans, not men’s. And that’s the angle, I think, that O’Connor was working from in this paragraph.

The dehumanization of women and the redefinition of us as nothing but vessels for men’s efforts has been linked, suffice it to say, to some of the most unpleasant times in human history. I doubt very seriously that those agitating for control of women’s wombs will be satisfied with just that.

They never are. Women are just transparent vessels with uteruses and ovaries to them. They hold women to the same esteem as prized livestock or a very efficient assembly line. Oh, but they’re sure to romanticize their misogyny and devaluation of women’s humanity with all sorts of rhetoric, from melodramatic religious dogma to the ‘Cult of Natalism’s’ ideals for women’s reproductive destinies (and bodies). Besides why give two shits about women or recognizing and treating them as human beings entitled to the same civil rights and liberties that men enjoy, when you can easily gloss over them, and objectify them as mere incubators–birthing chattel, as a most convenient means of reminding them of their “proper place”? And reminding them (women) of what little or no humanity society, patriarchal religions, and the government believe they possess.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-feminists and their pals, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Feminism, sexism, etc, Supreme Court Issues | 23 Comments

Potential Supreme Court Justice 'Short List' Liberal Cheat-Sheet

NEW ADDITION TO THE CHEAT SHEET:
*Note, I’m adding a bit more on Cornyn with him being the new addition to the list, as well as rumors circulating of him being called into meetings with the administration, and a marked scurrying among his staff. It seems very likely that Cornyn will be the nominee, and that it will be announced on Tuesday. I grabbed some information on his voting record and political past from Issues2000 website as a starting point.

Well, the word around the Internet is that Chief Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist will be retiring some time this week. Having a 33 year tenure in the Supreme Court, he began as an Associate Justice in 1971, and became Chief Justice in 1986. Rehnquist is said to be retiring due to his struggle with thyroid cancer that he has been battling for the past year which has left him weakened to the point that he is getting nourishment through a feeding tube after having gone through a tracheotomy procedure earlier this year. A long time adversary of the left, Rehnquist’s position as a radically conservative judge brings up the instantly heated debate over who will take his place.

The talk being bandied about is one of weighing political opportunity in conjunction with conservative ideologies. While it remains to be seen whether the attempt to gather both hispanic and fundamentalist votes will take precedent, the ‘short list’ of speculated nominations has a variety in ethnicity and gender, but seems to lack variety when it comes to religious conservativism. No big surprise there.

There also has been floating rumors about the potential re-nomination of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, this time for Chief Justice. However, it seems unlikely due to age and also past controversies that would immediately come to the foreground.

So with this new development, and the likely controversy we will be seeing in the days to come, I’ve prepared a liberal cheat-sheet for people to peruse, use and abuse at their own discretion. While obviously there is far more information available than what I’ve posted, I’ve tried to focus on issues that I think liberals in particular will find enlightening, interesting and most definitely frightening with regards to the uncertain future of the Supreme Court.

John Cornyn
Current Position:
– Senator, Texas.

The Buzz:
– An ‘originalist’ that would supposedly be likely to reverse previous legislation from the bench (*Roe v. Wade being largely speculated on).

On Abortion:
– Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
– Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
– Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

On Business:
– 100% rating by the US COC which leads one to believe he’s very pro big-business.

On Education:
– Rated 27% by the National Education Association for support of many Bush Administration or similar policies.

On Environment:
– Drill in Alaska; oppose global warming treaties. (Jun 2002)
– Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
– Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
– Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

On Crime:
– Involved in the controversial death penalty case of Calvin Burdine along with Jones, where the defendent’s attorney slept through portions of the trial.

On Family Law:
– Strengthen families by supporting marriage. (Jun 2002)
– Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

On Health Care:
– Freedom from health care tyranny & more individual choice. (Jun 2002)
– Supports prescription drug coverage for seniors. (Jun 2002)
– Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
– Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

John Roberts
Biography
Current Position:
– U.S. Court of Appeals – D.C.

The Buzz:
– Known conservative but considered a ‘stealth candidate’.
– Former supreme court clerk under Rehnquist
– Under the former Bush Administration, he played an active role in efforts to limit abortion. Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
– Age 50

From Law.Com:
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel’s office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. “He is as conservative as you can get,” one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.

J. Michael Luttig
Current Position:
– 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
– Former clerk for Antonin Scalia

The Buzz:
– Texas native that worked in the Justice Department during the presidency of Bush, Sr.
– Caused a stir among legal ethics experts due to running the Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings after being confirmed himself to the 4th circuit court of appeals.
– Has some extremely conservative written opinions that could cause problems.
– Considered pro-life, and has been active in pushing the partial-birth abortion bans, and openly making it clear that he opposes abortion.
– Age 51


J Harvey Wilkinson III

Current Position:
– 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge

The Buzz:
– Solid conservative record but also considered to be among those characterized as a ‘compassionate conservative’.
– Wrote the majority opinion upholding the right of the United States government to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi (US citizen detained during the invasion of Afghanistan) indefinitely without access to counsel or court. This was later overturned by the US Supreme Court.
– Wrote the majority opinion on Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
– Age 61

Michael McConnell
Current Position:
– 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
– Formerly professor at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah

The Buzz:
– Long and noteably conservative written record from his time in Academia.
– Religious right would support him due to what has been called “sharp opposition” to abortion rights.
– Very controversial positions and some approval from bi-partisan academics
– Speculated that the White House may consider him too independent and uncontrollable.
– Age 50

Emilio Miller Garza
Current Position:
– 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The Buzz:
– Was considered by Bush, Sr. as a potential candidate during his presidency.
– Very vocal of opponent Roe v. Wade writing two very opinions in which he explicitly suggested it should be overturned.
– Considered to be a great political choice due to being hispanic and extremely conservative.
– Age 58

Alberto Gonzalez
Current Position:
– Current Attorney General
– Long time Bush adviser
– Formerly on a Supreme Court Justice in Texas.

The Buzz:
– Considered the more moderate of the two hispanic considerations.
– Criticized for his memo’s regarding the Geneva Convention and the Gitmo detainees, advocating the US right to hold without counsel or charge, calling the provisions offered to the detainees “quaint”.
– Wrote a memorandum that argued laws prohibiting torture do “not apply to the president’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants”.
– His writings are considered possibly contributing to the climate that allowed the Abu Ghraib abuses occur.
– Age 50

Samuel Alito, Jr.
Current Position:
– 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia

The Buzz:
– Somewhat of an unknown, but nicknamed “Scalito” due to supposedly having views very similar to Scalia
– Upheld a Pennsylvania pro-life law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
– Wrote an opinion in that case arguing for a standard that would permit virtually any restriction on abortion.
– Age 55

Larry Thompson
Current Position:
– He is general counsel at PepsiCo.
– Former deputy attorney general until he quit in 2003.

The Buzz:
– Bush administration’s highest-ranking black law enforcement official.
– Voted to uphold interstate abortion / parental notification laws.
– Considered somewhat moderate due to a few environmental issues.

Edith Jones
Current Position:
– 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
– Former general counsel for the Texas Republican Party.

The Buzz:
– Extremely outspoken opponent of Roe v. Wade, having referred to it as an “exercise of raw judicial power,” that needs to be re-examined.
– In cahoots with Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, and then in 1995 announced she had become a born again Christian and pro-life activist.
– Criticized and protested for her decisions in the death penalty case of Calvin Burdine, in which it has been established that Burdine’s attorney slept through portions of his 1983 court case. Jones defended her decision with, “We cannot determine whether Cannon [Burdine’s attorney, now deceased] slept during a ‘critical stage’ of Burdine’s trial.”
– Age 56

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Whatever | 33 Comments