The Supreme Court's Rightward Shift

This will come as no surprise to observant court watchers. Under John Roberts, but not necessarily because of John Roberts, is the most conservative it has been in decades. The general rightward shift will continue for the foreseeable future until one of the five conservative justices leaves (Kagan is replacing a liberal in John Paul Stevens). This is unlikely to happen anytime soon as one conservative justice, Anthony Kennedy has indicated he'd like to wait out Obama.

Supreme Court sisterhood? Elena Kagan may not be the only female nominee

If you were 77-years-old, your spouse recently died and you faced two separate bouts of cancer would you continue working, or would you kick back and relax? This is the decision facing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Read the rest at The Loop.

Vast Majority of Americans Can't Name a Single Supreme Court Justice

Nearly two-thirds of Americans were unable to name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court in a new poll by findlaw.com. Only one-third could name one justice. Practically none were able to name all 9. See more details.

This is why I always mention that America is screwed. Americans seem to lack the basic concept of civics and understanding government. This is just the latest example of why we need more civics education in this Country. But I have a feeling that the politicians like it this way. They like the idea of a poorly informed electorate. Look at what you can do with a poorly informed electorate... just look at Faux News and the Tea Party nonsense.

Hell, I can name all 9. I guess that makes me some sort of geek. Even if my brain is foggy, I can name the majority of justices - 6 or 7 - with no problem.

This is why the majority of Americans don't get upset about Miranda rules being eroded, or an immigration law in Arizona that is legally marginal at best.... nefarious at worst, and likely unconstitutional (even with the changes made to the law by Arizona politicians as a way to dodge legal challenges).

This is one of the main reasons why i'm always disgusted with the state of American politics, and the general apathy & lack of awareness of citizens.

Not Ecstatic About Elena Kagan

Kagan talking about Obama during a 2005 Celebration of Black Alumni at Harvard Law School:



I thought for sure that Obama would choose a safe pick for the Supreme Court - someone non-controversial. But it turns out that he took a risk. Kagan is a nominee who is drawing criticism from both Progressives and Conservatives. Kagan's nomination seems to resemble something closer to cronyism than substance....an opportunity for Obama to do something for someone that he knows or has worked with in the past. Not very different from David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Arne Duncan, Valerie Jarrett, etc. Yes, she may be qualified, but if he were interested in choosing someone who did not necessarily have experience on the bench, then there were certainly stronger candidates that he could have chosen. The list of scholars, constitutional lawyers, and those who have both litigation and academic credentials is quite long. Kagan probably falls somewhere near the middle or the bottom of that list. I'm o.k. with a nominee without Judicial experience.... as long as the person is not a politician. But Kagan is probably the closest thing to a politician that Obama could have nominated, without nominating an actual politician. Remember, much of her experience comes from serving in the executive branch.

Critics have been expressing concern about the lack of a paper trail for Kagan...that we don't have much to go on. But I think there is plenty of information available. I, for one, have seen just about all that I need to see in order to raise doubts about this nominee. I am bothered more by the little that we do know about her, as opposed to what we don't know. What bothers me the most is her position on civil liberties. I am not much of a civil liberties critic, but in this case, (and since they seem to be under attack lately) questions should be raised. Kagan is on record agreeing with Bush era policy regarding indefinite detention and enemy combatants. Of course the Bush rules on enemy combatants were thrown together to avoid providing due process and standard criminal trials to those captured in Afghanistan. That may have been a legitimate concern at the time, because there was no functioning Afghan government, Bush didn't want to use the Geneva Convention rules, and didn't want to set up a system through the UN or ICC. Since then, however, Republicans have tried to apply these provisions to militants still captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, those captured in other parts of the world, and terror suspects captured in the U.S. There is a huge difference between what Donald Rumsfeld was trying to do in 2002-2003 and what Republicans are trying to do now.

Kagan appears to believe that military tribunals (which the Federal courts have already determined were unconstitutional under Bush) are sufficient for providing due process. Worse.... Kagan believes that the "battlefield" in the war on terrorism can be anywhere that we decide it is...and anyone picked up on that battlefield could be subject to some sort of alternative due process legal system. (And I thought that the Obama Administration decided to get rid of the term "War on Terror". It looks like he may be ready to resurrect that too.... all for some sort of political expediency). A Supreme Court nominee who is so shaky about fundamental civil liberties and the Constitution should be examined with caution IMO.

Here is her testimony touching on these issues, taken from her 2009 confirmation for Solicitor General:



Her connections to former Bush attorney Jack Goldsmith should also raise some eyebrows. And it may be hard to package Elena Kagan as someone who understands the lives of ordinary Americans when she has worked for the likes of Goldman Sachs in the recent past, although only in an advisory role. She doesn't strike me as a champion of the little guy, and few Supreme Court nominees actually come from the real world and could take on that role anyway. Once Kagan is confirmed, the entire Court will consist of justices with Ivy League University backgrounds.

If Obama was hoping that a lack of a paper trail would make confirmation easier, he may have miscalculated. I don't think Kagan's confirmation will be as easy as the Administration had hoped. But I see no obstacle that would stop her from being confirmed.

With that said.... I am not completely against this nominee.... but I am not for her either. I think that a better choice could have been made. The last time I felt this kind of strong ambivalence about a Supreme Court pick, was when George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas. I was actually offended by Thomas's pick as a replacement for Thurgood Marshall. But I had the ambivalence too because I felt that if Bush wanted to really pick a highly qualified minority, there were many other more qualified candidates that he could have chosen.

Wish List of Qualities I Want in Next Supreme Court Justice

The not-so-surprising announcement by 90-year old Justice John Paul Stevens that he's leaving the bench in June sparked the inevitable debates about who President Obama will select as his replacement. Just as predictably are the questions on whether or not Senate Republicans will block Obama's nominee.

For the moment, let's put aside concerns about Senate Republicans. All you need to know about the Grand Opposition Party is that they'll oppose Obama's nominee no matter what.

The most important discussion centers around what type of justice the president should nominate.

Here's what I want in a justice:

Read the rest at The Loop.

Breakdown of Who Are Tea Party Members, Bizarre Karzai, Obama Picks New Justice Soon, Immunity for Pope - News Headlines 5 Apr 2010

Who would replace Justice John Paul Stevens?: (NBC) Two experienced federal judges and the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer are widely considered the leading candidates for the next high court opening if Justice John Paul Stevens retires this year.

Stevens, 89, is expected to decide soon whether to step down after more than 34 years on the court. If he does, President Barack Obama would have his second high court pick in as many years.

Two of the three top contenders, Judge Diane Wood, 59, of the federal appeals court in Chicago and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, were finalists last year when Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter.

Judge Merrick Garland, 57, of the federal appeals court in Washington, is a former high-ranking Justice Department official who is well respected and considered least likely to engender significant Republican opposition.

The three high court prospects have different strengths and weaknesses. But even conservative activists say any of the three would likely win confirmation in a Senate in which Democrats control 59 seats. Yet Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Sunday he would not rule out delaying tactics if Obama nominates "an overly ideological person..."





It’s official: Obama is black: (NBC) President checks black, not black and white, on census form. leader, but when it came to the official government head count, President Barack Obama gave only one answer to the question about his ethnic background: African-American.

The White House confirmed Friday that Obama did not check multiple boxes on his U.S. Census form, or choose the option that allows him to elaborate on his racial heritage. He ticked the box that says "Black, African Am., or Negro."

Obama filled out the form on Monday, supplying information for himself, first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha, as well as for Mrs. Obama's mother, Marian Robinson, who lives with the family in the White House.

For Obama, whose mother Ann Dunham, a white woman from Kansas, married his father, Kenyan native Barack Obama Sr., the question of his racial identity has been a lifelong struggle. His first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," is an account of a difficult journey of discovery.

Obama the community activist and then politician always self-identified as African-American, and he now wears the mantle of America's first black president with pride.

On a visit to Ghana last year, he took his wife and daughters to see Gold Coast Castle, the one-time slave trading depot from which thousands of Africans were sent in shackles to a life of toil in the New World. The First Lady is descended from a South Carolina slave.





Karzai to lawmakers: ‘I might join the Taliban’: (NBC) Afghan leader made threat twice at closed-door meeting, witnesses say.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliament said Monday.

Karzai made the unusual statement at a closed-door meeting Saturday with selected lawmakers — just days after kicking up a diplomatic controversy with remarks alleging foreigners were behind fraud in last year's disputed elections.

Lawmakers dismissed the latest comment as hyperbole, but it will add to the impression the president — who relies on tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO forces to fight the insurgency and prop up his government — is growing increasingly erratic and unable to exert authority without attacking his foreign backers.

"He said that 'if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban'," said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar.

"He said rebelling would change to resistance," Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.

Marenai said Karzai appeared nervous and repeatedly demanded to know why parliament last week had rejected legal reforms that would have strengthened the president's authority over the country's electoral institutions.

Two other lawmakers said Karzai twice raised the threat to join the insurgency.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the reports were troubling. "On behalf of the American people, we're frustrated with the remarks," Gibbs told reporters.

The lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of political repercussions, said Karzai also dismissed concerns over possible damage his comments had caused to relations with the United States. He told them he had already explained himself in a telephone conversation Saturday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that came after the White House described his comments last week as troubling.

The lawmakers said they felt Karzai was pandering to hard-line or pro-Taliban members of parliament and had no real intention of joining the insurgency.

Nor does the Afghan leader appear concerned that the U.S. might abandon him, having said numerous times that the U.S. would not leave Afghanistan because it perceives a presence here to be in its national interest...





Web chats spell out al-Qaida's Indonesia links: (NBC) Jakarta bombing suspect says they're fake; expert says it's a 'wake-up call.'

It plays out like any ordinary chat between friends on Yahoo Messenger, but the subject matter is chilling: "thekiller" is looking to mesh his Indonesian militant network more deeply with al-Qaida in its Pakistani heartland...

The exchange appears in transcripts of Internet chat sessions recovered from the computer of Muhammad Jibriel, identified in the documents as the man suspected of using the screen name "thekiller". Jibriel, a 26-year-old Indonesian and well-known propagandist for al-Qaida, is currently on trial, accused of helping fund last year's twin suicide bombings at luxury hotels in his country's capital, Jakarta. He claims the transcripts are fabricated.

The 40 pages of conversations are in a police dossier that provides a rare glimpse into the inner workings of Jemaah Islamiyah, Southeast Asia's main extremist group, suggesting it and allied networks in the region have more international links than was previously assumed.

Since the chats took place, from mid to late 2008, a sustained crackdown on Southeast Asian groups has continued, resulting in the arrest of Jibriel and the execution of the man identified in the police dossier as one of his most prominent conversationalists.

But the chats refer to other people engaged in contact with international extremists, and experts believe such ties likely continue.

"The transcripts are a wake-up call," said Sidney Jones, a leading international expert on Southeast Asian terror groups. "They show that Indonesian links to Pakistani and Middle Eastern terror groups are real and dangerous, even if limited to a few individuals."





Pope's immunity could be challenged in Britain: (NBC) Protests are growing against Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip to Britain, where some lawyers question whether the Vatican's implicit statehood status should shield the pope from prosecution over sex crimes by pedophile priests.

More than 10,000 people have signed a petition on Downing Street's Web site against the pope's 4-day visit to England and Scotland in September, which will cost U.K. taxpayers an estimated $22.5 million. The campaign has gained momentum as more Catholic sex abuse scandals have swept across Europe.

Although Benedict has not been accused of any crime, senior British lawyers are now examining whether the pope should have immunity as a head of state or whether he could be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction for an alleged systematic cover-up of sexual abuses by priests.

Universal jurisdiction — a concept in international law — allows judges to issue warrants for nearly any visitor accused of grievous crimes, no matter where they live. British judges have been more open to the concept than those in other countries.

Lawyers are divided over the immunity issue. Some argue that the Vatican isn't a true state, while others note the Vatican has national relations with about 170 countries, including Britain. The Vatican is also the only non-member to have permanent observer status at the U.N.

Then again, no other top religious leaders enjoy the same U.N. privileges or immunity, so why should the pope?

David Crane, former chief prosecutor at the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, said it would be difficult to implicate the pope in anything criminal.

"It's a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion," said Crane, who prosecuted Sierra Leone's Charles Taylor when he was still a sitting head of state. "At this point, there's no liability at all."

But Geoffrey Robertson, who as a U.N. appeals judge delivered key decisions on the illegality of conscripting child soldiers and the invalidity of amnesties for war crimes, believes it could be time to challenge the immunity of the pope — and Britain could be the place. He wrote a legal opinion on the topic that was published Friday in the U.S. news site The Daily Beast and Saturday in the British newspaper the Guardian...





U.S. admits role in killing of Afghan women: (NBC) NATO initially denied involvement in the deaths and in any cover-up. After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.

The admission immediately raised questions about what really happened during the Feb. 12 operation — and what falsehoods followed — including a new report that Special Operations forces dug bullets out of the bodies of the women to hide the nature of their deaths.

A NATO official also said Sunday that an Afghan-led team of investigators had found signs of evidence tampering at the scene, including the removal of bullets from walls near where the women were killed. On Monday, however, a senior NATO official denied that any tampering had occurred.

The disclosure could not come at a worse moment for the American military: NATO officials are struggling to contain fallout from a series of tirades against the foreign military presence by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who has also railed against the killing of civilians by Western forces.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has tried hard, and with some success, to reduce civilian casualties through new rules that include restricting night raids and also bringing Special Operations forces under tighter control. But botched Special Operations attacks — which are blamed for a large proportion of the civilian deaths caused by NATO forces — continue to infuriate Afghans and create support for the Taliban.

NATO military officials had already admitted killing two innocent civilians — a district prosecutor and a local police chief — during the raid, on a home near Gardez in southeastern Afghanistan. The two men were shot to death when they came out of their home, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, to investigate.

Three women also died that night at the same home: One was a pregnant mother of 10 and another was a pregnant mother of six. NATO military officials had suggested that the women were actually stabbed to death — or had died by some other means — hours before the raid, an explanation that implied that family members or others at the home might have killed them.

Survivors of the raid called that explanation a cover-up and insisted that American forces killed the women. Relatives and family friends said the bloody raid followed a party in honor of the birth of a grandson of the owner of the house.

On Sunday night the American-led military command in Kabul issued a statement admitting that “international forces” were responsible for the deaths of the women. Officials have previously stated that American Special Operations forces and Afghan forces conducted the operation.

The statement said that “investigators could not conclusively determine how or when the women died, due to lack of forensic evidence” but that they had nonetheless “concluded that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men.”

“We deeply regret the outcome of this operation, accept responsibility for our actions that night, and know that this loss will be felt forever by the families,” said Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay, a spokesman for the NATO command in Kabul.

The admission was an abrupt about-face...





Is the tea party brewing a revolution?: (NBC) Movement unlikely to affect November elections without GOP alliance. They heeded a pamphleteer's call for "manly opposition to the machinations of tyranny" — the 60 American colonists who stormed Griffin's Wharf and emptied 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. And with that, a revolution brewed.

Now, more than two centuries later, come the angry throngs of the modern-day tea party. They've gotten the nation's attention. Can they foment their own revolution?

Not yet.

The Associated Press reviewed tea party operations in almost every state, interviewing dozens of local organizers as well as Democratic and Republican strategists to produce a portrait of the movement to date — and its prospects for tilting this November's elections.

The bottom line:

Though amplifying widespread voter anger at the political establishment, the tea party movement is unlikely to dramatically affect the congressional elections — unless their local affiliates forge alliances with Republican candidates. And how likely is that? Republican operatives look at the possibility of GOP-tea party collaborations with some anxiety, and many tea party activists frankly don't want to see them.

Born of protest and populism, the United States is a nation of movements — people galvanized by causes, summoned with the latest technologies. But none of those causes — not abolition, women's votes, civil rights or anti-war — was certain to succeed in its first fateful steps, or even to leave a lasting mark.

It's much too early for any long-term verdict on the tea party. Even defining what short-term success would be for its members can be a challenge.

Let's begin with what they're not.

They're sure not Democrats. But many aren't thrilled with the Republicans either.

The tea party itself is not a political party — and there are no signs it ever will be.

It has no single issue around which people rally. It has no clear leader who drives the organization's message, motivates followers and raises money. Indeed, the hundreds of tea party chapters and tens of thousands of its activists cannot agree on the most basic strategic goal: whether to influence the current political system or dismantle it.

The embryonic movement is not as much a force that drives public opinion as a reflection of it.

In the words of a senior Republican consultant: The tea party is a lot of noise, little muscle. But it has plenty of ability to make a scene: The consultant, who is directly involved in plotting the party's Senate elections strategy, insisted his name not be attached to that conclusion, concerned about alienating activists.

Many of those activists want nothing to do with political parties at all.

"The day there's an organized Tea Party in Wisconsin," says Mark Block, who runs tea party rallies in the state, "is the day the tea party movement dies."

America's tea party is a hodgepodge of barely affiliated groups, a home to the politically homeless, the fast-growing swath of citizens who are frustrated with Washington, their own state capitals and the two major political parties. Most describe themselves as conservatives or libertarians. They don't like the change wrought by President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress.


Republican Pollster David Winston takes a comprehensive look at who comprises the Tea Party movement. Check out his site for more details: The Winston Group

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

The Fight For Health Care Reform Is Not Over Yet - U.S. Supreme Court Likely To Have Last Word

The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have the last word on the Health Care Reform legislation that was signed by President Obama today. John Roberts, along with Scalia and Alito are salivating right now.... especially Roberts. He loves being in this position at this moment. At the very least for Roberts, it's a chance to make Obama sweat. He has made it no secret that he is not fond of the Obama Administration, particularly after the spat about comments made by Obama at the last State of the Union address, criticizing the court for its ruling on campaign finance regulations in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Uncle Clarence probably can't wait either.

The lawsuits by State Attorneys General from across the Country (most of them Republican) will drag on for months. Writing in the Washington Post, Georgetown University constitutional law professor Randy E. Barnett breaks down the potential areas for legal challenges and the potential for their success. He concludes the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t likely to overturn the legislation - however, he admits that it is not out of the realm of possibility.

The courts won't be the only avenue that Republicans will use to try to kill the legislation. They will also try to interfere with the passage of reconciliation "fixes". If they can't find any traction there, they plan to continue to scare and misinform voters about the legislation. Yesterday, on one of St. Louis' local Right wing radio stations, callers were suggesting a move towards violence (with the host playing right along). On NPR last night... angry callers, brainwashed completely by the propaganda, talked about going to prison and the death camps they may have to endure because of the legislation (Ohhh yes, the Right has brainwashed the Hell out of Americans. You can do anything when you control media). Listen to the March, 22nd discussion on Healthcare from NPR's On Point. The GOP and Right wing media have been extremely effective at ginning up fear and using propaganda to turn public opinion clearly against Health Care Reform.

This will be a serious problem for Obama and the Democrats. They act as if this is a real victory... and it may be. But it may be an even bigger victory for Republicans who still control the debate... in fact, they control public opinion. Progressives have failed monumentally in the information war.... and it is showing. They have time to debunk the lies and recover somewhat.... but I don't think they have a clue regarding how to do it, and I don't think there is even a willingness on their part to do it, and because of that they will pay dearly in November.

The Democrats still have the problem of the economy, which was destroyed by Bush & Co. The public....real folks down on the ground... are concerned more about the economy and jobs than anything else. This is why Obama and the Democrats should have been more focused on jobs over the past year. Their interest in jobs and the economy have been luke warm...and people have noticed. This is why voters, misguided and vulnerable to Republican propaganda, will choose Republicans this Fall.... the same Party that is largely responsible for getting the Country into its current economic mess.

The Republicans will now run their campaigns using Health Care as their rallying cry. They will run on repealing it....and stupid voters (the targets of Right wing propaganda/lies) will respond by punishing Democrats. Of course Republicans won't be able to repeal it as long as the Democrats are in the White House. But a President Mitt Romney (or some other Republican President) is likely to sign legislation repealing it in 2013, before the bill has a chance to kick in completely. Stupid American voters are likely to give us a Republican House and Republican Senate (possibly this year) and a Republican in the White House in the 2012 elections.

Could they do this realistically? I don't think so.... but it all depends on how well they maintain their brainwashing. If they can continue to effectively misinform the public and continue to win the argument.... then a repeal is a possibility. Republicans have undisputed control over information and public opinion in this Country.... despite the fact that most evidence shows that their core principles and values are losing propositions. Their theories on politics, social policy, economics, and foreign policy have been proven failures. Yet, because they control the battlefield in terms of PR and information.... they can continue to be successful. It pisses me off that Progressives seem to be unable to understand the importance of winning the information war. They don't seem to get it.... even after all of these years... after 2000, and after John Kerry in 2003-04... they still don't understand what the Hell is going on. You can have the best policies in the World...and you could have better programs for improving the lives of voters...but none of that matters if you can't win the information war.

So all of this celebrating might be premature.

Sonia Sotomayor Sworn In Today!

From Denny: Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in today by Chief Justice Roberts in two ceremonies, one private and one public.

Another first is that this is the first time in the Court's history that television cameras were allowed for an oath-taking ceremony.

Sotomayor, a 55-year-old federal appeals judge, was confirmed on Thursday by a 68 - 31 vote. There were nine Republicans who joined the Democratic caucus to support her nomination. Because of his battling brain cancer, Senator Ted Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was unable to be there to vote, though he has always supported her ground-breaking nomination.

When does Sotomayor begin her new job? The High Court reconvenes in September to listen to arguments about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

So where does Sotomayor fit in the stats and trivia department? She is the 111th person to sit on the Supreme Court and only the third woman. Republicans have been adept at keeping women off the court for decades now. She is also the first Hispanic.

Her public professional history is that in 1992 she was named a district judge by President George Bush 41. Later she was elevated to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just six years later by President Bill Clinton in 1998. While on the district court she presided over 450 cases.

In her private professional life she had been a partner at a firm as well as an assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes.

She has come to the Court with more experience than the Chief Justice and most of the rest of the Court members which is probably why the Republicans fought her rise.

Video: Hispanic Sotomayor Finally Confirmed for Highest Court

From Denny: Apologies, everyone, power outage yesterday due to severe thunderstorms and was unable to complete all my posting... meant to get this video up.

This Democratic President has done more for women in just six months than the last two Republican Presidents ever did in the past 25 years!