Waiting for the court

By Mustang Bobby

There is a chance that the Supreme Court will hand down rulings today on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Prop 8 cases. Mondays are usually good for Court rulings, so it will either be today or a week from today.

There are any number of ways the Court could rule on DOMA. They could go full tilt and overturn it completely, saying that federal law has no business dictating to the several states how to define marriage, or they could overturn the section of the law that denied marriage benefits to a legally married couple in New York, which was the basis for the suit in the first place. Or they could not rule at all, leaving the lower court rulings in place. Not being a lawyer or a dug-in Court watcher like SCOTUSblog, I have no tea leaves to read and report on, but my gut tells me that the Court will come down narrowly on the side of tossing DOMA to the point that it is basically ineffective and unenforceable. I’m guessing 5-4 with a vehement dissent from Scalia who will carry on like a diva about how the homosexual lobby has driven the Court to a politically correct ruling. (After Bush v. Gore, irony is not Justice Scalia’s strong suit.) I don’t hold out much of a possibility that they will leave DOMA intact. They would not have waited this long on that ruling.

As for California’s Prop 8, the Court could go the same way as DOMA: they could rule that the voter-approved ban on marriage equality in California violates the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and thereby reinstate the 2008 California supreme court ruling that marriage equality is permissible in the state. If they narrowly apply that ruling — meaning it is specific only to the case in California — then marriage equality would be the law there and only there. Or they could rule that bans on marriage equality violate the equal protection clauses, thereby overturning them in the states that provide for civil unions but not marriage, which would only apply to those states that have civil unions. Or they could rule that all bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional and overturn every state law prohibiting it, much as they did with Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that ruled bans on interracial marriage anywhere were unconstitutional, not just in Virginia. Or — and here’s the out for the Court — they could rule that the party suing to keep the ban in place did not have standing to sue, which would mean the case would be tossed and the lower court ruling — in favor of marriage equality — would stand. A punt win for equality.

Read more »

Constitution just happens to agree with Scalia's bigotry

By Frank Moraes

Adam Serwer wrote a great article this morning, Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality. Now, we all know that Scalia is a vile human being. But after reading Serwer's list, it was clear to me what I've long suspected: Scalia is no sober justice that his position implies.

What comes through in all of these comments is that Scalia isn't against gay rights out of any legal principle; he is just against homosexuality (he's a Catholic) and thus votes against gay rights. Think: Rob Portman before his son came out of the closet. And that shows that he is no kind of judge; he is, as Dan Savage said, just a partisan hack.

In his dissent on Lawrence v. Texas, the case that found sodomy laws unconstitutional, Scalia said such laws didn't violate the right to equal protection. He wrote, "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." But Serwer noted that this was a long repudiated line of reasoning:

That should sound familiar: it's the same argument defenders of bans on interracial marriage used to make, arguing that the bans were constitutional because they affected whites and blacks equally.

But that just shows why Antonin Scalia is exactly the sort of person who should not be given the power that goes with sitting on the Supreme Court. He is not even looking at the law in these cases that collide with his personal moral code. Instead, he just uses his intelligence and erudition to justify his prejudices. And that is why he will find that both Prop. 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are constitutional. Through ever more complicated and far-fetched legal reasoning, he will find—What a surprise!—that the constitution does indeed justify his long held personal bigotry. That's a constitutional originalist for you!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Great interest in Supreme Court marriage equality cases

By Richard K. Barry

Huffington Post is reporting that lines have already begun to form at the Supreme Court for those who want to attend next week's arguments in two gay marriage cases. 

The justices will hear arguments Tuesday on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and on Wednesday on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. 

Apparently, it's not unusual for lines to form for free tickets to high-profile arguments, but five days in advance, which is what is happening here, is particularly early.  

The Proposition 8 case is Hollingsworth v. Perry and, according to SCOTUS.blog, this is what is to be decided:

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.  

Read more »

Big whoop?

By Mustang Bobby

A lot of people on both sides of the marriage equality debate seemed impressed that some 75 Republicans, including prominent members of the Bush administration and two members of Congress, signed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of marriage equality.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

[...]

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.

Ms. Pryce said Monday: “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.”

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.

“The ground on this is obviously changing, but it is changing more rapidly than people think,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former House leadership aide who did not sign the brief. “I think that Republicans in the future are going to be a little bit more careful about focusing on these issues that tend to divide the party.”

Read more »

Yes Virginia, there is a Ganja Clause

by Distributorcap

"Ginny, I'm sorry your husband got his pubes on my coke."

Last week Virginia Thomas, the teabagging wife of one of the most incompetent Supreme Court Justices in history - Clarence Thomas, called Anita Hill and asked her to apologize to her husband for her "false and misleading" testimony during his confirmation hearings.

Hearings that were held in 1991. Nineteen years ago.

To be brief, Ms. Hill was dragged in front of Congress (she did not want to testify) during the Thomas hearings and told the sitting senators (including Vice President Biden) that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked for him as a clerk. The testimony was explosive and graphic - complete with coke cans, pubic hairs and pornography.

Ms. Hill was treated abominably and publicly humiliated by the Senate (especially Arlen Specter) and basically called a liar. In the end, Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. Later on, Senator John Danforth, who sponsored Thomas - said he regretted how the Senate treated Hill.

It goes without saying, Virginia Thomas' recent actions are nothing short of bizarre, inappropriate and truly delusional. Dredging up the past at this point, leaving a message like that on an answering machine and calling at 645am - none of this rings of a shred of common decency or normal behavior.

But remember Virginia Thomas is an activist teabagger who is married to one very angry man (read excerpts from his book). The fact that a Supreme Court justice's (albeit a pitiful excuse for a justice) wife is a conservative activist smacks of major conflicts of interest. But in this age of no-accountability and anything-to-win, none of this comes as a surprise.

So yes Virginia, there is a Ganja Clause* all for you.

(sung to "Do You Hear What I Hear?")

Said the teabag nut to the College Prof,

"I don't see what you see"

Not upon the can of Coke, College Prof

"I don't see what you see"

What pube, What pube, taped upon the can

From a dong as long as John

From, a dong as long as John."

Said the College Prof to the teabag nut,

"Did I hear what you said?"

Ring my phone at 6am, teabag nut

Did I hear what you said?"

Apologize, admit I made it up

Your nerve tis big as Long John Dong,

You should throw away that bong.

Said the teabag nut to the silent judge,

"Did I do the right thing?

You were lynched, you did no act

Did I do the right thing?

Our prez, Our prez, A socialist in fact

You nine should force to show proof of birth

Or this country will leave the Earth

Said the College Prof to the FBI

"Listen to what she said!

An olive branch to admit your guilt ,

Listen to what she said!

The 'baggers, the 'baggers, insane up to the hilt

They will bring us sadness to mourn

While he will bring us nothing but porn.

This is the cost of allowing ultra-conservatives to mainstream their psychoses. Ginny Thomas' behavior is consistent with the rightwing belief that they are better and always right - that even behavior anb average person would deem offensive is owed an apology from people they see beneath them.

*Ganja Clause - a mythical figure said to visit stoners that have been good in the last year. Ganja Claus is most often pictured as a jolly old rasta with long dredlocks, dressed head to toe in green. He flies through the sky on a lawn chair pulled by 8 giant sloths.

A station wagon full of nuns

By Distributorcap

You would think by now, most same people wouldn't be surprised by the gems that come out of Pat Buchanan's mouth. Yesterday good old grumpy Uncle Pat proved that he still has one more sparkling commentary in him that is both purely disgusting and insanely moronic at the same time. In his latest piece of "deep thought," Pat (on his blog) writes the following (barf bags supplied upon request):

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

Pat, your thoughtful words have proven once again you have an uncanny ability to explain the nuances of diversity. Let's put some Pat-math to all your insight. Using a simple algorithm, the above list comes to (excuse me for the language) 5 kikes, a spic and a nigger. With all this hard work Pat, you are being awarded the prestigious James Watt Memorial Medal for Diversity. For not since Mr. Watt uttered the line "...a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple" as Secretary of the Interior under St. Ronnie, has anyone come close to describing the nuances of "government for the people." Despite the fact that the Democratic choices are one woman over, a little heavy on the Jews and missing the cripple, your foresight into the inner workings of how the Democrats practice diversity are (like hand grenades and horseshoes), close enough for the win.

Pat then drivels on about the religion of the Supreme Court nominations from his hero (and employer, and anti-Semite) Richard Nixon through Bush the Younger.

George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic.

Racism has to be hard-wired in some people. Like most other hard-right conservative brainless wonders (Sarah Palin and her belief in the divine right of this as a Christian nation, quickly comes to mind), Pat probably hasn't taken a look at the parts of the Constitution that they want to pretend do not exist - like Article VI:

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This wasn't Pat's first step into the dogshit of conservative hate mongering. Earlier in the week Pat was very proud of his knowledge that women who play softball are of a certain ilk.

Women's softball has been associated with lesbians and being gay for a long time. That's sort a signal like two men sunbathing together on a beach or something like that. The immediate implication is that they're gay.

And only last summer, when Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the bench by Presidnet Obama, Pat brought this previously unknown fact of history to life:

White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks.

An empty mind is truly the playground for people like Pat.

While Pat is railing on about the Supreme Court now being 33% Jewish (and 33% women, and 33% from New York - two other facts that must make his blood boil), he doesn't seem to care that the other 6 justices are all Catholic. That is 67% of the court in a country that is 25% Catholic. I call that diversity. However Pat should be relieved to know that 44% of the SCOTUS is comprised of scary activist wingnut morons -- Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia -- about the same as the make-up of the country today. (What is very troubling is the fact 100% of the Supreme Court is tied to Harvard or Yale).

Maybe if Congress uses the Kagan hearings as the latest incarnation of the Inquisition, Pat would be a bit less ornery. While it is not for me to say if there are too many Jews, Catholics, softball players, New Yorkers or Coca-Cola drinkers on the Supreme Court, I will say there are way too many people like Pat Buchanan on the planet.

As for the station wagon full of nuns, when Archie Bunker gets into a car accident and "hurts" his back, he thinks he can sue and collect. Archie searches the phone book for the best Jewish lawyer and hires the firm of Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz and Rabinowitz. At first he protests when he gets one of the "gentile" lawyers in the firm. When he finally gets one of the Rabinowitzes, the elderly lawyer refuses the case because but there is a "station wagon full of nuns" that will prove Archie is lying about what happened.

I guess to the right, the Supreme Court needs to be Archie Bunker's station wagon full of nuns.

Bush's Supreme Court strikes again

By Creature

Unrestricted corporate spending in campaigns. We are all shareholders now (except without the dividends, the capital gains, and any say about how the United Corporation States of America will be run). This is just great.

Rule of Law Issues Explored --

By Carol Gee

Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire after his successor is chosen and confirmed. President Obama has committed to have the new justice in place when the Supreme Court reconvenes. The nomination process will consume an enormous amount of time, media attention and legislative energy between now and October.

[Image: Wordle.net]

Early signs of back to Bush -- By the time the new court convenes, the Obama Justice Department should have its act together. Many of us have been very concerned as we get reports that the new government's lawyers have not stepped aside from many of the questionable Bush Justice Department court arguments.

Detainees at Gitmo -- Davis Cynamon, an attorney for 4 Gitmo detainees has been fighting for their due process rights, accuses the DoJ of "abandonment of the rule of law," according to TPMMuckraker's post, "Not Just State Secrets: Obama Continuing Bush's Stonewalling On Gitmo Cases, Lawyer Claims," (4/10/09). To quote:

"The Department of Justice has been doing everything in its power to delay and obstruct these cases," said Cynamon, whose clients were picked up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in the period after the 2001 U.S invasion of Afghanistan. "They're not doing anything to move the case along, and doing everything to avoid it."

Asked whether he had observed a shift of any kind in the government's approach since the Obama administration came into office, Cynamon flatly replied: "None whatsoever."

This kind of leftover Bush court stance has been difficult for many of us to understand, given the high quality of President Obama's nominees for his key legal positions.

Nominations blocked by Senate -- The nominations of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and Harold Hongju Koh to serve as Legal Advisor to the State Department are being held up by conservatives in the Senate, says the Firedoglake post, "Legal wrangling: Why the fuss about legal nominees?" (4/9/09). To quote (emphasis mine):

The nominees themselves are so well-qualified, so clearly within the progressive political mainstream, and the attacks against them so frenzied, one is left scratching one’s head and wondering: what on earth is going on here?

. . . [Senator John] Cornyn castigates Johnsen for her “prolific and often strident criticism of the legal underpinnings of the previous administration's counterterror policies.” . . . Johnsen’s criticisms of the legal underpinnings of Bush’s counterrorism policies have been right on the mark. The Bush administration itself was forced to renounce some of the OLC memos Johnsen criticized because they were so profoundly flawed. And let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has had four opportunities to review Bush counterterrorism policies and has struck the policies down each time. That’s because Bush had a tendency to ignore the law. John Cornyn doesn’t care; Dawn Johnsen does.

. . . The bottom line is that the stakes here are thus much higher than whether Obama gets his first choice to fill these slots. And they go beyond how the rule of law will apply at the Justice and State Departments.

Most observers agree: the attacks on Johnsen and Koh are spring training for the coming attacks against Supreme Court and other judicial nominees (Koh himself may be one) who display a similar commitment to the rule of law. That’s why it’s so important to expose what’s behind the current attacks, and defeat them.

We can predict that Republican right-wingers and the like will stage protests in all forms against whomever the President nominates to the Supreme Court. They will get media attention, they will pressure senators, and they will be extremely visible. Those of us on the other side are demanding Constitutional stances from the new administration. We must also support for our opponents' right to speak freely, even if outrageously.

Citizens must act to make our wishes known to our President and to our elected representatives. These fundamentals are beautifully explained in Firedoglake's post, "Peaceable Assembly; Petitioning to Redress Grievances (4/8/09). To quote:

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights and they became law in 1791. Among the first of these are the rights peacefully to assemble, to exercise free speech, and to petition the government to redress grievances. They are first because they are fundamental to the preservation of representative government.

. . . First Amendment rights have a kind of "Use 'em or Lose 'em" quality. We exercise them to protect us against their silent or notorious abridgment. We assert them to remind public officials of their public promises. Most of all, we use them to make our views known and to encourage others to adopt them, Congress and the President included. We do not use them in order to give an unruly government an excuse to abridge them further.

The rule of law was explored in today's post. President Obama will no doubt appoint a person to the highest court in the land of whom we can be proud. And it will inevitable spark a big fight. Between now and then it is my expectation that Attorney General Holder and his stable of lawyers will have gotten a handle on how they can roll back the most dangerous and destructive of the Bush legal positions. If they do not, the Supreme Court will be forced to rule against them over and over until they finally "get it."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Celebrating the Fathers of the Constitution

By Carol Gee

The Thomas Jefferson Memorial at twilight illustrates today's post honoring one of the fathers of the U.S. Constitution.

Last week the United States Constitution won out over a determined Unitary Executive, our current president (OCP). The Supreme Court, in 5-4 decision, ruled in effect that "habeas corpus" was a kind of bedrock principle to which the United States of America must adhere except in extremely narrow circumstances.

The habeas corpus connection -- Benjamin Wittes, an expert (see *reference below) on the detainee situation, reminds us of the limits of the ruling, saying that the ruling does not say how that is to be applied in Guantanamo. It was another rebuke for our Unitary Executive, according to the New York Times. Justice Kennedy's decision only alluded to historical references including the Magna Carta; web2announcer reminded us that habeas corpus is 793 years old today.

The decision reverberated around the world.We have disappointed so many countries who looked up to us in the past as the beacon of freedom and human rights. Indi.ca, a Sri Lankan born in Canada, had this interesting take on the SCOTUS news (illustrated by a photo of the Magna Carta):

Terrorism works in that it scares nations into abandoning their values. Mature nations will resist this fear and insist on being themselves. Al Qaeda hasn’t actually killed many people (the LTTE has), but all these terrorist groups have - like viruses - hijacked their host nation’s very DNA - provoking an immune response out of proportion to the threat. Bush and Cheney wove Al Qaeda terror so deeply into American political consciousness that abandoning even obvious parts of the Constitution - like habeas corpus - became OK. Now, as that dark era of torture and incompetence ends, the Supreme Court has ruled that habeas corpus cannot in fact be suspended. That is, American detainees in Guantanamo or anywhere do have the right to a trial. What’s odd is that the dissenting opinions for Scalia and all take an ideological bent on what is really a simple legal issue. It’s like the response to “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it” is “Look over there, terrorism!”

George W. Bush, The Unitary Executive, was in Rome, Italy at the time. The Voice of America reported that OCP spoke out against the decision. Mark my words, OCP is this day trying to figure a way around it. To quote:

While the president was meeting with Italian leaders, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its latest ruling on Guantanamo.

The president said he disagrees. "We will abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

Speaking at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Berlusconi, Mr. Bush said the White House will study the narrow 5-4 court opinion to see if new legislation is needed.

"It was a deeply divided court. And I strongly agree with those who dissented," he said.

Immediately we civil libertarians thought about what the next president could do to the Supreme Court. An Australian blog, not too much, highlighted the ruling as "Justice 5; Brutality 4." The writer lamented that Australia's constitution is not as strong as ours and concluded with the reported reactions of our two presidential candidates:

. . . Australia's liberties are even more fragile, and largely unprotected by our constitution. We are endangered when, as did John Howard, our government decides to follow in the footsteps of a United States commanded by a imperialist fool. Australia's Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 places limits our habeas corpus rights, for example.

Obama issued a statement calling the decision "a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo" that he said was "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain." "This is an important step," he said, "toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy." Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act "because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the court, once again, rejecting the administration's extreme legal position."

McCain was one of among the chief architects of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees a right to challenge their status in civilian courts. Although he pressed the administration to ensure legal protection against torture, he also argued that the status-review tribunals gave detainees adequate rights to challenge their detention, an argument that the court has rejected.

What happens at Guantanamo now is the next big question. The Washington Post says that those now set for trial may not have access to the evidence against them for their defense. What happens to detainees not set for trial is covered in a separate WaPo article. The Post looks in depth at how the decision might play out in the Washington, D.C. District Courts, that again have jurisdiction over the remaining detainees covered. The Post also looks at a third very pertinent question -- what Senator McCain is likely to do about it if he is elected president. We must not forget this crucial piece in the glow of this week's victory. Our Constitution's fathers are counting on us not to mess this up again.

*Reference: See C-S pan's broadcast of the American Constitution Society 2008 National Convention: Justice for Detainees Panel Discussion : "The American Constitution Society holds its 2008 National Convention in Washington, DC. In this panel titled, "Ensuring Access to Justice for Detainees in the 'War on Terror'," participants discuss criteria for who should be detained, their treatment, policies on interrogation and the future of Guantanamo detainees."

This day in history -- At the Constitutional Convention, on June 15, 1787: William Paterson proposed "New Jersey Plan" of limited changes to Articles of Confederation.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

United Nations associated with Middle East news

By Carol Gee

President George W. Bush has never been an ardent supporter of the United Nations. He has only used the organization when it has been convenient, or as "cover" for his military adventure in Iraq. I am not sure why the administration now welcomes its presence at the Hamdan military tribunal proceedings now going on at Gitmo. The United Nations Office at Geneva is reporting that a special UN expert on human rights from Finland was invited to a December 5 military hearing at Guantanamo Bay

Martin Scheinin, issued the following statement today:

Geneva, 3 December 2007: -- The Special Rapporteur welcomes the invitation extended by the Government of the United States of America for him to attend and observe military commission hearings scheduled to commence on 5 December 2007 at Guantanamo Bay.

...The Special Rapporteur’s mission report on the United States is expected to be presented and considered by the resumed sixth session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 12 December. In addition to the presentation of his reports, the Special Rapporteur will report orally on his observations regarding his trip to Guantanamo Bay.

"Witnesses to Take Stand for First Time in Guantanamo Detainee Prosecutions," reports Fox News. After six years of detention the big news is about a long awaited tribunal hearing for the man suspected of being a driver for Osama bin Laden. Coincidentally at the same time, yesterday's Supreme Court session was on the rights of the Guantanamo detainees:

Witnesses are expected to take the stand Thursday for the first time since the U.S. government began attempts to prosecute terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.

An expert in Middle Eastern affairs is expected to testify for Salim Ahmed Hamdan to support the defense argument that he could have been a driver for bin Laden without being a hardcore Al Qaeda member with knowledge of terrorist attacks.

Prosecutors are expected to present about five witnesses to back their case that Hamdan should be charged as an unlawful enemy combatant, in the second day of pretrial hearings to determine whether the military tribunal at this isolated Navy base has jurisdiction over the case.

Evidently signals got crossed between Israel and the U.S. State Department recently. Again it was about on what use to make of the United Nations, not how to see them as partners with any standing. From JTA.org, "the global news service of the Jewish people," comes the interesting headline, "Envoy: Israel asked U.S. to pull draft":

Israel asked the Bush administration to pull a resolution hailing the Annapolis peace parley, said the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Zalmay Khalilzad was on the hot seat this week after the Bush administration pulled a draft resolution on Nov. 30 hailing the peace conference that he had submitted to the U.N. Security Council.

Khalilzad told Reuters Tuesday that he believed the decision to pull the resolution came from “the highest level” of the Israeli government. Israeli and Palestinian officials said last week they had seen the draft resolution. Though the Israelis told the press they had no objection to the text, they argued that a Security Council resolution was an inappropriate measure.

The U.N.'s efforts to eradicate cluster bombs are back in the news. I wrote a post about these horrible weapons in September of 2006. Today's headline reads, "Conference on Cluster Munitions," to be held in Vienna, Austria, 5-7 December, 2007. The story came from Crisis Prevention and Recovery:

This third Conference on Cluster Munitions within the Oslo Process is another important step towards an intended international ban on cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. Some 118 countries are so far registered to participate in the Vienna conference which is an increase from the 68 states that attended the second conference in Lima in May 2007.

The UN has, on numerous occasions, appealed to the international community to address the inhumane effects of cluster munitions. On 17th September 2007, the UN established a position calling on Member States to address immediately the horrendous humanitarian, human rights and development effects of cluster munitions by concluding a legally binding instrument of international humanitarian law.

Examples of the impact of cluster munitions on civilians in the Middle East -- From the same organization, here is a summary of the cluster bomb impact on Afghanistan:

As a result of this 'area-contamination', the impact of cluster munition use extended beyond the immediate threat to personal security and safety. Cluster munitions destroyed homes and prevented their reconstruction until clearance could be undertaken. Agriculture was affected, as contamination extended over vineyards, walled gardens and wheat fields. Livestock was killed, and areas available for gathering vital resources, notably firewood, were restricted due to the presence of unexploded cluster munitions. 11 As has been noted in other locations, civilians were left with a choice between suffering a loss of livelihood and severely deprived living conditions, or risking their safety in order to generate income and gather resources.

To conclude today's post I quote from an earlier piece that sounds eerily familiar. It also addressing the U.S. vs. the United Nations and the Middle East. The title and entire concluding section I used then are still just as appropriate:

• Views from a parallel universe -- July 17, 2007
  There is reality, and then there is "Bush reality." Many of us responded with a big yawn to the recent news of a call for peace by OCP...
  
  U.S. Middle East view trumps that of the U.N. -- Our State Department reports on OCP's "briefing" meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon, as if he were a beginner needing to learn a thing or two:
  
  

  President Bush (July 17): "...One of the things I briefed the Secretary on was my views about extremism and these radicals that will do anything to disrupt the goals set by the United Nations and/or disrupt the advance of democracy in peaceful societies. Al Qaeda is strong today, but they're not nearly as strong as they were prior to September the 11th, 2001, and the reason why is, is because we've been working with the world to keep the pressure on, to stay on the offense, to bring them to justice so they won't hurt us again; to defeat them where we find them."

  
  So that is the Bush Middle East reality. And then we have the rational reality for which we can only wish -- intelligent, non-delusional, realistic about the facts, respectful of other Western leaders, honest and fair, consistent and timely, reasonable. I am not holding my breath for peace to break out in the Middle East any time soon.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Time for new Democratic leadership?

By Edward Copeland

Jack Murtha and two other House Democrats are taking some actions to try to stop Iraq war funding, embracing an idea similar to one I proposed a long time ago: Forcing a tax hike to pay for the war.

Unfortunately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to Murtha, took him to "the woodshed" for the proposal. Apparently, they are as gutless about the word "taxes" as they are about trying to stop the war despite overwhelming public support. There's a reason Democrats lose so many elections: They suck at strategy. When they do win, as in regaining control of Congress last year, it's usually in spite of themselves instead of any strong political moves.

With the media trying to perpetuate the idea that Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton is inevitable, what once seemed a lock for a Democratic win of the White House in 2008 seems more precarious with each passing day. John Edwards still is out there fighting, but his decision to accept public financing doesn't bode well for him if he gets the nomination. (He's committed to federal funding for the general now, something that the GOP certainly won't be since Clinton and Obama already tossed away that longtime tradition). Obama needs to step up and start fighting back, but he seems too concerned with keeping his above-the-fray image. As has been pointed out, the only major election he's won was against Alan Keyes. His experience problem isn't with his resume, it's with his lack of campaign fights.

Meanwhile, on the Senate side, Democratic leader Harry Reid and others embrace the distraction of the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy in attempt to get back at the GOP for the MoveOn.org ad brouhaha. Unfortunately, Republicans are much better at that sort of nonsense than the Democrats and as much as I enjoy seeing Rush hammered (no pun intended), what's the point? The issue is the war. Period.

Stop with the distractions, grow some balls and fight. It's the only way you can win: You can't count on that happening by default. It's not too late: You've got a weakened president, an unpopular war and a presidential frontrunner in a field where most voters say their support is still soft and her negatives are still high. We cannot afford to lose 2008 for too many reasons to list, not least of which is the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens may be vigorous, but he can't last forever, and who knows the truth about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health? Democrats, wake up! If the party's leaders aren't going to do it, lower-ranking officeholders and those of us out in the trenches must start doing it ourselves.

The Democratic Party must be saved from itself.