Pufferfish

Faith Over Fact

In criminal justice news there's been two big stories this week: Amanda Knox's bullshit conviction and Mike Huckabee's questionable pardon. And both seem to have been brought about by moral clarity rendered through religious conviction. Here's Joe Canonon on Huckabee's penchant for pardoning criminals while accepting the word of pastors over prosecutors:

Huckabee has proudly declared on many occasions that he disdains the separation of church and state, insisting that his strict Baptist piety should serve as the bedrock of public policy. Nowhere in his record as governor was the influence of religious zeal felt more heavily than in the distribution of pardons and commutations, as his own explanations have indicated. During those years he granted more commutations and pardons than any governor during the previous four decades, many of them surely justified as a response to excessive penalties under the state's draconian narcotics laws. But others were deeply controversial, especially because so many of his acts of mercy appeared to depend on interventions by fellow Baptist preachers and by inmate professions of renewed Christian faith.

It should come as little surprise that word got out in Arkansas that securing a commuted sentence from the governor was made easier by declaring a new found devotion to God. And here's Timothy Egan on Knox:

Still, to many Italians, Amanda Knox is a spoiled, amoral American college girl who has not shown sufficient remorse for the death of her roommate. The narrative of the manipulative she-devil is widespread.

I'm generally a proponent of clemency and this isn't to overly demonize religion. But in both of these examples there was a tendency to mete out justice by channeling God's will. Knox was punished partly for being judged a loose, lascivious woman. Huckabee accepted the judgment of spiritual advisers over career justice professionals. In both instances, faith was more important fact.

If Accountability Is The Standard...

Good to see personal responsibility is now a liberal talking point. In keeping with the theme of the Bush years, David Broder wonders why leaders should be held responsible for the decisions they make, while making his case against Eric Holder approving a limited inquiry into the Bush torture regime:

Looming beyond the publicized cases of these relatively low-level operatives is the fundamental accountability question: What about those who approved of their actions? If accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings. Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock...

In times like these, the understandable desire to enforce individual accountability must be weighed against the consequences. This country is facing so many huge challenges at home and abroad that the president cannot afford to be drawn into what would undoubtedly be a major, bitter partisan battle over prosecution of Bush-era officials. The cost to the country would simply be too great.

Brushing past Broder's disregard for the rule of law in a country whose president is sworn to defend the Constitution -- and never mind the insane hyperventilating we're hearing about the need to boost morale among bureaucrats or the delicate sensibilities of partisan politicians -- it's unnerving to see a member of the fourth estate so disinterested in learning more about what our government has been up to. But then Broder isn't a journalist. He's merely Dick Cheney's public relations manager. 

'don't ask, don't tell'

 

The play:

The Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear a legal challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a decision that allows the Obama administration to continue its slow, back-burner response to liberal activists who want gays to serve openly in the military.

The President is on record as opposing the law and would like to see it abolished, pending a Pentagon review.  Doing away with Dick Morris' triangulation policy would be a step in the right direction for the military and would improve national security.  Indeed, as a recent op-ed points out:

"Half a century ago the U.S. military was a trailblazer in ending legal segregation of African-Americans.  Some of the objections to that move then sounded a lot like the ones now against gays openly serving: that it would threaten military discipline, morale and cohesion.

In 1993, the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) studied the militaries of four countries that allow gays to serve openly and found no negative impacts. The Rand Corp. did its own study and found no evidence that gays affected "unit cohesion and unit performance."

Now the ball is in President Obama's court.

Debating Choice

Angry attacks delivered by Pat Buchanan don't always provide the whole story. If there's one good thing that's come out of the Tiller tragedy, it's that people have come forward to pay tribute and, hopefully, raise awareness:

My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age.

My wife just called with the news of his murder, weeping.

I can't really come up with some profound political statement just now, so let me just list some memories of Dr. Tiller.

-I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction.

-I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.

-He told the story of his previous shooting, where a woman shot him twice in both arms as he drove out of his clinic. At first he wanted to run her down with his Jeep, but then he thought "she shot you already George, she'll do it again!"

-I remember being puzzled about a T-shirt he was wearing, which said "Happy Birthday Jennifer from team Tiller!" or something similar. Turns out it comemmorated the birthday of a fifteen year old girl who was raped, became pregnant, and came to Tiller for an abortion. As luck would have it, she was in the clinic the same week as her birthday. So the clinic threw her a party.

-The walls of the clinic reception and waiting room are literally covered with letters from patients thanking him. Some were heartbreaking - obviously young and/or poorly educated people thanking Dr. Tiller for being there when they had no other options, explaining their family, church etc. had abandoned them.

-I remember my wife, foggy with sedation after the final procedure, being helped from the exam table. He had her sit up and put her arms around his neck, and then he lifted her into a wheelchair.

"You give good hugs" she whispered.

He paused just for a moment.

"You're just fine," he told her.

There are two other clinics that do late-term abortions, but neither take patients regardless of their ability to pay. Tiller's death is a severe blow to women's health care in this country.

Blogging Progress

Sullivan has been posting stories from his readers about their very personal experience with abortions. And they're having an effect:

I have to say I am beginning to believe that these abortions, given their excruciating moral and personal choices, may be the most defensible in context of all abortions. And yet they seem to be taking life in a more viscerally distressing way. I need time to think and rethink these things. I would not have without reading these extraordinary accounts.

Life's more complicated than an anti-choice talking point.

Terrorism

This, by Malkin, is a welcome post:

Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down at his church in Kansas Sunday morning in a thoroughly evil, cold-blooded act of domestic terrorism. Yes, terrorism. Not "extremism."

Roeder committed a violent act meant to intimidate Americans and change US policy. The latter won't happen and if anything this will turn public sentiment against the rabid right. But one has to wonder about a chilling effect that could occur among doctors willing to perform late-term abortions. So what's the appropriate response? Would it be unseemly to push legislation making health care for women safer and more accessible? In a word, no:

Roeder was acting in direct competition with the United States Congress. And it's quite likely that he changed the status quo. Legislative language and judicial rulings had made abortive procedures legal and thus accessible. Yesterday's killing was meant to render abortive procedures unsafe for doctors to conduct and thus inaccessible.

If a woman cannot get an abortion because no nearby providers are willing to assume the risk of performing it, the actual outcome is precisely the same as if the procedure were illegal. Roeder has, in all likelihood, made abortion less accessible. It would be, in my view, a perfectly appropriate response for the Congress to decisively prove his action not only ineffectual, but, in a broad sense, counterproductive.

That's not to suggest fast-tracking legislation that radically transforms the county's uneasy consensus. But there are plenty of remedies that speak tothe question of access alone: Bills that make abortion centers safer and help poor women afford treatment, for instance. We can't stop Scott Roeder from killing George Tiller. But we can stop him from having his intended effect on a woman's ability to choose.

Keep In Mind, "Barack The Magic Negro" Is Funny

Noted race relations expert Andrew Breitbart is fond of saying there's nothing worse than for a white guy to be called a racist. But when it comes to pointing out when a minority is out of line, well, that's a totally different ball game:

When the nation learned in 2005 that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had belonged to a Princeton University alumni organization that advocated a cap on the number of women and minorities allowed at Princeton, the news media quickly circled the wagons to protect the Bush nominee.

When Alito was asked by Senate Democrats about his membership in the organization -- which he touted while applying for a job in the Reagan administration -- the media denounced them for going too far. The merest hint of a suggestion of an implication that Alito was a member of a racist organization was shouted down as an unfair slander; Democrats were pilloried for making Alito's wife cry with their inappropriate questions (though Mrs. Alito didn't actually start crying until Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took to the microphone).

***

But as we learned this week, if the nominee is a progressive Latina nominated by a progressive African-American president, you can just come right out and call her a racist -- based on nothing more than a distorted quote and a ruling nobody has read -- and the media will take you seriously. They will amplify your complaints. Far from denouncing you for going "too far," they will pretend that your false descriptions of her comments are accurate.

It's been rather surreal to see Senator John Cornyn serve as a voice of reason. You know the going has gotten weird when Big John is walking nutters back from the edge. But he also has a large Latino constituency to think about. Newt Gingrich obviously does not. That still doesn't explain the reflexively defensive posture we are seeing in the press. It's just another indication that the Big Media remains hard-wired for the conservative argument.

Not Qualified

For jury duty:

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to “transcend [one’s] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law”; and that there are “basic differences” in the way people “of color” exercise “logic and reasoning.” If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?

Jeebus. Just because Andy McCarthy knows how to use voir dire in a sentence doesn't mean he's saying anything smart. Obama has now gone on record and said Sotomayor's comment was in-artful. Fine. But beyond that he better not budge an inch on these attacks. What Sotomayor said wasn't all that controversial unless you're looking for a grievance. To review, Sotomayor said that a Latina woman who has known adversity and the feeling of marginalization is better equipped to empathize with the impact the justice system can have on someone's life. She added that a white guy who hasn't lived that burden is less likely to reach a similar judgment in cases that in particular involve race or gender discrimination. Given that she's been on the appeals court for 17 years, I'll assume she can talk with some confidence on this matter. And she should be welcome to her opinion. I'm sure people will disagree. But instead of talking about how our different backgrounds can produce different worldviews among our judges, we're left discussing who is and isn't racist. This distracts from the precise reason Obama picked Sotomayor: she brings a unique perspective to the high court. And that scares many in the GOP.

Affirmative Action

One wonders if it's only something minorities benefit from.

A Conversation That Probably Should Have Happened

But Greg Sargent says Obama never asked Sotomayor for her take on Roe v. Wade:

This gap in her record puts Dem Senators in a bind. Pro-choice groups are mounting a campaign to press Senators to insist at her confirmation hearing that Sotomayor clarify her position on Roe. If these Senators punt, they’ll anger those groups and open themselves up to GOP charges of inconsistency. And if they do ask, they have to weigh how hard to press Sotomayor for full clarification.

Even more dicey: The possibility that Sotomayor could give an unsatisfactory answer. While many have assumed she’s reliable on Roe, there’s precedent for surprising turns from Supreme Court justices, such as David Souter’s 1990s vote to uphold abortion rights. Indeed, White House press secretary Robert Gibbsconceded yesterday that Obama had not directly asked her in their interviews whether she supports the Roe ruling.