Fathers' Day / 6-20-10

The apostrophe is in the right place.

So you know me, I'm perfectly willing to give the other side a chance to present its views, to make an argument, and I will listen with an open mind. That being said, I reserve the right to point out idiocy when it pops up. Or indefensible positions. Or easily debunked claims.

The Prop 8 trial gave us all of the above. The other side's people (the warm-hearted folks seeking to keep same-sex marriage illegal in CA through the continuance of Prop 8) had a chance to express their lovely views. And in a splendid trifecta, their lawyers filled all three stoopid boxes. Somebody say Bingo!

In the Idiocy Category, we were treated to: "You need only go back to your chambers, Your Honor, and pull down any dictionary, pull down any book that discusses marriage, and you will find this procreative purpose at its heart wherever you go."

That's a quote from the closing argument of pro-Prop 8 lawyer Charles Cooper, who spent the trial insisting that marriage's existence rests upon the foundation of procreation, that the two are inseparable. And he's right, in a way. People can make kids when they're married. (I should know.) And they often do. (They do.) But you have to ignore so many facts, circumstances and reality-based real events that really happen to real people in order to define the purpose of marriage as "It's there to help us make babies." Yet that's what he did all spring long, as this trial progressed: make the argument that procreation is an essential component of wedlock, so folks who can't procreate don't qualify. More on that later.

Cooper's a gem. More from him, on that same day (Thursday, since you asked):

"Marriage is to channel the sexual behavior between men and women into a procreative union. The state's main concern in regulating marriage and seeking to channel procreation is to minimize what I would call irresponsible procreation. The state doesn't need to worry about irresponsible sexual procreation with same-sex couples. Same sex-couples must be responsible to procreate."

Remember, he's fighting to keep SSM illegal, so I had to read what he said again and again to decipher it. It sounds like he's saying that marriage is there because kids do better when they're raised by a married couple. And that same-sex marriage would cut down on unwanted kids. And that responsible procreation would happen with gay parents.

Wait, whose side is he on again? I'm so confused.

In the Indefensible Position Category, I offer you this: Prop 8 itself.

The Supreme Court (of the United States, perhaps it rings a bell?) has stated the following:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." That's from a 1967 decision.

Then, the same Burrito Supreme Court stated in 2003: "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here [sodomy] was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." This was the argument the court used to strike down anti-sodomy laws.

So the Nacho Supremes are saying marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right (a "basic" one!) and homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected.

So same-sex marriage is unconstitutional how? Oh right, because you can't make kids out of it. Clearly, Sterile-Americans who plan to wed shouldn't bother to apply for a license. And you guys, you two widowers out there whose combined age just hit 168? Marriage is out of bounds. You know, constitutionally. Your union is unhelpful to society. Because you can't generate any kids (hopefully). Yeah, I'm sorry about that emergency hysterectomy you had when you were a teenager, you know, after that nasty car accident. No wedding for you. For legal reasons.

Laughable. Just laughable. Or at least it would be, if professional lawyers weren't trying so hard to make those arguments.

(Speaking of interesting positions, my research turned up the fact that convicted child molesters are permitted to marry in California. Not gay ones. Straight ones, mind you. Just saying. Of course they can, and I don't want to deny them anyway: marriage is a "basic civil right," after all.)

In the Easily Debunked By Actual Scientific Evidence Claims Category, zees ees wut aye hav, voila:

"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls. I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."

That's one conclusion of a 25-year study (uh, 25 years, chew on that for a while) which aimed to track the development of kids raised by lesbian mothers. The head researcher, one Nanette Gartell, gave us that money quote earlier this month. Suprisingly, the study was NOT commissioned by and published on communistgaysex.blogspot.com, but in the esteemed journal Pediatrics.

So how do you fight for Prop 8 again? I mean, the haters' lawyers have to have more bullets in their guns, right? More arguments? Better rationales?

They don't. But that doesn't mean the fight will end when judge Vaughn R. Walker issues his ruling, expected sometime this summer but not until at least July. Both sides' attorneys have signaled their intent to appeal to the California Taco Supreme Court, and perhaps even to the highest court in the land, the one that has already established that homosexual intercourse is legal and marriage is a fundamental right.

I wish I felt optimistic.

Supreme Corp. / 1-22-10

On Friday, the "Supreme" Court of the United States of America took a bold step, removing limits on how much dough corporations can donate to candidates for federal office.

You read that right. And the Court needs to swiftly find a way to undo this gross miscarriage of justice. I would call it practically an abortion of justice, but that would be tacky, so I'll leave that unsightly, inappropriate simile to some other angry blogger somewhere.

But maybe you disagree with me. Maybe you even like the ruling. Which is fine, kind of.

Perhaps you believe strongly that campaigns should be privately financed, out of fiscal responsibility. That's totally cool. Not everyone thinks public financing cuts down on corruption or the appearance of corruption, which is, after all, pretty ugly as well. Intelligent people disagree on this issue.

But surely you don't think businesses are people? I mean, they are run by people and occasionally employ people (in decent economic times), but they're entities, organizations, not humans.

Oh, you think that too? I guess I'll have to concede that debate is possible here, especially after Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on Friday that corporations are entitled to the same definition of free speech as citizens are. His words: "By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests." Equating the "rights" of corporations to actual human citizens of the United States seems like a stretch, but Tony's not exactly a dimwit all of the time. You can take his side if it makes sense to you.

But surely you don't think certain elected officials should be bankrolled by one or two business? Surely you could envision a problem or two arising from that setup?

And surely you don't think Joe Shareholder should have to watch HIS company stuff the campaign coffers of some random candidate? Especially if he and his wife Jane S. are both virulently opposed to that candidate's agenda?

For that matter, surely you don't think taxpayer-owned GM ought to toss a $3 million check to some influential Democratic politician who can help shape policy in a way advantageous to the nationalized car company?

But surely you don't think individuals should be marginalized from the fund-raising process and made to feel powerless?

Oh. All of that is fine? OK.

But SURELY you can't be in favor of compromising national sovereignty?

Consider the Seattle Mariners. Yes, the baseball team. They're owned by Nintendo. Should the M's be allowed to pony up $2 million for a candidate who promises them a sweetheart deal of some sort? Should a bunch of Japanese businessmen, with whom I have no quarrel whatsoever, be able to practically own a lawmaker?

And that's a pretty tame example. So let's go a little farther. PDVSA is the Venezuelan oil company owned and operated by that country's government. Hugo Chavez, a name you might recognize, essentially runs that little business, which has some cash on hand from time to time... they do sell some oil here and there. How about they throw in a few million bones here or there to some guys and gals on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. How does that sound?

OK, now I'm fine with you defending the court's decision. Especially since I've established that you hate democracy, don't mind the appearance of corruption, are against the little guy while also not respecting shareholders, and to top it off, you oppose national security. In which case, I no longer can help you.

I feel like I should rest my case or something.

But here's one more post-scriptic comment, of high importance: the decision came down 5-4. For all the flak President Obama takes from the far left flank of the population, it's worth remembering that the kind of justice he will nominate will tend to dissent with the current Roberts-led majority.

And while I wish Obama to nominate at least one more justice, that's also part of the problem. The Court is far, far, far, far too partisan. Lifetime appointments are no longer having the effect sought by the Founding Fathers. A change in how we put people on the SCOTUS is in order. But that's a different post, better executed on a day I'm not nearly so incensed.

No vacancy / 7-22-09

With the public support of two prominent Republican senators (him and her) firmly in hand, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will coast to confirmation later this summer. She'll replace David Souter. She'll be the first Latina (I'd like to say first Latino, too, but she has no such secret) to serve on the Court. Probably not the last.

I'll cut to the chase. Is it important that the SCOTUS be diverse? Is it important that it feature a black dude and a Puerto Rican lady? Is it crucial that it be populated with jurists of different age groups, like a few 40-year-olds, a few boomers and a few geriatric cases? Is it important for the genders to be split 5-4? Should an atheist get nominated soon? A Muslim? A homosexual? (Let's not wait for a hypothetical Republican president to get started on the last three categories.)

Oh. I get the feeling you expect answers. I don't have a whole lot of them. The only "answer" I like is that the Court has been far too Protestant, far too white and far too male for far too long. A non-answer I like even better is that as long as the nominees are all competent, their background and/or their skin color and/or their gender and/or their sexual orientation matters not a whit. I don't like pigeonholing people based on one facet of their being.

(Besides, let's acknowledge that it's a certainty, probability-wise, that a gay man has served on the Supreme Court already. I won't bore you with all the math or the regression analysis involved, because my inferior explaining skills are... inferior.)

The most interesting suggestion I've heard recently on this topic is to expand the size of the Court itself. Jack it up to 15, 21 justices. Diversity will practically do itself without trying. It'll take itself out of the conversation after the third Latino, the second paraplegic and the first completely out-of-the-box nominee.

I mean, it makes sense. 220 years ago, the pool of SCOTUS candidates was shallow. Finding nine qualified white male Episcopalian or Methodist landowners with lots of free time can't have been easy every day of the week. Now, we've got a slightly deeper swath of hopefuls.

In a way, that mega-court idea fits with my earlier suggestion that we extend representatives' and senators' and presidents' terms. We need better representation across the board in American government, and that includes a bigger Congress that spends less of its time campaigning, plus a wider court that reflects America's diverse identity better, because on a superficial level, that's important. Plus, we won't have to have the tired, worn-out "Wow, look, that nominee's not an old bald white guy from Harvard" conversation as much any more.

And no, I don't think my man Barack should appoint another 12 justices to get us to the magic 21. You could do it gradually, like over the course of four more Democratic administrations.

A wise Latina once said... / 6-7-09

Clearly the Supreme Court of these United States needs more women. An 8-1 male-female ratio is unhealthy.

Clearly it needs a greater ethnic diversity as well. Eight whites out of nine jurists, in a country that is trending away from lily-whiteness, that's not especially healthy, in my opinion. The Court should in fact reflect the values AND the racial makeup of our country. Without a doubt, the values come first in the pecking order, but background counts too.

With my disclaimers now out of the way, I would like to complain about Sonia Sotomayor's well-publicized unfortunate "wise Latina" comments. (Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter, who has chosen NOT to die on the bench. Good for him.)

Wait, one more caveat! I wish for a speedy, uneventful confirmation process for Sotomayor. It is offensive to me that no Latinos/Latinas have served on SCOTUS yet. That is a serious shortcoming in our justice system. Let's get her on the court ASAP, stat-mmediately. Is yesterday possible?

But I am particularly bothered by her repeated assertion that she hopes a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Saying that kind of thing once is excusable; but she wove that bit, sometimes word for word, into other speeches as well. (Yes, I just linked to CNN and... Fox News. It was painful for me too. I apologize. Get over it.)

Anyway... as a white male, I find her line of thinking to be condescending, patronizing and prejudiced. I don't think I need to explain why.

And yet, she has a point. The Court and the courts, they need more Latina voices and Latino ears. Desperately. But her ancestry doesn't make her a better jurist. Her life experience might provide her with insight a white man doesn't have, but let's get real: Gustav O'Leary is perfectly capable of having a history that enwisens him too! ("Enwisens?" Yup. "Gustav O'Leary?" Not a real guy, I hope.)

Sotomayor is presumed to be a semi-automatic liberal voice for a long time, which brings me great relief. Thank goodness a Democrat sits in the Oval Office, for this very reason. I wince to imagine another young conservative on the Court, ruling for big business and smacking down the little guy then retiring to the back room to smoke his strict-constructionist cigars.

John Roberts was qualified when mini-Bush nominated him. Now, for sure, Roberts is an unimaginative creep with whom I couldn't disagree more frequently. He probably lied in his confirmation hearing when he said he couldn't recall belonging to the ultra-far-right-wing Federalist Society. But he was qualified; so is Sotomayor. And the President can select whoever he pleases. So let's get on with it, shall we?

And so, I will be interested to see how the Republicans proceed. If they drag it out, delaying Sotomayor's confirmation more than usual, I'll post about how Obama may well have ensnared them in a trap. Which is totally unnecessary -- conservative white males have shown themselves to be plenty self-destructive. Almost as if they haven't learned a blessed thing from their rich life experiences.

Barack and the Supremes / 5-4-09

Before we bleeding hearts rejoice that our Chosen One will anoint a new Supreme Court justice this year, we ought to remember that David Souter was nominated by... LBJ, right? Uh, Carter? Clinton, yeah, Clinton, fo-sho. What's that, you say? Twas Daddy Bush?

No, but seriously. Souter's a liberal. He votes with Baby Ruth Ginsburg, Something Kennedy, Stevie Breyer, and Pope John Paul Stevens most the time, right? Helps us America-haters keep on killin' babies and burnin' flags. He's a reliable pot-smokin' hugger of trees and would run over his own mother, in a Prius of course, before displacing a single spotted owl. Doesn't sound like a Bush guy to me.

Well, you can Google it as well as I. Bush The Elder put Souter on the court. What's more, Anthony Kennedy's turning out to be the so-called swing vote on many cases, and Reagan's responsible for him.

There's an old song, goes something like this: "You can't always get / What you want" and although it's not officially the theme song of SC nominations, you could do worse.

So let's not just assume BHO will get it right and find a reasonable left-of-center woman to replace Souter. He's a constitutional law prof by trade, our president is, so he'll at least try, which should be enough. 'Cause if you try sometimes, people, you just might find, maybe, you get what you need.