The Right's Continued Stranglehold on the Federal Courts

Here's an alarming fact. "Because of retirements, the percentage of Republican-nominated district judges actually has gone up" since President Obama took office. For thirty years, one of the right's most insidious and successful strategies was the takeover of the federal bench. Thus we have not only the Supreme Court we have, but about 60% of federal judges appointed by Republicans nationwide. The Federalist Society was formed in 1982 specifically to bring about this conservative revolution - for many years, conservative judges had easy access to the best and brightest and a badge of true conservatism on their resume - service in Fed-Soc. So not only did the Republicans have the appointments, but they also had all-but guaranteed loyalty screening as well. This strategy is very well known and well documented, and has been for some time. Most recently, Jeffrey Toobin's huge best-seller The Nine articulated the strategy in great detail.

Further Evidence that "Terrorists" are not White.

The last time I wrote about this, I didn't include anything about counter-terrorism advisor's John Brennan's speech:

Conspicuously absent from Brennan’s list of seven terrorist incidents is any discussion of the “individuals radicalized here at home” by the Christian Hutaree “militia,” a group secretly planning coordinated, deadly attacks in Michigan. Brennan also forgets about the 2009 shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, carried out by a dedicated white supremacist. Brennan’s lengthy speech makes no mention of the danger posed by right wing radicals like Joseph Stack, who flew an airplane into an IRS building. Most tellingly, Brennan didn’t express any concern about terror inflicted against Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian communities in the form of violent hate crimes, including a pipe bomb that exploded at a mosque in Florida not long before Brennan’s speech.

In short, Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor seems to reserve the use of the word “terrorism” exclusively for violent acts that are carried out by Muslims.

More on Obama's National Security Strategy

My last post pointed to some of the good and bad rhetorical devices in Obama's National Security Strategy. While rhetoric and language choice are important, I'd also like to highlight a post on the ACLU Blog of Rights about how terrible and hypocritical it is functionally, once you get past the rhetoric.

While the strategy makes some vague commitments on human rights, it contradicts its own promises. It states that "our moral leadership is grounded principally in the power of our example," but then goes on to outline a strategy involving indefinite detention without charge or trial on the very same page.

White Terrorists Have Predictable Behavior, So They Don't Count

Channing Kennedy has a very good post up at RaceWire about the good and the bad about the new National Security Strategy. The good:

There’s a lot improved over the previous version from 2006 (the one that used the word “preemption”), and a lot to praise. The Obama version doesn’t use the phrase the “War on Terror” or “radical Islam,” and it reiterates the administration’s intentions to close Gitmo; it’s not afraid of a “multipolar” world power structure. And it’s not every National Security Strategy that calls to “Promote Dignity by Meeting Basic Needs” via cooperative efforts to eradicate extreme poverty and childhood illness in Africa.

Holder Continues the Obama Administration's War on Law

It has been clear from the beginning of the Obama Administration that this government simply does not agree that we are a nation of laws, not men (you know our founding principle?). From the willingness to give different trials based on likelihood of conviction to the willingness to assassinate our own citizens, it has become constantly clear that the Administration believes that in the name of combating terror, laws do not matter. Additionally, the whole "look forward, not back" for political elites, means that generally, they are exempt from the rule of law, meaning that we are, either by calling something terror-related, or by immunizing elites, a nation under the rule of not law, but men. (That's what I mean when I say that if Obama says so, we can operate essentially as a temporary monarchy.)

PostPartisan Adds Zero Value to the Kagan Discussion

The PostPartisan link (which we have listed in our collection) is pretty funny.

On the Elena Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court, the White House has won the initial battle -- the battle over expectations.... Kagan’s qualifications for the court can only be called thin.... She cannot be regarded as a strong nominee, but the White House clearly believes she is a safe nominee.... During a pastel career, Kagan made one neon decision -- to ban military recruiters from the Office of Career Services when she was dean of Harvard Law School, based on her strong opposition to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy....Standing in the way of military recruiters may seem normal in academic circles, but it will seem radical in much of the country....This may not be enough to derail the Kagan nomination, but it will complicate it.

That's his whole story, basically. He starts out by saying that her record is thin, and her greatest asset is the ease of her nomination. He then proceeds to nitpick this one thing that might make her nomination harder, saying Obama gravely miscalulated but it probably won't derail her nomination.

So 1) Kagan's one virtue - ease of nomination - won't be so easy. (I also think Republicans will make up something if it isn't there, and his one military recruiter thing might very well be on the list, but it hardly matters), and 2) Obama gravely miscalculated, except it won't derail his nomination.

He claimed two things, and then refuted them. What exactly was the point of his post?

Obama Contributes to the Noise (Part II - The Not So Good)

This is the second half of the review of President Obama's commencement address at the University of Michigan this past Saturday. The first half is here, and the text of the speech is here.

Ok, so I still think that on the whole Obama's speech was fantastic, but there are two glaring flaws, one of which I'd like to just note - his hypocrisy on our democracy, and the other of which this post is primarily about - the false equivalence between right and left. After that, there's one more side point I'd like to address - the lack of even a mention of other problems with the media - particularly with respect to race.

Obama's Still Got It (Part I - The Good)

(updated below)

Yesterday, President Obama gave the commencement address at Michigan, and I immediately realized that a) I was basically the only law student that didn't see it (I was at a friend's wedding - congrats again Johnny and Jen!), b) it was worth the hours of waiting in line, and c) it was a speech that could have been designed just for me (I was told so by several friends). So I read through it, and I almost began tearing up and couldn't stop smiling, except in the points where I wanted to yell out that he's being a hypocrite. And again, this was just while I was reading (full text here). But I've also seen enough of his speeches that I could recreate the delivery in my own head. Anyway, given my varied and strong reactions to his address, I figured I'd write about the different parts. This post is incredibly long, so I'll write here about the good, and about the bad separately.

In Honor of Earth Day: Burn for Alternative Clean Energy

(Image via Haiku Pundit)

It is time for the Obama Administration to take active steps to preserve the environment.

First, the Administration can start by ratifying the Kyoto protocol and by entering it into force. The Kyoto Protocol came about from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol is an agreement that commits industrialized countries and the European community to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol recognizes that, due to a larger period of industrial activity, developed nations bear the brunt of the responsibility for the emissions. The Protocol advocates a reduction rate of an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period of 2008-2012. Although the United States is a 1998 signatory to the protocol, the Bush administration declined to ratify the protocol. Until the protocol is ratified, it has no binding legal force in the United States.

“Food Deserts”: Fertile Ground for Socially-minded Entrepreneurs

This piece by Ifeoma Ajunwa was originally posted on Right Respect on April 14th, 2010.

Recently, First Lady Michelle Obama penned a cover story for Newsweek magazine in which she detailed her fight against the growing rates of obesity in school age American children. Obesity brings with it a host of health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Further, high obesity rates negatively impact the economy, as millions of tax payer dollars are spent each year in treating the chronic diseases that stem from it. Since, as the First Lady noted, a third of American children are either overweight or obese, the fight against obesity is a matter of national concern.

Dennis in Wonderland

Dennis Kucinich is the only Congressperson that stayed out of the rabbit hole. Why is he the only one calling the administration out on this? The subtitle of the article says it all:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich warns that the assassination program means the U.S. government acts as the "investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one."

Obama Puts a Hit Out on a US Citizen He Says is a Terrorist

(Updated below)

I'm exhausted. Too exhausted to muster up my typical righteous anger about this issue, so I'll just send you along to Glenn Greenwald, who has plenty.

Not really sure there's a money quote, so just read the thing, but here's a sample: