Any governor who vetoes legislation that expands civil rights for groups that have faced a history of discrimination deserves to lose office. Nevertheless, Governor Jim Douglas of Vermont promises to veto a recent bill that legalizes same-sex marriage.
Lacking any good reason for justifying state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Douglas says that he -- like Obama -- believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He has also shamelessly argued that the debate over same-sex marriage distracts the state legislature from engaging in important work on fixing the economy.
Douglas, however, does not realize (or acknowledge) that his own personal beliefs do not provide a basis for sexual orientation discrimination. There are many ways that widely shared personal beliefs could limit marriage. For example, a lot of people believe individuals should not marry outside of their racial, class or religious backgrounds, but this would not provide a legitimate basis for legislation.
Rather than restraining rights while states like Iowa are moving forward, Douglas should have the courage to make a decision that is forward looking. If Douglas vetoes the equality measure, Vermont residents can do the same to him during the next election.
Monday, April 6, 2009
New York Proves It Is One of the Flakiest States in the Country
A new Quinnipiac poll confirms that New York remains one of the flakiest states in the country. The poll shows that New York voters harbor deep feelings of animosity for Governor Paterson. 60-28 percent of voters disapprove of Paterson's performance. Also, according to the survey, Paterson would lose to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- by double digits.
Paterson's skid started after he declined to appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill the empty Senate seat created when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Although politicians from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to President Barack Obama supported Kennedy, Paterson chose Representative Kirsten Gillibrand instead.
Gillibrand, who, as a member of the House of Representatives, won the support of conservative and moderate voters in her upstate district, could help provide campaign support for Paterson in this important region of the state. Nevertheless, his selection of Gillibrand and rejection of Kennedy set off a round of criticism.
Ironically, New York voters have punished Paterson for not selecting Kennedy, but polling data prior to his selection of Gillibrand revealed that most voters did not support Kennedy -- even though she polled higher than Gillibrand. Her numbers plunged considerably after she began a self-promotion tour, explicitly declaring her interest in the position. Despite their disapproval of Kennedy, New York voters immediately punished Paterson for bypassing her, and they continue to do so. Get outta here!
Paterson's skid started after he declined to appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill the empty Senate seat created when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Although politicians from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to President Barack Obama supported Kennedy, Paterson chose Representative Kirsten Gillibrand instead.
Gillibrand, who, as a member of the House of Representatives, won the support of conservative and moderate voters in her upstate district, could help provide campaign support for Paterson in this important region of the state. Nevertheless, his selection of Gillibrand and rejection of Kennedy set off a round of criticism.
Ironically, New York voters have punished Paterson for not selecting Kennedy, but polling data prior to his selection of Gillibrand revealed that most voters did not support Kennedy -- even though she polled higher than Gillibrand. Her numbers plunged considerably after she began a self-promotion tour, explicitly declaring her interest in the position. Despite their disapproval of Kennedy, New York voters immediately punished Paterson for bypassing her, and they continue to do so. Get outta here!
Politics and Critical Thinking Blog Cuts Through Partisanship on Obama's Infamous "Bow"
Critical Thinker, author of the blog "Politics and Critical Thinking" has some sober words for fellow conservatives (which mirror my words to fellow liberals), who have conveniently forgotten that Bush danced around with King Abdullah, as they condemn Obama's "bow":
If the Right is ever going to engage the Leftists and be victorious, they must not engage in hypocrisy. It's far better to be wrong than a hypocrite.I agree that hypocrisy is a worse kind of evil. Unfortunately, hypocrisy is also one of the few qualities that our elected officials passionately embrace regardless of ideology. Visit Politics and Critical Thinking for footage of Bush's two-step.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Big One from the Washington Post: Obama Administration Plans to Devise Scheme to Avoid Company Restrictions on Bailout Funds
This one is intriguing:
Source: Washington Post
The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.Perhaps Obama believes that "if" doling out trillions to the banks gets the economy (artificially) working again that people will forget that he is doing something that goes against his promises concerning transparency, accountability, and, ahem, change.
Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.
The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.
Source: Washington Post
Utterly Empty Rhetoric: Some Conservatives Argue That the Iowa Supreme Court Engaged in "Judicial Activism"
Opponents of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that invalidates the state's anti-gay marriage law have invoked a popular rhetorical tool used to challenge court opinions: "Judicial activism." RNC Chair Michael Steele, for example, describes the ruling as "another example of judicial activism currently threatening family values in America." Conservative Ed Whelan posted an essay on the National Review Online which argues that the ruling proves that: "The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues." Republican State Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri opines that: "The Iowa Supreme Court chose today to legislate from the bench by redefining marriage without any concern or deference to the democratic process. . . ." Conservative blogger Rod Dreher at Beliefnet contends that "gay marriage" was "forced on Iowa." Finally, a Des Moines Register article quotes various same-sex marriage opponents who argue that the Iowa Supreme Court "stepped out of its proper role," "redefined[d] marriage," and "advance[d] an agenda the majority of Americans reject."
Don't Believe the Hype: Judicial Activism Is an Utterly Empty Concept
Judicial activism is an utterly empty concept. Contrary to its deceptive connotation, the phrase does not articulate a real theory of judging. Instead, judicial activism is simply a rhetorical device used by individuals across the political spectrum who wish to bash courts for invalidating statutes they find desirable. If a person does not favor a particular law, he or she will not describe a court's invalidation of such law as an awful moment of judicial activism.
Claims of judicial activism are commonly associated with conservatives who fear "liberal" (or "elite") judges imposing their views upon a more moderate or conservative society. But liberals have also complained of overzealous judges defeating democracy. Indeed, one of the most highly criticized eras in the history of the Supreme Court began at the turn of the 20th Century when conservative free market justices liberally construed the Fourteenth Amendment and recognized a constitutionally protect right of "economic liberty."
During the so-called "Lochner Era," the Supreme Court used the concept of economic liberty to invalidate over 200 state and federal laws that regulated the economy and the health and safety of workers and the public. This pattern continued up until the New Deal -- after which the Great Depression, turnover in the Court's personnel, FDR's vitriolic criticism of Court rulings, and a "switch" in one justice's position on the subject ushered in a new era of judicial deference on economic issues.
More recently, conservative federal judges have invoked the ambiguous concepts of federalism and state sovereignty in order to impose drastic limits on the operation of federal statutes, particularly in the area of civil rights. Yet, conservatives did not blast the Rehnquist Court for its "activism."
The Iowa Supreme Court Simply Applied the Law
The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling is steeped in constitutional analysis. One can disagree with the analysis, but that does not transform the ruling into something other than analysis.
Although the outcome of the case turns on the meaning of the Iowa constitution, much of the ruling discusses federal constitutional law regarding the meaning of equal protection. The Iowa Supreme Court held that denying same-sex marriage constitutes a form of "sexual orientation" discrimination. Even though the statute does not mention sexual orientation, it is patently clear that only gays and lesbians seek to enter into same-sex marriages (if not, we would see heterosexuals filing suit).
The Iowa Supreme Court then applied well established precedent and determined that because sexual orientation discrimination deviates from the state constitutional norm of equal protection, it could not engage in a deferential analysis of the state's reasons for banning gay marriage. Court's make these types of choices every day.
Although courts typically defer to lawmakers, when legislators use their authority to invade fundamental liberties or to discriminate on an improper basis, then judicial review is by necessity more invasive. Otherwise, constitutional freedoms would have very little meaning.
The Iowa Supreme Court invoked the same doctrinal concept of "rigid" judicial scrutiny that has allowed conservative judges to invalidate affirmative action policies, strike down a portion of the Violence Against Women Act, limit the ability of civil rights plaintiffs to recover damages from illegally behaving state governments, and to reverse a state court ruling grounded in statutory law, which ordered the Boy Scouts of America to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If conservatives do not believe that the Iowa Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws that violate the state constitution, then they must condemn conservative court rulings that invalidate statutes that implement liberal policy.
How About a "Real" Debate
Unlike many other progressives, the concepts of federalism and separation of powers do not threaten me. Indeed, these concepts have advanced progressive causes. Pointing to the separation of powers doctrine, liberal judges have deferred to legislatures and validated their efforts to remedy civil rights violations. And while southern states invoked "states' rights" rhetoric to justify slavery and secession, states have also invoked this concept in order to defy conservative federal policy on matters ranging from fugitive slaves, the environment, and criminal justice. Perhaps conservatives could find their "voice" in contemporary United States politics if they had the courage and creativity to view the Iowa ruling, for better or worse, as an exercise of state autonomy that traditional conservatives should respect.
The debate over the Iowa ruling, however, must not rest on the empty concept of judicial activism. If people disagree with the substance of the court's decision, they should debate the ruling on its own terms. Resorting to politically charged and bankrupt rhetoric will not advance discourse on this important subject.
Related Reading on Dissenting Justice: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
Don't Believe the Hype: Judicial Activism Is an Utterly Empty Concept
Judicial activism is an utterly empty concept. Contrary to its deceptive connotation, the phrase does not articulate a real theory of judging. Instead, judicial activism is simply a rhetorical device used by individuals across the political spectrum who wish to bash courts for invalidating statutes they find desirable. If a person does not favor a particular law, he or she will not describe a court's invalidation of such law as an awful moment of judicial activism.
Claims of judicial activism are commonly associated with conservatives who fear "liberal" (or "elite") judges imposing their views upon a more moderate or conservative society. But liberals have also complained of overzealous judges defeating democracy. Indeed, one of the most highly criticized eras in the history of the Supreme Court began at the turn of the 20th Century when conservative free market justices liberally construed the Fourteenth Amendment and recognized a constitutionally protect right of "economic liberty."
During the so-called "Lochner Era," the Supreme Court used the concept of economic liberty to invalidate over 200 state and federal laws that regulated the economy and the health and safety of workers and the public. This pattern continued up until the New Deal -- after which the Great Depression, turnover in the Court's personnel, FDR's vitriolic criticism of Court rulings, and a "switch" in one justice's position on the subject ushered in a new era of judicial deference on economic issues.
More recently, conservative federal judges have invoked the ambiguous concepts of federalism and state sovereignty in order to impose drastic limits on the operation of federal statutes, particularly in the area of civil rights. Yet, conservatives did not blast the Rehnquist Court for its "activism."
The Iowa Supreme Court Simply Applied the Law
The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling is steeped in constitutional analysis. One can disagree with the analysis, but that does not transform the ruling into something other than analysis.
Although the outcome of the case turns on the meaning of the Iowa constitution, much of the ruling discusses federal constitutional law regarding the meaning of equal protection. The Iowa Supreme Court held that denying same-sex marriage constitutes a form of "sexual orientation" discrimination. Even though the statute does not mention sexual orientation, it is patently clear that only gays and lesbians seek to enter into same-sex marriages (if not, we would see heterosexuals filing suit).
The Iowa Supreme Court then applied well established precedent and determined that because sexual orientation discrimination deviates from the state constitutional norm of equal protection, it could not engage in a deferential analysis of the state's reasons for banning gay marriage. Court's make these types of choices every day.
Although courts typically defer to lawmakers, when legislators use their authority to invade fundamental liberties or to discriminate on an improper basis, then judicial review is by necessity more invasive. Otherwise, constitutional freedoms would have very little meaning.
The Iowa Supreme Court invoked the same doctrinal concept of "rigid" judicial scrutiny that has allowed conservative judges to invalidate affirmative action policies, strike down a portion of the Violence Against Women Act, limit the ability of civil rights plaintiffs to recover damages from illegally behaving state governments, and to reverse a state court ruling grounded in statutory law, which ordered the Boy Scouts of America to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If conservatives do not believe that the Iowa Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws that violate the state constitution, then they must condemn conservative court rulings that invalidate statutes that implement liberal policy.
How About a "Real" Debate
Unlike many other progressives, the concepts of federalism and separation of powers do not threaten me. Indeed, these concepts have advanced progressive causes. Pointing to the separation of powers doctrine, liberal judges have deferred to legislatures and validated their efforts to remedy civil rights violations. And while southern states invoked "states' rights" rhetoric to justify slavery and secession, states have also invoked this concept in order to defy conservative federal policy on matters ranging from fugitive slaves, the environment, and criminal justice. Perhaps conservatives could find their "voice" in contemporary United States politics if they had the courage and creativity to view the Iowa ruling, for better or worse, as an exercise of state autonomy that traditional conservatives should respect.
The debate over the Iowa ruling, however, must not rest on the empty concept of judicial activism. If people disagree with the substance of the court's decision, they should debate the ruling on its own terms. Resorting to politically charged and bankrupt rhetoric will not advance discourse on this important subject.
Related Reading on Dissenting Justice: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
Friday, April 3, 2009
Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
The Iowa Supreme Court has invalidated a state law that prohibits same-sex marriage. The highest courts in Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, Iowa, and Connecticut have all struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage. Voters in Hawaii (1998) and California (2008) reversed their state courts' rulings by constitutional amendment.
This week, the Vermont House of Representatives joined the state Senate and passed a measure legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Jim Douglas, however, has threatened to veto the measure. The New Hampshire House of Representatives also recently passed a bill permitting same-sex marriage.
Presently, the Iowa Supreme Court's website is overrun with hits, which has made it virtually impossible to download the ruling. Stay tuned for more information on the specific content of the decision.
MAJOR UPDATE
Responding to the difficulty accessing the Iowa Supreme Court webpage, Politico.Com has posted the ruling.
Here are some highlights from the decision:
* The court held that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of "sexual orientation."
* The court applied "intermediate scrutiny" -- the second-highest standard the court could have used -- to determine whether the state had a justifiable reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage.
* The court rejected all of the state's asserted interests for denying same-sex marriage. These interests include: preserving the "tradition" of opposite-sex marriage, ensuring that children are raised in optimal settings, promoting procreation, protecting the stability of opposite-sex marriages, and preserving resources the state gives to married couples.
* With respect to the child-rearing argument, the court noted that state law does not deny marriage to "child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents." [Note: The Supreme Court has held that states cannot deny marriage to persons who neglect to pay "child support."]
* Although the state did not argue that it bans same-sex marriage to promote religious freedom, the court soundly rejected arguments which claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage impairs the free exercise of religion:
Related Reading on Dissenting Justice: Utterly Empty Rhetoric: Some Conservatives Argue That the Iowa Supreme Court Engaged in "Judicial Activism"
This week, the Vermont House of Representatives joined the state Senate and passed a measure legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Jim Douglas, however, has threatened to veto the measure. The New Hampshire House of Representatives also recently passed a bill permitting same-sex marriage.
Presently, the Iowa Supreme Court's website is overrun with hits, which has made it virtually impossible to download the ruling. Stay tuned for more information on the specific content of the decision.
MAJOR UPDATE
Responding to the difficulty accessing the Iowa Supreme Court webpage, Politico.Com has posted the ruling.
Here are some highlights from the decision:
* The court held that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of "sexual orientation."
* The court applied "intermediate scrutiny" -- the second-highest standard the court could have used -- to determine whether the state had a justifiable reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage.
* The court rejected all of the state's asserted interests for denying same-sex marriage. These interests include: preserving the "tradition" of opposite-sex marriage, ensuring that children are raised in optimal settings, promoting procreation, protecting the stability of opposite-sex marriages, and preserving resources the state gives to married couples.
* With respect to the child-rearing argument, the court noted that state law does not deny marriage to "child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents." [Note: The Supreme Court has held that states cannot deny marriage to persons who neglect to pay "child support."]
* Although the state did not argue that it bans same-sex marriage to promote religious freedom, the court soundly rejected arguments which claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage impairs the free exercise of religion:
State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. . . .This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.I concur! Although I welcome arguments on the role of religion in government (I absolutely reject the idea, but I will entertain arguments), I refuse to debate the issue on factually inaccurate grounds. Many opponents of same-sex marriage argue that redefining marriage will force religious organizations to perform marriages that they morally oppose. As the Iowa Supreme Court finds, this is patently untrue.
As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. . . .
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.
Related Reading on Dissenting Justice: Utterly Empty Rhetoric: Some Conservatives Argue That the Iowa Supreme Court Engaged in "Judicial Activism"
Maple Syrup, Snow, and Same-Sex Marriage? Maybe. . . .
The Vermont House has joined the Senate and passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, whom I have argued qualifies for "Wimp of the Year," has threatened to veto the legislation. The House measure did not garner enough support to override a veto, should the governor follow through with his promise.
In some of his press statements, Douglas has invoked the name of President Obama (who also opposes same-sex marriage) and the urgency of the economy to defend his veto threat. The severity of the economy, however, has not prevented the governor from attending soirees for poster contest winners and attending sugar house tours.
In some of his press statements, Douglas has invoked the name of President Obama (who also opposes same-sex marriage) and the urgency of the economy to defend his veto threat. The severity of the economy, however, has not prevented the governor from attending soirees for poster contest winners and attending sugar house tours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)