Like George H.W. Bush (41), John McCain is distrusted by the religious right. What does that mean?  Not what a gay friend just told me--that a President McCain will not advance the agenda of so-called "Christians" who are obsessed with homosexuals and abortion.

In the past, Senator McCain had been open-minded about gay rights and even abortion.  (Somewhere out there, McCain is on video about how if his daughter got pregnant, it would be a "family decision" about what to do.  And he praised one of the heroes of 9-11-01, a gay man who helped on Filght 93.)

That was McCain eight years ago, when he should have switched parties after being trashed by Bush in South Carolina.

Now, like Bush 41, a President McCain, even if he is not planning on running for re-election, will be under immense pressure to appoint judges like Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.  Activist judges with agendas.

These include overruling Roe v. Wade and implicitly, Lawrence v. Texas, both decisions based on a right to privacy that so-called "conservatives" claim is not in the Constitution--so it does not exist.  So abortion rights and gay rights are on the ballot this year because it's likely that at least three Supreme Court justices will retire in the next four years.

I'm writing today to suggest a brand new proposal consistent with the values of the Bush administration and the constructionist attitude of the Scalia wing of the United States Supreme Court. The Third Amendment says no soldier shall be mandated to be quartered in any house. This does not prohibit the quartering of soldiers in make-shift tents on the home-owner's property.

With this bold new step, the President will be able to cut back on the deficit and maintenance costs of military prisons for enemy combatants and free up valuable National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency funding dollars. Instead of these terrorists being sent to expensive offshore facilities, the military can instead be sent to them.

As a lifelong Dem and former Resident of DE for 13 years, I have followed Biden's career with some interest.  There is an intimate detail that comes from living in a small state, seeing your senators on a regular basis, knowing their home phone numbers, and knowing the political forces which shape their views.   Real Democrats should be alarmed by his selection.

The Supreme Court is in need of reform because for controversial cases, most of the Justices' votes are predictable, giving Justice Kennedy the enviable position once held by Justice O'Connor of being the only one who counts.  This is a result of a concerted effort of the conservative right to promote its views in the legal community, particularly with the Federalist Society, which brings forward idealogical judges.  The tirades against "activist" judges have had an effect.  You may have noticed that during the Faith Forum last week, John McCain named Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens as those he would not have appointed.  It is a travesty of justice that judges decisions can be predicted and rated as they are.  There have been suggestions of increasing the number of Justices, but this has been in an attempt to neutralize the Justices one disagrees with.  But I have another proposal.

Going back to Rick Warren's presidential forum earlier, this week, I think it's important to point out this little bit of anti-gay dog-whistling going on:

Neither candidate shied away from a question about which current Supreme Court justice they would not have nominated.

Obama's reply: Clarence Thomas.

"I don't think he was a strong enough jurist or a legal thinker at the time for that. I profoundly disagree with his interpretation" of the Constitution, he said.

McCain said he would have never nominated Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

"This nomination should be based on the criteria on a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the bench," McCain added.

Those are the exact people sitting on the bench, minus Kennedy, who voted in favor of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that banned sodomy laws. He pretty much said that he wants to recriminalize homosexuality.

Equal Pay for Equal Work!

It should be a right.
It should be a given.

(It was guaranteed by the equal pay law under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

However, apparently much of Congress has failed to get the Memo,
(They did get the "nod and a wink" from the "corporate wing" of Supreme Court, however ...)

Time for an update on McCain's growing problem as a serial exaggerator and liar, a facet of this campaign that has gone almost uncovered by the traditional media.  Today, just a half-hour ago, we had the very first major media mention of his
"cross in the sand" story being potentially copied from a story attributed to Alexander Solzhenitstyn.  Jack Cafferty read a letter on the air mentioning this (transcript and/or YouTube).  Cafferty didn't editorialize about it but just read the allegation from one of his emailers.  The rest of the program continued as if this wasn't uttered by anyone, but it's starting to get out there.  A religion blogger for the Dallas Morning News brought it up but tried to dismiss it:

Remember Big Oil -- and who's looking out for you!

They know where their Profits are coming from:

US News & World Report astutely notes:

Exxon nation. If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly 2/3 of the 183 nations in the World Bank's economic rankings.

Who is this Robert Bork that John McCain, in his infinite wisdom, spoke so highly of in his support during his (Bork’s) 1987 senate confirmation hearings?  Many of you that are voting for the first time may not have heard of him or his brand of judicial extremism.  The fact that John McCain would associate with, and even endorse wingnuts of this caliber, highlights just what is at stake in the November election.  Supreme Court justices and Federal judges are lifetime appointments.  While it is unlikely that a Robert Bork-type judge would survive Senate confirmation, we should take nothing for granted.

and goddammit, the rest of my fucking gay-ass life with rightwing SCOTUS is too much to bear.

McCain is defining McCain and McCain is defining Obama.  Obama is neither defining himself nor McCain.  WTF???  

I know McCain.  I used to live in Arizona.  I was (and i am ashamed ashamed ashamed) to admit it, but I was involved with the AZ GOP party in the early to mid-nineties.  I know McCain, he will sell his wife to get the presidency.  

 Don't get me wrong. I love may aspects of politics. The ecstasy of a victory after a long, hard fought race. The exultation when finally a significant achievement is reached. It is, after all, the thought that in my lifetime I may yet see a moment like Brown vs. The Board of education, the Civil Rights legislation of the mid 1960s or the great social programs created during the New Deal. It just seems that there are always so many roadblocks in our path. The failure of the Health Care initiatives in the 1990s still pains me today. With that being said I have made a list of 10 things that I have come to hate about politics.

       Right-wing legal scholars love to quote Justice Robert Jackson’s famous maxim that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." The adage has been cited to support numerous provisions that restrict civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism and social disorder.
Now the right-wing’s guru, Justice Antonin Scalia, has come along to announce that the Constitution really is a suicide pact!
In his majority opinion for the Supreme Court in the recent gun-control case, Scalia announced that a major purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide opportunity for the people to store arms in order to be able to overthrow an oppressive government.  

This is really good to see.

Alaska’s U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Ted Stevens and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has been a toss-up for several months now, but the Democratic challenger is now ahead 50% to 41%. When “leaners” are included, Begich leads 52% to 44%.

Begich began running his first television ads of the campaign on July 8 and the survey was conducted nine days later.

Solving the crisis in education is completely possible, and we can't afford to ignore the state of our schools any longer.

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear.  Enemies are everywhere.  Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes.  They talk to us on our telephones.  Some sashay in through our computers.  "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States.  Our open society places the public at risk.  We, the people, must defend ourselves.  Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means.  The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms.  Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for.  In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation.  In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy.  Hello to arms."

Civil liberties narrowly survived the recent term of the Supreme Court, but libertarians should be concerned about the way they shook out. In 5-4 decisions in June, the high court affirmed the rights to habeas corpus in the courts and keeping shooting irons at home. But the only common vote in those decisions was Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Yesterday will not be remembered as a day of pride for the government of the United States. Whatever the intentions of passing FISA in its new form, the deed itself was regrettable, to say the least.

DailyKos registers a wide range of impressions on the left. Reactions ranged from minimization to resignation to indignation. There have been repeated attacks on Barack Obama and other 'party leaders' for not throwing themselves on top of the grenade in an attempt to stop legislation that too many others were dead set to pass. It appears that stepsare under way to have the new law challenged on grounds of constitutionality. So a lot of the commentary has dealt with the need to either rescue the Constitution of the United States, or conversely, to have the Constitution rescue us.

I regret having to tell you that neither of those will work, for as much as I hate to break it to you, and would rather not, in fact the original Constitution is regrettably already defunct. It is already regarded as mere literature by those with the power, and has been for some time.

If you do not believe me, or if you would like to discuss, please read on.

Just recieved an email from the ACLU saying they will be suing as soon as Bush signs this bill..