Month: June 2013

Plus ca change and all that crap: Village media edition

by digby

I was doing some research on another subject and came across this piece from a few years back. It’s not getting any better:

Saturday, June 30, 2007

 
Week-end follow-up
by digby

[S]ome of you will remember that last week I … wrote about Ken Silverstein’s undercover investigation of lobbyists. Today he has responded to the astonishing criticism he’s received at the hands of the media elite for his ethics. (I know… they are just shameless.) He writes in today’s LA Times:

Now, in a fabulous bit of irony, my article about the unethical behavior of lobbying firms has become, for some in the media, a story about my ethics in reporting the story. The lobbyists have attacked the story and me personally, saying that it was unethical of me to misrepresent myself when I went to speak to them.

That kind of reaction is to be expected from the lobbyists exposed in my article. But what I found more disappointing is that their concerns were then mirrored by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists’ ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism.

“No matter how good the story,” he wrote, “lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects.”

I can’t say I was utterly surprised by Kurtz’s criticism. Some major media organizations allow, in principle, undercover journalism — assuming the story in question is deemed vital to the public interest and could not have been obtained through more conventional means — but very few practice it anymore. And that’s unfortunate, because there’s a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women’s Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell’s Island in New York City.

In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and “60 Minutes” gained fame for its use of sting stories.

Today, however, it’s almost impossible to imagine a mainstream media outlet undertaking a major undercover investigation. That’s partly a result of the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.

The decline of undercover reporting — and of investigative reporting in general — also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they’ve become part of the very power structure that they’re supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.

Chuck Lewis, a former “60 Minutes” producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: “The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable.”

And like the good boot sniffing courtiers to power they are, they immediately call for the smelling salts when an enterprising reporter actually gets a real story about how their little world operates. Do they have any self-awareness at all?

Silverstein’s story was a real expose of one of the filthiest, unpatriotic practices in American politics. It showed a side of the lobbying industry that should make everyone in Washington who participates (and plenty do, on both sides of the aisle) hang their heads in shame. That the biggest criticism coming from the political establishment is toward the reporter goes a very long way toward explaining why 77% of the population feels this country is on the wrong track. It is. And this is why. 

Like I said, it’s not getting any better ….

.

Chris Hayes’ righteous rant against killing the VRA

by digby

It’s a good one:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gummint all up in our business

by digby

Show us whatcha got lady:

A 37-year-old Georgia woman says that she was humiliated when the state told her she would need to have her vagina probed to prove she was a woman before she could renew her driver’s license.

Nakia Grimes told WAGA that she never had a reason to notice that her birth certificate had incorrectly listed her gender as male. But because of new rules at the Georgia Department of Driver Services, Grimes was required to go to Vital Records Services to obtain a copy of her birth certificate before she could renew her driver’s license.

That’s when the mother noticed that the document listed her as a male.

“When I went to retrieve my birth certificate, I let her know the sex status is wrong,” Grimes recalled. “I’m a woman, was born a woman.”

A state worker told Grimes that she would have to prove that she was a woman to get the document corrected.

“She said I needed to go have a Pap exam, have a doctor write a note verifying you’re a woman, and bring it back-– notarized,” Grimes said.

Luckily in the end a slightly more creative mind took over and realized they could prove she was a woman by accessing her son’s birth records. But pity the poor childless woman — or any man — who runs into a problem such as this.

And anyway, why should it matter to the state which sex you are? In these days of authorities being allowed to take DNA for any serious arrest it hardly seems necessary for identification purposes. Certainly, it isn’t necessary to know this if a police officer pulls you over for a traffic violation.

But let’s assume it is necessary for some reason I’m not seeing. What kind of an idiot thinks it’s ok to demand a pap smear to prove you are a women? That’s a cancer screening procedure, fergawdsakes.

Anyway, they can just call in the TSA to do a pat down. The last time I traveled, I got one so intimate there could be absolutely no doubt to the agent what sex I am. In fact, I’ve had sexual encounters that were less intimate. These days the government is all up our business.

.

ICYMI:  We won one!

by digby

Congratulations Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts! We’ve got another progressive in the Senate!

And we have a chance to keep his former House seat progressive too. Here’s what Blue America sent out last night:

Elect Carl Sciortino To Keep Ed Markey’s Congressional Seat Progressive

Only weak minded and self-deluded Republicans were surprised by Ed Markey’s healthy win today in the Massachusetts special election to fill John Kerry’s old Senate seat. Markey has been the foremost champion of climate change amelioration of any elected official in the entire federal government. And the Republicans put up some wealthy, crooked, right wing businessman to oppose him. That’s why he ran away with a 9 point lead this evening… despite the last minute flood of money from rich rightists and hatemongers from around the country.

As Markey’s colleague in the House, Alan Grayson, put it last weeked, “Who cares about climate change? Ed Markey does… When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives after the 2010 election, they shut down Ed Markey’s Committee. But Ed Markey remains the leading environmentalist in the U.S. House of Representatives. Who speaks for the trees? Ed Markey does.”

We may be celebrating today, but no one thinks Markey’s win yesterday means it’s time to relax. In fact, the very next thing we need to do is fill Markey’s own now empty House seat. It’s a deep blue district and a Democrat will certainly win there. Last year Markey was reelected with a stunning 77% of the votes! There are 24 counties in the district and Markey won every one of them. His “weakest” performance was a healthy 58% win in Southborough.

There are a number of Democrats running for the seat, even progressives, but only one, state Rep. Carl Sciortino, is of a leadership caliber worthy of Ed Markey and the kind of people who elected Ed Markey. Grayson is meeting with him today in Washington to give him some advice about how to win his race.

And Blue America endorsed him a couple of months ago.

“Ed Markey’s win today,” Carl just told us, “is not just a victory for the people of Massachusetts, but a victory for the progressive movement. As Americans, we are fortunate to have his voice in the Senate– but it comes at the cost of losing a true progressive leader in the House. There are real differences in the race to replace Senator-Elect Markey and we, as a movement, need to come together and make sure his legacy as a progressive leader in the House continues.”

Amen! And there’s no one running quite like Carl, one of the organizers of the Massachusetts legislature’s progressive caucus and the guy willing to take on the toughest jobs most others would just as soon punt on.

He reminded me that “in 2004, I was told by my Democratic state representative that ‘we’ve done enough for ‘you people,’ when I asked him why he wouldn’t support marriage equality. Then and there, I decided to run against him in the Democratic primary– and I beat him by 93 votes. When I got to the Massachusetts House, I was told by liberal members that the state wasn’t yet ready for a Transgender Equal Rights bill, but I filed the bill, organized a coalition, and now Massachusetts has protections for its transgender citizens. When the Democratic leadership decided to slash the retirement funds public sector employees had been promised when they signed up for their jobs, I stood up to the Democratic leadership and fought and voted for middle class workers.”

Yes, so maybe you can see why Blue America– and why House progressives– are so enthusiastic about Carl taking over Markey’s seat. I just got off the phone with him and I hope I wrote this down correctly:

“In Washington, there’s no question we need more strong progressives– not just working on issues of civil rights, but on issues of economic justice. Never in American history has the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us been so great. Families are working hard, but only just able to afford the bare necessities. I will sign onto the bill to raise the minimum wage and index it to the cost of inflation. I will join the fight to close corporate tax loopholes at the federal level, just as I did in Massachusetts. And as a citizen signer of the Grayson-Takano letter, I will fight to protect Social Security, as well as fight to keep protections for those living in poverty that are so often left out of the public debate. 

Please help me keep Ed Markey’s seat progressive by supporting my campaign.”

We need to keep these seats as blue as possible.  It’s not enough to have them held by a Democrat — that’s a given.  They must be held by real progressives.

Slowly but surely, folks, we are building some power within the congress. It’s not everything, but it’s a necessary component of progressive change.

More here from Howie about Carl Sciortino. 

.

I wish I owned a catering business …

by digby

It looks like good news from the Supreme Court for our gay brothers and sisters today. Congratulations! I’ll leave it to the legal beagles to sort out the particulars and I’ll come back to that later. From what I’m gathering, it may be a bit more complicated than it appears at first blush.

Meanwhile, here’s a first take from Scotusblog on the Prop 8 case:

Here’s a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

It looks like people should get ready for some California weddings. Huzzah.

And it also looks as though the federal government will now confer federal benefits on same sex-spouses. Double huzzah.

Despite all the nonsensical, one step-forward two steps back nature of human progress, it does progress.

.

A tremendous speech from the President on climate change

by David Atkins

By the time you read this, news from the Supreme Court on DOMA and other issues will likely have stolen the headlines. But President Obama delivered a gripping, almost radical speech on climate change yesterday. It’s worth watching in full:

The text of the speech is too long to repost here, but it’s worth reading in full. Here’s a small excerpt from the end:

But I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. (Cheers, applause.) Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm. And ultimately, we will be judged as a people and as a society and as a country on where we go from here.

Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers. That’s what the American people expect. That’s what they deserve. And someday our children and our children’s children will look at us in the eye and they’ll ask us, did we do all that we could, when we had the chance, to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world? And I want to be able to say, yes, we did. Don’t you want that?

Americans are not a people who look backwards. We’re a people who look forward. We’re not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it.

What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up and speak up and compel us to do what this moment demands. Understand, this is not just a job for politicians. So I’m going to need all of you, to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends.

Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings. Push back on misinformation. Speak up for the facts. Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future. (Applause.)

Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. (Applause.) Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. (Applause.) Invest. Divest. Remind folks there’s no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth.

And remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote! Make yourself heard on this issue. (Cheers, applause.)

I understand the politics will be tough. The challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory. There’s no gathering army to defeat. There’s no peace treaty to sign. When President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew that we’d build a space ship and we’d meet the goal.

Our progress here will be measured differently, in crises averted, in a planet preserved. But can we imagine a more worthy goal? For while we may not live to sea the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be — be better off for what we did.

It makes you realize, that astronaut said all those years ago, just what you have back there on Earth.

And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface containing everything we hold dear, the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity, that’s what’s at stake. That’s what we’re fighting for. And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we’ll succeed.

If that all just sounds like pretty words, consider that Chris Hayes is more than a little impressed:

"Invest, divest" is the most crypto-radical line the President has ever uttered.— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 25, 2013

Why? Because to talk about divestment from fossil fuel is to put the moral imperative behind climate change on a par with the moral imperative to end apartheid in South Africa, the most famous example of a successful divestiture movement. That’s why the Ventura County Democratic Party of which I’m Chair and CDP Environmental Caucus Chair RL Miller is Secretary, became the first county Democratic party in the nation to vote for a resolution calling for divestiture from fossil fuels. It’s a strong moral action that also puts a hit in their pocketbooks.

Of course, it remains to be seen just what executive actions the President will take on climate. The President has often given great speeches, only to be followed by weak action. But if the Executive’s actions match the moral imperative expressed in this speech, there’s much to be hopeful for.

.

The Texas abortion bill has FAILED, thanks to American hero Wendy Davis

by David Atkins

In one of the boldest moves in the history of American legislative politics, Democrat Wendy Davis filibustered for 13 hours in the Texas Senate against the viciously misogynistic SB5, designed to essentially eliminate abortion in the Lone Star state.

As of this writing at 1:30am Pacific Time, no traditional news outlet appears to have a correct, final version of the story. CNN is questioning whether the bill passed, USA Today is still reporting that the bill had passed, even though current indications are to the contrary. The New York Times is also reporting that the bill appeared to have passed. Ironically, of the major news sources only Fox News appears to have the story right that the bill failed. As of now, the best recounting of events in Texas tonight comes from DailyKos diarist Karen from Maui, who writes:

Less than two hours before midnight and the end of her 13+ hour filibuster to prevent the passage of SB5 in Texas, Republicans made the 3rd procedural challenge to Senator Wendy Davis’ 13+ hour filibuster.

Sen Davis had to stand (not lean) without any breaks (even bathroom breaks) in order to maintain her filibuster against the draconian anti-abortion bill in the Texas Senate (SB5).

However rules say that what she said had to be “germane”. And if she was found straying from the subject 3 times, they could shut her down.

Here’s the catch: The majority Republicans favoring the bill also voted on what was germane. So when she talked about this bill being yet another hoop that women had to jump through like the previous bill requiring ultrasounds, Republicans claimed that was “not germane” and moved to shut her down.

So the Democrats, running out the clock, launched procedural question after question. The Chair clearly manipulated the rules to let a motion to close discussion in when a Democrat still had the floor.

So at 11:49pm, the Democrats lost their ability to run out the clock.

Senator Judith Zaffirini rose and asked:

“At what point must a female senator raise her hand to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room?”

Here is a video of that riveting incident:

Karen from Maui continues:

Huge whoops, catcalls, applause, cheers erupted from the gallery. In fact 11 straight minutes of shouts, screams, cat calls prevented the chair from continuing on the vote as to whether the mention of ultrasound was germane.

Nonetheless he gathered the senators together and they appeared to vote to end the filibuster.

Still the crowd shouted and yelled and none of the senators could be heard.

The clock ran down. MIDNIGHT. The crowd, unbelievably, became even louder with sustained cheers having successfully prevented SB5 from passing.

Not so fast! At 12:02, in a huddle, the Senate supposedly passed the anti-abortion bill.

Reports (and images) show that the vote was taken after midnight but then changed to be prior to midnight.

What happened afterward? The Texas Tribune reports:

Liveblog
3:13 a.m. by Brandi Grissom
Without recognizing Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, for a motion to adjourn Sine Die, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst stepped down from the dais after ruling that time had expired on SB 5, telling the senators, “It’s been fun, but, um, see ya soon.”
He then told reporters that “An unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics” derailed legislation that was designed to protect women and babies.
He said he was “very frustrated.”
“I didn’t lose control of what we were doing,” he told reporters. “We had an unruly mob.”
2:53 a.m. by Brandi Grissom
Emerging from a Senate caucus meeting, state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said the legislators decided that the after midnight vote on SB 5 was invalid.
“There was not a valid vote,” he said.
Now, the senators are coming back into the Senate chamber, where we expect a formal ruling on the final disposition of the bill.

It’s fascinating that Texas Republicans first tried to cheat by changing the date and timestamp of the bill. When they realized that wouldn’t work due to the damning video evidence and the fact that over a hundred thousand people were watching, they were forced to admit the bill did not pass.

Where do we go from here? Well, it seems clear that eventually Texas Republicans will be able to pass the bill. But what Wendy Davis’ filibuster accomplished in the long term was put Republicans on notice about the depth of anger and public sentiment about their attempts to control women’s bodies. It will also direct attention to the misogyny of the conservative power base.

And for at least a little while longer, abortion will remain legal and accessible in Texas–all because one woman had the courage and fortitude to stand and do the right thing.

Update: The Texas Tribune has an updated story before the rest of the major traditional media outlets:

The nation watched on Tuesday — and into Wednesday — as Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis and hundreds of impassioned reproductive rights advocates stalled proceedings and ultimately defeated controversial abortion legislation in a storm of screams and shouts as the clock struck midnight.

“I am overwhelmed, honestly,” Davis said after standing for nearly 13 hours to filibuster Senate Bill 5, the abortion legislation. The outpouring of support from protesters at the Capitol and across the nation, she said, “shows the determination and spirit of Texas women and people who care about Texas women.”

Some have called the abortion restrictions proposed in SB 5 the toughest in the nation. The bill would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of an abortion facility, required abortions — even drug-induced ones — to be performed in ambulatory surgical centers and required doctors to administer drugs that induce abortion in person.

Republican senators made a last-ditch effort to approve SB 5, voting 19-10, but by then the clock had ticked past midnight. Under the terms of the state Constitution, the special session had ended, and the bill could not be signed, enrolled or sent to the governor.

That fact was not immediately clear, and confusion abounded on the Senate floor. Republicans claimed the bill had passed while Democrats said it had not.

Stunning.

.

What kind of traitor would claim the NSA is misleading the American people? How about 2 US Senators?

by digby

Maybe you think Senator Mark Udall is a Russian/Chinese/somekindacommie spy who should be locked up as a traitor. But if you don’t, if you think he might be someone who has a legitimate concern for Americans’ civil liberties and a belief that the government has a responsibility to seek the consent of the governed, perhaps this is something you might find compelling:

Sen. Mark Udall on Monday accused the National Security Agency of providing false information in a fact sheet about its spying programs, and in a letter to NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander, Udall said the agency is portraying stronger privacy protections for Americans than actually exist.

Udall and Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden contend the NSA’s fact sheet on the so-called 702 program, which gives the government authority to collect foreigners’ phone and Internet communications, has “significant” inaccuracies, according to the letter obtained by The Denver Post.

The fact sheet details the government’s interpretation of Section 702 of the Patriot Act, was distributed to all members of Congress and is up on NSA’s website.

The NSA’s publication maintains the government may not target any Americans anywhere in the world under this law, that there must be a “valid, documented” foreign intelligence purpose for the government to use this authority and that the government must minimize the acquisition of information that isn’t relevant to intelligence investigations.

Udall said he could not elaborate on what part of the two-page fact sheet is inaccurate because it would divulge classified information.

“In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans’ privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are,” the two senators wrote. “We urge you to correct this statement as soon as possible.”

The NSA did not immediately respond to The Denver Post for comment on the letter to Alexander.

“When the NSA makes inaccurate statements about government surveillance and fails to correct the public record, it can decrease public confidence in the NSA’s openness,” Udall and Wyden wrote in the letter. “Rebuilding this confidence will require a willingness to correct misstatements and a willingness to make reforms where appropriate.”

I’d like to know to what they are talking about.  But that’s just me.

On the other hand, they could just be treasonous America haters whose concerns we should vilify and dismiss based purely on their obviously narcissistic personalities. YMMV, I guess.

*If you’re curious at all what the commies Wyden and Udall are talking about, Emptywheel has some informed speculation, here.
.

I’m so glad racism is dead

by digby

This is from the editorial board of The Daily Oklahoman:

Oklahoma’s history undeniably includes shameful treatment of minorities, particularly during the first decades of statehood under Democratic Party rule. But those acts are now history, in every sense of the word.

Today, the state is led by a female governor. The House speaker is black and has American Indian heritage. The chief justice of the state Supreme Court is black. Oklahoma’s economic growth is creating opportunity for all. Yet some insist that Oklahoma remains subtly hostile to minorities.

An issue brief by the Oklahoma Policy Institute declares Oklahomans have “inherited a legacy of discrimination that historically impeded economic opportunity for people of color and created a wealth deficit that persists today.”

The report notes blacks have lower income and savings than white Oklahomans. The group cites data showing blacks have higher rates for smoking, obesity, cancer, heart-disease mortality, incarceration and unemployment than whites, while having lower levels of educational achievement.

This isn’t proof of discrimination. Instead, the data largely demonstrates the impact of personal choices. State policies don’t force people to drop out of school, smoke or become obese. Cancer rates and heart problems often spring from tobacco use and the failure to exercise, not from societal discrimination.

The brief declares, “Hiring discrimination against ex-offenders is well-documented and widespread.” Again, no one forces an individual to commit a crime; business owners aren’t eager to hire ex-cons of any color.

OK Policy proposes increasing the number of doctors, offering state matching funds for college savings accounts, emphasizing substance abuse treatment and prevention over incarceration, providing state incentives to hire unemployed workers, and job training. We support corrections reform and agree that Oklahoma needs more doctors. But these reforms would benefit Oklahomans of all races.

The problems OK Policy notes are real. But they’re often the result of personal choices, not racism. And they’re not limited to the black community.

See? It’s all about choices. If you’re dumb enough to choose parents of color, you’re going to have to take responsibility for that.

I am going to assume that readers of this blog understand that systemic racial discrimination is a factor in any number of social problems. The data is quite conclusive.

But just in case, I’ll pick up on just one little piece of evidence:

THE NUMBERS:

With only 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. has 25% of the world’s prison population – that makes us the world’s largest jailer.

Since 1970, our prison population has risen 700%.

One in 99 adults are living behind bars in the U.S. This marks the highest rate of imprisonment in American history.

One in 31 adults are under some form of correctional control, counting prison, jail, parole and probation populations.

I suppose one might think that all that is just an accurate reflection of a bunch of “choices” made by people of color and that there’s nothing remotely interesting about the fact that a country with a centuries long history of slavery and then apartheid would be incarcerating massive numbers of them.

Or this:

Sixth Circuit Judges Gilbert Merritt and Boyce Martin write:

The old 100-to-1 crack cocaine ratio has led to the mass incarceration of thousands of nonviolent prisoners under a law widely acknowledged as racially discriminatory. There were approximately 30,000 federal prisoners (about 15 percent of all federal prisoners) serving crack cocaine sentences in 2011. Thousands of these prisoners are incarcerated for life or for 20, 10, or 5 years under mandatory minimum crack cocaine sentences imposed prior to the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act. More than 80 percent of federal prisoners serving crack cocaine sentences are black. In fiscal year 2010, before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, almost 4,000 defendants, mainly black, received mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine. […]

The Fair Sentencing Act was a step forward, but it did not finish the job. The racial discrimination continues by virtue of a web of statutes, sentencing guidelines, and court cases that maintain the harsh provisions for those defendants sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act. If we continue now with a construction of the statute that perpetuates the discrimination, there is no longer any defense that the discrimination is unintentional. The discriminatory nature of the old sentencing regime is so obvious that it cannot seriously be argued that race does not play a role in the failure to retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act. A “disparate impact” case now becomes an intentional subjugation or discriminatory purpose case. Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory sentences is a denial of equal protection.

The two-judge majority opinion also suggests the court would be inclined to strike down other deeply discriminatory and draconian sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenders, which even the Congressional Research Service has flagged as a cause of the United States’ overwhelming prison population. 

It’s a good thing that racism is dead or I might think there was some racial component to all that.

.

Texas AG Greg Abbot is first to the post in hoping to gleefully restrict voting rights after VRA strikedown

by David Atkins

With Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act undone by the 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wasted no time in going to Twitter to rub his hands together in anticipation of the disenfrachisement he’ll be able to pursue:

Texas #VoterID law should go into effect immediately b/c #SCOTUS struck down section 4 of VRA today. #txlege #tcot #txgop— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) June 25, 2013

Two things stand out here:

1) As bad as this is, the silver lining is that these people are running scared. For all the doubts on our side about whether demography really is destiny or not, the other side is fairly panicked. Given the choice between moderating their positions or desperately attempting to narrow and whitewash the electorate, they’ve openly chosen door number two. That choice might advantage for a cycle or two. Scuttling VRA to implement a restrictive Voter ID might or might not delay the inevitable red-to-blue shift of Texas at the presidential level for an additional four years. But it does guarantee the additional enmity and hatred of minority voters and whites who care about social justice–something that GOP elites in Washington have been trying to pull back from after their wake up call in 2012. It’s a pennywise, pound-foolish move that will ultimately hurt them more than it helps.

2) Let no one ever say again that politics is a fool’s errand, or that it matters not whether a Democrat or a Republican takes office. By removing the specific protections of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the only protection against massive predations against minority voters by “states’ rights enthusiasts” will be a Department of Justice willing to prosecute and defend the general protections of Section 5. In that context, the political tendencies of the Executive Branch becomes that much more important.

And, of course, the presence of yet another bare 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court only highlights just how partisan the Court has become, and how much difference it will make to have even just one more appointment when it comes due.

.