(more…)

“By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed [the] party into the political arm of conservative Christians… The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party…

Republicans have allowed [their former] agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives… The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction.

Quick quiz. Does this quote come from:

1. a Christian minister who presided at Reagan’s funeral
2. a former GOP senator who supported Clarence Thomas during his hearings
3. a former Bush administration official

If you picked “all of the above”, you’re right. Rev. John Danforth, a former Senator from Missouri and Bush’s last ambassador to the U.N., has written a sharp critique of his party in the New York Times.

(via Salon’s War Room)

As a former Eagle Scout who’s since become a sharp critic of the organization, I can’t help but enjoy a little schadenfreude over this little mess.

(link via Kate W)

The Left Coaster: Federal Judge: “No injunction”

A surprisingly good ruling from the Federal Judge appointed to hear the Schiavo case’s most recent attempt to migrate away from the world of judicial precedent and common sense. Of course the case is now being appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, but this ruling gives me some hope that the whole ugly mess may wind down soon.

[...]

This Court concurs with Judge Lazzara’s previous decisionsholding that the Court has no jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that “a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” The Rooker-Feldman doctrine not only bars review of issues that were adjudicated by the state court, but it also prohibits federal courts from reviewing issues that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment.

Petitioners have previously litigated their claims in state court and now, in effect, seek a review of various state courts’ decisions involving Mrs. Schiavo. But this Court is not an appellate court for state courts’ decisions. Moreover, Petitioners cannot escape the fact that their claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the numerous state courts’ decisions involving Mrs. Schiavo. As Judge Altenbernd observed, “[n]ot only has Mrs. Schiavo’s case been given due process [in state court], but few, if any, similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.” The fact that Petitioners have exhausted their state court appellate options without success does not provide this Court with jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

[...]

I suppose it’s because I like to try and understand the philosophies behind good governance, or because I stayed awake too long reading John Adams’ biography, but I can’t help but look at this and feel like there are big precedents being jostled, here. Congress seems to think that by virtue of being elected, the legislative branch gets to decide everything, even if one of the other two branches has the audacity to disagree. Whatever happened to checks and balances, folks?

The NY Times reports that

…several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject – or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth – fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say – perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film’s bottom line – or a producer’s decision to make a documentary in the first place.

…only outlaws will have guns, and we’ll have to get medieval on your asses.

Expect to hear the gun nuts jumping on this story, ignoring that part about “the murder rate falling 10 percent in the year”.

Howard Kurtz files this fascinating report on the veracity of Fox News, as compared to its rivals:

In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists’ own views…

The project, a Washington-based research group, offers a three-part breakdown of cable journalists voicing their opinions. From 11 a.m. to noon, this happened on 52 percent of the stories on Fox, 50 percent on MSNBC and 2.3 percent on CNN. Among news-oriented evening shows, journalist opinions were voiced on 70 percent of the stories on Fox’s “Special Report with Brit Hume,” due in part to its regular analysts’ panel at the show’s end; 9 percent on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” and 9 percent on CNN’s “NewsNight with Aaron Brown.”

As for the most popular prime-time shows, nearly every story — 97 percent — contained opinion on Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor”; 24 percent on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”; and 0.9 percent on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” King devoted nearly half his time to entertainment and lifestyle topics, twice as much as O’Reilly and more than three times as much as Matthews.

The project describes cable news reporting as pretty thin compared to the ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts. Only a quarter of the cable stories examined contained two or more identifiable sources, compared with 49 percent of network evening news stories and 81 percent of newspaper front-page stories.

(via Salon’s War Room)

No commentary necessary.

The University of Maryland conducted a poll where they let people re-arrange the federal budget to fit what they saw as priorities. The result? Sure, Republicans allocated more to defense than Democrats; Democrats spent more on education, and so on. But the Republicans still put in massive cuts to defense, and increased education, job training, medical research, veterans’ benefits, renewable energy, and the UN.

That’s right – the ostensibly conserative electorate swung massively towards the Democratic platform, creating an average budget nowhere near the Bush camp’s.

See a summary of this poll at Gadflyer.

The Daily Show gives the inside tip on how to set up a political blog.

As if anyone reads those pieces of crap.

Let’s hope he at least gets this one right.

As the Senate considers “the nuclear option” – casting aside the right to filibuster, in order to cram through contentious, right-wing Bush appointees to the Supreme Court – Sen. Byrd (D-WV) gave an an inspired, impassioned defense of the role of the filibuster and the minority.

For the temporary gain of a hand-full of “out of the mainstream” judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each Senator’s right of extended debate. Note that I said each Senator. For the damage will devastate not just the minority party. It will cripple the ability of each member to do what each was sent here to do – – represent the people of his or her state. Without the filibuster or the threat of extended debate, there exists no leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force to effect compromise between the two political parties is lost. Demands for hearings can languish. The President can simply rule, almost by Executive Order if his party controls both houses of Congress, and Majority Rule reins supreme. In such a world, the Minority is crushed; the power of dissenting views diminished; and freedom of speech attenuated. The uniquely American concept of the independent individual, asserting his or her own views, proclaiming personal dignity through the courage of free speech will, forever, have been blighted. And the American spirit, that stubborn, feisty, contrarian, and glorious urge to loudly disagree, and proclaim, despite all opposition, what is honest and true, will be sorely manacled.

Yes, we believe in Majority rule, but we thrive because the minority can challenge, agitate, and question.

The Supreme Court nixed the death penalty for juveniles. (And good for them.) Salon’s War Room calls attention to part of the ruling, though: Justice Kennedy’s take.

We focus a lot on the “cruel” in “cruel and unusual punishment”. Kennedy, however, voted against capital punishment because it’s unusual – that is, no other respectable country does it.

“There is substantial demonstration that the world is against us, at least among the leaders of the European Union,” Kennedy said in court that day. “Does that have a bearing on whether this is unusual?”

With today’s decision, he answered that question in the affirmative. “Our determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty,” Kennedy wrote. Kennedy noted that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. And, Kennedy said, each member of this rogue’s gallery has either “abolished capital punishment or made public disavowal of the practice.”

While admitting that international opinion is not “controlling” on U.S. constitutional interpretation, Kennedy said it was “proper” to acknowledge the views of the international community. Along the way, he cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document ratified by every country in the world except Somalia . . . and the United States.

Now, I’m fully agreement with Kennedy here. Of the industrialized world, our human rights record is atrocious, and our continued use of capital punishment is a big part of that. (Consider that the EU doesn’t even consider a country for admission if it uses corporal punishment.) But Salon’s also right that this is going to send the conservatives into fits, as they scream about national sovereignty.