Red State Renegade

May 18, 2008

California Supreme Court upholds civil rights, declares gay marriage legal!

Filed under: Courts, marriage @ 1:01 am

bride.jpg

San Francisco partied and celebrated as the California Supreme court bitch slapped the ‘family-values’ crowd:

“The constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.”

“…Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

Important stuff to say the least.

20 years from now, civilized people will look back on these times and say ‘What the Fuck?’…But more importantly, they will look at this the way civilized people look back on the struggle for equal rights for black people now - hiring practices, voting, restaurant seating, Rosa parks on the bus, etc. - even the ability to play professional sports.

And we as a people (or maybe just our children) will wonder how we could have been so fucked up…

Modern day genius The Rude Pundit summed up the ruling in so many less words:

“In other words, this is family values in the real world, not in some backwards ass context where, oodles of evidence to the contrary, only straight couples can somehow raise kids who don’t want to, say, shoot up schools or rape dogs or whatever shit taint-licking fundamentalists believe.

“…Or, in the real world, stop being such assholes. A cocksucker marrying another cocksucker ain’t gonna stop your wife from sucking your cock. And if your daughters want to suck cock, gay marriage won’t halt them and they can even marry the guy attached to the sucked cock. And if your sons want to suck cock, well, now, in California, they can even marry the guy attached to the sucked cock. Everyone wins.”

February 15, 2008

A friend comments on the recent Guantanomo charges

Filed under: War on Terror, Courts, Torture, Guantanamo @ 4:03 pm

Well said!:

The “Justice” Department has announced that the US will try in a military “courtroom” the 6 Al Qaida 9/11 conspirators currently in custody at Guantanamo. These suspects have been incarcerated for some 6 years, but will now be tried under rules that will allow the admission of hearsay as evidence, and sentenced by a panel of military personnel who have no judicial or other legal experience, and certainly will not be a jury of their peers.

None of this is really a surprise, but the timing is inherently suspect.

Here’s the point: the military (and by extension, the Commander in Chief) now control the pace and potential impact of the event. Here are the possibilities:

1. The proceedings could drag on into November, keeping the 9/11 reminder in the forefront and fanning the flames of fear and fanaticism to boost the Republican candidate.

2. The proceedings could end with a guilty verdict prior to November, with the sentence of death imposed right around election time, serving the purpose of illustrating how the Republicans “keep us safe”. (I could see them televising the execution on Halloween.)

The sad news is that in seeking and imposing the death penalty this administration will only further alienate both our friends and enemies, as many of our allies are opposed to the death penalty on principle, and the enemies we are attempting to punish will be view as martyrs, ultimately providing the fuel for another attack on US soil down the road

UPDATE:
Other details on the military kangaroo-court trials:

– Detainees cannot have lawyers present
– The Pentagon decides on what evidence is presented
– Unlike normal criminal trials, the government is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent

And the latest:

Yesterday, The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, saying that such scrutiny jeopardizes national security.

WOW!

August 27, 2007

FINALLY, Gonzo is GONE!

Filed under: Courts, Gonzales @ 11:37 pm

Just when you thought he would never leave, Gonzales suddenly quits!

I think there’s a very good reason for his sudden departure, and my guess is someday we will know it. Till then it’s anyone’s guess…

For now though, our Justice Department has been left an absolute mess (perhaps that’s best for Bush, Rove, and Cheney). Besides having no Attorney General, there’s also no deputy attorney general, no No. 3, and no head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

And the administration will be in no rush to replace Gonzales. After all, any replacement will end up getting absolutely grilled for weeks in confirmation hearings. Think of the dirty laundry that might come up (particularly from within the Justice department, now that Gonzo’s not there to squelch it).

Let’s just hope the lame-ass congress can redeem itself, when that time comes, by not bending over and allowing yet another corrupt Bush crony to step right in.

Right now, it can only get better…

July 13, 2007

Juicy Freudian Slip?

Filed under: Courts, Gonzales @ 12:37 am

nf6_sara-taylor.jpg

Yesterday, Sara Taylor was the latest Bush lackey/DOJ Hot Babe to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the attorney scandal, claiming a rather questionable application of the concept of executive privilege.

According to her, Bush had ordered her to invoke ‘executive privilege’ and speak nothing of the U.S. attorneys, the deliberations about the U.S. attorneys, White House involvement in such deliberations, the external or internal conversations about the U.S. attorneys, blah blah blah.

The end result was that she frustrated lawmakers by appearing to make a true effort to answer questions, yet whenever they entered uncomfortable ground, she invoked that ‘privilege.’

As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said at the end of the session:

“Each time the finger points at you, you hide behind your oath to the president!”

But early in the hearing, she made an almost comical Freudian slip. During questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Taylor testified:

“I took an oath. And I take that oath to the president very seriously.”

Sen. Leahy was aghast. After a break, he asked:

“Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?”

UPDATE:

“I know that the president refers to the government being his government — it’s not”

-Pat Leahy, further rebutting the above statement by Sara Taylor

May 17, 2007

Bad Houseguests: How can Gonzales stay?

Filed under: Courts, Bush, Gonzales @ 12:44 pm

I started writing this three weeks ago, after I had received a lot of emails asking how Alberto Gonzales can keep his job in the wake of the Attorney purge scandal, and his subsequent bout with Alzheimers before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Since then it’s only gotten more ridiculous.

I too wonder how he can still be there – And while I have no answers that make sense, I can only say:

Because he will not leave. He is simply a Bad Houseguest.

It’s like the neighbor from down the street who you were politely friendly to years ago.

Now you know what a self centered prick he is, but it’s too late: He shows up unannounced at all hours, completely clueless about your world at that moment; spews unsolicited ‘tourettes-like’ opinions about everything; makes uncomfortable, racist comments; moves your shit around for no other reason than to fidget; takes a stinky dump; and makes your kids hide out in their rooms.

You cringe the whole time. And you can’t be more obvious about wanting him out: The door is open, he is being asked to leave, and yet he tells us he will not go.

But for ‘Bushies’ this is nothing new - look at others who were discredited and eventually had no option but to leave.

Memorable Bad Houseguests include Brownie, from the Katrina disaster. Sure, he went down fast, but only after a few days of ‘Heckuva job;” …Donald ‘You go to war with the Army you have’ Rumsfeld, who overstayed his welcome for three years while The Boy King denied his glaring incompetence. And who could forget the original Bad Houseguest, Tom Delay.

Even today, the news is rife with Bad Houseguests having nothing in common besides being jesters in the court of Bush. Look at Paul Wolfowitz, ideological architect and cheerleader for the Iraq invasion (how’s that going?) and head of the World Bank (how did that happen again?).

In the wake of letters from the European (EU) Parliament and thousands of World Bank employees imploring him to leave, a ruling from the World Bank board that he broke bank rules and represented a conflict of interest, and a statement from Germany that he was not welcome to attend a World Bank forum on Africa next week in Berlin…He insists he will stay, but change his operating procedures.

In both the Gonzales and Wolfowitz cases the Decider Boy has chimed in with his vote of confidence, just as he did with Brownie and Rummy.

The principal trait all these Bad Houseguests have in common (besides denial) is, simply arrogance, or more bluntly, Balls. It’s a characteristic of a ‘loyal bushie’ regardless of position, race, or sex. Look at Condi Rice, she has balls so big she needs Dick Cheney to hump them around:

balls.jpg

Last month the House Intelligence Committee voted to Subpoena her to testify on several issues regarding the deceptive leadup to the Iraq war. The subpoena was in response to a number of formal requests for information which were completely ignored in the first place.

What was her reaction to the subpoena? She ignored it, as she ignored the previous letters requesting information.

While they all have giantly expanded Cojones, there is one defining difference with the current Bad Houseguest. While the sagas of Rummy, Brownie, Cunningham were about incompetence, deception, and ethics, they managed to keep them personal downfalls. But think about the ugliness and deceit Gonzales is involved in, or aware of.

As one example, this week former deputy Attorney General, James B. Comey, testified to congress about a startling crisis in March 2004 when Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign because of unease with the legality of Bush’s NSA wiretapping program.

At the time, Comey was acting Attorney General because Ashcroft was laid up in the hospital, though both had agreed beforehand not to reauthorize the NSA program. Gonzales and Andy Card (White House Chief of Staff) tried to bypass Comey by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft at the hospital and get him to sign the authorization while he was extremely ill and disoriented (his wife had forbidden any visitors). Comey and Mueller discovered the plan and raced to the hospital in an emergency vehicle to head them off. They literally raced up the hospital stairs minutes ahead of the others, in time for Mueller to instruct FBI guards not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.

Minutes later Gonzales and Card arrived, at which point there was a high level standoff in Ashcroft’s room, finally settled by a barely conscious Ashcroft, who refused to re-authorize the program. You can’t make this stuff up!

I maintain Gonzales is hiding some much larger, more nefarious secrets. These secrets may have more to do with maintenance of power and control of our government (through elections and more), the stripping of constitutional rights, and dealings that make the Attorney Scandal look like rolling through your neighborhood stop sign.

It’s likely he has run ruffshod over the rest of the Justice Department and that when he gets ousted, good (but fearful) people from within the Justice Department will come out and expose all kinds of depraved affairs that we can only guess at now.

This explains the pathological effort on the part of Gonzales and the administration to keep him in this position despite the negative political fallout.

I maintain and hope that we will expose these issues someday.

But just as getting rid the Guest Who Will Never Leave takes some kind of courage (and possibly a 2×4), getting rid of this guy and getting to the bottom of this mess will require strength on the part of the American people and our lawmakers.

Our representatives need to go beyond party differences and admit that the emperor doesn’t have any clothes. They can demand the ouster of Mr. Gonzales.

April 24, 2007

Language of ‘backpedaling’

Filed under: Courts, Gonzales @ 8:32 am

large_wheel_unicycle.jpg

BACKPEDAL
[back-ped·al] – verb (used without object)
“to retreat from or reverse one’s previous stand on any matter; shift ground: to back-pedal after severe criticism.”

ALL these are from Alberto Gonzales opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. These don’t even include his defensive answers to some pretty aggressive questions (though not aggressive enough):

I apologize to [the fired attorneys] and to their families…

I am sorry for my missteps…

I have nothing to hide…

Nothing improper occurred here…

I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts…

The process by which these U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign could have – and should have – been handled differently…

I made mistakes…

In hindsight, I would have handled this differently…

I should have done more personally…

I never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the American people about my role in this matter…

I do acknowledge however that at times I have been less than precise with my words…

I misspoke…

My statement about “discussions” was imprecise and overbroad…

I certainly understand why these statements generated confusion, and I regret that…

This process could have been handled much better and for that I want to apologize publicly…

April 20, 2007

Alberto’s debut gets slammed!

Filed under: Courts, Gonzales @ 11:21 am

For weeks now we have been hearing about the extraordinary effort spent by sitting Attorney General (and Guantanomo cheerleader) Alberto Gonzales, in preparation for his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.

According to the Washington Post he has ‘retreated from public view’ to spend hours in mock testimony sessions in an effort to anticipate his big day and, ultimately, save his job.

So why, on his first day of testimony, would he state at least 45 times that he could not recall events he was asked about?

Imagine if he didn’t prep! Even Arlen Specter pretended to be on the attack:

Specter: I assume you are well-prepared for this hearing…

Gonzales: I prepare for every hearing, sir.

Specter: Well do you prepare for your press conferences, Like the one where you said you had no involvement?

Reviews were poor for his first day. According to the NY times:

“If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had gone to the Senate yesterday to convince the world that he ought to be fired, it’s hard to imagine how he could have done a better job, short of simply admitting the obvious: that the firing of eight United States attorneys was a partisan purge.”

April 14, 2007

5,000,000 White House Emails LOST?

Filed under: Courts, Bush, Gonzales, Conspiracy, Corruption @ 12:30 am

These guys are out and out crooks and they have no shame:

See Rove E-Mail Sought by Congress May Be Missing

According to CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), the missing emails total over 5,000,000!

If this doesn’t turn into a new Watergate for them, we are truly in trouble…

Justice Department - Lying sacks of shit, part 4,356

Filed under: Courts, Corruption @ 12:18 am

Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Alberto Gonzales, who resigned last month, was asked two weeks ago under oath by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) whether he had specific replacements in mind for seven of the prosecutors before they were fired on Dec. 7.

“I personally did not,” Sampson replied. “On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

He claimed that only one of the ‘replacement’ attorneys had been chosen at the time of the firings.

As a general rule (more so than ever): If a “Bushie’s” lips are moving, he is lying.

So today, Sampson himself was exposed (via emails from January and June 2006) in sending around lists of replacement candidates for such attorneys.

In the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.):

“These documents uncover one of the most central and disconcerting contradictions we’ve seen so far…We have been told that there were no backups in mind to replace the fired U.S. attorneys, and these documents make it clear that there were.”

I’m sitting here reading the headlines sipping a red wine that I have never heard of from a cheap juice glass…But right now it could be Night Train in this glass and it would still taste like a fine Bordeaux…

April 8, 2007

Rachel Maddow’s Open Letter To Orrin Hatch

Filed under: Courts, Utah politics @ 4:18 pm

From Rachel Maddow at Air America…

This is very relevant to me because as a Utah resident, I write to Orrin Hatch about once a month:

Dear Senator Hatch -

You don’t call, you don’t write…

I’ve just about exhausted myself trying to get someone in your office to call me back this week. Please apologize to your adorable receptionist on my behalf - the poor man now gets audibly exasperated as soon as I say “hello”.

What I’d like to talk with you about is very simple: on NBC’s Meet the Press this past Sunday, you said this about Carol Lam, the US Attorney for San Diego who was fired by the Justice Department in December:

“She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton”

I checked the transcript against the video (or click here for the specific clip) and it’s clear to me that you weren’t misquoted.

Here’s my question for you or your staff: what in the Lord’s name are you talking about?

Here at Air America, we called John Emerson, who managed Clinton’s California campaign in ‘92 and again in ‘96 to ask if Carol Lam had been the “campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton” - you might have thought we’d asked him if the sky was green.

First of all, uh, NO, she wasn’t.

And second, Carol Lam was an Assistant US Attorney at the time of Clinton’s campaigns, and she therefore couldn’t have also been a campaign manager for any presidential candidate without violating the (ironically-named) Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal government employees.

Then we called a source close to Carol Lam in California, who expressed utter bewilderment at what old Orrin said on Meet the Press.

The source confirmed for us publicly-available documents about Lam’s career which indicate that she is not a law professor, she’s “been a federal prosecutor for nearly 18 years and [has] never been a fundraiser for any president”.

Senator Hatch, what’s going on here?

Next Page »