Would this justice be able to separate

her religious views from legal views? Apparently NOT, if, during this secret conference call, a very select few Americans were privy to the information that, in fact, she WOULD overturn Roe v. Wade because of her religious beliefs.

If religion can't be a reason to exclude someone from the bench, it likewise can't be used as a reason to INCLUDE someone on the bench, as Bush attempted to do as a way to reassure his base *wink, wink, nod, nod* that they shouldn't worry, *She's one of US.*

That's only one troubling aspect of her nomination, though. Even Robert Bork *borked* her, saying she is a *disaster* and that she was a terrible writer.

The fact that she's judged Bush to be the most *brilliant* man she's ever met casts even further doubt about her ability to *judge* (but I admit that's an extension of my personal opinion and doesn't really count).

John Roberts is reported to be a very devout Catholic, yet nobody raised an eyebrow about that because his religion was never an issue. Bush himself MADE it an issue.

It's becoming clearer and clearer every day that this woman was nominated (1) because she's a Bush crony and (2) because she will guarantee that Roe will be overturned based on her own personal beliefs, not based on established legal precedent.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

You know, the laws this country was founded on. Tell me where it's written that our troops fight overseas and are killed for a corrupt president who LIES????? They are fighting for oil and power, not our safety. And we're supposed to just pretend it isn't so? Even Colin Powell can't remain silent about Bush's treachery.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a card carrying member of the ACLU with all it's wackiness.

It's only when a conservative is nominated that they better not have affiliations with anything *gasp* religious or conservative leaning.

In the wake of Sen. Patrick Leahy's (somewhat) surprising and determined call for a Truth Commission to investigate the abuses of the Bush-Cheney administration, the Obama administration has been - to many progressives and those on the left of center - disturbingly silent. It's safe to say that the president's less-than-forceful position on the issue has been a source of intense criticism and skepticism from the left about the president's sincerity regarding his claims to promote a new era of transparency and accountability in American politics.

These concerns reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the president's perspective as well as his role. A Truth Commission is a serious matter. In societies overcoming severe oppression or wrongdoing, Truth (or Truth and Reconciliation) Commissions can serve a critical role in healing the wounds wrought by the injustices and can promote much-needed trust, goodwill and reconciliation between the various parties. Peru, South Africa, Morocco and East Timor are just a few of the places where TRCs have helped their societies heal and have facilitated reform by acknowledging past wrongs and ensuring that the horrors of history will not be repeated.

Night after night, on radio talk shows, disgruntled, self-identified progressives call in to inform the host and her audience that we (the American people) can - in fact - "walk and chew gum at the same time" (a response to the argument on the part of some Obama defenders that now - in the midst of the worst economic crisis in decades - is simply not the right time to focus our energies on a task of this magnitude - that such an effort would be an irresponsible distraction). Those folks, many of whom, frankly, invoke images of villagers wielding torches and pitchforks, are sadly missing the point.

For starters, the Obama administration has taken as its primary goal the mission of reconciliation, not retribution. Although his efforts have been thus far frustrated by a small but dogmatic segment of the Republican Party, Obama is, in the truest sense, a unifier. It is simply not the style - politically or personally - of this president to seek the same sort of "justice" desired by the pitchfork-wielding villagers. In the mind of this president (I imagine, anyway) emphasis on punishing wrongdoers runs the risk - especially in this very politically contentious climate - of only promoting divisions and inflaming precisely the wrong emotions necessary for a culture of healing - namely, anger, hostility and the desire for vengeance. To wit: one caller to a progressive radio show stated (apparently oblivious to the irony) that "Bush should be publicly shamed." Surely this person - and others like him - do not seriously believe that the appropriate response to the culture of impunity we've been subject to for the past eight years is the subsequent creation of a culture of retribution.

This is not to say that the president does not hold a high regard for the rule of law, or that Bush and the others should not be held accountable for their misdeeds - which in some cases, appear to rise to the level of crimes against humanity. To the contrary - and this brings me to my second point - the rule of law can only truly be applied in an environment that is as independent from political motive as possible. If Obama were to come out openly advocating the seeking of legal retribution for the crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others, it could not but be regarded (accurately, in my view) as a political maneuver. Such an event would degrade the president's legitimacy by rendering his tactics no better than those of the people he would seek to prosecute. While the president certainly can (and should) not hinder the prosecution of his predecessor and his administration should another state (who can use the ICC) or entity (such as an organized group wishing to file a class-action suit against the previous administration for harm to the group as a whole - e.g. taxpayers organization, veterans groups, etc.), it is not the job of the president himself to seek such "justice." Directly punishing their predecessors is something done by tyrants in authoritarian regimes, not by legitimate, democratic leaders in an open society. This is why it was the widely revered cleric Desmond Tutu, rather than the newly elected President Nelson Mandela, who led South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the conclusion of Apartheid in that country.

As Americans and democratic citizens, we have an obligation to acknowledge the truth about our recent shared past and its present consequences. But this can only legitimately be done by those whose job it is to hold leaders accountable in a democratic society - the people. And it can only justly be motivated by a genuine desire to adhere to the rule of law, not by a desire to seek political retaliation. Otherwise, our collective hope for evolution beyond the stains of our recent past is nothing more than a facade for our complicity in politics as usual.

--------

Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science at Sonoma State University, where she specializes in political development, quality of democracy and nonviolent struggle.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVg2jiaBA1jwVfCdsisXI0FbZD0AD965BKCG0

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice�s denial of preclearance of Georgia�s voter verification process

Atlanta - �The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia�s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ�s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

�DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia�s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant�s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia�s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.

�This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General�s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.

�It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.

�This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.�

As required by law and ordered by federal courts in October 2008, the eligibility of new applicants to register and vote is checked against the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and Social Security Administration databases to ensure that individuals registering to vote report similar information. If information in these databases does not match information reported on the voter registration form, the applicant is asked to clarify the information. Additionally, if the applicant previously reported to DDS that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, that person is asked by a registrar to provide proof of citizenship.

Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.

In the November 2008 General Election, county election officials reported that 599 individuals cast a challenged ballot because the voter had previously indicated to DDS that he or she was not a United States citizen and had not resolved their status with county officials at the time of the election. Of those, 369 ballots were accepted because the voter provided documentation of their citizenship after the election; and 230 were rejected because the individual chose not to confirm his or her citizenship status.

On October 10, 2008, activist organizations including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Georgia from verifying the eligibility of applicants to register and vote in the November General Election, including whether those individuals were citizens of the United States.

On October 16, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp denied the motion by MALDEF and ACLU; directed the State to continue the verification process; and acknowledged the State�s requirements to verify information under the Help America Vote Act. In his order, Judge Camp stated:

HAVA requires that Defendant Handel match information in the statewide voter registration database with information from the Georgia DDS and the SSA databases �to the extent necessary to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on the applications for voter registration.�