Supremes Scalia and Alito: Have You No Sense of Decency, Sirs?

Antonin Scalia. (photo: unknown)

By Bill Quigley, Reader Supported News

05 May 15
readersupportednews.org

n the 1940s and 1950s, countless people in the US were being bullied and brutalized by the anti-communist scare tactics and character assassinations of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The end of the McCarthy red-baiting era began when Joseph Welch stood up to McCarthy after he attacked a young lawyer on his staff. Welch was appalled by McCarthy's callous disregard and despite McCarthy's power, challenged him by stating: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." He concluded by saying "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

In the recent marriage equality case, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia argued that marriage equality opens the door to polygamy, underage sex, and incest between brothers and sisters. This is the modern equivalent of McCarthy red-baiting and deserves the same response.

The cruel, illogical, heartless and hateful arguments of Alito and Scalia give considerable support and inspiration to right-wing groups who literally demonize our sisters and brothers and sons and daughters who seek only to marry their same sex partners just like the rest of us.

Alito and Scalia give comfort to the likes of Rush Limbaugh who stated marriage equality leads to incest. To Rick Santorum who compares same sex relationships to bestiality and pedophilia. To the head of ironically named American Decency Association who claimed that gay rights is a satanic attack on the US. And to legions of other people and groups who practice hostility and violence against our sisters and brothers.

It is one thing to have these fringe haters outside on the courthouse steps. We allow the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi parties to demonstrate out on the steps. It is another matter entirely when they are in the exalted position as members of the court and while there feeding the fires of hatred in their public arguments.

It is past time for family, friends, lawyers, legal associations and law schools to ask Alito and Scalia to halt and to answer the question "Have you no sense of decency, sirs?"

Alito, long criticized for being a cranky, malicious mouthpiece of the anti-gay movement, was at it again when the court heard the marriage equality case. Alito is already famous for visibly shaking his head and mouthing opposition to President Obama in his 2010 State of the Union address and for throwing a mini-tantrum when other justices dissent.

Alito argued that approving the right to marriage equality for gay and lesbian people would open the door for 12 year olds to marry, for brothers and sisters to marry, and make polygamy possible for four lawyers who all want to marry each other. Alito's problems are so often raised and widely known that they are characterized as his "polygamy perplex" by The New Yorker.

Alito's fallacious slippery slope arguments, transparently couched as questions, were so ridiculous that they prompted John Stewart to ask whether, in the case where women fought for the right to vote, Alito might have asked "What if one day a dog wants to vote? How about that ladies?"

Antonin Scalia, of course not to be outdone, argued that if marriage equality was recognized ministers would be forced to conduct such marriages even if their religious organizations opposed them. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that no ministers have ever been forced to conduct gay marriages Scalia would not hear of it. When the lawyer arguing the case and Justices Breyer and Kagan pointed out that the First Amendment already protected priests, rabbis, imams and ministers from conducting marriages inconsistent with their religions, Scalia refused to concede. Scalia, like Alito, also asked if marriage equality means polygamy would have to be recognized.

As one wise friend pointed out, our country still has the Ku Klux Klan but we do not take their arguments seriously. And there are no respected people openly espousing their arguments on the Supreme Court. No respected person openly argues that blacks and whites should not marry. Nor do any people argue openly that women do not deserve the right to vote. Yet, there are people on the Supreme Court who continue to openly repeat the brutally crude applause lines of right-wing anti-gay hate groups. It is time that stopped.

It is time all people of good will stand up to the haters, especially those on the Supreme Court, and say, "Until this moment, Justices, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness... You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sirs? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

---

Reactions to Baltimore reflect political polarization of America

By Jim Keyworth

Gazette Blog Editor

How naïve I was to think the recent events in Baltimore might produce at least a ray of hope that Americans of all stripes would realize that racism (and what it does to our inner cities) and excesses by police are very real issues that need to be addressed.

I admit that I have been somewhat insulated the last two weeks.  With my wife out of town and a semester of teaching (and grading) winding down, my contact with the outside world has pretty much been limited to playing basketball with a few friends, workouts at the gym, and solitary meals watching non-stop coverage of Baltimore on MSNBC.

Yes, MSNBC.  I can hear my right wing friends howling now.  But I say to you in all sincerity as a professional journalist that I have yet to see MSNBC present information that is not based in fact.  I can’t say the same for FOX News.  (I also avidly read the slightly-to-the-right Arizona Republic/USA Today combo newspaper and online sources of all manner of persuasion.)

Over the last two weeks I have come to better understand the plight of black people trapped in a cycle they can’t escape, in no small part because gross income inequality is hitting them harder than anybody else.  But I have also been encouraged by good people in Baltimore who literally brought out brooms to clean up after the violence and show us that not all black people are “thugs” – that there is good and bad in all of us, regardless of race, color or creed.

And I was thrilled to watch State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, a 35-year-old black woman, show the wisdom and courage to file charges against the six police officers (3 black and 3 white) who her office determined were responsible for the death of Freddie Gray (whose spine was nearly severed while in police custody).  She was, it seemed to me, a much-needed breath of fresh air.

But then, last night, I attended a large social event here in Payson, AZ.  Had my wife been there, maybe the conversation wouldn’t have taken the turn that it did.  Had I to do it over again, maybe I wouldn’t have gone there myself.  But she wasn’t and I did.

And in a few minutes, my naivete came crashing down.  Because I learned that Freddie Gray was not falsely arrested for carrying a legal pocket knife.  I learned that Freddie Gray was a “known drug dealer” who had recently had “major back surgery” and was told by his doctor not to “go out.”  I was told that he had no right to run from police who had stopped him illegally.  And finally, I was told that Marilyn Mosby is “in big trouble” for her actions.

The conversation escalated and turned ugly and I left the event.  Once home, I did an internet search to investigate these allegations I had heard and read nothing about in the media during the previous two weeks.  Not on MSNBC.  Not in the Republic/USA Today.  Not anywhere.  Turns out the back surgery story is completely bogus.  Bullshit.  I don’t know a better way to put it.

The known drug dealer?  Well, Freddie Gray did have a bit of a drug history.  But the only drug I could find mentioned by name was marijuana.  And most of the incidents were dismissed by the courts.  I don’t think that qualifies him as a “known drug dealer.”

Hell, I could be labeled a known drug dealer too based on the days when I occasionally used and shared marijuana back when it was considered an illegal drug.  But then again, I’m white.

And that brings us to Mosby being in “big trouble.”  What I was told at the gathering was that she has a conflict of interest because her husband is one of 18 members of the Baltimore City Council, and because Gray’s lawyer contributed to her campaign (as did the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police).

Seems pretty minimal to me, but that will all play out in the months ahead.  In the meantime, here’s what David Zurawik, media critic for the Baltimore Sun, had to say about Mosby: 

“Two minutes into her press conference, you knew that this official had done her homework and wasn't speaking blah-blah-blah, platitude-sloppy, media-bromide talk like so many elected and appointed officials here have been doing this week.

“She talked with the kind of force and precision a legal education is supposed to impart. But it was so unlike the ideologically charged, purely speculative, sometimes foolish talk I heard from so many lawyers on cable TV and the streets of Baltimore this week.

“Mosby projected focus, strength, determination, righteousness and resolve. I'm not saying she is all of those things -- I have no way of knowing.

“But that's what came through on the tube. And all of those telegenic attributes enhanced the power of the findings she announced, charging six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray.”

I guess what bothers me is the polarization that I witnessed last night.  The rush to judgment.  Freddie Gray is black.  Marilyn Mosby is black.  We all know what that means.  Wink.  Wink.

Except we don’t.  None of us knows.  And not many whites have a clue what it means to be a black male in America today.

It was a restless, troubled night, but I awoke Sunday morning to an editorial by the Republic’s Linda Valdez.  Yes, the name is Hispanic but she looks very white in her picture.  Anyway, the article was headlined: “We must not ignore Baltimore’s cries.”  She concluded:

“Those of us who are comfortable should resist the urge to see ourselves and our neighborhoods as so very different from the people who live in places that boil with anger after years of injustice.

“If cops and the justice system are not required to act like squeaky clean servants to all the people, we, the comfortable, may find out the hard way that we are no longer so very different or so very comfortable.”

If that doesn’t bring it home, I don’t know what will.  But I’m not optimistic anymore.

Justice comes to Baltimore and a hero emerges

State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby of Baltimore announces she will file charges against six city officers (three white and three black) who she says are responsible for the death of Freddie Gray.  Mosby, whose family has five generations of police officers, said the six officers illegally arrested Gray and then failed to get him the medical help he clearly asked for and needed.  Mosby, who is just 35, said she would not hesitate to prosecute cops when the facts warrant charges.

Naughty ads banned on Phoenix Light Rail

Valley’s Favorite Family of Designer Consignment Shops Denied Its Advertising Rights Aboard Phoenix Light Rail

Eco-Chic Consignments is Appealing to Valley Metro Board to Overturn Decision after Phoenix City Officials Say ‘No’ to Playful Ads

(PHOENIX) – There will be no riding the rails, or ‘booty train’ for My Sister’s Closet, Well Suited or My Sister’s Attic aboard Phoenix Light Rail this spring.  Eco-Chic Consignments, the Valley’s favorite family of designer consignment shops that made the double entendre fashionable with its catchy slogans like ‘Wanted: One Night Stand,’  ‘Make a Booty Call,’ and ‘Buy a Bigger Chest’ has been denied its constitutional, First Amendment right to display the playful ads.

The denial comes after the City of Phoenix first approved the ads back in March, then paid an estimated $10,000 to wrap the ads on a light rail car, only to later ban the artwork and remove the ad.

The ad campaign, which would have ran for 10 months, would have generated an additional $60,000 in advertising revenue for the City of Phoenix, but city officials called the ads “sexually offensive.”  The city was only agreeable to let the sister and Valley owned business display its ‘Sell Your Sole’ ad on the light rail car.

Eco-Chic Consignments owner Ann Siner, who donated 32% of her profits in 2013 from her 15 stores in Arizona and California last year to various charities supporting women, wildlife and the arts, wants to know who made the decision at the city to ban her ads on light rail.

“We have been running these same ads on City of Phoenix buses, bus shelters and on billboards throughout the Valley since 2008,” said Siner, founder and owner of Eco-Chic Consignments. “Why is it okay to see our ads on city buses, and not on a light rail train?”

Siner plans to appeal the city’s decision and doesn’t rule out a legal fight.

“I think it’s completely foolish how this was handled and now the City of Phoenix is going to have to pay for the re-wrapping of the light rail train,” said Siner.  “The city needs to have full disclosure and tell us why our ads were initially approved, only to be turned down once they were sitting on the train.  Ads don’t work without a creative and playful approach, and if they won’t let us run our ads as is, we won’t be spending any money with the City of Phoenix.”

To set-up an interview with Siner or to get more information about My Sister’s Closet, Well Suited and My Sister’s Attic please contact Jennifer Parks at Jparks@RoseMoserAllynPR.com or by calling 480.495.3806. 

About My Sister’s Closet and Eco-Chic Consignment:
Eco-Chic Consignments, Inc. is a family of three high-end designer consignment concepts—My Sister’s Closet (women), My Sister’s Attic (home furnishings) and Well Suited (men). Each store sells consigned items at 60 – 90% below retail value.

Founded more than 20 years ago, Eco-Chic Consignments, Inc. has since grown into a $25+ million business with 15 locations in some of the nicest neighborhoods of Arizona and California. The company ranked no. 2,896 on the Inc. 5000 list. To learn more about Eco-Chic Consignments, Inc. and its resale brands, visit mysisterscloset.com.

Give 'Em Hell, Bernie

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

29 April 15

readersupportednews.org

 

any years ago I pitched a magazine editor on a story about Bernie Sanders, then a congressman from Vermont, who'd agreed to something extraordinary – he agreed to let me, a reporter, stick next to him without restrictions over the course of a month in congress.

"People need to know how this place works. It's absurd," he'd said. (Bernie often uses the word absurd, his Brooklyn roots coming through in his pronunciation – ob-zert.)

Bernie wasn't quite so famous at the time and the editor scratched his head. "Bernie Sanders," he said. "That's the one who cares, right?"

"Right, that's the guy," I said.

I got the go-ahead and the resulting story was a wild journey through the tortuous bureaucratic maze of our national legislature. I didn't write this at the time, but I was struck every day by what a strange and interesting figure Sanders was.

Many of the battles he brought me along to witness, he lost. And no normal politician would be comfortable with the optics of bringing a Rolling Stone reporter to a Rules Committee hearing.

But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the heating-oil aid program for the poor.

This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.

Here's the thing: Sanders is a politician whose power base is derived almost entirely from the people of the state of Vermont, where he is personally known to a surprisingly enormous percentage of voters.

His chief opponents in the race to the White House, meanwhile, derive their power primarily from corporate and financial interests. That doesn't make them bad people or even bad candidates necessarily, but it's a fact that the Beltway-media cognoscenti who decide these things make access to money the primary factor in determining whether or not a presidential aspirant is "viable" or "credible." Here's how the Wall Street Journal put it in their story about Sanders (emphasis mine): 

It is unclear how much money Mr. Sanders expects to raise, or what he thinks he needs to run a credible race. Mr. Sanders raised about $7 million for his last re-election in Vermont, a small state. Sums needed to run nationally are far larger. 

The Washington/national press has trained all of us to worry about these questions of financing on behalf of candidates even at such an early stage of a race as this.

In this manner we're conditioned to believe that the candidate who has the early assent of a handful of executives on Wall Street and in Hollywood and Silicon Valley is the "serious" politician, while the one who is merely the favorite of large numbers of human beings is an irritating novelty act whose only possible goal could be to cut into the numbers of the real players.

Sanders offers an implicit challenge to the current system of national electoral politics. With rare exceptions, campaign season is a time when the backroom favorites of financial interests are marketed to the population. Weighed down by highly regressive policy intentions, these candidates need huge laboratories of focus groups and image consultants to guide them as they grope around for a few lines they can use to sell themselves to regular working people.

Sanders on the other hand has no constituency among the monied crowd. "Billionaires do not flock to my campaign," he quipped. So what his race is about is the reverse of the usual process: he'll be marketing the interests of regular people to the gatekeeping Washington press, in the hope that they will give his ideas a fair shot.

It's a little-known fact, but we reporters could successfully sell Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender for the White House if we wanted to. Hell, we told Americans it was okay to vote for George Bush, a man who moves his lips when he reads.

But the lapdog mentality is deeply ingrained and most Beltway scribes prefer to wait for a signal from above before they agree to take anyone not sitting atop a mountain of cash seriously.

Thus this whole question of "seriousness" – which will dominate coverage of the Sanders campaign – should really be read as a profound indictment of our political system, which is now so openly an oligarchy that any politician who doesn't have the blessing of the bosses is marginalized before he or she steps into the ring.

I remember the first time I was sold on Bernie Sanders as a politician. He was in his congressional office and he was ranting about the fact that many of the manufacturing and financial companies who asked him and other members of congress for tax breaks and aid were also in the business of moving American jobs overseas to places like China.

Sanders spent years trying to drum up support for a simple measure that would force any company that came to Washington asking for handouts to promise they wouldn't turn around and ship jobs to China or India.

That didn't seem like a lot to ask, but his fellow members treated him like he was asking for a repeal of the free enterprise system. This issue drove Sanders crazy. Again showing his Brooklyn roots, Bernie gets genuinely mad about these things. While some pols are kept up at night worrying about the future profitability of gazillionaire banks, Sanders seethes over the many obvious wrongs that get smoothed over and covered up at his place of work.

That saltiness, I'm almost sure of it, is what drove him into this race. He just can't sit by and watch the things that go on, go on. That's not who he is.

When I first met Bernie Sanders, I'd just spent over a decade living in formerly communist Russia. The word "socialist" therefore had highly negative connotations for me, to the point where I didn't even like to say it out loud.

But Bernie Sanders is not Bukharin or Trotsky. His concept of "Democratic Socialism" as I've come to understand it over the years is that an elected government should occasionally step in and offer an objection or two toward our progress to undisguised oligarchy. Or, as in the case of not giving tax breaks to companies who move factories overseas, our government should at least not finance the disappearance of the middle class.

Maybe that does qualify as radical and unserious politics in our day and age. If that's the case, we should at least admit how much trouble we're in.

Congratulations, Bernie. Good luck and give 'em hell.

 

Phoenix officially hits 100 degrees

(Photo: Dominic Valente/The Republic, Dominic Valente/The Republic)

The Republic | azcentral.com 5 p.m. MST May 1, 2015

It happens every year- usually about this time- but it's still jarring for some to see the thermometer climb to the century mark for the first time of the year.

Friday marked the first time that the Valley hit 100 degrees in 2015.

History tells us we'll be familiar with those temperature readings for the next three months or so.

Get used to it.

(And get used to a real newspaper.  You know, a paper that doesn't act as a mouthpiece for local government and the chamber of commerce.  A paper that asks the tough questions.  A paper that has real news, including USA Today free with every issue.  Seven days a week.  In your driveway.  To subscribe to the Republic, call 1-800-332-6733.  And don't forget to  cancel your subscription to the local paper.  Why would you pay that kind of money for two days a week?)