Christian Leftist
The “Christian” “Right” is neither.

Christian Leftist

Bush Administration runs into opposition on dismissing wiretapping suits from judges

An interesting turn of events in the NSA wiretapping scandal. Here’s an excerpt:

Three federal appeals court judges hearing challenges to the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs appeared skeptical of and sometimes hostile to the Bush administration’s central argument Wednesday: that national security concerns require that the lawsuits be dismissed.

“Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?” Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer. His tone was one of incredulity and frustration.

Read the full article here.

Similar Stories:
  • $35 billion for health care or $190 billion for an unjust war?
  • FBI Director’s notes rebut Gonzales’s version of hospital visit
  • August 16th, 2007 . by Christian Leftist Posted in Bush administration, civil rights, domestic spying, national security, power and privilege, privacy | No Comments » Print This Post Print This Post


    Chavez wants to live — oops! I mean RULE forever.

    Another example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Chavez is trying to change Venezuela’s constitution to eliminate term limits so that he can run for president again in 2012 (and presumably in every election thereafter until he dies).

    Here at Christian Leftist, I try to point out the upsides and downsides to any and all systems of government, although I obviously have access to more news on American democracy than anything else. Chavez is not a true leftist because he is ultra-authoritarian; anyone who curtails civil liberties while espousing economic egalitarianism is not an egalitarian but a despot who seeks to slowly acquire all political power within his sphere of influence.

    Anyway, here’s the article from the New York Times.

    Similar Stories:
  • Chavez closes another dissident news station
  • Obama Repeals Global Gag Rule
  • August 16th, 2007 . by Christian Leftist Posted in civil rights, elections, international news | 1 Comment » Print This Post Print This Post


    In case you’re feeling sorry for Paris Hilton…

    One of the most redeeming aspects of the television news industry is that it can expose the worst possible outcome of any scenario and drive a point starkly home in the space of thirty seconds. That’s what ABC News did on Thursday when it covered the Paris Hilton jail scandal. I don’t think there is an accurate estimate of precisely how much medical suffering goes on in prison, but I’ll hazard a guess and use my treatment when I was in lockup as an example.

    If your medical condition requires that you take certain pills on a daily basis to function and it has been proven that going cold turkey on said pills WILL cause severe physiological effects (say, a complete mental breakdown and suicidal tendencies), it is in everyone’s best interests that you receive those medications. When I pleaded for medical attention, the guard took a look at me, snarled, “She’s not dying!” and walk away. Among several other civil rights violations, I was released rather than treated because it would have meant more trouble for the police. If there hadn’t been lawyers filing en masse for a group of us as a whole and a significant media presence surrounding our arrests, other protesters and I would have languished in roach-infested cells as long as the paperwork backups continued, possibly for weeks.

    Google the Washington Post articles on Jonathan Magbie, and you’ll understand how cruel and heartless the criminal justice system truly is towards anyone who isn’t as healthy as a horse. That’s just a taste of the horror stories to have emerged from U.S. prisons. I can’t imagine the treatment in countries poorer than our own.

    Medical care is not supposed to be a ‘luxury that prisoners don’t deserve.’ It is a basic human need, and there is no excuse that can justify the physical and mental suffering of a patient whose problems are treatable.

    Similar Stories:
  • Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Polygamist Mothers for Younger Children
  • 2008.07.10 - This Week in Racism 4 - William Sanders & Helix Magazine, Obama as O.J.? and Sheriff with a Racist Email
  • June 10th, 2007 . by Christian Leftist Posted in civil rights, class inequalities, criminal justice, health care, power and privilege | 1 Comment » Print This Post Print This Post


    Chavez closes another dissident news station

    The AP reports that Radio Caracas Television, Venezuela’s most popular channel, will be forced off the air at midnight tomorrow because Hugo Chavez’s government has decided not to renew its broadcasting license. Miguel Angel Rodriguez was a talk-show host on Radio Caracas TV until his final segment on Friday, where he vowed, “There is no goodbye. It’s ’see you later.’” Rodriguez had been an active critic of Chavez on the air, and no doubt ol’ Hugo saw the media as a threat to his establishment and changed the laws to suit his own political agenda. Both sides plan street protests over the shutdown during the weekend.

    The problem with being either too far to the left or too far to the right is that you end up in essentially the same place – a land of silence. When in college a couple of years ago, I found myself arguing with a real, dyed-in-the-wool Communist about the importance of civil liberties. He shared many social and political ideals with me, yet I argued with him more often and more passionately than I did with pro-war conservatives. He believed ( and probably still does) that freedom of speech is overrated; the first thing he would do if he was in power would be to drag all of the right-wing crazies out into the streets and have them shot. He was only half-joking. His justification for doing so was that allowing the right win a pulpit from which to preach hatred was a threat to the security of the country, and that when you know you’re right, there’s no point in allowing others to create constant turmoil in the political spectrum. I have heard the same type of arguments before; this time only the players and causes were different. My friend’s arguments were decidedly more eloquent than what I have just stated; this is merely my interpretation of his words.

    I pointed out that one who is certain s/he is right should embrace criticism, not quash it, and that people have a funny habit of changing their minds, especially when one martyrs the leaders of a cause through persecution. or worse. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. He said the extreme right was no different than he; if Bush and Cheney had anything to do with it, they would probably have locked many of us anti-war activists up long ago. “The reason you are still free,” he said, “is because you are not a significant threat to their power.” It was an astute, if fallible, analysis of majority rule.

    [As it turns out, the protests of eleven million people on February 15th, 2003 did not discourage Bush from going to war because, as we now know, Bush and Cheney live in a bubble floating towards the South Pole, last seen heading southeast somewhere over Texas. However, they did convince the rest of the world that if the earth were to take a vote on Iraq, our soldiers never would have left Fort Dix. Despite the unlikelihood of an incumbent 'president's loss in a second-term election, we were enough of a threat that members of the Republican National Committee rented out a comfy ex-bus terminal on Pier 57 to accommodate us during the 2004 Convention sans habeas corpus. The public did not start a revolution upon Bush's re-'election,' either, as I had predicted to my friend. But I digress.]

    Only the weak and insecure must fear the birth of conflicting ideas. The more desperate one becomes, the more one tends to suppress one’s opponents by any means necessary, including the hammer of the iron fist. Putin is just as dangerous to the cause of human rights as most neo-cons; he has a nation of citizens who still remember Lenin instead of Stalin, and he has no pesky historical Bill of Rights to stand in the way of his internecine methods of culling his critics from the flocks.

    That’s why I’m so pissed off at Danny Glover for actively supporting the Venezuelan president’s cause. Chavez and Bush are two sides of the same coin. All the socialist medicine in the world cannot make up for the loss of basic human freedoms. Bush may be an evil moron, but he is not nearly as adept or as capable at silencing his political foes as others are.

    Yet.

    Similar Stories:
  • Chavez wants to live — oops! I mean RULE forever.
  • Apostasy.
  • May 26th, 2007 . by Christian Leftist Posted in civil rights, free speech, politics and press | No Comments » Print This Post Print This Post


    Should judges answer loaded questions during campaigns?

    I love Pennsylvania these days. We seem to be the testing ground or battleground for a number of fascinating ventures: grassroots activism (of the kind that kicked Rick Santorum out of office), illegal immigration (Hazelton, PA), intelligent design (Dover, PA), the Allegheny County smoking ban (which the Commonwealth Court just overturned on the basis that the county had no authority to enforce an ordinance on large restaurants), and Rep. Darryl Metcalfe’s nationwide campaign to pass state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants. It was only a matter of time before the ire over judicial decisions evolved into a new form of political theatre: a world in which judicial candidates can and will speak their personal opinions on legislation that might come before them in the future.

    Last Monday, a federal judge in Philadelphia said that the Judicial Conduct Board cannot enforce a section of the Judicial Code of Conduct that stops candidates from voicing their positions on present or future disputed legal or political issues. The article that discusses this decision in detail is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

    Why is this such a big deal? Because it is an unwritten rule within the American Bar Association that politics are best left out of judicial appointments. I know that sounds strange, but in essence, this means that the ABA wants judges appointed who are the most qualified for the bench (or maybe the prettiest). Remember when Samuel Alito refused to answer any questions on abortion during his confirmation hearings? Although the Supreme Court seems to be the lone exception when it comes to mud slinging at candidates, Alito still maintained that it would not be ethical for him to predict his decisions on cases that might come before him on the Supreme Court.

    The current model is to cite experience on past cases and let voters decide how they think a candidate might vote on a subject based on past decisions. Whether or not the threat of punishment by the JCB stifles the free speech of potential judges is a murky question. The violation of the “appears to commit” clause, a section of Pennsylvania law appended after a Supreme Court decision in 2002 (in which statements that show a candidate’s likelihood to have pre-formed opinions on a subject and therefore a lack of impartiality in new cases were allowed to be expressed) is the snowball that set this recent Pennsylvania case in motion. If I am interpreting the news article correctly, the Philadelphia decision has taken the U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, one step further: it has concluded that the state’s amended “appears to commit” clause is illegal or unconstitutional.

    Whether or not the case will survive an appeal is unclear. What is perfectly clear is the potential damage the cloud of negative campaigns that disgrace the typical political campaign would have on the justice system if state and local judges had to agree with the majority views on social issues in order to gain or keep their jobs. Instead of leaving their personal partisan opinions at the door when they don the robes, judges would carry the weight of thousands of small-minded, geographically-based, socio-economic views into the courtroom with them. You could have identical criminal cases two towns apart where the legal precedent for a minimum sentence was clear, yet one judge imposes a fine and the other imposes a 15-year sentence. The potential implications of all nationwide judicial appointments “going negative” is enormous.

    Is free speech absolute in this country? No. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded cinema or make threats to kill people. Those examples represent forms of speech that could potentially endanger lives. The political opinions of judges may indirectly threaten the lives of innocent people, but I doubt that anyone could prove it to the point that it becomes constitutionally infallible. Something to think about.

    After all, that judge you’ll be standing across from for speeding shouldn’t be somebody who has promised to lock up all reckless drivers under 35.

    Or should he?

    Similar Stories:
  • Bush Administration runs into opposition on dismissing wiretapping suits from judges
  • Apostasy.
  • May 23rd, 2007 . by Christian Leftist Posted in civil rights, free speech, judicial impartiality, supreme court | No Comments » Print This Post Print This Post


    « Previous Entries Next Entries »