Category Archives: Supreme Court

Does Freedom Of Religion Include Freedom To Discriminate?

Posted on by

As you know, the First Amendment of our Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Unfortunately, there is a segment of our society that believes those words give them the right to infringe on others’ civil rights. Some of that segment are members of the Arizona legislature.

They’re called Republicans.

As proof, I direct you to SB 1062, a Teapublican-sponsored bill which if signed into law would allow businesses to refuse service to anyone based on the business owners’ religious beliefs. The bill is intended to target the LGBT community. But, as you will see, it impacts everyone. The bill reads: “Exercise of religion: means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”

In other words, Teapublicans in the Arizona legislature believe that the exercise of religion includes the ability to deny civil rights to others.

We’ve seen this play out before. If SB 1062 is signed into law by our finger-wagging governor, it will be almost immediately challenged as unconsitutional. Like the ill-conceived racist law known as SB 1070, it will cost the state tens of millions in lost tourism and wasted legal fees. Indeed, Arizona is just now beginning to recover from that fiasco.

Worse, if the bill is somehow found constitutional by the constitutionally-illiterate majority of the US Supreme Court, it will open the door to more discrimination. We’ve already seen business owners file lawsuits to allow them to impose their religious beliefs on employees by refusing to pay for health insurance plans that include contraceptives for women while, at the same time, paying for men’s “boner” pills.

If business owners can arbitrarily refuse service to the LGBT community, what’s to prevent business owners from refusing service or employment to African-Americans, Asians, Latinos or Native Americans for supposed religious reasons? What if a business owner claims religious objections to refuse service to liberals, Democrats, Teapublicans, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, military veterans, children, seniors, homeless, poor people, rich people, men or women?

As I’ve often said, there is no such thing as partial equality. The concept of equality is absolute. We either have equal rights or we don’t. Whatever god or gods one chooses to worship does not change that.

Given that this is an election year, and the fact that the same law is being proposed in other Teapublican-controlled states, I don’t think the bill’s sponsors seriously believe that SB 1062 will ever go into effect. As with all of the party’s previous “social issues,” I believe the real intent is to divide and distract; to rile the mouth-breathing Teapublican base into a religious fervor in order to ensure high voter turn-out. Meanwhile, it’s likely to serve as a distraction for Democrats and independents, causing them to spend precious time and resources on the issue instead of on candidates who can repeal such idiocy.

Similar strategies have worked many times in the past.

Unreasonable Trade-Offs.

Posted on by

After seeing a headline by David Suzuki “Trading Water for Fuel is Fracking Crazy,” I started thinking about all of the trade-offs we’re being asked to make.  Yes, as Suzuki points out, we are being asked to trade the purity of fresh water in our aquifers that took hundreds and thousands of years to accumulate for the profits of gas and oil companies through the use of toxic chemicals for fracking.

And that’s only one of the trade-offs we’re being asked to make in order to benefit big business.

We’re being asked to trade the beauty of the Appalachians and the area’s pristine waters for the profits of the coal industry through the use of mountaintop removal mining. We’re asked to trade the natural taste and nutrition of fresh fruits and vegetables for the profits of Monsanto, Walmart and large agribusiness companies by allowing the increased use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) seeds. We’re asked to trade the effectiveness of life-saving antibiotics by allowing large cattle feeders, hog growers and poultry growers to increase profits by adding antibiotics to animal feeds.

In order to increase profits for manufacturers, we’re asked to purchase products made overseas that could be made by workers in the US. So that large corporations can pay employees less than a liveable wage, we are asked to help their employees with food stamps, child care and other safety net programs. In order to increase the profits of corporations, we are asked to lower their income taxes and increase ours.  In order to help billionaires avoid paying income taxes, we are asked to give them a large array of tax breaks, including greatly reduced capital gains taxes.

And, in what is probably the most questionable trade-off of all, we are asked to ignore the very real long-term consequences of climate change for the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry.

All of these trade-offs and their consequences are avoidable. We simply need the will to change the way we allow corporations to operate. We should demand that they pay for all of the costs of their actions. And that the cost of government subsidies, including the costs to our environment and our health, be included in corporate expenses.

In other words, if corporations truly are people as the US Supreme Court has ruled, we should hold them accountable for their actions.

The Real Cost Of Fossil Fuels.

Posted on by

The chemical spill in West Virginia that polluted the drinking water of more than 300,000 people should remind everyone of the real cost of fossil fuels. As you know, conservatives are fond of saying that subsidies for research and the expansion of alternative energy are unfair; that they disguise the true cost of solar, wind and other forms of clean, renewable energy. Of course, they never mention the massive direct subsidies our government gives to the coal, oil and gas industries (estimated at $14 billion to $51 billion per year) or the indirect subsidies (the cost of damage to our environment; the cost of health problems that result from breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water; the cost of clean ups of spills; the cost of regulation).

If all of the indirect costs were added, the total subsidies for the fossil fuel industries are almost incalcuable and they’re certain to grow as we deal with the damages caused by climate change.

By comparison, the indirect costs of renewable energy are almost negligible. Wind generators require materials for manufacture and fossil fuels to transport them to their eventual sites. They also reportedly cause the deaths of some birds. But those deaths are dwarfed by the number of birds killed and endangered by oil spills and from drinking chemical pollutants. Solar panels also require manufacture and transportation. But that’s it.

Once in operation, neither add CO2 to the atmosphere. Neither can cause toxic spills. Wind and solar generation is decentralized so there’s less chance of widespread power outages. Both eliminate the need for daily trainloads of fuels. They require no pipelines. There is no need to remove entire mountaintops. No need to pump toxic chemicals into the earth in order to extract wind or sun. And there is no need for waste disposal. When the wind generators and solar panels become obsolete, most of their materials can be recycled.

Best of all, they create jobs in the US, and they would create a lot more if Congress would provide manufacturers with the incentives and protections needed to fend off state-sponsored manufacturers in China. They also reduce the need for fossil fuels, which should make our reserves of oil and gas last well into the future.

So why do Congressional Republicans continue to rubber stamp subsidies for oil, gas and coal while denying much smaller subsidies for alternative energy? The answer, as always, is money.

The majority of fossil fuels are extracted from red states, such as Alaska, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming. Most refineries are also located in red states – Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. Oil, gas and coal companies have very deep pockets from decades of favored political status and profiteering. They have one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington. The companies and their billionaire owners are willing to spend whatever it takes to retain their monopolies. Moreover, the Citizens United ruling by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court made it possible for corporations to offer large donations to political campaigns. And politicians are more than willing to accept them.

Department Of Injustice.

Posted on by

In my elementary school civics class, I was taught that the key to a democratic government was the rule of law; that everyone is equal under the law; that Lady Justice was blind to money, power and influence.

In other words, my teacher lied.

It wasn’t that she intended to. And, at the time, it may not have been a lie at all. What she taught was what the Founding Fathers intended. But the system has since been perverted. In far too many cases, the poor are rushed to “justice” through a forced plea bargain, or the court appoints an often inept attorney and they are swiftly convicted of any and all charges.

On the other hand, those with money can afford the very best counsel. They can delay trials for years. They can negotiate small fines to pay for their transgressions without admitting guilt. In the rare instances when they are convicted, they can file appeal after appeal. They can delay sentencing. And, if they are finally taken to prison, it is usually a minimum security “gentleman’s” prison that protects them from the general prison population.

The most obvious contrast between our two standards of “justice” involves non-violent drug users and small-time dealers versus the barons of Wall Street. As I’ve previously written, our prisons are overflowing with drug users and dealers serving draconian, sometimes life, sentences. In most cases, these people are products of impoverished families and communities. They are often people who never had a real opportunity for a good education or more productive lives.

In contrast stand the gamblers and gamers of Wall Street. Most grew up in wealthy families. They were sent to the best schools and universities. They have enjoyed lives of privilege based on using and taking other people’s money. They have learned to game the system. In the years leading up to 2008, they learned to steal without technically breaking any laws. They crashed our economy. They caused millions to lose their homes and their jobs. And, to my knowledge, not a single one has gone to prison. Not one has faced a trial. Not one has been charged with any crime!

Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice has worked overtime to convict others.

A case in point is Tim DeChristopher whose story is told in a documentary titled Bidder 70. In the waning days of the Bush administration, DeChristopher had the audacity to bid on oil and gas leases for thousands of acres of pristine lands in order to throw a wrench into an auction that was later determined to be an illegal attempt to reward Bush’s oily friends. Nevertheless, DeChristopher was charged with a federal crime. It appears that the Department of “Justice” wanted to make an example of him. The judge in the case refused to allow any testimony that might justify DeChristopher’s actions. He refused to allow testimony that others had bid on leases they couldn’t afford. He refused to allow testimony showing the importance of maintaining the beauty of the lands.

The judge basically ordered the jurors to convict DeChristopher and sentenced him to two years in prison. Those who arranged the auction which would have resulted in the destruction of some of the Southwest’s most beautiful public lands were not charged. The others who bid on leases but couldn’t pay for them were not charged. No one else was charged.

Certainly, that is just one example of a judge seeking injustice. There are many others. Five of them, who have decided to place the rights of corporations above citizens, are sitting on the highest court in the land.

If Corporations Are People…

Posted on by

In its Citizens United decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people – with all of the rights of individuals. The “justices” didn’t mention the responsibilities that go along with those rights. Like the responsibility to care for your neighbors.

But, just for a moment, let’s assume that those five old men in black robes who voted in the majority were right. If corporations really were like people, one-sixth, including their CEOs, would be unable to afford health insurance. One-sixth would not have enough food to eat. They would not be able to afford lobbyists. Few would have pension plans and large investment accounts. Most would not be able to retire when they became elderly. And most would not have enough money to contribute to political candidates.

If corporations were like people, they would not be able to negotiate a plea after committing illegal acts, then pay a small fine and deny any admission of guilt. They would go to prison.

If corporations were like people, they would receive no tax-free subsidies to acquire space and land. They would have to pay property taxes on their buildings. Other states and cities would not offer them millions in incentives to relocate. All but a tiny percent would have to pay their fair share of sales taxes and income taxes.

And what if the members of Congress were like the people they’re supposed to represent?

Instead of being paid $174,000 per year, representatives would be paid an average salary of $50,502. Half would make less than $27,000 and 16 percent would live in poverty. Some would be hungry and homeless. They would have no staff to do their work for them. They would actually have to read the bills before they vote.  And they wouldn’t begin fundraising and campaigning for the next election the day after they’re elected.

We’ve come a long way from the representative government our Founders envisioned. A lo-o-o-o-o-ng way!

Smallest Government In 47 Years.

Posted on by

It’s fashionable for Teapublicans to demand a smaller, limited government. To support their cause, they quote the 10th Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What Teapublicans neglect to consider is the preamble to the Constitution which reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“Promote the general Welfare” gives the federal government a lot of latitude with which to create agencies such as the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, the Federal Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and all of the other regulatory agencies that conservatives hate so much.

And, yes, as confirmed by the US Supreme Court, the Constitution even allows for the creation and implementation of “Obamacare.”

Moreover, in recent years, it’s not just liberals and Democrats who have expanded the federal government to a size that Teapublicans now find so intolerable. Republicans were responsible for much of that growth. In reality, what most likely rankles Teapublicans is that a Democrat… a black Democrat at that…is now in control of those departments and agencies.

But it may surprise Teapublicans that President Obama, that so-called “big government-loving, over-regulating, over-spending socialist,” has significantly reduced the size of the federal government! According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of federal employees is at a 47-year low. To be exact, before the government shutdown, there were 2,723,000 federal employees. The number hasn’t been that low since 1966. And that number of employees must now serve 118.13 million more people.

Imagine that! Under President Obama, the size of government has shrunk to lower levels than under George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush and even the idol of all government haters…Ronald Reagan!

How The People You Elect Are Turned Into Highly-Paid Puppets.

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Heritage Action, the even more political arm of the Heritage Foundation, sent a memo to Republican Congressmen telling them to vote against the bipartisan Senate bill that would re-open our government. As a none-too-subtle threat, the memo noted that the organization would be “scoring” Congressional votes.

In other words, do as we say or we will make sure you have a difficult, and expensive, primary fight!

This is really nothing new. Well-financed ideological groups have controlled our Congress for decades. The four-million-member NRA has long scored votes at the state and national level regarding gun safety and other issues of interest. The US Chamber of Commerce has spent billions to elect officials who are friendly to large corporations. The American Medical Association, Big Pharma and the Insurance Institute of America have spent billions to protect their out-of-control profits in health care. Large corporations peddle influence through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Even churches keep score, picking and choosing winners in elections.

What is new is the sheer amount of money and power now exerted by outside interests. Following the Supreme Court decision that equates money with free speech and the decision to equate corporations with people, the amount of money in politics has increased dramatically. In 1998, it’s estimated that $1.6 billion was spent on US elections. In 2012, that number exceeded $6.2 billion! And the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that could further open the floodgates.

There are now dozens of highly-partisan “think tanks,” PACs, SuperPACs and lobbying groups that hold out the carrot of campaign financing and brandish a whip for any legislators who get out of line.

If an elected official wants to retain some semblance of independence from the big-money interests, he or she has to constantly beg constituents for money. Is it any wonder, then, that within a month of the 2012 election results, candidates were campaigning to raise funds for their re-election?

Most Americans can see the problem, but they continue to hold their noses and vote for candidates who are more interested in their re-election than the interests of our nation. There is only one way to stop it…stop it! Stop voting for candidates who put corporations ahead of people. Stop voting for candidates who put the interests of their party ahead of the interests of our nation.

Just stop it!

How To Shut Up Teapublicans.

Posted on by

John Boehner, Ted Cruz, et al are fond of blaming President Obama and Sen. Harry Reid for the government shutdown. In doing so, they claim that the Democrats “refuse to negotiate.”

Negotiate what?

The only thing Teapublicans want to “negotiate” is the Affordable Care Act, a bill that was duly passed by both houses of Congress, signed into law by the President and found to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court. That simply cannot be negotiated. It can be repealed. But that would take an act of both houses of Congress and the signature of the President, and that’s simply not going to happen.

So how about this? What if Obama and Reid offer to delay some aspects of the Affordable Care Act for a year in exchange for Teapublican agreement to pass a strict gun control bill that will ban all semi-automatic weapons and a bill to provide federally-funded abortions for any woman who needs one? I’m sure a majority in the Senate would agree to that, as well as the President.

What’s that you say? That’s unreasonable? Really?

It’s no more unreasonable than what Teapublicans are asking. So tell you what. When Teapublicans finally decide that they want to negotiate the federal budget in good faith, they should pass a temporary funding bill to restart the government. Then they should sit down with Democrats to discuss the budget like adults. That means both sides need to compromise.

Until then, the President and Senator Reid should stand pat.

House Teapublicans Throw A Snitfit.

Posted on by

Recognizing that out-of-control medical costs represented a growing threat to the health of Americans and the health of our nation, then-candidate, Barack Obama, vowed to overhaul our health care system if elected president in 2008.  Almost immediately after being sworn into office, President Obama challenged the Democratic-led Congress to deliver a health care reform bill for his signature.  After much debate and many Republican-sponsored amendments, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act promising to contain health care costs and to provide health insurance to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. The president signed the bill into law. More than a year later, a conservative Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional. And in 2012, the public showed its approval by re-electing President Obama and Senate Democrats.

That’s how democracy works. Or, at least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

Despite all of this, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to accept the law, having voted to repeal or defund it 41 times. In a final lack of defiance, they refused to fund it as part of their government funding resolution despite statements by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, that the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the US Senate and statements by President Obama that he would veto the bill.

They passed the bill anyway, trying to place the blame on President Obama and Democrats.

In response, Congressional Republicans claimed to compromise by passing a spending bill that would delay funding of “Obamacare” for a year. Apparently, they believed that Democrats would be stupid enough to think that the delay was any more than a public relations attempt to deflect blame for the government shutdown.

So here we are. Our entire government has come to a standstill because of a Teapublican tantrum against a health care law their own party proposed during the 1996 presidential campaign to counter President Bill Clinton’s universal health care initiative.

Ironically, the Teapublican snitfit has not affected the implementation of “Obamacare.” Millions of Americans have signed up for health insurance exchanges since the government shutdown. Moreover, although the budget passed by the House does not fund “Obamacare,” it includes the savings which will be realized by the law.

Without “Obamacare,” the government budget being pushed by Republicans doesn’t add up! In other words, it’s ideological. But not mathematical. Indeed, it has been estimated that the government shutdown will cost taxpayers $10 billion per week! And that doesn’t even include losses by individuals.

Obviously, House Teapublicans need a time-out.

How long will Teapublicans whine, scream and cry before voters lose patience and slap them on their considerable behinds? No one knows. While tens of thousands of government workers go without paychecks, the congressmen behind the shutdown will continue to collect theirs. And, if you think that they will feel threatened by their constituents, think again. Most congressional districts have been so gerrymandered, they will likely be re-elected no matter how bad their behavior.

Despite this, there is reason to hope. Yesterday, it was announced that 17 moderate Republicans are willing to vote for a clean bill that would fund the federal government and “Obamacare.” Assuming that all House Democrats would vote for such a bill, that’s enough votes to end the government shutdown. But it requires Speaker Boehner standing up to the Tea Party parasites in his caucus and bringing the bill to a vote.

In other words, don’t hold your breath.

Beware The Pendulum.

Posted on by

As a creative director for ad agencies and as a part-time college instructor, I used to teach that social trends and fashions responded like a pendulum with a 360-degree axis. The pendulum freely swings, but never back to exactly the same place twice.

I was reminded of that description while watching the ceremonies marking the 50-year anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1963, the US seemed hopelessly racist. In the Jim Crow South, blacks were segregated from whites. African-Americans were denied the right to vote. Peaceful civil rights demonstrators were met with fire hoses, police dogs, beatings and murder.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to change that.

In the last two presidential elections, African-Americans voted in record numbers helping to elect the first US president of African-American heritage. (I’ve always marveled that his Irish-American heritage is seldom mentioned because of the color of his skin.)

Obviously, the pendulum has swung a long way from 1963. But it seems to be swinging back.

Since the election of President Obama, numerous states in both the North and the South have passed restrictive voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. No other US president has been subjected to such angry derision. No other president has been repeatedly asked to show his papers to prove that he is a citizen. No other president has been interrupted during a State of the Union speech by a “Congressman” calling him a liar. No other president has been met by such congressional obstruction.

Racism did not disappear in the sixties. It is just more subtle. There are fewer racist killings, beatings and other hate crimes. Today, the racism is economic and institutionalized. Unemployment for African-Americans is roughly double that for whites. Many of those who do have jobs are not paid a living wage. Schools in African-American communities are grossly underfunded compared to those in white communities. African-Americans are not only three times more likely to be arrested as whites, they receive longer sentences for similar crimes.

Indeed, young African-American and Latino males are seen as a source of profit for the private prison industry. They are also disproportionately represented in our military and asked to fight wars to protect the economic interests of large corporations that are almost exclusively owned and managed by wealthy white Americans.

News organizations, once again, insert race into stories of crime. Media commentators feel comfortable talking about the disintegration of African-American families while ignoring the disintegration of white families. When minorities bring up discrimination and other issues of race, white political pundits refer to it as “playing the race card.” They would like us to believe that racism no longer exists. (Of course, it doesn’t for them.)

Most disturbing is the fact that the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court has voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act and to undermine affirmative action.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, we should all take a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come. But only a moment. It’s time to get back to work to make sure the pendulum swings in the right direction again.