In the case of Boumediene v. Bush, issued on June 12, 2008, holding that the Guantanamo Bay detainees have a Constitutional right to file habeas corpus petitions in the courts of the United States to question the legality of their detentions, the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have done what we expect them to do in times of crisis for our Constitutional rule of law.
This decision will go down as one of those decisive moments in American history when a majority of the Justices realized they had to take stern action to preserve the Constitutional framework of the republic from an aberrant course. The decision is a dramatic repudiation of the whole purported legal edifice of the neocons. Under this ruling, neither George Bush nor any other American president may use threats to national security, either real or imagined, as an excuse to override the Constitution.
Under this ruling, neither George Bush nor any other American president may decide for himself or herself what the president's powers are without the constraint of our Constitutional checks and balances. Under this decision, the Magna Charta is rescued from the Bushite/neocon jackboot.
This decision dispels clouds of gloom. To all of us who have experienced so many discouraging moments during the awful neocon nightmare of recent years, this action of our nation's highest court is the kind of thing that tells us our system may still be capable of protecting us from tyranny. It is the kind of thing that says perhaps the neocon thugs will indeed all get their come-uppance before it's all said and done. It is the kind of transcendental event that restores hope and renders great cheer for all who love the promise of democracy and freedom that our national forebears proclaimed to a waiting world on July 4, 1776.
For a moment, we can allow ourselves to feel genuinely optimistic about how it is all going to finally turn out in the matter of the people vs. the neocons and Bushites. For just a moment, though. The Constitution survived a very close call by a very close margin, a 5-4 vote of the Justices. John Bush III McCain was quick to express disagreement with the decision. Senator Barack Obama agrees with the decision. Senator Obama is already on public record opposing the neocons' bankrupt theories of Constitutional law as expressed by the four dissenters, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. For the sake of my country and all it stands for, for the sake of all that its patriot sons and daughters have sacrificed down through the centuries and decades and years, for the sake of my children's right to grow up as free citizens of a Constitutional democracy, I want Barack Obama, not Bush III McCain, filling the next vacancies on the United States Supreme Court. I am going to put every possible effort I can into making that happen by winning the electoral votes of my state of Texas. I hope you all do the same.
"We close at five." It took these four words for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller to deny a convicted killer's last appeal. On September 25, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to a Kansas inmate questioning the constitutionality of lethal injection, Michael Richard was scheduled to be executed. The attorneys for the Texas Defenders Service requested that the court clerk's office remain open 20 minutes after the 5 p.m. closing time because their computers had crashed. Keller shocked the world by closing the court's office at 5 p.m. on an execution day without even consulting any of the other judges of the court. As a result, a man was executed without being able to have the merits of his last appeal considered by the criminal justice system.
There is a problem with the Texas Supreme Court race. It is a basic math question. There are three seats, with two candidates, but there is only one race. The Texas Supreme Court has three potential seats-- Wallace Jefferson for Chief Justice, Phil Johnson in Place 8, or Dale Wainwright for Place 7. Instead of having Democratic nominees in all three of these seats, we have two highly qualified candidates running against Phil Johnson in place 8.
All three seats are statewide elections and all three seats have a democratic base number of 43.2%. All three Republicans need to be challenged and all three incumbents are out of touch, do nothing, place holders.
Rather than having a bitter primary fight between two amazing candidates, it is time to have two great candidates take the fight to the corrupt Republicans. Having viable candidates in every race is the only way we can get our courts back. This is, after all, the Court that Rove built.
In 1988, Rove helped Tom Phillips become the first Republican elected as Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Phillips had been appointed to the position in November 1987 by Clements. Phillips was re-elected in 1990, 1996 and 2002.
Phillips' election in 1988 was part of an aggressive grassroots campaign called "Clean Slate '88", a conservative effort that was successful in getting five of its six candidates elected. (Ordinarily there were three justices on the ballot each year, on a nine-justice court, but, because of resignations, there were six races for the Supreme Court on the ballot in November 1988.) By 1998, Republicans held all nine seats on the Court.
Tom Phillips is now an attorney at Baker Botts, but the fact remains, Rove used the court to launch the Republican take over in Texas. As long as two fantastic candidates like Susan Criss and Linda Yanez fight each other in a primary, Texas loses. Hopefully one of these candidates will take on Dale Wainwright or Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson instead. We need a trio of heroes fighting for us and working to undo everything Karl Rove built.
Judge Susan Criss, current judge of the 212th District Court in Galveston County and Democratic candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Place 8, will address the August 21, 2007 meeting of the Irving Democratic Club. This is the first appearance of a candidate for statewide office before the Irving Democratic Club since 1998.
The meeting will be held at Spring Creek Barbeque Restaurant, 3514 W. Airport Freeway in Irving. The business portion of the meeting will take part from 6:30 to 7:00; Judge Criss will speak from 7:00 until 8:00 and then take questions from the audience.
Email irvingdemocraticclub@yahoo.com for more information.
------------------
Irving is really changing drastically. Our right wing zealot state legislator Linda Harper-Brown lost a full twenty percent of her own base in District 105 last Novemeber for her worst showing ever. Kirk England in District 106 barely scraped up a majority of votes.
In key precincts Democrats came closer to winning many county wide judicial elections in 2006 than they have in the last twenty years.
The Irving Democratic Club, which barely existed eighteen months ago, now has over 100 hundred dues paying members!
The Club has proven key to the advances Democrats have made in the GOP's Dallas County linchpin. From essentially staffing the Bob Romano for State Representative campaign in District 105 to mailing out thousands of pieces of straight ticket voting and candidate election materials to Irving Democrats who didn't vote early during the last hectic weekend before the November election, the Irving Democratic Club is ready willing and able to do everything it takes to Turn Irving Blue!
We are inviting all Democrats and like-minded independents to our August 21 meeting to greet Judge Criss. We can turn Irving blue in 2008!
Today's Supreme Court decision marks a major step backward for women's health throughout the United States, and especially in Texas where anti-choice politicians routinely play politics with women's health. The decision erodes previous protections for women's health therefore endangering women throughout the United States when they and their families are faced with personal and private decisions regarding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
Please join supporters of women's health, freedom and privacy on Thursday, April 19th from 5-6pm on the south side of the capitol (11th & Congress) to raise awareness about this historic and regressive decision which endangers women's health and, to urge Texas lawmakers to abandon similar dangerous and divisive anti-choice measures, such as Rep. Chisum's near-total abortion ban (HB 175).
What: Demonstration of Support for Women's Health in Texas
When: Thursday, April 19th, 5-6pm
Where: South side of the capitol on 11th at Congress
Why: To show our lawmakers Texans want women's health, freedom and privacy to be upheld.
According to the Lone Star Project, the Supreme Court did not issue its opinion on Texas redistricting today. The next most likely days for a decision are Monday, June 26 and Thursday, June 29. The Lone Star Project will continue to monitor the case closely and keep you informed.
She was featured on ABC's "Primetime Live" and the local prosecutor later dropped the case. But her attorney BeeAnn Sisemore was determined to have the law brought to the Texas Supreme Court to have it declared unconstitutional.
And then...nothing for a long time. Plus, her own website was taken down. Does anyone have an update as to this case; is it still pending, etc.?
[I rarely like to cross-post verbatim from my blog, but I noticed my fellow contributors here at BOR hadn't posted yet on redistricting, so here is my massive missive Redistricting Roundup for your viewing pleasure. Not much commentary from me, mainly a digest of coverage and related links--VL]
Today was D-Day for Texas Redistricting opponents as attorneys opposed to the Tom DeLay engineered 2003 Congressional remap finally had their day before the U.S. Supreme Court.
People were reportedly lining up outside the court at 4 a.m. this morning to get the chance to witness history and a fairly unprecedented two-hour oral argument. A number of Texas officials were also reportedly in attendence including many members of the Texas Congressional Delegation.
I haven't yet seen any photos or audio of oral arguments or press conferences or anything related, but the DMN's Todd Gillman did file an audio report shortly before the oral arguments which can be heard here.
Obviously, media outlets from all over are covering this. Here are some snippits, links, background and what-not:
