Unbelievable

I can't believe this. I just came across these quotes from Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court:

[From AP]:

Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
 
So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn't think so and neither does he.

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute. (emphasis mine)

In other words, he has prejudged all cases concerning these issues. Shouldn't he recuse himself from all such cases, since clearly he isn't considering them with an open mind.

His philosophy doesn't allow for changing mores. Does he think slavery should still be legal, since the framers didn't intend the Constitution to ban it? Come on. Marital rape was legal until only a couple of decades ago. Does he think that's okay too, since wives were their husband's property in the 18th century, to do with whatever they wanted?

First Presidential Debate

Lies, lies, and more lies. That's what I got out of the first presidential debate. I like Barack Obama. I voted for him in the last election. But I've been disappointed in him as a President. I thought he did okay. Not great, but okay, especially given that Romney backed away from every position he's taken in this campaign.

Take away-

1. The only Americans who exist, in political lala-land, are the middle class.

 2. Your lies can pile up a mile high and the chattering classes don't care, as long as you do it with "style." How can you be the "winner" when you lied through your teeth through the entire debate?

 3. The media love the idea of a Romney comeback because that means it's a horse race again and there's more to talk about.

 4. I'm disappointed that Obama didn't do a better job of presenting himself and refuting Romney's lies. But the media don't seem to think Romney's lies are significant enough to detract from his "win." I don't get that.

Fairness or the lack thereof

Mitt Romney's 13.5% tax rate: an illustration of many things that are wrong with the way our country is run.

Quote of the day

Newt Gingrich on his extramarital affairs: "partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country." Bwahaha.

Oh hello

Oh hello Blogger, long time no see. I see it's been 2 years since I made a post here. La di dah, la di dah. I'm not sure what the point of this is, as no one will read it. Anyway, everything on here is two years old. I might actually start posting things here again.

iPhone Orchestra

Very cool. Creating music with iPhones.

Stanford's iPhone Orchestra

Excellent Rachel Maddow piece on John McCain and torture

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Shackling of Prisoners in Childbirth Should End

One of the things I periodically get worked up about is the over-medicalization of childbirth in the US. Disclosure: I had a home birth to avoid unnecessary medical procedures, so you can see where I'm coming from on this.

A few days ago, I read an editorial in the New York Times about pregnant prisoners being shackled during labor. Apparently this is fairly common in the US and only four states ban it. I had never heard about this before, and it appalls me. If you've ever given birth, you can appreciate the utter insanity of this practice. If there was ever a time when you need freedom of movement, it's during labor. Labor is unique to each woman, to each pregnancy, even. It affects everyone differently and unpredictably. Unless you're going to be completely sedated (as my mother was when she gave birth to me), you need to be able to move your body freely in order to reduce the pain of childbirth. (Although I have no doubt that any prisoner giving birth is automatically given painkillers and doesn't really have the option of natural childbirth.)

It strikes me that this practice is probably unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars "cruel and unusual punishment" and probably international law as well. Apparently Amnesty International agrees with me. Amnesty International's fact sheet on the shackling of pregnant prisoners says that "[t]he UN standard for the Treatment of all Prisoners, Rule 33, states that shackles should not be used on inmates unless they are a danger to themselves, others or property or have a history of absconding. AI considers the routine use of shackles and other restraints on pregnant prisoners is a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of treatment in violation of both the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which the USA has ratified."

Amnesty International Fact Sheet on Shackling of Pregnant Prisoners

Again, if you've ever given birth, you can guess that during childbirth, prisoners probably are 100% focused on getting that baby out of their body as soon as possible. That's what the mental and physical process of labor is designed for. Your entire being (if you're not drugged) is focused on that goal. They're not thinking about escaping or doing danger to themselves or any one else. The idea is ludicrous.

I don't know how much of a movement there is to ban this practice in the remaining 46 states, but I certainly hope there is one. Frankly, this is something Congress should take up. I don't see why a federal law couldn't be passed to ban the practice as unconstitutional. That would stop the practice in all states.

Here's a round-up of articles on the issue. New York State has banned the practice since some of this articles were published.

Giving Life, Wearing Shackles and Chains, NYTimes, 7/12/09

NY Times editorial encouraging Gov. Paterson to sign antishackling bill in NY

Good article on practice of shackling pregnant women in prison

ACLU on shackling, applauding Fed. Bureau of Prisons revision of policy

Practice of Shackling Prisoners in Labor is common in US

NY one of only 4 states to prohibit shackling of prisoners in labor

Christian Gene Isolated!

This is too funny.

Defendants Have No Constitutional Right to DNA Testing

The U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 decision that criminal defendants have no federal constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction. District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne. This sounds crazy to me. Defendants should always have the right to prove their innocence under the due process clause of the Constitution. State laws vary widely on DNA testing. To leave the availability of DNA testing up to the vagaries of legislatures seems fundamentally wrong. See this article in The Hill for Congressional criticism of the ruling. This quote from Rep. Jerrold Nadler is particularly apt:

Today’s Supreme Court decision violates our fundamental notion of fairness and due process of the law. To me, it is common sense that a defendant should have the constitutional right to conduct a test that would establish conclusively whether he is guilty or innocent of an alleged crime."

This is yet another example of Justice Roberts carrying deference to the legislature to an extreme.

Sacha Baron Cohen's crotch meets Eminem's face

Not sure if Eminem was in on this or not. It looks genuine, but who knows. It's pretty funny.

MTV Shows

More negative NYTimes for Sotomayor

I'm starting to wonder if the New York Times is going after Sonia Sotomayor. The front page today had an article entitled "Nominee's Links With Advocates Fuel Her Critics. The article discussed Sotomayor's position on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund ("PRLDF") in the 1980's. She quit that position when she was appointed to the federal judiciary, according to the article. What's strange about this article is that only one "critic" is quoted, and that quote doesn't even mention the PRLDF:

"Curt Levey, executive director of Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group active in judicial nominations, said that “while it’s fine to let your Puerto Rican heritage influence — or any heritage for that matter — influence your positions when you’re on a board, it’s quite a different story when you’re a judge, and I wonder whether she knows the difference.”

That's it! There's nothing in the article to support the allegation near the beginning that "[H]er critics, including some Republican senators who will vote on her nomination, have questioned whether she has let her ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy creep into her decisions as a judge." What critics? Cite one. It sounds like the alleged "critics" are actually the Times.

In any case, that assertion, that one's "ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy" shouldn't effect a judge's decisions, is absurd. Judges are human. They can't slice off their entire life experience and not let it effect their legal analysis. I have no doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts' life experience contributes to his siding consistently with the government, the prosecution, and corporations, as detailed in a recent New Yorker profile. This is exactly why Obama selected Sotomayor - for her life experiences. It's incredibly important to have people of diverse backgrounds interpreting our laws. Each brings a different perspective, just as people from all walks of life come before the Supreme Court to have crucial decisions made about their lives.