Maddening Headlines

So today’s news is full of maddening headlines.

1. Court Takes Birth Control Case: Another challenge to the Affordable Health Care Act. When the Supreme Court takes up a birth control case, it can’t be good, considering the current make-up of the court. In this one, non-profits challenge a requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraception. I’m dreading this.
2. Mormons Bar Gay Couples: The Mormon church stiffens its stance against gay people. It will consider them apostates and prevent children of gay couples from joining the church until they’re 18. Wow. Apart from the basic horribleness, what's with the bar against the children? They’re tainted with ‘gayness’? So weird.
3. Governor-Elect Pledges to Take Clerks’ Names Off Kentucky Licenses: The new governor of Kentucky made this a priority. Because that will really help the people of Kentucky. Furthering Kim Davis’ bizarro position that she can use her government job to further her religious views. Worse, he’s pledged to end Kentucky’s health insurance exchange and phase out the expansion of Medicaid coverage. Because it’s a good thing for people to not have health insurance?? I don’t get it. Why should Republicans’ belief that less regulation is a good thing make people sick? He’s playing with people’s lives.

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?

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.

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.

Sotomayor Too Testy?

Just saw this article in the New York Times: Sotomayor's Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament. You've got to be kidding. With Scalia on the court? He makes no bones about his opinions in oral argument and sometimes uses opinions to cudgel opposing viewpoints mercilessly. He's not above making fun of his opposition. This is a ridiculous notion, that anyone is too testy, as long as Scalia's on there.