Bhutto killing: Last best hope for Pakistan democracy assassinated?

Ms Bhutto was Pakistan's prime minister twice. The first term of office between 1988 and 1990 coincided with the latter years of UK PM Margaret Thatcher's rule.

In our Comparative Politics text book, Chip Hauss lists the Crtieria for Democracy:

"There is no single uniformly accepted set of criteria in determining whether a country is democratic. Of the five that follow, however, the first three are on every list:

• Basic Freedoms


• The rule of law


• Competitive, fair and free elections


• A strong civil society and civic culture


• Capitalism and affluence

There was no question in the eight years Benizar Bhutto -- the first woman ever elected to office (she was prime minister twice) in a Muslim country -- was exciled, her country had become less democratic than it had been.

In fact, Pakistan ranked 113 out of 167 countries in The Economist's 2007 Democracy Index.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

Pakistan ranked scored a 3.92 (the most democratic country, Sweden, was 9.88). Its highest ranking for political participation probably gave Bhutto hope. Its lowest scores came in functioning of govenment and civil liberties -- categories that she promised to rise if elected president, and the polls indicated she was on her way to victory.

By comparision with our countires of study, Pakistan ranked ahead of Nigeria (124th; 3.52; low functionig of govt), China (138th; 2.97 0.00 for electoral process and pluralism); and Iran (139th; 2.93; 0.08 for electoral process and pluralism), and below Russia (102nd; 5.02; low political participation), Mexico (53rd; 6.67; ranked as a flawed democracy) the UK (23rd; 8.08; low political participation) and the U.S. (17th; 8.22; low political participation).

http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438

But that did not keep Bhutto from going back to keep working for democracy. Her assassination is felt around the globe and can be another starting point of the challenges of democratization in a globalized world with factions. After reading the BBC link and viewing the BBC interview, consider whether Bhutto was a last best hope for democracy in Pakistan. She says in the BBC interview, "Unfortunately, Pakistan has become one of the most dangerous places in the world,'' she said.

"We have to restore the Rule of Law in the country. . .I am a threat to Dictatorship, I am a threat to Extremists, I am not a threat to any Democrat. There is a strong moderate middle that needs to be mobilized. The forces of freedom and moderation need to be strengthened in my country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7160000/newsid_7162100/7162107.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1

Consider various factors on this major event in world politics:

Can Democracy Work in Islamic Countries?

Will scheduled elections of Jan. 8 go on (Bhutto was expcted to win the Presidency)? What effect will elections have on true democracy in Pakistan (or Russia, earlier)

What should the U.S. government do about a Pakistan president who has recieived $11 billion in aid as an ally on the war on terror, but could not keep a security detail on is opposition political rival?

And, how will this tragedy effect the U.S. presidential caucus in Iowa and early primaries. (ie: will we be looking for a more experienced commander-in-chief type -- McCain, Biden...Hillary instead of a more hopeful outsider -- Obama, Huckabee.) ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7162194.stm

The L Word

Hauss explains that American students are often confussed by the word liberal. In the U.S., it refers to people who support an interventionist government (or at least promoted as weak by Fair and Balanced News Channels). Everywhere else in the world, however, it has almost the opposite connotation -- opposition to government interference in the economy or other areas where individuals can freely make decisions for themselves.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes that the Harvard-educated Bhutto was a true voice for liberalism, tolerance, and change:

"She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change.

"She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change.

"A less determined person would have backed off when her conservative Muslim enemies tried to kill her after she returned home in October. But Bhutto had crossed that bridge a long time ago. She was a person who, for all her breeding and cultivation, ran headlong at life. Her father and two brothers had died for their vision of a country where Islam and the modern world made an accommodation. Her only real fear, I think, was that she might fail in her mission.

Her assassination was, as President Bush said yesterday, a "cowardly act." It was a defining act of the politics of murder -- a phenomenon that we see from Lebanon to Iraq to Pakistan. If we forget, with the passage of time, the face of the Muslim extremism responsible for Sept. 11, 2001, here is a reminder: Bhutto's killers targeted her because she was modern, liberal and unafraid. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701479.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

In 1997, Fareed Zakaria wrote about the rise of illiberal democracies:

"It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. As the political scientist Philippe Schmitter has pointed out, "Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice." Today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western political fabric, are coming apart in the rest of the world. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not."

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html

As the events in Pakistan point out, the challenge of democracy is not getting any easier.

For Goodness Sake: Democracy Crushed II?

The news of the post above should make us thankful this holiday season of life in our liberal democracy, or industrial democracy with an electoral democracy that our opposition can still petition the government for serious grievances in a humorous way.

Freedom House’s term “electoral democracy” differs from “liberal democracy” in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies.

That said, last week I recieved a Disapearing Civil Liberties Coffee Container with an the appalled mug of Thomas Jefferson on the box. And a Constitutional Lawyer tried to deliver over 37,000 signed Constitutions to President Bush at the White House.

"Responding to an urgent request from the Center for Constitutional Rights, Claus stepped in to bring messages from Americans who felt the President might need a refresher course in the Constitution. Citizens want to remind President Bush that the Constitution forbids torture and spying on Americans without a warrant, requires that prisoners get a fair hearing of the charges against them before a real court and makes the government's treaty obligations, such the Geneva Conventions, the law of the land. "

Video of Santa's White House delivery is linked here:

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/santa-claus-delivers-37%2C000+-copies-constitution-president-bush

The great thing about our democracy, with an opposition voice, certain rights may seem disappearing at times. But nobody and no rights are dead yet.

Who would You Put-in Your Person of the Year Place?

Russian President Vladimir Putin was named as Time magazine's "Person of the Year" this week for achieving apparent stability in Russia even at the cost of freedom and democracy for its people.

The Telegraph (UK) reports that: The award, often made to stoke controversy and supposed to be a recognition of influence rather than an honour, was given to the Russian president because he had reshaped a country that had "fallen off our mental map", according to Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/wputin120.xml



Previous winners include Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. After Ayatollah Khomeini won the award in 1979, thousands of readers cancelled their subscriptions.

We have blogged here about Putin. Some have praised him. And on the other side, to quote Garrett, "Fear the Putin."

For fun posting here over the holidays, nominate your choice for Political Warrior Person of the Year.



My 2007 nominee is...Bono... the winner of this year's Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Museum, the co-founder of the One Campaign and founder of DATA (Debt, Aids, Trade, Africa), Product Red...and in his spare time, the lead singer of The Greatest Band of Social Conscience, U2. Bono has led the lobby on both sides of the Congressional aisle in the U.S. and both sides of the Atlantic Ocean (the EU) to keep world poverty on the legislative agenda. Unlike infamous corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, Bono is proof that special interests can truly be for the greater good.

In 2006, Bono said this upon launching Product Red:

"Over the past year, almost 2 million (it's now 2.4 million) Americans have joined ONE, in churches and chatrooms. . .on soccer pitches and movie sets. . .at NASCAR races and rock concerts. By 2008, we’re aiming to have 5 million members – that’s more than the National Rifle Association. Just think for a moment of what that kind of political firepower could achieve for the poorest of the poor. . ."

For more on Wolak's Person of the Year, read here:

http://www.u2france.com/spip.php?article11551

Ok Political Warriors, post your nominees here. We'll vote on the Political Warrior Person of the Year on Jan. 7

Judicial Review....and More

Review for your Advanced Placement Final Exam right here thanks to the Review Guys and CitizenU.org. Do it today, tomorrow, or anytime even after the final exam when you download to your favorite mp3 player. (The Review stuff sticks at AP Test Time!) Blog us about the creative ways and places you review.

Also if you are studying tonite, post a question and I'll check and post back an answer.

Anyway, here (or hear) are the Review Guys looks at:

Review Guys: AP Foundations/Civil Liberties/Civil Rights.

Review Guys: AP Political Culture/Federalism.

Review Guys: AP Public Opinion/Political Participation.

Review Guys: AP Political Parties/Campaigns.

Review Guys: AP Media/Presidency.

Review Guys: AP Judicial.

Review Guys: AP Interest Groups/Congress.

Two Clauses Provide Holiday Gifts

A neighbor friend of mine, who shares my faith, lamented that our sons' holiday choral concert had no Christmas songs. "It's a shame that the kids can't sing in celebration," she said.

I, too, enjoy Christmas music. This post will review the Clauses (not Mr. & Mrs.) and why they are hard to find in our public schools. At the same time, the times, they may be a changing the holiday season. Reflect this season, if that would be a good thing.

The poll-leading Republican presidential candidate in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, is running this Christmas ad as he plays directly to his base. If that base gets him the nomination and eventually the presidency, will we be back to Christmas Days of old?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMUI2XExdIA

Just another reminder that "All Politics is Local," and you have to cater your message to different groups, Huckabee earlier in the campaign used his supporter, Chuck Norris, to gain strength in the polls. (Thanks to Mike Whitt for this link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

The Christmas Ad and my neighbors comments, though, make it clear at this holiday time, we should reflect on the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. This post from the 2 Regular Guys at CBS2School.com:

Diversity is one of our American strengths, except when certain holidays come around. Our motto, E Pluribus Unum, is printed on our coins but not always on our hearts.

This holiday season we again hear the loud trumpets of those who feel the government is taking away the real meaning of the season. Today's school pageants, public decorations and other festivities, some argue, have caved in to political correctness. The greatest story ever told, some worry, is being forgotten.

One story worth retelling this time of year is found in our First Amendment. There are two particular clauses worth reviewing this season.

They are the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. Both deal with religion in the public square.

The free exercise clause gives us the freedom to worship who and what we want.

The establishment clause prevents the government from favoring one religion over another.

The government, the Courts have ruled, need not be hostile to matters of faith. Rather they cannot establish one religion by giving it preference. Certain accommodations are allowed.

We may wish preferences but be careful what you wish for. That which is favored one year could be unfavored the next. Neutrality, however, protects our conscience and our habits. No democracy in history has maintained such fervent devotion to religious practice as here in the United States. Most would agree it is not because of government help but the contrary. Our faithfulness endures because the government has stayed out.

The wise men of old, due to an overly oppressive government, returned to their country by another route. Nevertheless, the story they told changed lives. Good stories always do. We do not need government to help us. On the contrary, the story remains strong because we too have taken a different route then most. The gift of our liberties is a great story.

Students’ free speech rights up in smoke

This re-run post from last spring is re-visited so we can complete the connection of precedent on student speech/expression from Tinker v. Des Moines, through Hazelwood and Bethel to Frederick v. Morse (aka: Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

In an illiberal democracy, the images might cause protest boycotts and bombs. Here they just may cause students’ free speech rights to be blown up – up in smoke that is.

Joseph Frederick, then a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, attended an off-campus Olympic torch relay parade near his Alaska school in 2002. Students had been released from school so they could watch the relay. Frederick was standing across the street from school grounds attempting to draw attention from the media outlets coming to the event. He unfurled a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

School Principal Deborah Morse crossed the street and pulled down Frederick’s banner. Morse also suspended Frederick for five days, but after Frederick said he quoted Thomas Jefferson in protest, Morse increased his suspension to 10 days.

School lawyers said the principal acted because the banner promoted drug use and conflicted with the school’s anti-drug policy. A federal district court ruled that the banner was offensive according to the 1986 Supreme Court case Bethel School District v. Fraser and the school had the right to discipline the student.

Frederick appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s ruling because it said the Fraser precedent was only applicable to sexual discussion. The judges, citing the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines ruling wrote that speech occurring outside the classroom can’t be censored just because it conflicts with the school’s educational mission.

In what was the last term's marquee case, the Anna Nicole Smith of 06-07, the decision will have a real precedent of student speech/press. “The fundamental issue is jurisdiction,’’ said constitutional scholar Linda Monk. “To say to a student that essentially there is no limit to our jurisdiction over you is the death of the First Amendment.”

And in the decision given last June, the Roberts Court, with the Chief Justice writing the majority opinion said for another 5-4 Court, that while students do retain certain rights to political speech in school, the right does not extend to pro-drug messages.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278/

Iowa Ground Game

News from what they call the Iowa Ground Game got interesting this week, following the Oprah-Obama festival weekend.

With less than a month before the Jan. 3 Iowa Caucus, the Hillary Clinton campaign brought in Bill Clinton to do some retail politics. CBS 2 Regular Guys caught up with the former-President outside an Iowa City coffee shop as the master politician refused to let a winter storm stop the campaign.

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: 2 Regular Guys Meet Bill Clinton

The 2 Regular Guys wrote:

"As the winter storm covered Iowa in ice, Team Clinton was feeling the heat.

One month ago, Hillary was hitting her stride with double-digit leads in Iowa polls. But now, with Barack Obama's slight advantage, Hillary has brought in her not-so-secret weapon—Bill.

Like Barack's support form Oprah, Bill Clinton brings a rock star quality to the campaign trail. Unlike Oprah, however, Bill is a political veteran with a record of winning support from undecided voters. Bill is a veteran of the retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire where handshakes and face-to-face conversations are more important than slick TV ads."

Earlier (or later) not sure on the time, Bill was met by a robot-dressed heckler, as the Des Moines Register reports It just confirms for me that high school teachers like the 2 Regular Guys, Dan and Andy are contributing more than some college professors:

" A University of Iowa professor dressed as a robot interrupted Bill Clinton at a campaign stop here late Monday, screaming for an apology before security escorted him from the building.The professor, Kembrew McLeod, stood on a chair and screamed several statements, including: "Robots of the world want you to apologize." The audience erupted into loud boos.

McLeod, before security officers could reach him, tossed hundreds of cards into the audience of about 400 people in protest of statements the former president made in 1992 of Sister Souljah, a member of the musical group Public Enemy."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071211/NEWS/71211070/1001

It all just adds to the legend and navigating the strategy of the Iowa ground game, sumarized well in this clip from Politico.com

www.politico.com/iowa/

Peace Out

December 8 was the 27th anniversary of the murder of John Lennon. His legacy and his dream of imagining and "Think(ing) Peace, Act(ing) Peace, and Spread (ing)Peace. " is alive and well on line. Yoko Ono has created the imaginepeace.com website. "John worked for it all his life. He said, "there's no problem, only solutions, "she writes.

Yoko did design the Imagine Peace Tower in Reykjavik, Iceland, which was dedicated on John Lennon's birthday in October.

"Let's not waste the lives of those we have lost. Let's, together, make the world a place of love and joy and not a place of fear and anger. This day of John's passing has become more and more important for so many people around the world as the day to remember his message of Peace and Love and to do what each of us can to work on healing this planet we cherish," Yoko Ono Lennon posts.

In a world with war and continued gun violence, one wonders if we dare to imagine. Or is that dream left for imaginary world's?

http://www.imaginepeace.com/

Over My Dead Body

The Daily Herald reports on an issue that has had a longer delay then anything in the passenger terminals at O'Hare International Airport -- the expansion of runways at the the second-busiest airport in the world by some reports.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=90673&src=1

Back in 2002, then Illinois Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald threatened to filibuster, and did delay the federal O'Hare expansion bill. Fitzgerald beleived that the government and Chicago were wrong to take the property of both the living and the dead in Bensenville by eminent domain.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20020520/ai_n12465274

Eventually, Congress passed the bill and the new runways are projected to be done, by the end of the decade -- at a cost of about $8 billion, if the government can just get the dead weight out o the way.

But that hasn't been easy, and even though opponents of expansion at O'Hare International Airport were rebuffed yet again Wednesday in their attempts to stop Chicago officials from gutting a cemetery for a new runway -- they aren't quite dead yet.

Bensenville, Elk Grove Village and St. John's United Church of Christ -- which owns the 158-year-old St. Johannes Cemetery -- lost a bid to have the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider their argument that digging up the graves violates religious protection laws.

But the petitioners are vowing to appeal now to the United States Supreme Court. The high Court could grant a writ of certiori even though the 7th Circuit denied appeal here.

This case has religious establishment clause issues, according to Illinois Review (Crossroads of the Conservative Community):

"No religious violation? Huh? Christian reverence for the human body is rooted in the belief in the resurrection of the body, which should be preserved until Judgment Day and not be disturbed in the interim. We are all familiar with the reading of the Rite of Burial: "In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ, we commend to Almighty God our (brother/sister); and we commit (his/her) body to the ground. Earth to earth; ashes to ashes; dust to dust. The Lord bless (him/her) and keep (him/her), the Lord make his face to shine upon (him/her) and be gracious unto (him/her) and give (him/her) peace."

Many Christian religions and Catholic Canon Law have very specific requirements for the final disposition and maintenance of remains, none of which include digging them up to make room for an airport. In other words, the only thing that should be soaring to the skies from that land are the deceased who reside there.

My question is, did the right of those buried at St. Johannes to express their Constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom on their sacred, privately owned land end when they died?"

Jennifer Millhouse Baty

________________

If the Supreme Court does take the case, it would be another eminent domain decision that will divide not only the Court, but the American people. Stare decicis from the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London (Conn.) was decided 5-4 in favor of a municipal government land grab from development.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

Ever since that decision, several states have enacted more restrictive laws against eminent domain and others have considered giving the government and developers more room to condem private property for public use.

Our own school district is still caught up court over obtaining land for the proposed third high school, but has not been able to obtain the land by eminent domain condemnation.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=80932&src=2

The question is how far should the government be granted eminent domain powers? And is moving graves a grave violation of establisment clause rights?

Mitt Romney is no Jack Kennedy

We know that informal qualifications for presidential electablity are more imporant than the formal qualifications that all of the candidates on both sides of the horse race have. And though we have a "Separation of Church and State" in this country -- Religion -- especially among Republican primary voters is a key qualifier.

Sen. John F. Kennedy confronted concerns about his religion head-on in the 1960 campaign that made him the first Roman Catholic to be U.S. president.

Now, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is trying to ease the concerns of Christian conservatives about his Mormon faith, in a speech Thursday from George H.W. Bush‘s presidential library at College Station, Texas, 90 miles from JFK‘s venue.

Here is the famous Kennedy speech, from the JFK presidential library:

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew — or a Quaker — or a Unitarian — or a Baptist. It was Virginia‘s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson‘s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim — but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none — who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him — and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died — when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches — when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom — and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey — but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts — why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic church in such nations as Ireland and France — and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and de Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views — for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party‘s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith — nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God."
_______________

Columnist Richard Cohen says its absurd that Romney feels compelled to make a speech that will be compared to JFK's (though JFK had a mch easier sell) that is basically a religious litmus test.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7625229

But as David Schuster's report on Harball reported, candidates as far back as Al Smith losing to Herbert Hoover and Kennedy and Jimmy Carter winning elections in the 1960 and 1976 have had to address their religious beliefs.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/&fg=&from=00&vid=969fbfc1-8ea2-4323-9ade-5ea1f8fdd4b1&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:Source_Hardball:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

The question is, does it matter to you what your president's religious beliefs are?

"Rule of Law" at GITMO gets further review

Wednesday, Today the Supreme Court heared oral arguments on a case which will have broad ramifications. Undoubtedly the Court's decision will affect not only the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. but also the legacy of George W. Bush.

In dispute are the war powers of the president.

At issue in Boumediene v. Bush [along with Al Odah v. United States] is whether or not the enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay can expect to receive certain Constitutional rights. These rights would include due process of law and habeas corpus privileges. To any citizen of the United States these are fundamental rights.

Due process promises equal and fair treatment regardless of guilt or innocence. Habeas Corpus assures that no one is held by the state arbitrarily. Governments must give reasons for detaining individuals. These terms are learned in your most basic Constitutional law classes.
Bush and his military advisors claim that no such guarantees have ever been applied to prisoners of war. The 355 detainees at Guantanamo Bay are such prisoners. Furthermore, the U.S. federal court system lacks the appropriate jurisdiction to rule.

Typically during wartime military tribunals maintain jurisdiction in such matters. The Supreme Court previously, however, in the case Rasul v. Bush (2004) held that U.S. federal courts held jurisdiction over such habeas corpus claims. The Congress quickly passed a law, the Detainee Treatment Act (2005), further complicating these claims. The Court seemingly is concerned that a president's unchecked power during war leads to a dangerous precedent.

The audio linked here shows has Scalia and Alito ("Scalito") seemingly aligning with the President and Breyer and Stevens against. Remember, the quiet Justice Thomas said by this point most of the minds of the justices have been made up.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/&fg=&from=00&vid=2bdfa5fb-a136-43bf-8416-9ce1dc8b9082&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20Picks:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

For this case, two new Justices are present. This was the first time the Bush appointees get to rule on matters of war. The Court's decision will fall heavy on someone.

Will it be the detainees or will it be the President?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22113362/

Holding Court

Call this post a full-court press on Supreme Court news and views:

1) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings. The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012335

_________________________________

2) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news last week by speaking his mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.

As the above data shows, Thomas' silence during Supreme Court oral arguments is legendary. While his colleagues pepper lawyers with questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8 justices force legal teams to perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes at a time, Thomas often leans back in his large chair and stares at the ceiling.

When he does speak during oral arguments, it's almost always in private conversation with Justice Breyer. (And from the looks at the menus that they swap, those conversations are often about what to get for lunch.)In the past, Justice Thomas has said the oral argument time is not meant for Justices to show off but for the lawyers to make their legal arguments before the Court. But Thomas has recently said--in jest-- that “My colleagues should shut up!”

This interesting side note brings the bigger question about the USSC to light. Why can't we watch the Supreme Court's oral arguments on television. In an era where we can watch gavel-to-gavel coverage of Congress in high-def, why can't we get any glimpse of The Nine in action unless we attend in person?

Proponents of allowing TV cameras to broadcast USSC oral argument sessions claim the broadcasts would bring more transparency to Court proceedings and educate citizens about the judicial process. Critics of broadcasting the Court--including each of the current justices--contend that cameras would be used to simplify the complex legal arguments into soundbytes and put pressure on the justices to play up to the cameras.

Meanwhile, the Court continues the trend of immediately releasing the transcripts and audio recordings of high-profile oral arguments. You can hear these for yourself this Wednesday (12.05.2007) after the Court hears arguments in the latest Enemy Combatant case Lakhdar Boumediene v. George Bush.

Would you rather hear your Ruth Bader Ginsburg on audio transcripts released after Court proceedings? Or would you rather watch Ruth live and in HD?

From CitizenU.org

________________________

3) In the Ny Times article, "The Disenter," gives insight into how the High Court has moved right and now the self-proclaimed conservative, and eldest member of the Supremes, may be The Nine's most liberal justice:

"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to federal courts.

"Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Friday.

____________________________

4) The second article you need to have read by Friday is Time's cover story from last October:

The Incredible Shrinking Court

"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly symbolic."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670489,00.html

__________________________________

5) Finally, a re-run post from last year's 'Global Warming' SC decision:

The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.

The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar. At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:

1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?

Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction. From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?

MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.

JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.

(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.

MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.

The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.
______________

In analyzing new Chief Justice John Roberts and newest associate justice Samuel Alito influence of the high Court, attorney Patrick Cotter said the two, who have not spoken or written much, have had little effect so far. For the long term, however, Cotter said President Bush may have created what conservative presidents have been trying to do since the 1950s – cement a solid block on the bench. He said to watch how many times Kennedy sides with Roberts and Alito.

Statistically, the Roberts Court took 40% fewer cases this year than last, when it issued just 69 opinions (the lowest # since 1953). Now the docket is even less filled with just half the opinions to come down as compared to the Rehnquist court of the late 1980s. What would possible reasons for the Court deciding less? Blog your thoughts. Linked is the transcript of the oral arguments in 05-1120.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120/argument/

Checkmate for Russian Democracy?

With Russia's parlimentary elections, being held on Sunday and what President Vladimir Putin plans for the March term presidential election unclear, CNN and Professor Richard Farkas from DePaul University report that one thing is clear -- Putin will not be going away.

Being broadcast this weekend, CNN's Christiane Amanpour's special "Czar Putin" reports: "Some say voicing your criticism could cost you your life there. Christiane Amanpour explores the dark side of Putin's Russia. "

Meanwhile, reports of Putin's only political opposition, former Chess champion Garry Kasparov, has been jailed and harrassed. He claims democracy is being held hostage in Putin's Russia.

"Garry Kasparov has defeated the world's greatest chess players and battled a supercomputer for supremacy. Now, he's facing his toughest opponent, but trying to check the power of Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn't been easy.

Intensely sharp, the energetic 44-year-old Kasparov, whose political opposition party has been the most vocal against Putin's Kremlin, can hardly suppress his fury with the country's leadership.

Jailed for five days before Sunday's parliamentary elections, the brooding grandmaster has spent long hours plotting his moves and countermoves.

"This regime is entering a very dangerous phase that is turning it into a dictatorship," he told journalists as he arrived at his Moscow apartment shortly after his release on Thursday."

The full story is linked here, with two good video reports. One is on the challenger's campaign and one on the fictional feature film propaganda that is once again sweeping Russia:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/30/kasparov.putin/index.html?iref=newssearch#cnnSTCVideo

All this could be seen a year out from the Russia Presdential Election, as I reported in this post last March from a program held at the 2007 DuPage Social Studies Conference:

In his update on Russia 2007, Dr. Richard Farkas said he is convinced Vladimir Putin will not seek to change the Russian constitution in DeJure (by law) fashion to stay President.

DeFact(o)s, however, indicate that the leader of “Putin’s Russia” is not ready to leave the Prime Time. In fact, don’t be surprised if the Prime Minister position becomes the most powerful position in the Government.

The Russian constitution adopted, but never ratified, in 1993 limits the directly elected president to two four-year terms, and Putin is term-limited. The Prime Minister, appointed by the President, currently is nothing more than a figurehead. “Prime Time” Putin is all but completely independent of any checks and balances from the State Duma. Here’s the rub: Having already managed the Duma elections to his favor, if the legislature changed the power structure from presidential to parliamentary, Russia would remain stable. And who would be the most viable PM candidate?

According to Farkas, “Out of the spotlight, people would not really have the lens on Putin and there would be no limit on how long he could serve as Prime Minster.”

Brilliant!

More tidbits on Putin’s Russia 2007 edition, from his annual “press conference” in front of 1,200 “fair and balanced” journalists. Internet hacks were banned from attending:

Ø “Feelings of national pride and values have been restored in the Russian people and must be supported (ie: less tolerance, more nationalism)

Ø On being a year away from the March, 2008 presidential election with no candidates having emerged yet, “All potential candidates have jobs and are busy,’’ (Not like the U.S. Senate) Putin said, adding he would not hand-pick a successor.

Ø “The next election will not be acrimonious.” (No DNC or RNC talking points)

The December Duma elections and whatever presidential race shapes up should be very congenial. After all, only 4 of the former 44 political parties have >5% support to run a candidate. Two of those “opposition” parties have been managed by Putin to provide center/right and center/left opposition. All that’s left is Putin’s United Russia, and the old Communist Party.

Then there is Rule of Law Russian style, 2007 (modern democratic centralism?). Here are a couple of new laws passed by the legislature, signed and supported, of course, by the president. At least they can pass meaningful campaign finance reform in Russia:

Ø Civil servants have been banned from getting grants (or fund-raising) from foreign sources. They were already banned from getting donations from domestic sources – those would be bribes.

Ø Banned are public marches two weeks before or after the elections. This law is subject to federal authority enforcement.

Still, despite all of the above, Dr. Farkas does not diagnose a seemingly crashing democracy in Russia caused by pilot error.

“Clearly he has been the most competent Russian leader. Markedly better, and more sober, than Yeltsin. The problems are so monumental that even the best and brightest would have problems,’’ he said.