Tag: Supreme Court

Blog To End Unjust Institutionalization!

Posted by nickdupree – October 5, 2009

ADAPT is going back to the heart of the civil rights movement, Atlanta, to demand that the promises made to Georgians (and all Americans) by the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W. are kept. Read ADAPT’s page on the action here.

Segregating people with disabilities in institutions solely because they need daily help, especially given the 21st century technology that can assist them and the widespread success of people with disabilities living in the community, is fundamentally unjust, immoral, overly costly, and, according to the Olmstead ruling, illegal under Title II of the ADA.

Olmstead, the case of two Georgia natives who wanted the state to stop segregating them, affirmed all Americans’ right to receive care in “the least restrictive setting” (i.e. not in prison-like institutions) and ordered all states to end unnecessary confinement of their disabled citizens (which it deemed illegal discrimination) at a “reasonable pace.” Most states have done little to nothing to comply. The institutional bias of the system is deeply entrenched, and even though the Olmstead decision came down 10 years ago last June, millions of people with disabilities are still kept out of sight, out of mind, stuck in institutions. “A right delayed is a right denied,” Martin Luther King, Jr. would say.


Georgia’s system, the focus of the Olmstead case, remains notoriously bad, insisting on expensive life-long institutionalizations that strip people of any choice in their daily lives, block opportunities to grow and become self sufficient, and kill hope. And most states are similarly awful, especially in the South. They refuse to heed the Supreme Court’s orders, reminiscent of their failure to follow school desegregation rulings “with all deliberate speed.”

We can no longer ignore illegal segregation and the community support services states must use to prevent it. We can no longer ignore Olmstead. We mustn’t put long-term care on the backburner and not include it in this year’s health care reform; telling us to wait another decade or more is deeply unjust. ADAPT will be in Atlanta, October 10-15, demanding that this change. You can help raise awareness around the Fall National Action by blogging!

The ADAPT Blogswarm, Fall ’09, will collect posts raising the issues of the institutional bias, ablist and unjust institutionalization, lack of community-based services, long-term care reform, the Olmstead decision and posts highlighting ADAPT’s Fall Action. Blogswarm posts will all be listed here, on nickscrusade.org, on October 12.

Your blogging is incredibly important to raise awareness of these issues (often swept under the rug). Please contribute to the blogswarm!

For instructions on how to participate, see
ADAPT Blogswarm, Fall Action 2009

Thank you!

Nick

Share

Reality Check: Sotomayor NOT “A Radical”

Posted by nickdupree – May 29, 2009

The Reality: Sotomayor is a moderate, who sometimes makes liberal decisions that anger conservatives and sometimes makes conservative decisions that anger liberals, like ruling against abortion clinics in the “global gag rule” case, and the loathsome ruling that public schools can punish a student for free speech written on a blog off campus.  My beef with that is the freedom-crushing precedent it set, opening the door to much more freedom squashing in the future.

But overall she’s a moderate “pragmatist,” in the Obama mold.

Sonia Sotomayor LOLz

Sonia Sotomayor LOLz

The Far-Right Crazy Land Place: As I reported yesterday, Glenn Beck suggested that empathy is bad and can lead to Naziism, so Obama’s “empathetic” judicial nominees should be rejected.  Sean Hannity called  her a “radical.” Rush Limbaugh compared her to David Duke.   Some are concerned how “platos de arroz, gandoles y perni,” her Puerto Rican foods, will affect her judging, and Jeffrey Rosen in The New Republic allowed an anonymous source to attack Sotomayor as “not that smart” (because, obviously, doofuses can graduate summa cum laude from Princeton).

The corpse-esque visage of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell takes the podium (alongside Sen. Ensign and Sen. Cornyn) to demand that Supreme Court appointees only show empathy for state authorities and multinational corporations

The corpse-esque visage of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell takes the podium (alongside Sen. Ensign and Sen. Cornyn) to demand that Supreme Court appointees only show empathy for state authorities and multinational corporations

With the public opinion of Sotomayor high (polls show 45% of likely voters saying the Senate should confirm her, and only 29% who say they should not) this process will be more about trying the Republicans than her. How badly will they shoot themselves in the foot?

Bush holding his phone upside-down, and the caption Youre Doing It Wrong

Bush holding his phone upside-down, and the caption "You're Doing It Wrong"

Share

Glenn Beck, in Criticizing Sotomayor, Says Empathy Is BAD, and Cites Bad Misunderstanding of Hebrew Bible

Posted by nickdupree – May 28, 2009

Glenn Beck is stupid.

Glenn Beck is stupid.

Several weeks ago, I slapped down an idiotic routine from Beck, and now, he’s at it again.

This time, he’s making outrageous comments and going completely off the rails about new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The rallying cry of the Republicans against Obama’s nominations has been “EMPATHY IS BAD!!!”   This from the same group that spent the last three decades beating us over the head with their holy book that commands love and empathy.  They don’t want empathetic judges! They want automatons that will apply the LETTER OF THE LAW without “gay” things like “feelings” or “considering the situation.” And if you break away from this particular party line, you’re THE ENEMY, on par with Hitler.

Beck cites Hitler example to state that “empathy leads you to very bad decisions”

Right, Glenn, when I think of empathy, the first person that comes to mind is HITLER.

Glenn suggests that Hitler’s extermination program to cull people with disabilities (he calls it out by name, Action T-4) was borne of empathy, and thus no judge with empathy should be on the bench.

Hitler’s euthanasia program had nothing to do with “mercy” or “ending suffering,” and everything to do with their sicko “racial hygiene” policies to achieve a “pure” master race.  The notion that the Nazis were “empathetic”–does he think there’s something warm and fuzzy about old Adolf?–puts Mr. Beck decidedly aboard the Crazy Train.

Beck has focused his show lately on beating the drum against empathy.  In a very unfortunate move, he mocked people wanting diversity in our system, joking, “we need a blind, deaf, handicapped Asian woman!” for the Supreme Court (source). He just has to continue his tradition of mocking disability.

And he really misunderstood the Hebrew Bible.  He tried to make a point, and really failed. Dude, you’re doing it wrong.

YES, King Shlomo was empathetic! Because he knew that by pretending to expose the baby to danger, the real mother would reveal herself, and the dispute would be settled. Come on. Someone who recovered from alcoholism through Mormonism should know a lot more about the Bible than that.

Share

No "Personal Responsibility" For Corporations?

Posted by nickdupree – February 24, 2008

Justices Shield Medical Devices From Lawsuits

Ok, basically, thanks to this Supreme Court ruling, corporations can make products that kill your mom, and can do this with total impunity and have no “Personal Responsibility” whatsoever. They are invincible. You have no recourse as long as the product was rubberstamped by the all-too-fallible, all-too-bribable FDA.

Of course, it would reduce costs tremendously if we banned all product liability lawsuits entirely, but we do not want to live in a society where no one is responsible for their actions.

If my faulty load-bearing wall collapses and kills your mom, you would sue me, right?

Why is it right to sue me over my faulty wall, but impossible to sue me for my faulty medical device?

Why do medical corporations get this level of favoritism? Is it because they bribe everyone like crazy?

Politicians love to scream “personal responsibility,” but this does not apply to corporations, apparently. This is just more tyranny, more special rights for corporations that citizens do not have. I am not pleased.

Nick

Share

Compromise On Torture?

Posted by nickdupree – September 27, 2006

Government Sanctioned Immorality Reaching Scary Proportions

 Okay, we have a President of The United States of America, leader of the free world, who is pulling out all the stops to get a bill allowing more leeway on torture through Congress. This should be incredibly shocking to all of you. This post is Nick ranting about how evil torture is.

Let me lay down the facts, something you don’t get straight from our soundbite news media:

  • June 30, the Supreme Court of the United States put the smackdown on the president’s secret detainee tribunals (WikiNews article). The Supreme Court ruled them illegal, because *news flash* we have a Constitution wherein the legislature creates the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judiciary reviews and safeguards our rights in those laws, and the president, contrary to his claim to unlimited authority to prosecute the “war on terror,” cannot invent a new law out of thin air to secretly try detainees with no oversight whatsoever. Only Congress is responsible for making new laws.


This should be elementary school-level knowledge. It’s what our founders died for in the Revolutionary War.


In war-time the seperation of powers are not suspended, and the president can never assume all powers, overriding all other branches of government, despite what the Bush Justice Dept. people say. Congress decides what our laws are going to be, and they adopted the Geneva Conventions in 1949. So, on June 30, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the president’s secret detainee tribunals are unconstitutional, and told him to either try terrorists under existing law, or get Congress to write a new law for it (Washington Post article).
  • Imagine for a moment the (not-so-far-fetched) scenario that Iran captures a US soldier, and tries him in a secret tribunal, without allowing anyone to see any evidence, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rightfully, there would be a massive international outcry. But when we do it, it’s okay? And now the president wants his perverse double standards codified into American law, and Congress is behind him. What??!!
  • Congress makes the laws, and ratified the Geneva Conventions as the law of the land in 1949, and that law forbids secret trials of enemies and torture. The president can’t abolish existing law, and the Supreme Court spanked him about that. So he’s gone to Congress to make the torture and tribunals legal. On Sept. 15, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and told reporters:
This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, “outrages upon human dignity”? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I’m proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they’re doing is legal.

I’m not making this up. Here’s the full transcript. Bush seriously said he doesn’t know what outrages upon human dignity are. Step back for a minute, close your eyes, and ponder what it means when the leader of the free world thinks the Geneva Conventions are vague and does not know what “outrages upon human dignity” mean! That explains so much about the last six years of our government, no?

There’s a century or so of case law defining what outrages on human dignity mean Mr. President, and you would look it up if it served your cause. It doesn’t of course, and even a cursory glance at our laws would yank away any fig leaf of legality propping up our dubious “alternative interrogation techniques.”

Stephen Colbert, who does wicked satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” takes on the topic here, suggesting the Geneva Conventions are as vague as a Lewis Caroll verse and if Bush would show us how he defines torture, we’d see his position with perfect “clarity.”

  • Senators John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham went to the press and said they would insist on legislation that would leave the Geneva Conventions intact.

  • Then they caved, announcing a compromise on torture. You read that right, the United States is compromising on torture. Under the new bill, detainees could see evidence brought against them in court (though the House version omits this). But other than murder, mutilation and rape, which would be classified as “severe breaches” of the Geneva Conventions under the bill, any other form of torture, including beatings, stress positions and so on, would be allowed. Step back and consider the moral ramifications of that. American law would allow the executive branch the leeway to interpret Geneva to engage in just about any nefarious act of torture you can imagine. Extreme isolation, sleep deprivation, blaring noise, beatings, just about anything would be considered below the threshold of “outrage upon human dignity,” anything could be done to get them to talk. And the bill would retroactively immunize U.S. officials from prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1996. See the USA Today editorials: Deal on detainees falls short and Detainee compromise a lose-lose for more details. Senator Specter says he’ll press to allow detainees habeas corpus (the fundamental right to challenge your imprisonment in front of a judge) but it’s a sure bet that the bulk of this horrible bill will pass.
  • Torture doesn’t work. As we can see from the story reported by 60 Minutes about a completely innocent Canadian citizen who was sent to (our enemy) Syria by the CIA to be tortured, the victims will say anything to get you to stop torturing them. Torture ‘never guarantees’ truth, former FBI agent says. During the Great Witch Hunts of Europe (1567–1640), torture forced countless women to confess to “congress with the devil.” If our government doesn’t take a strong stand regarding torture, history will not treat this era much better.
  • Finally, torture is immoral. On MSNBC’s “Countdown,” constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley nailed it: “It is a violation of both domestic and international law. But more importantly, torture is immoral under every major religion, that you cannot fight a moral war with immoral means. And if we‘re ready to embrace immoral means, if that‘s how we‘re going to fight this war, then we have lost. And no one will come to our aid. We will be alone. And that‘s what happens when you become, in the view of many, an enemy to the rule of law. And we cannot afford that to happen.” (transcript)
Torture is immoral under every religion!
 Yet, the Religious Right is backing torture like no one else! Molly Ivins reports that “the Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition is so in favor of torture he told McCain that the senator either supports the torture bill or he can forget about the evangelical Christian vote. I’d like to see an evangelical vote on that one. I don’t know how Sheldon defines traditional values, but deliberately inflicting terrible physical pain or stress on someone who is completely helpless strikes me as … well, torture. And, um, wrong.” Wow, traditional values = torture? The followers of Christ are all about the torture? What Bible are they reading? Are they figuring since Jesus got tortured on the cross, it’s okay, it’s trendy, what is the justification here? How does torture jive with “love your neighbor as yourself?” This just illustrates so boldly how very disconnected American Christiandom is with the true message of the “Prince of Peace.” Who Would Jesus Torture?

Many say we have to do whatever it takes, without restraint, to protect our families from a savage enemy who uses acts of unprecedented brutality. They say we cannot “show weakness” in this “new era.” They are wrong. Nothing shows weakness more than shedding our values in the face of terrorism, something the generation of Pearl Harbor, who, despite fighting a far more dangerous foe, could not fathom. This is the bottom line: giving up our high ideals to protect our high ideals from terrorism, ideals we no longer have if we surrender them in our battle, is plainly nonsensical and should end. There is no justification for losing American values to protect American values.

Nick

Filed Under: Politics and Government

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share