Hullabaloo
Saturday, September 25, 2010
NY Times Miss Manners Hints At Truth
by digby
The New York Times features an interesting story this morning about a move across teh country to remove judges by people who don't like their decisions:After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.
The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.
Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”
It goes on to point out that the laws many of them were using were designed to remove corrupt or incompetent judges but are now being used to send a message that judges who do not adhere to certain views will be kicked out of office.
It also points out that there is big money involved, with the campaigns being underwritten by corporate interests and wealthy Christian groups.
But they forgot to connect the dots in this story. Do you notice something that all these cases around the country have in common? Yes, I knew that you could -- they are all being waged by right wingers. This "trend" is decidedly one-sided, run by a minority faction in America who have decided that their interpretation of the laws and the constitution will be imposed upon everyone.
Far be it for me to suggest that intimidating judges and replacing ones you don't like with social conservatives might be just a little bit theocratic and surely nobody can believe thatcorporate sponsored removal campaigns are designed to make it impossible for moderate or conservative judges to compete against business friendly judges. It would be very impolite to point any of that out, which is why, I'm sure that the New York Times didn't bother to do it.
They simply left some little hints for the discerning reader to sift through:
Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spent $230,000 on television ads criticizing the Iowa judges, said he understood that removing the three judges would not change the same-sex marriage ruling. (It was a unanimous ruling by the state’s seven justices.) But Mr. Brown said he hoped the judges’ ouster would help prevent similar rulings elsewhere by making judges around the nation aware that their jobs are on the line.
“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”
Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his unsuccessful run for governor in Iowa, is leading the ouster campaign on behalf of the political arm of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization based in Tupelo, Miss.
“My bigger fear isn’t about injecting politics into judicial retention elections. The bigger fear is that we don’t hold them in check,” he said, warning that gun and property rights could be at risk.
Make of that what you will dear reader. But never say that the NY Times stooped to the level of shrill bloggers who suggest that the far right might have a radical agenda. Let no one say that the old Gray Lady is anything but well mannered.
.
digby 9/25/2010 09:00:00 AM
|
Among those charged was Robert Rizzo, the former city manager of Bell, whose compensation package led the way with annual salary and benefits totaling more than $1.5 million. Prosecutors accused him of illegally writing his own employment contracts and steering nearly $1.9 million in unauthorized city loans to himself and others. He was booked into Los Angeles County Jail and was being held on $3.2-million bail.
The charges follow months of nationwide outrage and renewed debate over public employee compensation since The Times reported in July that the city's leaders were among the nation's highest paid municipal officials.
Cooley described Rizzo as the "unelected and unaccountable czar" of Bell, accusing him of going to elaborate lengths to keep his salary secret. Prosecutors alleged that Rizzo gave himself huge pay raises without the City Council's approval.
"This was calculated greed and theft accomplished by deceit and secrecy," Cooley said.
Rizzo's attorney, James W. Spertus, said the charges came as no surprise and were politically motivated by Cooley, who is running for California attorney general.
"The allegations are mistaken," Spertus said. "They are factually untrue in many readily provable ways."
Cooley denied that his election effort played any part in the decision to file charges.
At a news conference, Cooley accused City Council members of failing to oversee Rizzo's actions, saying that they instead had collected more than $1.2 million in total pay since 2006 for presiding over city agency meetings that never occurred or lasted just a few minutes.
Many city residents greeted news of the charges with joy.
"Finally the crooks are going to suffer what the city suffered for many years," said Carmen Bella, a longtime Bell activist.
About two dozen Bell residents gathered outside City Hall to celebrate. One man used a bullhorn to broadcast the Queen rock song, "Another One Bites the Dust," while others laughed, cheered and applauded.
But at least one resident wondered what would happen to his embattled city.
"Who's going to call the shots?" asked Hassan Mourad, 32. "That's the most important thing right now."
-- Richard Winton and Jack Leonard
Photo: Booking shots of Robert Rizzo, former city manager, and Bell Mayor Oscar Hernandez. Credit: L.A. County Sheriff's Department.
Photos: Arrests in Bell
Obama Says Fox <b>News</b> Promotes 'Destructive' Viewpoint - NYTimes.com
Fox News Channel responds to President Obama's sharp critique of the channel in a Rolling Stone interview.
Obama Calls Fox <b>News</b> a `Destructive' Channel - NYTimes.com
President Obama tells Rolling Stone magazine that Fox News promotes a point of view that is "destructive" to the growth of the United States.
Bad <b>News</b>: Yahoo Media Boss Out. Good <b>News</b>: Bartz Won't Have To Ask <b>...</b>
Yahoo's media boss Jimmy Pitaro is quitting the company.
halloween costumesObama Says Fox <b>News</b> Promotes 'Destructive' Viewpoint - NYTimes.com
Fox News Channel responds to President Obama's sharp critique of the channel in a Rolling Stone interview.
Obama Calls Fox <b>News</b> a `Destructive' Channel - NYTimes.com
President Obama tells Rolling Stone magazine that Fox News promotes a point of view that is "destructive" to the growth of the United States.
Bad <b>News</b>: Yahoo Media Boss Out. Good <b>News</b>: Bartz Won't Have To Ask <b>...</b>
Yahoo's media boss Jimmy Pitaro is quitting the company.
Hullabaloo
Saturday, September 25, 2010
NY Times Miss Manners Hints At Truth
by digby
The New York Times features an interesting story this morning about a move across teh country to remove judges by people who don't like their decisions:After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.
The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.
Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”
It goes on to point out that the laws many of them were using were designed to remove corrupt or incompetent judges but are now being used to send a message that judges who do not adhere to certain views will be kicked out of office.
It also points out that there is big money involved, with the campaigns being underwritten by corporate interests and wealthy Christian groups.
But they forgot to connect the dots in this story. Do you notice something that all these cases around the country have in common? Yes, I knew that you could -- they are all being waged by right wingers. This "trend" is decidedly one-sided, run by a minority faction in America who have decided that their interpretation of the laws and the constitution will be imposed upon everyone.
Far be it for me to suggest that intimidating judges and replacing ones you don't like with social conservatives might be just a little bit theocratic and surely nobody can believe thatcorporate sponsored removal campaigns are designed to make it impossible for moderate or conservative judges to compete against business friendly judges. It would be very impolite to point any of that out, which is why, I'm sure that the New York Times didn't bother to do it.
They simply left some little hints for the discerning reader to sift through:
Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spent $230,000 on television ads criticizing the Iowa judges, said he understood that removing the three judges would not change the same-sex marriage ruling. (It was a unanimous ruling by the state’s seven justices.) But Mr. Brown said he hoped the judges’ ouster would help prevent similar rulings elsewhere by making judges around the nation aware that their jobs are on the line.
“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”
Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his unsuccessful run for governor in Iowa, is leading the ouster campaign on behalf of the political arm of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization based in Tupelo, Miss.
“My bigger fear isn’t about injecting politics into judicial retention elections. The bigger fear is that we don’t hold them in check,” he said, warning that gun and property rights could be at risk.
Make of that what you will dear reader. But never say that the NY Times stooped to the level of shrill bloggers who suggest that the far right might have a radical agenda. Let no one say that the old Gray Lady is anything but well mannered.
.
digby 9/25/2010 09:00:00 AM
|
Among those charged was Robert Rizzo, the former city manager of Bell, whose compensation package led the way with annual salary and benefits totaling more than $1.5 million. Prosecutors accused him of illegally writing his own employment contracts and steering nearly $1.9 million in unauthorized city loans to himself and others. He was booked into Los Angeles County Jail and was being held on $3.2-million bail.
The charges follow months of nationwide outrage and renewed debate over public employee compensation since The Times reported in July that the city's leaders were among the nation's highest paid municipal officials.
Cooley described Rizzo as the "unelected and unaccountable czar" of Bell, accusing him of going to elaborate lengths to keep his salary secret. Prosecutors alleged that Rizzo gave himself huge pay raises without the City Council's approval.
"This was calculated greed and theft accomplished by deceit and secrecy," Cooley said.
Rizzo's attorney, James W. Spertus, said the charges came as no surprise and were politically motivated by Cooley, who is running for California attorney general.
"The allegations are mistaken," Spertus said. "They are factually untrue in many readily provable ways."
Cooley denied that his election effort played any part in the decision to file charges.
At a news conference, Cooley accused City Council members of failing to oversee Rizzo's actions, saying that they instead had collected more than $1.2 million in total pay since 2006 for presiding over city agency meetings that never occurred or lasted just a few minutes.
Many city residents greeted news of the charges with joy.
"Finally the crooks are going to suffer what the city suffered for many years," said Carmen Bella, a longtime Bell activist.
About two dozen Bell residents gathered outside City Hall to celebrate. One man used a bullhorn to broadcast the Queen rock song, "Another One Bites the Dust," while others laughed, cheered and applauded.
But at least one resident wondered what would happen to his embattled city.
"Who's going to call the shots?" asked Hassan Mourad, 32. "That's the most important thing right now."
-- Richard Winton and Jack Leonard
Photo: Booking shots of Robert Rizzo, former city manager, and Bell Mayor Oscar Hernandez. Credit: L.A. County Sheriff's Department.
Photos: Arrests in Bell
Obama Says Fox <b>News</b> Promotes 'Destructive' Viewpoint - NYTimes.com
Fox News Channel responds to President Obama's sharp critique of the channel in a Rolling Stone interview.
Obama Calls Fox <b>News</b> a `Destructive' Channel - NYTimes.com
President Obama tells Rolling Stone magazine that Fox News promotes a point of view that is "destructive" to the growth of the United States.
Bad <b>News</b>: Yahoo Media Boss Out. Good <b>News</b>: Bartz Won't Have To Ask <b>...</b>
Yahoo's media boss Jimmy Pitaro is quitting the company.
skin and vein centerObama Says Fox <b>News</b> Promotes 'Destructive' Viewpoint - NYTimes.com
Fox News Channel responds to President Obama's sharp critique of the channel in a Rolling Stone interview.
Obama Calls Fox <b>News</b> a `Destructive' Channel - NYTimes.com
President Obama tells Rolling Stone magazine that Fox News promotes a point of view that is "destructive" to the growth of the United States.
Bad <b>News</b>: Yahoo Media Boss Out. Good <b>News</b>: Bartz Won't Have To Ask <b>...</b>
Yahoo's media boss Jimmy Pitaro is quitting the company.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/25/267811/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/25/267811/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/25/267811/index.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment