NEW ADDITION TO THE CHEAT SHEET:
*Note, I’m adding a bit more on Cornyn with him being the new addition to the list, as well as rumors circulating of him being called into meetings with the administration, and a marked scurrying among his staff. It seems very likely that Cornyn will be the nominee, and that it will be announced on Tuesday. I grabbed some information on his voting record and political past from Issues2000 website as a starting point.

Well, the word around the Internet is that Chief Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist will be retiring some time this week. Having a 33 year tenure in the Supreme Court, he began as an Associate Justice in 1971, and became Chief Justice in 1986. Rehnquist is said to be retiring due to his struggle with thyroid cancer that he has been battling for the past year which has left him weakened to the point that he is getting nourishment through a feeding tube after having gone through a tracheotomy procedure earlier this year. A long time adversary of the left, Rehnquist’s position as a radically conservative judge brings up the instantly heated debate over who will take his place.

The talk being bandied about is one of weighing political opportunity in conjunction with conservative ideologies. While it remains to be seen whether the attempt to gather both hispanic and fundamentalist votes will take precedent, the ’short list’ of speculated nominations has a variety in ethnicity and gender, but seems to lack variety when it comes to religious conservativism. No big surprise there.

There also has been floating rumors about the potential re-nomination of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, this time for Chief Justice. However, it seems unlikely due to age and also past controversies that would immediately come to the foreground.

So with this new development, and the likely controversy we will be seeing in the days to come, I’ve prepared a liberal cheat-sheet for people to peruse, use and abuse at their own discretion. While obviously there is far more information available than what I’ve posted, I’ve tried to focus on issues that I think liberals in particular will find enlightening, interesting and most definitely frightening with regards to the uncertain future of the Supreme Court.

John Cornyn
Current Position:
- Senator, Texas.

The Buzz:
- An ‘originalist’ that would supposedly be likely to reverse previous legislation from the bench (*Roe v. Wade being largely speculated on).

On Abortion:
- Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

On Business:
- 100% rating by the US COC which leads one to believe he’s very pro big-business.

On Education:
- Rated 27% by the National Education Association for support of many Bush Administration or similar policies.

On Environment:
- Drill in Alaska; oppose global warming treaties. (Jun 2002)
- Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
- Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
- Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

On Crime:
- Involved in the controversial death penalty case of Calvin Burdine along with Jones, where the defendent’s attorney slept through portions of the trial.

On Family Law:
- Strengthen families by supporting marriage. (Jun 2002)
- Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

On Health Care:
- Freedom from health care tyranny & more individual choice. (Jun 2002)
- Supports prescription drug coverage for seniors. (Jun 2002)
- Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
- Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

John Roberts
Biography
Current Position:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C.

The Buzz:
- Known conservative but considered a ’stealth candidate’.
- Former supreme court clerk under Rehnquist
- Under the former Bush Administration, he played an active role in efforts to limit abortion. Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
- Age 50

From Law.Com:
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel’s office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. “He is as conservative as you can get,” one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.

J. Michael Luttig
Current Position:
- 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Former clerk for Antonin Scalia

The Buzz:
- Texas native that worked in the Justice Department during the presidency of Bush, Sr.
- Caused a stir among legal ethics experts due to running the Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings after being confirmed himself to the 4th circuit court of appeals.
- Has some extremely conservative written opinions that could cause problems.
- Considered pro-life, and has been active in pushing the partial-birth abortion bans, and openly making it clear that he opposes abortion.
- Age 51

J Harvey Wilkinson III
Current Position:
- 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge

The Buzz:
- Solid conservative record but also considered to be among those characterized as a ‘compassionate conservative’.
- Wrote the majority opinion upholding the right of the United States government to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi (US citizen detained during the invasion of Afghanistan) indefinitely without access to counsel or court. This was later overturned by the US Supreme Court.
- Wrote the majority opinion on Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
- Age 61

Michael McConnell
Current Position:
- 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Formerly professor at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah

The Buzz:
- Long and noteably conservative written record from his time in Academia.
- Religious right would support him due to what has been called “sharp opposition” to abortion rights.
- Very controversial positions and some approval from bi-partisan academics
- Speculated that the White House may consider him too independent and uncontrollable.
- Age 50

Emilio Miller Garza
Current Position:
- 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The Buzz:
- Was considered by Bush, Sr. as a potential candidate during his presidency.
- Very vocal of opponent Roe v. Wade writing two very opinions in which he explicitly suggested it should be overturned.
- Considered to be a great political choice due to being hispanic and extremely conservative.
- Age 58

Alberto” title=”http://www.answers.com/Alberto%20Gonzales\”>Alberto”>www.answers.com/Alberto%20Gonzales”>Albe… Gonzalez
Current Position:
- Current Attorney General
- Long time Bush adviser
- Formerly on a Supreme Court Justice in Texas.

The Buzz:
- Considered the more moderate of the two hispanic considerations.
- Criticized for his memo’s regarding the Geneva Convention and the Gitmo detainees, advocating the US right to hold without counsel or charge, calling the provisions offered to the detainees “quaint”.
- Wrote a memorandum that argued laws prohibiting torture do “not apply to the president’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants”.
- His writings are considered possibly contributing to the climate that allowed the Abu Ghraib abuses occur.
- Age 50

Samuel Alito, Jr.
Current Position:
- 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia

The Buzz:
- Somewhat of an unknown, but nicknamed “Scalito” due to supposedly having views very similar to Scalia
- Upheld a Pennsylvania pro-life law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
- Wrote an opinion in that case arguing for a standard that would permit virtually any restriction on abortion.
- Age 55

Larry Thompson
Current Position:
- He is general counsel at PepsiCo.
- Former deputy attorney general until he quit in 2003.

The Buzz:
- Bush administration’s highest-ranking black law enforcement official.
- Voted to uphold interstate abortion / parental notification laws.
- Considered somewhat moderate due to a few environmental issues.

Edith Jones
Current Position:
- 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Former general counsel for the Texas Republican Party.

The Buzz:
- Extremely outspoken opponent of Roe v. Wade, having referred to it as an “exercise of raw judicial power,” that needs to be re-examined.
- In cahoots with Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, and then in 1995 announced she had become a born again Christian and pro-life activist.
- Criticized and protested for her decisions in the death penalty case of Calvin Burdine, in which it has been established that Burdine’s attorney slept through portions of his 1983 court case. Jones defended her decision with, “We cannot determine whether Cannon [Burdine's attorney, now deceased] slept during a ‘critical stage’ of Burdine’s trial.”
- Age 56

And then there were five…

After last week’s buzz about Rehnquist’s possible retirement, today has brought an interesting new development. While it has been widely known that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has made it clear she intended to retire prior to 2008, and likely prior to December of this year, she has apparently handed in her resignation to the White House this morning:

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court and the key swing vote in some of the nation’s highest-profile cases, announced her resignation Friday.
In a letter to the White House, the moderate conservative, said she will step down when her successor is confirmed.

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, she is now retiring at age 75. O’Connor was the first woman US Supreme Court Justice and while a staunch Republican supporter, has been considered among the moderate’s of the Republican camp. As one of the 6-3 majority in most pro-choice issues, the news comes as a shattering blow to women’s rights, the likelihood of a nominee that is absolutely anti-choice extremely likely, if not an absolute. In a related post, the potential nominee’s were discussed last week when the speculation over Rehnquist’s retirement was occurring.

Perhaps the most ominous words that loom on the horizon are the words of President Bush, himself who said this with regards to his nomination considerations:

On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates “who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.” [emphasis mine]

At any rate, there goes the neighborhood folks. Welcome to the Big Top, circa 2005.

It’s hard to resist a good zombie story, and after some recent debate on an Alas thread regarding the ethics of cloning, I thought perhaps a few of you might have fun discussing this intriguing new development.

It seems that in Pittsburgh’s Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research, technology has been created to bring scientifically dead dogs back to life after a three hour period of suspension. The technique involves draining the blood from the dogs veins, replacing it with an icy saline solution, and then three hours later replacing the blood they took and bringing them back to life with electro-shock to regain a heartbeat. According to them, the brain survives in normal condition, and without damage, though there is some damage to blood vessels and other tissues that can be corrected with surgery.

In a related article by the Washington Post, it seems that there might be zombie mice out there as well:

Scientists have induced a state close to suspended animation in a mammal for the first time, a long-sought achievement that could lead to a host of medical advances for people.

By exposing mice to hydrogen sulfide gas, the researchers managed to place the animals into a condition equivalent to hibernation, which could be quickly reversed without apparently harming the creatures simply by letting them breathe fresh air.

One US battlefield doctor was quoted as saying:

“The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology,”

While I personally was left recalling the movie Flatliners and thinking about what this would mean for medical technology and the ability of extending life expectancy, my husband Matt feels only one real question remains:

“Upon waking do they crave human flesh and brains?”

As the debate rages on in the United States, yesterday Canada became the third country to approve gay marriage, granting gay couples equal rights to those of traditional marriages. While it was already legal in seven provinces, the Canadian House of Commons made it official yesterday in a decision that upset religious leaders and conservatives tremendously.

The bill which was drafted by Paul Martin, the minority Liberal party government of the Canadian prime minister is considered a progressive step forward in the battle for human rights, and an end to discrimination

The Guardian quotes Martin’s statement on the subject:

“We are a nation of minorities,” Mr Martin said. “And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don’t cherry-pick rights. A right is a right, and that is what this vote tonight is all about.”

This is more of a kudos than anything else, so without further ado, ‘Great job, Canada!’

The controversial decision of the Supreme Court on June 23rd regarding the issue of eminent domain in the case The Kelo v. City of New London has sparked some interesting conversations, and now some rather humorous actions on the part of angry citizens. The 5-4 ruling went against homeowners in favor of a business wishing to construct an office complex. Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer were the majority in this ruling, while Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenting minority.

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens wrote for the majority:

“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue.”

The decision made last Thursday allows local governments to seize a home or business against the owner’s will for the purpose of private development. Interestingly enough, this decision seems to be one that strikes a chord among most people across party lines as dangerous, if not outright wrong. I’ve heard decent arguments on both sides of the issue, but my sympathies tend to fall on the side of the homeowners. In a humorous turn of events, Logan Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC has contacted the local government of Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s hometown in New Hampshire, attempting to get the property seized so that Clement’s organization can construct a new hotel.

According to Clement;

“Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.”

I laughed and laughed. Honestly, I couldn’t help it. While I’m fairly convinced that no sane government would allow an act that is pretty deliberately malicious and spiteful to pass, if nothing else, it’s a clever shenanigan worth at least a few nod’s of humorous appreciation. In an interview with World.net Daily, Clements elaborates on his position:

“This is not a prank” said Clements. “The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.” [...]

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

“I realize there is a contradiction, but we’re only going to use it against people who advocated” the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. “Therefore, it’s a case of retaliation, not initiation.”

Breastfeeding and the need for strong societal support is a topic that was discussed at length in a prior post of mine, dealing with comments made by media maven Barbara Walters on her women’s talk show, The View. In the midst of the rather heated discussion, it became evident that many people aren’t aware of the numerous ways that breastfeeding can and does benefit women, children and society in general.

Knowing this, I’ve decided to compile a list of these benefits, and encourage and welcome others to add to the list. I’d also like to take a moment to encourage people who choose to read and participate in this thread to challenge their own ideas about ‘modesty’ and consider how these ideas might interfere with the larger issue of necessary support. If you get that far, please then take the time to introspect on whether you might need to do some work on incorporating new ways of thinking about this issue into your own mindset to become part of a society that understands, supports and celebrates the value of breastfeeding.

Also keep in mind that lack of support can and does perpetuate a negative feeling over an issue that new parents, especially mothers are very vulnerable about. It is all too frequent that women stop breastfeeding because they were made to feel embarassed or as if they were doing something so shameful it needed to be hidden from view. This sort of message simply isn’t healthy or productive. We as a society can improve the lives of women and children by such a small act of support which translates to acceptance and approval that helps a woman own her new post-pregnant body and it’s capabilities with pride and joy. In supporting these women, society too can feel a sense of pride and joy in our own embracing of respectful and honorable behavior towards both women and children.

*Note/Disclaimer: To make it clear in advance, this is not to say that bottle feeding parents should feel any shame for their choice (or need, whichever it was), to nourish their children through formula. As with most specifically female functions, I remain steadfast in my own feelings that it’s a woman’s body and a woman’s choice.

Benefits to the child:

1. Breast milk contains all the nutrients babies need each day, plus many substances that help keep them healthy and promote optimal growth and development.
2. Breastfed babies have a decreased likelihood for allergies and dental caries.
3. Breastfeeding helps a baby with appropriate jaw, teeth and speech development as well as overall facial development.
4. Breast milk changes and conforms to the babies needs day to day (according to some studies hour to hour!).
5. The taste of breast milk changes based on the mothers diet, and help encourage lack of pickiness in particular tastes.
6. Breast milk is quick and easy to digest which translates into less colic, no constipation and less spitting up.
7. Due to it’s fast disgestive rate, babies who are breastfed have a smaller chance of SIDS due to a REM cycle of 45 minutes - in one study only 3 of 87 incidents of babies whom died from SIDS were breastfed.
8. Breastfed babies have a reported and documented lower incidence of illness (10 time less than that of bottlefed babies), hospitalization, ear infections, bladder infections, allergies, diaper rash and exzema, lower incidence of type 1 diabetes, lower incidence in childhood cancers such as Hodgkins and lymphoma.
9. Due to body proximity is more easily soothed, especially with the skin to skin contact and familiar in-utero sound of the mothers heartbeat and voice.
10. Female’s that are breastfed have a significantly reduced chance of breast cancer in adulthood.
11. Breastfeeding confers passive immunity to viruses.
12. Breastfeeding enhances brain development, neurological development and visual development.

Benefits to the Mother:

1. Breastfeeding releases oxitocin and prolactin in the mothers brain helping bonding occur (studies state similar to obsessive compulsives humorously enough).
2. Breastfeeding provides the mother with a hormone-induced contentment and reduces the rate of post-pardum emotional effects.
3. Breastfeeding creates efficient uterine contractions after childbirth which quickly reduces the uterus size to normal which decreases post-partum bleeding.
4. Breastfeeding is convenient - the milk is pre-warmed, sterilized and always available as long as the mother is nearby!
5. Breastfeeding is HUGELY cost-effective and saves families money.
6. Breastfeeding helps foster confidence, body acceptance and promotion of self-esteem in new mothers.
7. Breastfeeding reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections in mothers.
8. Breastfeeding significantly decreases the rate of reproductive cancers in women (breast, ovarian, cervical).
9. Breastfeeding lowers the incidence of chronic hepatitis among women.
10. Breastfeeding reduces the risk of osteoporosis in women.
11. Breastfeeding reduces the requirements of insulin for lactating diabetic mothers.
12. Breastfeeding often acts as a natural form of birthcontrol (don’t count on it though!) for women. *The reliability of this goes down upon introducing other types of food into the diet.
13. Since nightfeedings are easier, breastfeeding promotes a healthier sleep schedule for new parents.
14. Breastfeeding is an excellent way to comfort an infant whenever they need it. *My husband and I took advantage of this after shots and during plane rides with great success!

Benefits to Society:

1. It’s one step closer to helping society have respect for women and sex, instead of sexualizing and trying to control women’s bodies and the perceptions of women’s bodies.
2. Breastfeeding is better for the environment because it has an absence of waste.
3. Happy, contented children who are easily comforted.
4. Frequently healthy children which help working parents need less time away from work (studies indicate parents of breastfed children take less time away due to sickness).
5. Free’s up health resources for others who need it by naturally seeing to the babies needs.
6. Promotes a sense of pride and body acceptance in women that can only be seen as a good change!
7. It works hand in hand with other social programs to save money for other important needs - WIC statistics indicate that if all babies on the program in the U.S. were breastfed, our economical savings would be
8. $33,000,000 per month!
9. Reduced insurance premiums for child and parents.

Benefits on a plane (just for Barbara Walters!):

1. Babies ears are kept equalized causing less discomfort, potential for ruptures and inflammation.
2. Due to it’s ability to soothe a baby, they are less fussy and noisy (see, breastfeeding can still be all about how it affects you, Barbara, if you look at it in the right light!)
   

   ---

Benefits that I forgot But Others Didn’t!:

1. Maynard reminds us that breastmilk bowel movements are extremely mild in scent, making the diaper changing process easier on the nose! (amen to that one, Maynard!)
2. Krupskaya breastfeeding closeness and contact makes mothers and infants happy because it just feels good darnit!
3. Maureen adds that breastfeeding reminds the world that breasts are amazing multi-functional tools whose success does not in any way depend on shape or size (other than inverted nipple issues), which in turn might mean less women subjecting themselves to needlessly dangerous breast augmentations.
4. Barbara Preuninger mentions that breastfeeding can create a wonderful bond between parent and child unlike any other.
5. CCW mentions she slept better because she could sleep through the feeding!
6. Lee reminds us that breastfeeding makes mothers the lucky winners of many wonderful baby-hugs!
7. La Luba relates her own experience with her daughter being born premature and the many ways breastfeeding helped her: “breastfeeding has special benefits for premature infants, including lowered incidence of RSV, respiratory ailments, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sepsis. As adults, both breastfed women and men are less likely to experience infertility.”
8. Ledasmom points out that nobody appreciates a breast in a manner that promotes such healthy esteem as a baby that loves them completely and unconditionally! (to quote my own daughter, Sydney: “Bahboo?” shortly followed by amazingly happy muffled laughing)
9. Ol Cranky relates that she’s heard (which I’ve read as well) that it lowers the rate of post-partum depression.
10. Barbara talks about her experience with breastfeeding and it’s benefits with her preemie baby as well, and mentions that despite the odds, her daughter had extremely low incidence of illness, which she attributes to breastfeeding.
11. Jodie mentions the very real and tangible benefit to the pocketbook - IT’S FREE!
12. Sarah mentions that as a bystander, it’s much easier to handle a breastfeeding mother and baby than a screaming baby in distress!

*NOTE: I’ve gathered information from so many websites on the Internet, I feel the task of listing them all is extremely daunting. If you have questions or want to find more information, here are the google phrases I used: emotional benefits of breastfeeding, physical benefits of breastfeeding, breastfeeding benefits to the baby, breastfeeding benefits to the mother.

A new group of activists have joined the fray of fighting for women’s rights; their goal to nurse without shame or scorn where and when they choose or need. Cleverly touting themselves as ‘lactivists’, they’ve put Barbara Walters under fire due to some insensitively ignorant comments made by the long-time reporter and current co-host of ‘The View’. On the May 17th show new mother and co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck returned to the show and the discussion turned to her discomfort at nursing her daughter Grace. When the topic of breastfeeding was brought up, Walters related a story about a recent plane trip she’d taken, where a woman sitting in the next aisle over nursed her child. Walters stated: “It made me very nervous, she didn’t cover the baby with a blanket. It made us uncomfortable.” Further offense was taken at what was perceived to be an almost celebratory or congratulatory response to Hasselbeck’s decision to give her daughter formula.

According to the NYTimes, nearly 200 protesting mothers showed up quickly afterwards, babies and boobies ready to fire back at Walters insensitive comments with what is referred to as a ‘nurse-in.’

They stood nursing their babies in the unmistakably public venue of Columbus Avenue and West 67th Street. They held signs reading, “Shame on View,” and “Babies are born to be breastfed.” [...]

But the rally at ABC is only the most visible example of a recent wave of “lactivism.” Prodded by mothers who say they are tired of being asked to adjourn to the bathroom while nursing in a public space, six states have recently passed laws giving a woman the right to breast-feed wherever she “is otherwise authorized to be.”

Adding further insult onto injury, Walter’s spokesman related bemusement at the protests, attempting to dismiss the commentary as singular and not reflective of Walter’s overall view on nursing. Interesting that this isn’t her ‘view,’ when she as a co-host spewed it out for public consumption on the national show, ‘The View.’

Despite the attempt at back-peddling that is going on with ‘The View’ folks, the controversy has had the benefit of generating attention on prejudice and reprehensible behavior towards nursing mothers. These situations getting more discussion time will hopefully lead to greater acceptance and understanding.

In interviews and Internet discussions, hundreds of women recount being asked to stop nursing in public spots, including the Children’s Museum in Huntsville, Ala.; a knitting store in the East Village; a Radisson Hotel lobby in Virginia; a public bus in Los Angeles; and a city commission meeting in Miami Beach.

As a nursing mother, my take on the situation is fairly personal ““ I’m offended at the unaccountable offense. When I nurse my child, I do so for her. Her comfort and hunger are the first priority. The next priority is my comfort while carrying out the task. The last thing I worry about, or should worry about is someone attempting to sexualize (which is where the squeamishness comes from) the tool I use to feed my child.

Additionally, the ignorance about how important nursing on airplanes is for the child is unexpected from a woman reportedly as intelligent as Walters. When it comes to protecting my child’s ear drums from rupturing, or even discomfort, my child is always going to come first. (When she wouldn’t nurse on the plane when we visited my folks at Christmas, the result was a 102.5 temperature and a trip to the emergency room).

So I’ll answer Ms. Walters ‘view’ with a quote from another celebrity that celebrated infants and children with more aplomb and grace:

“I will do it on a plane; I will do it in the rain. I will do it here or there, I will do it anywhere.” ““ Dr. Suess

(Related links: Feministe, Ms. Musings and The Freewheelin’ Kim-Loi Mergenthaler.)

A Pennsylvania school district is being taken to court for allegedly violating the free-speech rights of a parent who came to her sons kindergarten class to participate in Storytime during “me week” which gives the parents a chance to come to the classroom and read stories to the children from their own childs favorite book. Principal Thomas Cook of Rutherford Institute, a conservative christian oriented non-profit, has taken up her cause.

The school board has defended Principal Cook, stating that the law prevents advocacy or teaching of religion.

Here is the passage that she wished to read to the children (Psalm 118):

Well, great, because I’ve come across a truly bizarre case of judicial activism. It would seem that Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion County Superior Courts has decided he needed to prohibit exposure to the Wicca faith to a nine year old boy, whose parents are divorcing. After learning that Thomas Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie Bristol were Wiccans that sent their child to a Catholic school - according to the judge:

There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages.

Both parents protested the decision heavily, but the court has kept the provision regardless. Now the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is helping out with an appeal, that as the reporter of the article states is a ’slam dunk’ of a case. Lets hope so - I’m personally stunned that it got this far.

After weeks of controversy, it seems the filibuster issue has reached an end at the hands of supposed ‘centerists’ of the Republican and Democratic parties. Citing what he felt could be damage to the institution of the senate, CNN reported that Senator John McCain had this to say:

“We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution,” McCain said. “Under the deal, judicial nominees would only be filibustered “under extraordinary circumstances,” McCain said.

McCain said the group of 14 pledged to vote for cloture — an end to debate — for three judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.

Here’s a bit more information on each of the three judges to gain cloture:

Judge Janice Rogers Brown:

An outspoken Christian conservative from the segregated South, she supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.

Brown’s views are also why Democrats have used a filibuster since 2003 to block her confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She’s questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, “No one with these views should be confirmed to a federal court and certainly not to the federal court most responsible for cases affecting government action.”

Brown is said to formulate her opinions “in prayer and quiet study of the Bible.” She’s also been outspokenly critical of philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society “as if God did not exist.” According to Brown, “these are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”

Judge Priscilla Owen:

Priscilla Owen is, in the president’s words, “a woman of integrity … known to be a fair and impartial judge who strives to interpret the law fairly.”

To her opponents, the 50-year-old Texas Supreme Court justice is a “judicial activist … (whose) record shows a bias in favor of government secrecy and business interests, and against the environment, victims of discrimination and medical malpractice,” in the words of Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Like Brown, Owen is devoutly religious and unapologetically ‘faith based’ in her approach to the law. Some see a kindly sunday school teacher, while others see a vocal threat to women’s rights. It’s speculated that while not specifically targetted at Owen, she was among the judges referred to by Supreme Court Justice Gonzales in his critique of attempted obstructions with regards to the Parental Notification Act:

“To construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism,” Gonzales wrote in the 2000 opinion.

And finally, Judge William Pryor. Pryor has been criticized for being outspokenly ideological and often times naive about the court system, so much as to testify before the Senate an assurance and asserting that innocent people ‘just aren’t executed in the United States’. In a press release by the Congressional Black Caucus and letter written by CBC Chair and Congressman Elijah Cummings, Pryor’s is condemned for a consistently poor record in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, anti-discrimination laws (noteably against gays) and fairness in the criminal justice system.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, Pryor had argued that a state’s criminalization of certain private consensual sex was constitutional. [...]

As Attorney General of a State where most death-row prisoners are African American, Mr. Pryor has consistently challenged efforts to ensure fair administration of the death penalty. He supported the constitutionality of executing mentally retarded persons, defended barriers to legal visits for death row prisoners, argued against the State Bar’s possible support of a moratorium on the death penalty, and criticized Congressional proposals to improve the quality of capital representation as unnecessary and likely to lead to “perverse” outcomes. Pryor has been critical of efforts to address racial bias in the administration of the death penalty. [...]

Pryor has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” (Id.)

After weeks of worrying about the ‘nuclear option’ initiated by Senate Majority Leader Frist, it seems that a moderate win can be declared by the Republican bulls, at the expense of the long valued belief in a seperation of church and state, and hard earned forward momentum within the women’s rights movement. It remains to be seen whether the revised Supreme Court will mirror the incompetence and backward mobility that has been consistent in the Bush Administration, but it seems we can rest assured that danger lies ahead.

Anyone want to start a betting pool to see what progressive ideas are attacked first - women’s, environmental, wages, gays or privacy?

In closing, perhaps a change in the lyrics of Onwards Christian Soldiers could be done to mark the uncertain days ahead:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
At the sign of triumph civil rights doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your condemnations raise.

I guess it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Roman Catholic activists are plunging ahead with the anti-female messages that have been consistent in the papal infrastructure of the new Pope Benedict XVI. At the same time, I couldn’t help but be incredulous at the story I came across earlier today about the courageous message of one young woman to the St. Jude Educational Institute, of Montgomery, Alabama.

It seems that in the message of ‘Choose Life,’ some fine print reads ‘but be ashamed that you’re a harlot’ somewhere in the handbook. Senior Alysha Cosby became pregnant by a fellow student and was suspended in March, reasons cited being that she was a ’safety concern’. Were they worried someone would slip in a puddle of amniotic fluid if her water broke? I just don’t get it.

Here’s where the story gets fun, and a young woman quickly becomes a hero in my eyes. The school administration also excluded her from her commencement ceremony and left her name out of the commencement bulletin, while letting the young man who impregnated her attend. Naturally, Alysha was offended and made the decision that she wasn’t going to take the insult quietly, and her mother supported this decision. With her mother and aunt as companions, Alysha attended her graduation and at the end of the program boldly went to the front, announced her own name and took her commencement walk across the stage. Despite being met by rounds of applause and cheers from the audience, when she returned to her seat the police escorted her, her mother and her aunt from the hall.

It’s not often that I feel a tremendous amount of pride in the actions of a complete stranger, but this incident definitely was inspiring. The question remains, however, how a group so adamant about sending a message to women to not have abortions can behave so shamefully towards a young woman who did exactly that, and add insult onto injury by welcoming the father of the child to participate in commencement with impunity.

As the war in Iraq continues, abatement of the violence does not seem on the horizon. Oddly enough, while the US struggles to enlist soldiers to replenish the ranks, Capitol Hill Republicans are yet again making moves to reverse the direction of women’s rights as they reopen the debate of women in combat. In the recent defense authorization bill the house slid an amendment in that would ban women from both combat and combat support units.

While the left has outspokenly opposed many of the decisions that led up to and accumulated with regards to our actions in the middle east, especially Iraq, this new angle by conservatives to diminish the roles women have in in the military is an attack that can’t be overlooked.

Some interesting quotes have surfaced with regards to this issue from the would-be saviors of the delicate female soldiers. Representative Duncan Hunter of California (R), tells us that “It’s time for Congress to step in, provide some stability to the situation and draw a line of demarcation and ensure that women do not go into direct ground combat.”

Interestingly enough, this attempt is being met with a rather cold reception from the upper officials in the military itself, according to the Washington Post:

Army leaders strongly criticized the legislation in letters to Congress yesterday, saying women are performing “magnificently” in a wide range of units, working where battlefields have no clear front lines.

“The proposed amendment will cause confusion in the ranks, and will send the wrong signal to the brave young men and women fighting the Global War on Terrorism,” Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army’s vice chief of staff, wrote in a letter delivered to the House yesterday. “This is not the time to create such confusion.”

He said that the Army is in “strict and full compliance with Department of Defense policies regarding women in combat,” but that it continues to “study” the role of women in light of an ongoing reorganization of Army units and the complex, changing nature of warfare. Cody wrote that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, concurred with the letter, an identical version of which was sent to the House by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

While the attempt in and of itself is an affront to the courageous women whom have served through out the Iraq War, all hope may not be lost according to MSNBC:

There are about 9,000 U.S. Army women in Iraq. Banning them from combat support units could further stress the Army, already stretched thin in Iraq.

“27 percent of the Army’s people are women right now, and it would devastate the Army,” says Capt. Lori Manning, retired from the Navy and now director of the Women in the Military Project.

Despite the debate, Pentagon officials are confident Congress will leave the current policy as is … and U.S. military women on the front lines.

More on the subject:
BBC: US Mulls Ban on Women In Combat