WASHINGTON

Today’s announcement coincides with the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Olmstead v. L.C. & E.W. which affirmed the rights of individuals with disabilities to live independently. To commemorate this landmark decision, President Obama declared 2009 the Year of Community Living.

“As individuals with disabilities leave institutional care, it is essential that they have housing options that will allow them to live independently,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. “As we prepare to launch this initiative, we also want to make certain that we get input from local housing experts, disability rights advocates and others who can help us target this assistance to those who need it most. We also recognize how important it is for HUD and HHS to coordinate our resources to enable community-living for those individuals that live with disabilities.”

HUD’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) will make $30 million in voucher assistance available to support approximately 4,000 Housing Choice Vouchers for non-elderly disabled families. HUD is making a 1,000 of those vouchers available specifically for individuals transitioning out of nursing homes and other institutions. These vouchers directly support a $1.75 billion initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to help persons who reside in health care settings move to community-based living. While HHS’ Money Follows the Person (MFP) program offers health care, case management and other services to qualified families, it does not include funding for housing. HUD’s funding initiative is designed to fill that gap.

The remaining 3,000 Housing Choice Vouchers are available to assist any non-elderly disabled family. The Department is encouraging local housing authorities to give strong consideration to using some or all of these vouchers to provide housing for those non-elderly persons that are living in the community, but are at-risk for institutionalization.

About the Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD is the nation’s housing agency committed to sustaining homeownership; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes economic and community development and enforces the nation’s fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and espanol.hud.gov.

Many do not really see the big deal in replacing one liberal with another, but the effects of such a nomination will continue to affect this country long after Obama is gone (just like his huge debt).

Her ruling against the New Haven firefighters was, for lack of a better word, despicable. Firefighters who deserved a promotion based on performance, skills, evaluation, and experience were snubbed because of racial quotas. They call this “reverse discrimination”, but whenever one is judged solely on the color of skin, no matter the color, for any reason, its just good old fashioned discrimination to me. How have we gotten to the point where racial quotas, charity, subsidies and preferential treatment have surpassed traditionally historical methods of advancement such as self-reliance, education, business experience and work skills? Yes, that is old fashioned and mundane, but it has never been more true. You cannot instantaneously ingrain equality into society no matter how badly you want it. Equality is something that has to be attained, not handed out like coupons. Suppose you lived in New Haven and were trapped in a burning building. Would you rather have competent emergency response crews responding, or one which meets the specifications of racial quotas? Would it matter what color the person was pulling you from the fire?

The advancement test consisted of a written and oral sections, carefully constructed to ensure race neutrality. All 20 who qualified for the promotions were white and the results were thrown out after no minorities qualified. How can this discrimination still exist today? People will obviously blow this off as a rare or minor incident, but it goes much deeper, for it is the mindset of people like Sotomayor which we should be afraid.

Much has been made over Sotomayor’s upbringing and struggle to get where she is. If that is the quota Obama is trying to fill, we already have a Justice who came from absolutely nothing in Clarence Thomas.

While overcoming adversity and struggling to get to the top are certainly admirable qualities, for any color of skin, do those traits necessarily mean you are the best for the job? If you were scheduled to have open heart surgery today would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is or by the best surgeon you could find? What if the surgeon was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that an advantaged socioeconomic position could offer, would you still choose the one who had to struggle based on principle? Of course not! If it were you, you would not give two hoots on which surgeon had to struggle and which one had all the advantages, you would want the best surgeon available, even if he was purple.

While Obama has stressed the fact that Sotomayor is “empathetic” towards minorities, it leads me to second guess if Obama really understands the law, or if he is fighting for preferential treatment for certain groups based on their skin color. The words “equal justice under law” which is the motto over the Supreme Court building, is in grave danger of misleading those who enter, if such a person is allowed to preside. The color of skin should not matter, but apparently does if the results aren’t appeasing the minorities or certain groups.

Suppose that same logic was applied to the NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball and each team not only had to comply with racial quota percentages, but the starting positions had to reflect it as well. Imagine the NBA and NFL if they were 80% white and traditional qualities such as speed, power, agility, dexterity, performance, physical prowess and ability, and talent no longer mattered, but starting positions were given out in a pre game meeting based on skin color. Imagine MLB without its Hispanic presence because each team would need to be a reflection of society’s color. Now, before everyone gets in a frenzy claiming I am making generalizations about race, you are missing my point.

My point is not that blacks are better athletes than whites or that Hispanics are better baseball players than whites and blacks, my point is in the flawed concept of racial quotas carried out under the disguise of fairness. How many people would refuse to attend professional sporting events if their favorite player was benched or worse yet, had to be released to make room for a player with a different skin color? There would be public outcry and rage beyond comprehension if the NFL or NBA implemented such a policy. Now imagine if a district court of appeals upheld the league’s decision when the athletes who were more qualified, filed suit. There would be rioting in the streets.

Its unfortunate that society doesn’t really care about the New Haven fire department when something like that actually happens, but if we do not recognize and discard that way of thinking, we are heading down a wrong path of unequal justice that will eventually come back to bite us all.

As if this weren’t enough reason to raise questions about her qualifications, she was then quoted as saying, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Better conclusion for who? Hasn’t lived what “life”? I know quotes can be taken out of context, but I find it hard to imagine a world where this would logically apply.

Why would being a Latino or a woman make any difference at all in terms of reaching a better conclusion? Does simply the “richness of her experiences” make her better qualified than a white male who never had to struggle to graduate from Harvard or Yale with honors? I cannot begin to explain how dangerous a doctrine this comment was, and I am sure those on the left will come up with an array of excuses to justify the remark and take attention away from the issue. Just remember what these same people would be saying if Justice Roberts, a white male, had said the same thing and expressed that a white male would reach a better conclusion than a Latino female. He would be crucified.

After all is said and done, she will probably be confirmed as I am quite sure Obama’s staff is grilling her and coaching her on how to answer the questions the Republicans will throw at her in the conformation hearings. I only hope the Senate is gearing up for a thorough line of questioning, in which the mindset behind these remarks are exposed or explained. We must do everything in our power to make sure this doesn’t happen again, it’s too important to our children and grandchildren who are already going to be saddled with paying off our debt.

A judge’s job is not to apply empathy for minorities, but to apply the law so that equality can be attained through individual achievement without barricades from the law. It seems people are more concerned about acceptance between minorities or the “politically correct” views than justice, even if those views do tremendous damage and hinder those it supposedly helps. There seems to be no “empathy” for justice.

This decision affects us all — and so it must involve us all. I’ve recorded a special message to personally introduce Judge Sotomayor and explain why I’m so confident she will make an excellent Justice.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Judge Sotomayor has made the American dream her own.

Born and raised in a South Bronx public housing project to Puerto Rican parents, Sotomayor has distinguished herself in academia, as a big-city prosecutor, and as a leading figure on the federal bench. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would start with more federal judicial experience than any new Justice in 100 years.

Judge Sotomayor has gone on to earn bipartisan acclaim as one of America’s finest legal minds. As a Supreme Court Justice, she would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 100 years. Judge Sotomayor would show fidelity to our Constitution and draw on a common-sense understanding of how the law affects our day-to-day lives.

A nomination for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is one of the most important decisions a President can make. And the discussions that follow will be among the most important we have as a nation.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today hailed a Senate vote rejecting tax funding for religious facilities in the economic recovery package.

“The Senate has voted to reaffirm an important American principle that religious groups should pay their own way and not expect funding from the taxpayer,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

The 54-43 vote came after Religious Right groups began complaining that the proposed economic recovery bill (H.R. 1) was hostile to religion. In fact, the legislation merely states that tax funds used for school construction and rehabilitation may not be diverted to religious institutions.Church-state experts said such language has traditionally been part of legislation that deals with building projects and infrastructure. It’s necessary, they note, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution bars use of public funds to build or renovate houses of worship and other religious facilities.

During the past few days, Religious Right groups have been asserting that the language will bar student religious groups from meeting at universities. Americans United pointed out that the provision has nothing to do with such meetings.

AU noted that the Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that public universities must give the same access to facilities to religious groups that is granted to non-religious ones.

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an ally of the Religious Right, attempted to remove language in the bill that bans tax funding of religious facilities. AU and other organizations quickly pointed out that the DeMint provision is unconstitutional and unnecessary.

In a letter to all 100 senators, AU Legislative Director Aaron Schuham wrote, “The best and most important way our Founding Fathers sought to protect and promote religion was to ensure that government does not interfere with it. This language is just one more way that our laws reflect this constitutional requirement and important national tradition.”

Lynn expressed delight over the vote, the first up-or-down tally on a church-state issue in many years.

“Religion has traditionally paid for its own buildings and projects in America, and we’ve been better off for that,” Lynn said. “I’m thankful that the Senate has rejected this misguided and reckless gambit to sneak government-funded religion in through the back door.”

About the author: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

President Obama has  signed a law that expands the time frame in which workers can sue for discrimination they have experienced based on gender, race, national origin or religion.

“We are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness,” Obama said before signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which effectively nullifies the 2007 Supreme Court decision.

http://www.truthout.org/012909R

From radioactive clergy to media inquisitions, religion was a hot topic in this year’s race to the White House, according to editors of Church and State Magazine.

The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State. The monthly magazine published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.

Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”

After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.

1.  The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.

2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.

3.  The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.

4.  The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.

5.  Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.

6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.

7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.

8.  Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.

9.  Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.

10.  The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.

About the Source: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

A Ten Commandments lawsuit to be heard this week by the U.S. Supreme Court inappropriately focuses on free-speech rights rather than church-state separation, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The justices will hear oral arguments Wednesday in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.

The case tests whether Pleasant Grove City, Utah, can accept a Commandments monument for permanent display in a local park while turning down a monument showing the tenets of another faith. The Summum religion sued the local government after its display was rejected.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Summum had a free-speech right to display its monument next to the Commandments monument.Summum is an informal gathering of people who are seeking to understand themselves, to know who they truly are inside. Summum is not about doctrine, dogma, or beliefs, but about gaining the experiences that will awaken us to the spirit within and to our place in the matrix of Creation’s formulations.

Normally when the government discriminates against one faith while preferring another, a lawsuit would be filed charging a violation of church-state separation. In this situation, due to roadblocks in pre-existing 10th Circuit law, attorneys for Summum made their argument based on First Amendment free-speech principles, not Establishment Clause grounds.

Americans United is sympathetic to Summum’s plight, but is concerned that Summum’s free-speech argument could weaken church-state separation legal doctrine. The watchdog group filed an amicus brief in support of neither Pleasant Grove City nor Summum and requests the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision. That way, Summum can re-litigate this case under the framework of church-state separation.

“Our Constitution requires the government to remain religiously neutral. Government officials should never favor one faith over others. Pleasant Grove City should never have approved the Commandments display in the first place. If the city had said no as it should have done, we wouldn’t be facing this mess at the Supreme Court.” — Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director

Lynn, however, urged the justices to approach the case with great caution.

“If the Supreme Court lets Summum’s free-speech argument stand,” he said, “it could open the door for government to use private speakers to spread a particular religious belief.

“It would also mean if the government allows any group to erect a permanent monument on its land, it must allow all proposed monuments to be erected with no restrictions,” he continued. “This could lead to groups putting up permanent monuments promoting hateful messages on public land throughout the country.

“Summum should have the chance to re-argue this case under the correct legal doctrine of church-state separation,” Lynn concluded. “Let’s hope the Supreme Court comes to the right conclusion here.”

About the Author: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

When the Supreme Court made the wrong decision to decide the presidential election in favor of Bush and not count the votes, I was dismayed.  My vote was stolen.  We all know the ramifications that has had over the past eight years.

1 Person, 1 Vote?

Jessica Cameron made a statement at last night’s session without saying a word.  She is a veteran of the Iraq war and a strong advocate for the environment.  Last year, she was the president of the APSU’s Students Organized to Advance Renewable Energy.

Protesting last night's tri-county convention and its selection of Tim Branes as state Senate District 22 candidate, Jessie Cameron protested the disenfranchising of 4000+ Kurita votes in the primary.

Some long-time Democrats become “Incurably Uncertain” about remaining in their own party after Kurita’s election win was discredited on September 13. The eight hour session which seemed to most observers to be a sure win for Kurita ended with a 33-11 vote to null and void Kurita’s Senate election win.

When this decision was announced, APSU Associate Professor of Biology, Dr. Joe Schiller, told the officials in the room that “they had been instructed to vote based on the evidence and facts, not on retribution and revenge”. He was asked to leave the room. Feeling disenfranchised, he told me that the whole event was a miscarriage of justice and he is seriously reconsidering his party affiliation. “If it is a Republican conspiracy when Republicans vote for Democrats, that’s a conspiracy I’d like to have.”

“There was no proof. It was a Scopes monkey trial. It was embarrassing”, said Beth Robinson, a Clarksville computer systems analyst and member of The Climate Project. “This reminds me of the Supreme Court ignoring the voting public and handing Bush the White House despite the fact that Gore received more votes.” Beth said she’d like Senator Kurita to explore a write-in campaign and possibly run as an Independent.

Standing room only as the Tennessee Democratic Executive Committee hears evidence in the Kurita/Barnes primary election case

R. Neal wrote his view on the case in the Tenn Views web site. He includes a link to Kurita’s attorney’s response to the Barnes challenge, which you can read here or at http://www.tennviews.com/files/kuritachallengeresponse.pdf Neal writes that Barnes filed a challenge, citing a litany of alleged irregularities. Kurita filed a response refuting them point by point. Read the rest of Neal’s article at http://www.tennviews.com/node/3882.

Retired attorney, Alma Sanford was in shock and declared publicly that she is leaving the party and will vote for McCain. In a later interview, she admitted that she would never vote for McCain, but she will also not vote Democratic. For the people who know Sanford and her 49 years of dedication to the Democratic Party, this is indeed a sorry blow.

Alma Sanford with Attorney Robert Rochelle

Democrats scurry to discredit Alma Sanford, who is a Tennessee native.  She won a Humanitarian Award in 1994 for her efforts in defending the elderly from evictions from their homes. Sanford did extensive volunteer work on the Gore and Kerry campaigns, raising thousands of dollars for Kerry. Starting in 2004, she co-founded the Tennessee group, Gathering to Save our Democracy, and she lobbied two or three days a week for four years seeking improvements or alternatives to Tennessee voting machines, from which votes cast are  not verifiable. (Ed: In January, 2010, Tennessee will launch a verifiable voting system.)

Here is Alma Sanford’s letter to Clarksville Online:

“As I sat beside my friend who is also a retired attorney, at the eight hour long hearing of the Tennessee Democratic Party on Saturday, I kept remembering the years I practiced law in front of Judges in a real court setting.  My friend agreed with me after a couple of hours of testimony from witnesses called by Tim Barnes, the complainant, that any judge before whom we had ever appeared would have thrown out the case.  The so-called “evidence” was based on thinly disguised vengeance and the anguish of a ’sore loser.’

The Executive Committee

“We wish we could have heard the Executive Committee members discuss the evidence – or the lack of evidence.  Only three members ever spoke to the ‘heart of the case,’ i.e., discussed the evidence.  One member stated emphatically that he was concerned about setting a bad precedent by throwing out an election because Republicans had voted in the Democratic Primary, when Tennessee is a state that allows open primaries.  He stated that if the election of the voters of District 22 was set aside, that at the next meeting of the Executive Committee, the members should determine how many Republicans will be allowed to vote in a Democratic Primary before the threshold is reached.

“Instead of a decision based on evidence and facts (as Sen. Kurita’s attorney was able to get Tim Barnes to say he wanted), one member after the hearing told me, “The decision would have been the same had the vote been taken at 9:00 a.m. (when the hearing began).”  She said the members had made up their minds because they were still so angry about Senator Kurita voting to unseat Sen. John Wilder as the speaker of the Tennessee Senate.

“Where was the anger of the members of the Tennessee Democratic Executive Committee when, in 2004, so many elections for State Senate candidates were lost that the Senate no longer was in Democratic control?  Did any one of them ever express anger at the Chair of the Party?  Did one member express anger at the Chair of the Coordinated Campaign who was charged with the duty to elect all Democrats?  Did any one express anger at the Senate Democratic Caucus Leader because he failed in his job.

Left front: Attorney George E. Barrett and Tim Barnes, second from right

“To date, I have never heard any member of the TNDP or anyone else for that matter, find fault with any of the MEN who held the aforementioned positions.  No one ever challenged Sen. John Wilder when he regularly appointed Republicans as Chairs of Senate committees, passing over Senator Kurita (and other Democrats) as she continued to rise in seniority with the numbers of years she served in the Tennessee Senate.

“I talked with Senator Kurita on Thursday, September 11th, and she had just read my e-mail asking people to come to yesterday’s hearing to support her.  In that e-mail, I had stated that Tim Barnes’ campaign manager told me that Tim Barnes is anti-choice.  Senator Kurita said, “Well he managed to keep that a secret because no one ever asked and he never did state his position on ‘choice’ during the campaign.”  She stated emphatically that she had no idea Tim Barnes was anti-choice.

“I noticed in Sen. Kurita’s statement at the hearing yesterday, she stated clearly, “I am a pro-choice Democrat.”

“The reason I have been so adamant in my support of Senator Kurita is because of a certain hearing before the Tennessee Senate in 2006.  There was a bill (SJR 127) before the Senate that would have sent to the voters a constitutional amendment banning all abortions in Tennessee, even to save the life of the mother.  Senator Kurita made a very impassioned speech, as a Registered Nurse, about how important it is to have that personal decision made by the Mother and her Doctor without interference of any governmental agency.

“As a pro-choice voter, if I lived in District 22, I would much rather have Senator Kurita represent me than Tim Barnes.  However, the Tennessee Democratic Party has probably made sure that will never happen again.

“What a sad day for all who have spent years and many dollars defending democratic principles and who thought that the Democratic Party agreed with those principles.  It appears we were wrong.”

~~ Alma Sanford, J.D. , Antioch, TN

A packed house for the Kurita/Barnes hearing on Setember 13

Other Kurita supporters who came to the session:

Penny Brooks of Ashland City, State Chapter Co-Legislature Chair and Co-Political Chair of the Sierra Club, said that she came in support of Kurita because of Kurita’s outstanding environmental record, especially on energy. Brooks supported Kurita’s election win because she does not believe there were deliberate illegal tactics to determine the election in her favor.

Cynthia Bennett, National Board Member, of Tennessee National Organization of Women (NOW) in Nashville, said that Kurita has been a strong supporter of women’s rights in Tennessee. Bennett came to this panel hearing to show the support of the women of Tennessee for someone who has actually stood in the well of the Tennessee Senate and spoke eloquently against changing Tennessee’s constitution, which was an action to take reproductive rights away from Tennessee women. “Kurita stood strongly for us and we stand strongly for her.”

Shane Ray, Fire chief of the Pleasantview Volunteer Fire Department, came in uniform. He said “She’s hard working and dedicated; a good woman who is open and willing to listen, even when we disagree. She’s honest.”

Kathy Parker of Clarksville said that Kurita stands up for State employee’s raises.

David Borden Kircher of Nashville said Kurita won the majority of votes and to take victory away from her would be unfair.

Russell A. Cain of Clarksville came to support Senator Kurita and his vote. Issues raised are alarming and tend to indicate serious political and ethics concerns, he said.

Holly Quick and Floyd Poston, from Nashville, said they came in support of Kurita’s win and said the election was certified by the state. In addition, they are both staunch supporters of women’s rights including the right to a safe and legal abortion. They feel strongly about  election integrity. Holly was an early and strong supporter of verifiable paper ballots for all Tennessee voters. She is the secretary of Gathering to Save our Democracy.

Also appearing in support of Kurita:

• Marietta Shipley, Attorney at Law, former Judge in Nashville
• Margaret Behm, Attorney at Law, Nashville
• Toby Abrams, Tennessee State President N.O.W.
• Martha Wettemann, employee of TN Dept. of Labor and Pres. of Davidson County Chapter of TN State Employees’ Assn.; Treasurer of Cheatham County Democratic Party
• Dr. James Powers
• Roger Schecter, retired attorney
• Jean Sanford McGee
• Deborah Narrigan, Nurse – Chair of Gathering To Save Our Democracy, Legislative Committee
• Matthew Taylor, Cheatham, Student & worker in Rosalind’s campaign, and his mother County
• Linda Swindle and Penny Brooks from Cheatham County
• Holly Spann, Active in Nashville Women’s Political Caucus and & Davidson Democratic Women County
• Mary Parker, Attorney at Law

I was only able to find and interview a few Barnes supporters at this session:

• Mark Olson of Clarksville came supporting Barnes because Rosalind, in his opinion, is a Republican. She voted for a republican for the senate speaker post.
• Mike Williamson of Clarksville came supporting Barnes because Rosalind’s attitude toward the legal profession and the rights of the accused during the election offended him.
• Tommy Vallejos from Clarksville came in support of Barnes saying it is time for change and that  Kurita sold out the people who voted her in.

My observations: During the session we heard about “potty-gate”: Kurita crossed the line at a polling place to use the bathroom. Witnesses saw her go into the school building where the gym held the polling booths. Kurita admits this occurred, but said she saw and talked to no one and did not enter the voting area. Barnes’ attorney said policy says this could be taken as trying to harass or intimidate voters. Kurita’s attorney produced the policy, which did not use those words.  It said that entering the poll could be trying to improperly influence the voters. Barnes produced no one who saw Kurita inside the building.

We heard testimony from a man who didn’t get to vote for Barnes. Part of his story was that when he went to vote he did not want to choose either the Democrat or Republican Party for voting purposes. Later we heard testimony from the poll workers about the man which gave us a different view entirely. Anyone who has voted in a primary knows you are required to declare your party affiliation.

A big part of the accusation was that the Republicans had deliberately set out to upset the election and its results. We heard testimony from APSU student Democrat leader, Adam Haynes, who said he went to the Republican headquarters where a woman suggested that Republicans should try to upset the Democrat election. Adam had no names and defense declared it hearsay. When questioned Adam admitted his golf club was used in a video on Facebook and YouTube showing a man beating an image of Kurita with a golf club. On YouTube it was titled “A young Democrat takes out his frustrations on Senator Kurita.” The video had been removed from the site soon after it was posted.

Senator Kurita, with her husband, George (l), speak with a constituent at the recent opening of Democratic Headquarters

One of the most serious charges made was by a woman who voted at the fairgrounds polling place. She testified that the poll worker told the man in front of her that Barnes was a Republican. Then she testified that another poll worker told her that “they are saying that to everyone” (that Barnes is Republican). Defense produced written testimony of a second poll worker who corrected the first poll worker’s mistake immediately. The woman in line corrected the first poll worker immediately. The Poll worker who was supposed to say, “They are saying that to everyone”, testified that she did not say, under any circumstance, that statement.

Also provided were written testimonies about an annoying phone call to someone telling them Barnes is Republican, and an annoying prank phone call at an early hour saying only “Barnes”. The “evidence” was given as speculation that his opponent was somehow involved in these pranks.

In testimony from Barnes, we learned that his animosity for Kurita started when he ran for office several years ago. Kurita did not attend his fundraisers and did not raise money for his campaign. Barnes said she did not support other Democrats either. Barnes brought up the fact that Kurita had voted out Democrat Wilder, (91), from his Senate seat, (an issue that put a lot of the wind in his campaign). Barnes also talked about the negative ad campaign that Kurita ran about his job as a lawyer.

The defense attorney asked Barnes if he knew as an attorney that unless evidence was submitted before the case as testimony it could not be considered in a case. Barnes said yes. Did he also know that everything he just said was not submitted and could not be used in the case? Barnes said yes.

People who went to support Kurita by showing up were encouraged by the seeming lack of substantial evidence against her and were subsequently appalled at the conclusion. In the aftermath, there is talk of a write-in vote for Kurita. In the wake of this primary election fiasco, a deep rift has developed within the Democractic Party in Clarksville, and throughout the three counties — Montgomery, Cheatham and Houston  that will be represented by on of these two candidates.

Democratic Executive Committees are meeting Wednesday, September 17, at 7:30 p.m., at the Riverview Inn, to decide which name will appear on the November ballot. That decision could be the final verdict on this state Senate seat, since there is no Republican contender for the seat. The wild card in November would be Kurita running as a write -in  or independent candidate.

Denominational: a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship?Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.” ~~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

In downtown Clarksville on Thursday, September 11, congregants and legislators from varied Christian churches across the county gathered. The implied purpose of the gathering, part of a nationwide movement called Cry Out America, was to acknowledge the tragedy of September 11, 2001, an event that cost America the lives of 3,000 of its citizens on home territory, precipitated the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost this country thousands of live lost or irrevocably maimed, and dug a deep hole of nearly insurmountable debt that our children will have to pay.

Thus people gathered “in the name of (their) God” to ostensibly honor the victims of 9-11, or so the advertising suggested; in fact it was a blatant effort at integrating the Christian faith into local, state and federal government, complete with out-of-context quotes by our founding fathers relating Christianity to the Constitution and the founding of the United States of America.

Cry Out America, sponsored by the national group, Awakening America Alliance, was billed as an interdenominational event, and it was; it was a gathering Christians of varying shades of Christianity. Baptists, Methodist. Presbyterians. Missionary sects. Evangelicals. Fundamentalists. All with deep and obvious roots in Christianity. It was also exclusionary of “non-Christians” who mourn 9-11 just as deeply as the Christians do. The term “interdenominational” refers to “between churches.”

Interdenominational: Interdenominational (also called transdenominational) Churches built for the purpose of bringing together Christians of different denominations are often referred to as united and uniting churches. This sometimes leads to doctrinal and stylist compromises, leading to the idea that there are “primary” and “secondary” issues in faith. Primary issues describe those about which there can be no disagreement, whereas secondary issue can be compromised upon. This is the ethos behind the Christian Union movement for instance (UCCF). Christian faith-based organizations which act independent of church oversight are called interdenominational or parachurch organizations (para, is Greek for beside, or alongside). They are typically Protestant or evangelical.

Given that 9-11 affected all Americans, religious or not, a non-denominational ceremony on this seventh anniversary of September 11 would have been more appropriate.

Cry Out America was a Christian “Praise the Lord” interdenominational prayer revival, not a true memorial service. I found that 9-11 ‘hook’ into something else to be offensive. Had this been a true non-denominational event, welcoming people of all faiths and beliefs, and those with no faith who also mourn on this day, I would have felt far more comfortable. Not because I have a problems with Christians. I don’t. Had this been held at, say, Madison Street United Methodist Church in their huge parking lot or hall, I would have found the entire thing absolutely appropriate.

I do have a problem with using the stepping stone of tragedy to launch a rally that was clearly aimed at putting God into government. (I can hear the angry letters pouring in already). I do have a problem with using the stepping stone of tragedy to launch a rally that was clearly aimed at putting God into government and promoting one category of faith over another on government property. Of course, organizers said it was held on “public property,” and yes, as taxpayers, we supposedly own it. I believe in this little thing with constitutional clout called “separation of church and state.” I feel the same way about the Ten Commandment signs on a public right of way, nativity scenes in city or state or federal holiday displays, and the many ceremonies that start or end with blatantly Christian-oriented rather than non-denominational prayer, an action that favors one category of religious beliefs over all others.

Had Cry Out America been a nondenominational, more ecumenical gathering with a solemn focus on the tragedy of 9-11 and the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, I would have been an agreeable and willing participant on public turf. Had there been the moments of silence and silent prayer, the ringing of a church bell, the reading of names, the reading of non-denominational or universal texts, I would have been much happier.

I was raised Catholic. I am now a Unitarian. I  have a strong tendency toward and interest in Bhuddism. I can, by virtue of how I live my life, be called a Christian. I treat my neighbors as I wish to be treated. I feed the hungry, help the sick, provide shelter at times, and often give without expectation of a return — all of which is rather Christ-like, or, yes, Christian). I am also involved in the ancient Goddess culture which predates Christianity, and with Wicca. And I have spent time immersed in Native American rituals and medicine too.

Montgomery County has established a precedent by not only allowing this religious celebration to happen on county land, but supporting it by lending materials (chairs, electric power) for the comfort of participants. When I have a point to make (and my ’causes’ are universal and non-denominational) you will now find me on the courthouse steps, exercising my right to use this “public/government property” (I am one of the public, just as Christians are) to make my non-denominational case for peace, against war, or for a true commemoration service for those who have been killed or maimed on September 11 and its aftermath, and for all the soldiers of our country’s many wars. I hope they will graciously supply chairs for our attendees, who are no less American than those of Cry out America.

Cry Out America was, according to Beverly Blackard, Montgomery County coordinator for Cry Out America,  organized without the requirement of a permit or insurance fees; it was deemed by its organizers as an event for which “God opened all the doors.” Montgomery County has set a clear as crystal precedent and to deny any future group the right to assemble, no permit required, to state their case will guarantee a legal challenge.  Should any citizen use of that public space now be denied, the denial would be legally challenged.  Should a government body supporting one specific religion group via the use of public space and equipment  not provide equal access to other groups would be tacit support of a religion and a violation of church and state. Of course, I also believe that  any religious group that posts political signs, or preaches its collective politics to the pulpit by publicly endorsing specific candidates and issues, should lose their non-profit status and be taxed as a lobbying organizing.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion. Some of the strongest language came from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence with the 5-4 majority, in which she said:

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies non-adherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship? Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.”

Justice O’Connor’s words echo her opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she observed that state endorsement of religion “sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

~~ American Civil Liberties Union

~~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

~~ Courtesy of Theocracy Watch

Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson

Allowing this clearly Christian religious assembly to happen on the County Courthouse steps has set the stage for allowing assemblies of other faiths, of political or civil liberties, of peace or anti-war actions to take place on the same site with the same amenities provided by the county government. To ban or suppress other faiths or organizations from equal access under the same terms of access as Cry Out America will become an issue of discrimination.

]]> http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/16/montgomery-county-sets-precedent-for-equal-time-equal-access/feed/ 0 http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/08/06/jesse-jackson-jr-united-states-electoral-system-is-fragile/ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/08/06/jesse-jackson-jr-united-states-electoral-system-is-fragile/#comments Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:00:54 +0000 Christine Anne Piesyk http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/?p=7147 Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. cites “UnCounted” in warnings about the fragile state of our electoral system; documentary singled out as important illustration of the problem

NASHVILLE, TN (8.6.08) – In a statement about the fragile state of our electoral system, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., singled out Nashville-based filmmaker David Earnhardt’s election integrity documentary, UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections, saying that it offered “warnings about the fragile state of our electoral system” and “evidence of how voting machines themselves can create problems.”

UnCounted made its premiere in November, 2007, to a standing room only crowd at Nashville’s Belcourt Theater, where Clarksville Online was the only media present to cover the event. Clarksville Online and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in December, 2007, teamed up with Uncounted producers David and Patricia Earnhardt to co-sponsor an equally packed screening of this film in Clarksville.

UnCounted details the issues of the past several elections, examining both the broader scope of problems with electronic voting and the focusing that same lens on a number of the most controversial problems including malfunctioning or potentially manipulated voting machines, the lack of verifiable voting (the paper ‘trail’), and an insufficient number of machines at a number of polls.

In his statement, Congressman Jackson held up Michigan and Tennessee, states that will hold their primary elections this week, as examples where people go to the polls without having an explicit right to vote.

“The affirmative right to vote is not in the Constitution. Until we put it there we will continue to have presidents selected by the Supreme Court, partisan officials crafting rules in their favor, and voters disenfranchised by political games or plain old sloppiness. The Advancement Project report details a dizzying array of Election Day meltdowns, and in Uncounted there’s evidence of how voting machines themselves can create problems. Without the constitutionally-protected right to vote, we don’t have the power to make sure that every vote is counted in a complete, fair and efficient manner.”

– Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.

“Every Congress since 2001, I’ve introduced House Joint Resolution 28 (H.J. Res. 28), legislation calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting everyone the affirmative right to vote. It’s time to scrap the states’ rights-based system we have now, and place the right to vote alongside the constitutionally-protected right to free speech. Voting gives you the political power to protect all of your other rights. That power is the bedrock of our democracy. It should not be left to political whims, economic downturns and disenfranchising procedures,” said Jackson.

House GOP leaders pleased with Supreme Court verdict upholding lethal injection

House GOP leaders said this week that they were pleased with the opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Baze vs. Rees case that upheld the use of lethal injection as a means of execution. In a 7-2 ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that Kentucky’s three-drug protocol did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

In September of 2007, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled that Tennessee’s method of lethal injection was unconstitutional. Soon after, Governor Phil Bredesen issued a moratorium pending the outcome of the death penalty case facing the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, two executions were put in jeopardy of not being carried out. Pervis T. Payne was scheduled to be executed on December 12, 2007, for two counts of murder stemming from a brutal stabbing he committed in Shelby County. Mass-murderer Paul Dennis Reid gunned down seven victims execution style, killing more people than anyone else on Tennessee’s death row, and drawing seven death sentences.

The Republican leaders pointed out that by the time a criminal in this state reaches the point of execution, they have been afforded every opportunity—appeals, access to lawyers, and judicial review—to ensure that their rights are properly carried out and protected. The leaders called for the Governor to lift the moratorium and carry out the executions as planned, adding that the justice a jury of their peers determined should be administered.

Ninety-six inmates reside on death row in the state of Tennessee, with the  next execution scheduled to take place in April of 2009.

Immigration provision killed on House floor

House Republicans attempted to add a commonsense immigration provision to a bill before the House on Thursday. The Republican-sponsored amendment would have clarified that employers are able to require that their employees speak English on the job. The move sparked outrage on the other side of aisle, and the amendment was killed, with a 51 to 46 vote.

Earlier this year, Republicans introduced legislation that would have enacted the “Protecting English in the Tennessee Workplace Act.” The bill, similar to that of Senator Lamar Alexander’s legislation on the federal level, specified that it is not an unlawful practice to require an employee to speak, or an applicant for employment to agree to speak, English while engaged in work. The sponsor argued that it was not unreasonable to protect businesses by clarifying that they are allowed to set their own policies, and that requiring that English be spoke on the job often boils down to a safety precaution. He cited businesses where employees are continuously handling toxic products or food containers, or in factories, where critical safety information is displayed in English. The bill eventually failed in the Employee Affairs subcommittee.

Long Term Care proposals moving forward

Republicans have been at the forefront of legislation to help elderly and disabled citizens “age in place” by receiving more home and community based care options — and generally to give them more choices about their health care.  This week marked the passage of House Bill 941 out of Health and Human Resources Committee, legislation that would offer financial allowances to consumers, giving them the freedom to choose which services they want within their spending plans.

The program began as a demonstration in Arkansas, Florida, and New Jersey. Currently, 12 more states are implementing self-directed personal care programs. Findings of a demonstration project jointly supported by the U.S. House and Human Services and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation showed that recipients with disabilities who direct their own supportive services were significantly more satisfied and appeared to get better care than those receiving services through homecare agencies.

Another piece of legislation championed by Republicans for several years was rolled into an Administration’s bill and passed unanimously in the House this week. The bill encourages personal responsibility by rewarding those who purchase long term care insurance. Currently, to receive state dollars for long term care, participants are required to “spend down” their assets—sometimes losing family heirlooms or land. House Bill 4206 would allow those types of assets to be retained, dollar for dollar, to equal the amount of a long term care  insurance purchase, rewarding the participants and allowing them more freedom.

• House Bill 2750 passed out of Finance, Ways and Means this week and is making its way to the House floor. The bill would authorize a governing body to use electronic forms of communication that would be available to the public in an effort to solve some of the problems associated with the dust-up over the Sunshine Law in Knoxville. The sponsor said he believes that with technology expanding the way people communicate, using this technology could solve some of the problems with the Open Meetings Act.
• House Bill 1421, the “Competitive Cable and Video Services Act,” passed out of the Commerce Committee this week and is headed to Finance, Ways and Means. The Senate bill is moving forward as well, with legislators having announced last week that a compromise was finally reached on the legislation after nearly two years of negotiations.
• Two DUI bills saw passage this week, as Republican lawmakers continue their efforts to strengthen the state’s DUI laws. House Bill 831 requires a judge to impose on a DUI offender certain conditions such as participation in an alcohol and drug safety school, or a drug and alcohol assessment or treatment. House Bill 3661 would create within the TBI a “Repeat DUI Offender” registry of persons who have two or more DUI convictions and whose license is currently suspended or revoked. The registry would be available on the Internet, similar to the way sexual offender information is provided.
• The much-anticipated spring Sales Tax Holiday is approaching, and will occur April 25-27, 2008. The date, originally set for March 21-23 on Easter weekend, was changed by the General Assembly in order for consumers to enjoy the full three days of tax-free items. Consumers and retailers can call (800) 342-1003 Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or visit www.state.tn.us/revenue/salestaxholiday for more information.

• House Bill 2484 exempts places of worship from posting of signage to indicate nonsmoking enclosed areas as required by the Non-Smoker Protection Act. (Agriculture Committee)
• House Bill 3602 creates a statewide board of building appeals. (Commerce Committee)
• House Bill 3807 requires a utilization review of medical services in workers’ compensation cases to be done by a physician licensed in Tennessee in the same specialty as the physician providing the services. (Consumer & Employee Affairs Committee)
• House Bill 4029 creates a pilot program to make laptops available to juniors and seniors attending high school who are also enrolled in college courses at the eligible postsecondary institutions. (Education Committee)
• House Bill 2876 creates a Class D felony for fifth and subsequent DUI offenders with a minimum 360 consecutive day sentence; counts all convictions within 10 years of DUI date when calculating prior offenses and includes convictions of vehicular assault, vehicular homicide while intoxicated, and aggravated vehicular homicide. (Finance, Ways and Means)
• Senate Joint Resolution 0687 provides for the popular election of the lieutenant governor. (State & Local Government Committee)
• House Bill 2513 requires the Tennessee lottery corporation to use numbered balls in selecting lottery winners. (State & Local Government Committee)
• House Bill 2860 creates a presumption when determining the amount of bail that any defendant not lawfully present in the United States is a risk of flight; requires jailers to determine citizenship status of persons charged with a felony or with a second or subsequent DUI. (Budget Subcommittee)
• House Bill 2903 requires the general appropriations act to first fund K-12 education and then remaining functions of state government. (Budget Subcommittee)

The conference will focus on young people’s rights, both in school and in the community. Topics include freedom of speech and expression, discipline, dress code, youth violence, LGBT rights, and drug testing. Special sessions will focus on what to do when stopped by the police and Activism 101 (the tools needed for making change), Freedom of Expression (including student rights related to speech, press, dress, and the Internet), and Street Law (including student rights and responsibilities related to police and the courts, racial profiling and police/community relations).

Conference participants include Attorney and First Amendment Center Scholar David Hudson, Metro Nashville Police Chief Ronal Serpas, Referee Sheila Calloway of the Metro Nashville Juvenile Court, and youth activist Lindsay Earls, a plaintiff in the 2002 Earls v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that challenged random drug testing of high school students participating in extra-curricular activities.

This event is free and includes lunch and a snack will be provide. Participants need to pre-register by Feb. 29th by filling out and sending in the registration form from our website, or through Facebook (search “ACLU Students Rights Conference”).

For further information, call Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director ACLU-TN at 615-320-7142.

We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover’s opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that. Sorry about that,

Click here to view the embedded video.

The media watchdog web site Media Matters points out that this isn’t the first time Fox News has declined to run ads on the basis of the content presented. In 2005 they also refused to run ad critical of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr.

* Fox News, the Fox News logo, and the Fox News Channel logo are trademarks of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and are used here without permission

You better think again…

Back in the mid-1980’s, when big companies started requiring employees to submit to random drug and alcohol screenings, it was quite apparent that privacy and fourth amendment constitutional protections were under serious attack. There were two lines of reasoning with which the courts eventually concurred in approving of drug testing — workplace safety and, hey, if someone didn’t want to submit to the testing, they were free to quit the job.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a fourth amendment case from San Diego County, California that just feels off-the-hook wrong:

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a county’s practice of routinely searching welfare applicants’ homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in.

The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the local District Attorney’s office show up unannounced at applicants’ homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid…

No one (except the impacted families) will care about this case, but it should be exceptionally concerning to everyone. Why will no one care? Because (once again) the erosion of civil liberties starts at the bottom of the economic ladder, with those who are least personally equipped to resist.

Think about it. If you apply for public assistance in San Diego County, Ca., you are granting agents of the government the right to come into your house, unannounced and without a warrant, and examine every nook and cranny to make sure that you’re not committing welfare fraud. The usual “proof of need” is no longer applicable. If you are poor in San Diego County, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Like the random drug testing before it, the excuse of prosecutors is that, well, if applicants don’t want their homes searched, they are free to refuse. And then not receive public assistance. Let’s also posit that a vast majority of public assistant recipients are young, single mothers who have few other options in terms of feeding their children or keeping the lights on or paying the rent.

No one is going to argue that there isn’t some degree of fraud in public assistance programs. But in the past 10 years or so, it’s become harder and harder to scam local and state governments, and the myth of the “Cadillac welfare queens” has been largely disproven. Most people would much rather work than be on public assistance, particularly when they have mouths to feed.

Around the time of the American revolution in the late 1700’s, English jurist William Blackstone opined that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

With their refusal to hear the San Diego County case yesterday, the Supreme Court once again turned Blackstone on his head – in the view of the Roberts court, it is better that ten innocents suffer than one guilty person escape.

About Richard Blair

Richard “Cranium” Blair is the founder and blogmaster of All Spin Zone. He’s a Vietnam-era veteran who is blessed (or cursed, depending on your view) with what he describes as “a finely tuned bullshit detector”. Past and present lives include writing for a major metro newspaper, shipping porn, punching holes in the ocean for the U.S. Navy, managing a large innercity food bank, managing SAP installations, and general computer related tomfoolery. In a distant past life, he was also an INPO / National Nuclear Academy certified systems engineer in the nuclear power industry. Richard has testified before congressional subcommittees, and worked with congressional staffs to educate them on techical issues. He’s also a contributing blogger at AlterNet and writes occasionally for Philly Indy Media.