It is customary these days to ignore what should be done
in favour of what pleases us.
Plautus
Viva Il Papa
From the Cardinal Newman Society:
Almighty God and Father,
Who have revealed Yourself through Your Eternal Word,
and have blessed Your Church with Pope Benedict XVI,
our teacher in both faith and reason;
receive our prayers of thanksgiving
for his witness to the beauty of truth,
for his example of hopefulness,
for his humble service of Christ's Bride.
As he blessed our apostolate in his care for the Church's teaching office,
so now may he receive the benefit of our prayers.
Grant him, in his time of retirement,
the reward of study and prayer as he continues to seek, find, and love you in truth.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Taking on Political Correctness:
The Challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 2006 Section 5
As a self-described libertarian-conservative, I take individual rights (including the right to vote) as well as the the historical principles of federalism and equal protection very seriously. I have worked with a number of professional woman, people of color, Asian immigrants (especially Indians, a few from Pakistan and one from Bangladesh (at NASA-Clear Lake City: he had family issues because he was the only one in his family to stop his education with an MS--everyone else had an MD and/or PhD), and Latinos. I attended a high school in south Texas with many Latino students and faculty. OLL is situated in a barrio in southwest San Antonio; I didn't have wheels: my very first date involved visiting a popular taco stand off campus. One client manager (at a prominent management consulting company) observed Ramadan during the project tenure; I also worked closely with a Jewish project manager, a good friend.
If you looked at my family, we seemed like any other white family: 3 of my sisters are natural blondes; we are all blue-eyed (except one sister has green eyes). (A number of Franco-Americans have brown-eyes and are less fair-skinned, probably more southern than northern European origin.) But my mom still remembers being teased in early school over her "accented" English. And an influx of job-taking French Catholic immigrants whom allegedly didn't know how to control their breeding made a number of Northeast WASPs very unhappy; the KKK in particular terrorized New England Franco-Americans early in the twentieth century.(Immigration of course on both borders tapered off by the Depression; my ancestors immigrated during the nineteenth century.)
I don't speak for all Franco-Americans; but I don't think you saw comparable initiatives designed to allocate a quota of Franco American lawmakers or establish bilingual education in the public schools. When I started kindergarten, French was my dominant language; the public school system didn't teach me English; my mom did, and I quickly picked it up to keep on track in school.
Most Catholics have a keen moral sense of equal protection; what some Southern states were doing wasn't simply a matter of federalism (states' rights); states were violating individual rights. Majoritarian abuses of power are no more acceptable at the state level than at the federal level, i.e., the Ninth Amendment. The ultimate defense of individual liberties is the courts, not the legislature. However, voting, like many government-sponsored operations is implemented on the local level. The problem with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is that it arbitrarily subordinates local administration of elections to the Feds; for example, the Feds could veto a local change allowing more at-large officeholders or making certain elections non-partisan if the Feds believe it could result in fewer minority lawmakers, a de facto quota system. It seems odd this is necessary at a time a man of color won a majority of votes in 2 consecutive elections. By all accounts, minority groups heavily voted, if not disproportionately overperformed in those elections. CATO Institute has a good discussion of the clause 5 issue here. In brief, the original section 5 was upheld decades ago as an extraordinary mechanism in dealing with regionally pervasive issues that no longer exist. The 2006 Act extended this Federal oversight for another 25 years
What set me off on this rant was a snarky, amateurish, provocative Washpo op-ed published yesterday where the author seemed to praise the bullying behavior of Obama-nominated Sotomayor ("Sotomayor is blunt and caustic, repeatedly interrupting. In an opinion this week, she harshly criticized a Texas prosecutor for a racist line of questioning.") and Kagan. whom is portrayed more like an elitist sniper, eager to mock allegedly hypocritical conservative "activists", on the bench with her or the lawyer for the Alabama county wanting section 5 struck. The author's scathing regard of "Nino the Terrible" Scalia is transparent, and she all but does a "you go, girls" over tag-teaming and putting Scalia and conservative attorneys in their place.
The funny thing, though, is the author doesn't make her point. It's clear she disagrees with Scalia's point of view, but he is not presented as engaging in boorish behavior, like Kagan and Sotomayor. I found even her presentation of him as funny, not judgmental and sarcastic, e.g., “Even the name of it is wonderful,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act: Who is going to vote against that?” SPOT ON, SCALIA! I have in recent posts spoofed the attempts of elitist progressives focusing more on gimmick names than serious public policy; I've said, "What's next? The I Love Moms, Babies, and Puppy Dogs Act?"
But my ultimate scorn is for this piece of nonsense: "Surprisingly, the five conservative justices seemed willing to strike down a landmark civil rights law (the provision that gives extra scrutiny to states with past discrimination) that was renewed with near-unanimous votes in Congress. Conservative jurists usually claim deference to the elected branches, but in this case they look an awful lot like activist judges legislating from the bench,"
Let me first deal with the disingenuous point of the Congressional Votes to renew the Voting Rights Act (98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House). Sotomayor's suggestion that the Congress made a determination that ongoing discrimination exists, hence renewal is totally without foundation and I submit a departure from reality. First, the GOP was in control of Congress. A near-unanimous vote means that a measure wasn't seriously considered--like meaningless proclamations. Why? 2006 was going to be a challenging year for the GOP; they had to do do something on the issue and they didn't want to explain why they voted against the Voting Rights Act. Sotomayor knows well enough that the opinion of a majority is not relevant when it comes to violations of individual rights; that's what the courts are for. Scalia is right in his response to Kagan, as well. The GOP clearly concluded it was easier to go with the flow. don't sweat the small stuff, even at the expense of throwing local/state government in the South under the bus. When I hear the disingenuous solicitor general push back on Scalia's speculating on the motives of lawmakers, this is simply a matter of common sense and the nature of unanimous votes in a real democratic republic.
I especially despise Kagan's pointing out Alabama has no statewide elected blacks; it's a judicial cheap shot. Blacks make up about a quarter of the population of Alabama. Apparently the Kagan test is until a black is elected statewide local elections in a state are presumed defective. The success of Gov. Haley and Sen. Scott of SC prove that racially/ethnically diverse candidates with the right political message can win in the Old South.
But let me return to the ideological nonsense, the allegation that the conservative judges are hypocritical "activists"; first, the Supreme Court earlier specifically noted the extraordinary nature of Section 5; second, there is a question of whether certain states or regions are being discriminated against on arbitrary grounds; third, there's the Constitutional principle of federalism. Stare decisis is not a religion; just because past courts hadn't recognized that for-profit organizations have a right to free speech or the people have a right to defend themselves against violence, doesn't mean those rights don't exist. Here, the issue is whether localities are empowered to make electoral reforms without getting a sign-off from the Feds. If localities implement defective controls, those still can be challenged in court. It's unconscionable to tell people in Alabama, yes, you live in a democracy, but control over your own elections is ultimately held by the federal government. That is TYRANNY. The Court has been signaling for a while in other matters (e.g., affirmative action) that extraordinary measures have a limited shelf life. A good first step is for SCOTUS to strike section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez & IBD |
President Obama said this week that after four years as president, "you realize all the mistakes you've made." so apparently he DOES watch Fox News. - Jay Leno
[Obama promises all-new mistakes this term of Presidential Apprentice.]
A lot of Americans can't believe how crazy the politics are in Italy. A comedian might become prime minister. We would never do that in America. A pro wrestler? [Jesse Ventura, I-MN gov] Sure. Stuart Smalley from "Saturday Night Live"? [Sen. Al Franken, D-MN] Yeah. - Craig Ferguson
[Something in the water in Minnesota... Not to mention an actor whom played a professor trying to teach morals to a chimp. Or a Democrat.]
Americans are bracing for this thing called the sequester — when $85 billion will be cut from almost every part of the budget. So teachers, meat inspectors, and TSA workers will all be affected. So if you're someone who teaches people how to keep bad meat off airplanes, this is a tough weekend. - Jimmy Fallon
[Rumor has it some meat inspectors in Europe are looking for work...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Aerosmith, "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing". The group's only #1 (Hot 100) hit. I'm a huge fan of songwriter Diane Warren whom has written big hits not only for the likes of LeeAnn Rimes, Cher and Laura Branigan, and Gloria Estefan but memorable power ballads for the likes of Chicago and Bad English. No group does power ballads better than Aerosmith; Steven Tyler has some of the best pipes in the business, and what can you say about the musicianship of the band (Joe Perry et al.)? The single debuted at #1 (a rare achievement) and stayed there for a month.
This marks the end of my Aerosmith retrospective: next up: Journey.
