SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (17609)11/24/2003 8:22:33 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793901
 
When you have Nat Hentoff on your side, you must be doing something right. The real reason the Dems hate this nomination is that she would "short list" for the Supremes.

Due process denied
By Nat Hentoff
Washington Times

Few nominees to federal circuit courts of appeals have been as fiercely attacked as Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court. "Clearly to the right of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas" looms New York Sen. Charles Schumer. "Starkly outside the mainstream," according to Dianne Feinstein of California. By a party-line vote, Justice Brown has been sent to the Senate floor by the committee, where the Democrats will probably try to continue to block her by a filibuster.
I hardly agree, to say the least, with all of Justice Brown's judicial opinions; but the fiercely partisan Democrats on the Judiciary Committee slide by her dissents and majority opinions that are at vivid variance with the Democrats' campaign to stereotype her entire record. This selective prosecution is dishonest.
In In re Visciotti (1996), Justice Brown, dissenting, insisted that the death sentence of John Visciotti -- convicted of murder, attempted murder and armed robbery -- should be set aside because of the incompetence of the defense lawyer. And, in In re Brown (1998), she actually reversed a death sentence in the capital murder conviction of John George Brown because the prosecutor severely violated due process by failing to reveal evidence that could have been exculpatory.
Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts charged Justice Brown with "a deep-seated and disturbing hostility to civil rights, workers' rights, consumer protection and government action."
But Mr. Kennedy didn't cite her votes in these California Supreme Court cases:
In People ex rel. Lungren vs. Superior Court (1996), Justice Brown said that the California attorney general had the authority to sue faucet manufacturers who used lead in their faucets. And, in Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Court (2002), she agreed that water utilities could be sued for injuries resulting from harmful chemicals in the water consumed by residents of the state.
Excuse me, Mr. Kennedy, is Justice Brown totally hostile to government action and consumer protection? What about her record on civil liberties? Somehow Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have failed to bring public attention to the fact that, in People vs. McKay (2002), she was the only judge on the California Supreme Court to focus on the different standards in police searches when the driver stopped is black.
Justice Brown, considering the expanding police search powers (which undermine the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights), wrote:
"Of course, everyone who has not spent the last 20 years sealed in an ivory tower knows the problem is real. . . There is an undeniable correlation between law enforcement stop-and-search practices and the racial characteristics of the driver. . . The practice is so prevalent, it has a name: 'Driving While Black.' "
In that opinion, she told her colleagues on the court that, while racial profiling is "more subtle, more diffuse, and less visible" than racial segregation, "it is only a difference in degree. If harm is still being done to people because they are black, or brown, or poor, the oppression is not lessened by the absence of television cameras."
I believe Sens. Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein and Richard Durbin (Illinois) -- another of Justice Brown's harsh opponents -- agree with her powerful statement on racial profiling. If the entire Senate knew of Justice Brown's other views that I just cited, then I think there is little doubt she would be confirmed in an up-or-down vote by the entire Senate, a legislative body presumably reflective of mainstream America.
Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by voice vote -- though some members were on record as opposed -- sent to the floor for a federal district judgeship, Dora Irizarry, sponsored by Mr. Schumer and New York Gov. George Pataki. A former New York City criminal court judge and former acting state Supreme Court justice, Irizarry was found unqualified by a majority of the American Bar Association screening committee.
Testifying about Irizarry's judicial temperament at her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Patricia Hynes, a member of the ABA committee, said Ms. Irizarry had a "serious control problem" in court, as shown by the "number of complaints about the nominee's temperament." And about those complaints, Ms. Hynes said, "I have never before experienced such widespread and consistent negative comments about a nominee's temperament."
But Dora Irizarry will get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Odds are that Justice Brown will not.
Due process -- fairness -- is the hallmark of our criminal justice system, but not for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. Will Mr. Schumer explain his support for Ms. Irizarry?
washtimes.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (17609)11/25/2003 12:55:39 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793901
 
Refuting the Cynics
By DAVID BROOKS

The Economist magazine recently observed that in the 40 years following World War II, "America and Europe seemed to be growing more like one another in almost every way that matters." Demographically, economically and politically, the United States and Europe seemed to be converging.

Then, around the middle of the 1980's, the U.S. and Europe started to diverge. The American work ethic shifted, so that the average American now works 350 hours a year — 9 or 10 weeks — longer than the average European.

American fertility rates bottomed out around 1985, and began rising. Native-born American women now have almost two children on average, while the European rate is 1.4 children per woman and falling.

Economically, the comparisons are trickier, but here too there is divergence. The gap between American and European G.D.P. per capita has widened over the past two decades, and at the moment American productivity rates are surging roughly 5 percent a year.

The biggest difference is that over the past two decades the United States has absorbed roughly 20 million immigrants. This influx of people has led, in the short term, to widening inequality and higher welfare costs as the immigrants are absorbed, but it also means that the U.S. will be, through our lifetimes, young, ambitious and energetic.

Working off U.N. and U.S. census data, Bill Frey, the indispensable University of Michigan demographer, projects that in the year 2050 the median age in the United States will be 35. The median age in Europe will be 52. The implications of that are enormous.

As we settle down to the Thanksgiving table in a few days, we might remind ourselves that whatever other problems grip our country, lack of vitality is not one of them. In fact, we may look back on the period beginning in the middle of the 1980's as the Great Rejuvenation. American life has improved in almost every measurable way, and far from regressing toward the mean, the U.S. has become a more exceptional nation.

The drop in crime rates over the past decade is nothing short of a miracle. Teenage pregnancy and abortion rates rose in the early 1970's and 1980's, then leveled off and now are dropping. Child poverty rates have declined since the welfare reform of the mid-1990's. The black poverty rate dropped "to the lowest rate ever recorded," according to a 2002 study by the National Urban League. The barren South Bronx neighborhood that Ronald Reagan visited in 1980 to illustrate urban blight is now a thriving area, with, inevitably, a Starbucks.

The U.S. economy has enjoyed two long booms in the past two decades, interrupted by two shallow recessions, and perhaps now we're at the start of a third boom. More nations have become democratic in the past two decades than at any other time in history.

In his forthcoming book, "The Progress Paradox," Gregg Easterbrook piles on the happy tidings. The air is cleaner. The water is cleaner and we are using less of it. Our homes have doubled in size in a generation and home ownership rates are at an all-time high. There are now fewer highway deaths in the U.S. than in 1970, even though the number of miles driven has shot up by 75 percent.

Obviously, huge problems remain. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that despite all the ugliness of our politics, this is a well-governed nation. The trends of the past two decades stand as howling refutation of those antipolitical cynics who have become more scathing about government even as the results of our policies have been impressive. The evidence also rebukes those gloomy liberals who for two decades have been predicting that the center-right governance of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush would lead to disaster.

Most of all, the evidence rebuts the cultural critics of the right and left, who have bemoaned the rise of narcissism, cultural relativism, greed, and on and on. And while many of these critics have made valid points, if you relied on their work you would have a horribly distorted view of the state of this nation.

In his book, Easterbrook seeks to explain why we feel gloomy even as things go well. I would only add that the beginning of political wisdom in times like these is realistic optimism, and the proper emotion at this season is, as always, gratitude.

nytimes.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (17609)11/25/2003 4:38:35 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793901
 
This is what Arnold needs to do more of, and be highly visable about it. I always hated the California DMV. He couldn't have picked a better place to start.

An impatient Arnold wages 'shock and awe' on DMV
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist - (Published November 23, 2003)

With dozens of Gray Davis appointees still filling every nook and cranny of state government a week after Arnold Schwarzenegger took office, how did one of them -- Steven Gourley -- find himself out of a job almost before the inaugural schnitzel had cooled?

The sacking of the former director of the Department of Motor Vehicles is the story of an impatient new governor, a too-cautious executive and, in the end, a hated bureaucracy coming through. If it proves to be a model for how the new administration gets things done, the episode at the DMV could mean that Schwarzenegger's pledge to shake up state government is more than just idle talk.

Gourley, a former Davis campaign treasurer, was showing a reporter around a south Sacramento DMV office Monday afternoon when he got a call on his wireless phone from Marybel Batjer, Schwarzenegger's cabinet secretary.

"I am sorry to do this over the phone instead of in person," Gourley says Batjer told him, "but we've appointed a new interim director. We want you out by the end of the day." It was already after 3 p.m. Gourley wasn't planning on going back to his office. And he had outpatient throat surgery scheduled the next day.

"Then you'll just have to stay late tonight," Gourley says he was told.

Why the rush? Schwarzenegger, sworn into office just a few hours before, had signed an order rescinding the tripling of the car tax Davis put in place in June. Schwarzenegger said the cut would take effect immediately.

But by Monday afternoon, word was getting back to the new governor's press office that the DMV was saying it didn't know when the tax cut would take effect. It might take 30 days to reprogram the computers. And there was a law that appeared to require 60 days notice of any change in the car-tax rate.

Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director, saw Batjer at the Chamber of Commerce's inaugural luncheon and passed the word along. Batjer decided to act. She did so before she made it back to the Capitol, axing Gourley and accelerating the appointment of a longtime Capitol troubleshooter, Chon Gutierrez, as the new director.

The tax-paying motorists weren't Schwarzenegger's only concern. Californians, reacting to the higher tax or waiting for it to drop again, had stopped buying cars after Oct. 1. Sales dropped 30 percent for the month.

The car dealers, big supporters of Schwarzenegger's campaign, pleaded with the governor-elect's transition team to make it clear that the tax was coming down, and when. Schwarzenegger did so, but still, people were waiting on the sidelines.

Once he took office and signed the order, the dealers needed to find a way to begin charging the lower rate immediately. They feared at first that they would have to wait weeks, until the DMV computers were reprogrammed.

Meanwhile, millions of Californians were sitting on invoices they'd received in the mail, wondering if they should pay the full amount and wait for a refund, or refigure the tax at the lower rate and send that in, risking a penalty.

Gutierrez, who has worked for every governor since Ronald Reagan, arrived on the job Tuesday morning and quickly convened a session of top managers. Among them was Ed Snyder, a 49-year veteran of the department who started as a clerk in the mail room in 1954 and rose to deputy director.

Gutierrez said the staff from Snyder on down was eager to get the job done but figured it would probably take the full three months to make it happen.

"We started looking for shorter-term milestones that we could accomplish," Gutierrez said.

The decisions: Let car dealers charge the lower rate immediately and send in their daily checks as usual. Then the DMV would hold the paperwork until its computers were up to speed.

Customers mailed bills with the higher amount would be allowed to pay the lower rate if they wished. And the state would add a calculator to the department's Internet site to help motorists figure out how much they owed.

"We're mindful of the risk that some people will make errors, doing the math themselves," Gutierrez told me. "If they overpay, we will send them a refund. If they underpay, we'll send them an invoice." How civilized.

Gourley, meanwhile, insists that nothing really changed after he was fired, though he acknowledges that he had questions about the wisdom of the full-speed-ahead approach (for one thing, he thinks it might cost more to process the payments this way). He figures he was made a scapegoat for public relations purposes, or to send a message to the rest of state government.

"This governor believes in shock and awe, apparently," Gourley said Wednesday as he recovered from his surgery. "I am shocked and awed." Also jobless.