SCOTUS – RI Future

June 27, 2015June 27, 2015

SCOTUS marriage equality decision celebrated in RI

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

C Kelly Smith’s last Marriage Equality sign

Rhode Island’s celebration of the Supreme Court‘s historic decision allowing same-sex couples to marry across the United States was also a history lesson about the long battle for full LGBTQ acceptance in our state. Organizer Kate Monteiro spoke eloquently and introduced a steady stream of speakers, but more importantly she paused to remember those who didn’t live long enough to see this day, those who are only spoken of “in the echoes of the wind.”

We live in a better world because of their work and sacrifice.

The celebration was held at the Roger Williams National Memorial, because, explained Monteiro, this is where “religious freedom in the United States was born” and where Belle Pelegrino and the ’76ers first met to demand the right to march in Providence with a sign saying ‘I am gay.'”

“We stand at the top of a very, very high hill,” said Monteiro, “we have carried that pack and we have wanted for water and struggled and slipped and we stand at the top of a hill. And the view is beautiful. It is absolutely splendid. And just a little bit further is the next big hill. Because we are not at the top of the mountain, never mind the other side of the mountain.”

“Tomorrow, in 29 states, someone can be fired for being gay or lesbian, let alone transgender. (That, thank you, is 32 states)… That’s wrong, we need to change it, that is the mountain.”

“Can you imagine if we could go in time and bring Roger Williams here today?” asked Rodney Davis to laughs, “but when you boil it down and get to its purest sense, Freedom, Liberty and Justice was the reason why he came here…”

June 26, 2015June 27, 2015

On the joyous occasion of marriage equality in America

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As leaders of faith communities that uphold same-sex marriage, we are delighted that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of inclusion of all American Couples. Now, all couples will enjoy the same rights and benefits.

From a religious perspective, affirmation of same-sex marriage is fundamentally about love and the recognition of the dignity of all people. The bible teaches that God created every human being in the divine image and every one of us is a manifestation of God’s goodness and beauty. All couples have the potential to be holy and they deserve our support and encouragement. Biblical teaching is clear that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our hearts and to love one another as we love ourselves.

As pastors, we value all the families in our congregations and we are pleased that the hurt and the stigma that always comes with inequality has been removed. Jesus taught a message of love and inclusion. We can only be pleased that the Supreme Court of the United States, through reasoning with a totally secular perspective, has concurred.

We remember fondly the many advocates who have given voice to a demand for justice. We recall with gratitude the legislators in the Rhode Island General Assembly who took a reasoned stand for fairness and a supportive Governor who signed the bill.

We pray for people of conscience who may struggle with this decision. We call for mutual respect, civility and understanding among all people of faith. Reacting with rejection and negation will not lead to a healing solution. Tolerance requires respect not agreement. Let us embrace each other lovingly in a spirit of humility. Especially in Rhode Island, where tolerance is in our cultural DNA.

July 3, 2014July 7, 2014

NBC 10 Wingmen: Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

What would happen if a practitioner of Scientology (who doesn’t believe in vaccinations) bought a big company like, say, CVS? According to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, the new owner could refuse to cover childhood vaccinations for some 200,000 people across the country.

Given that, was the Supreme Court correct to allow an employers religious beliefs to dictate an employees health care coverage? Is Obamacare working? Does the government belong in the health care industry? Justin Katz, Bill Rappleye and I debate these questions and more this week on Wingmen.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

One question Katz seems loath to answer is whether he believes a fully-privatized health care market would provide care for poor people. I’d love to read an Anchor Rising post on how fully-privatized health care market would somehow trickle down health insurance to poor people.

June 30, 2014June 30, 2014

Angel Taveras, Frank Ferri: Hobby Lobby decision was wrong

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rhode Island’s elected officials are outraged by the United States Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision handed down today.

First Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman David Cicilline critiqued the high court’s reasoning. Now Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and Lt. Gov. hopeful Warwick Rep. Frank Ferri have also weighed in.

Here’s Mayor Taveras’ statement:

I am deeply disappointed in today’s Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Giving employers the right to decide what type of contraception a woman should have access to is outrageous and sets a dangerous precedent that allows for discrimination. Corporations are not people, and their rights should not trump a woman’s right to receive contraceptive health care coverage.

Ferri, a Warwick state representative running for lt. governor has an interesting take. He’s a small business owner who owns and runs a bowling alley. In a fundraising email Ferri said:

Today’s decisions by a conservative majority of the US Supreme Court to impede women’s access to healthcare and curtail the rights of unions to represent their members should serve as an important reminder of what’s really at stake in this election.

As a small business owner, I would never presume to influence my employees’ health care decisions. That is just wrong.

I’m angry about the Court’s rulings, but being angry isn’t enough. We need to organize and work to make sure a conservative court and right-wing politicians don’t turn back the clock on all the progress we’ve made over the last two decades.

I’m proud to be the only candidate in this race to put his name on the line to defend a woman’s right to choose. When I’m Lt. Governor, our office will unabashedly fight to support women and working families, and stand up to the right wing politicians who will surely look to capitalize on today’s rulings.

June 30, 2014

Cicilline condems SCOTUS for Hobby Lobby decision

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In a pointed and detailed statement, Congressman David Cicilline called out the United States Supreme Court for its Hobby Lobby decision made public today saying, “women, not their bosses, should be in charge of their own personal health care choices.”

The controversial SCOTUS decision sent ripples through progressive Rhode Island today. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also released a statement critical of the high court.

Here is Cicilline’s full statement:

Women, not their bosses, should be in charge of their own personal health care choices. While much work remains, we have made tremendous progress in affording women full equality over many years and this decision rolls back that progress by limiting women’s access to contraceptive health care services.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to ensure women have access to quality, affordable health care, including contraception and family planning — services that are critical to a woman’s health care needs. In fact, an overwhelming majority of women use birth control or contraceptives at some point in their lives and the idea that they should be denied access to these basic health care services because their boss finds it religiously objectionable is ridiculous. While today’s ruling will not undo all the benefits under the Affordable Care Act that allow millions of women to access birth control, it wrongly dictates that a CEO’s religious beliefs outweigh a woman’s right to access affordable contraception. This unfair discrimination contradicts the values of a majority of Americans and has no place in the 21st century. Importantly, today’s decision also sets a bad precedent encouraging other for-profit corporations to deny health care coverage to their employees based on their owners’ religious beliefs.

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling and will continue working to stop attacks on women’s access to complete health care services and to advance women’s basic rights. This fight is not over.

May 7, 2014May 8, 2014

Ceremonial prayer violates the conscience of everyone

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A few days ago the Supreme Court gave a thumbs up to government sanctioned Christian prayers taking place before secular government meetings. For nonbelievers and believers alike, this was a disappointing decision.

To many millions of people, prayer is an important part of their lives. It can be a meditative and calming practice, and a direct path to accessing the mind and grace of a God. It can be a deeply moving process of extreme intimacy and importance.

Ceremonial prayer, by contrast, has long been acknowledged as religiously meaningless. As Justice Kennedy says in his decision,

Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be under stood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Such prayers are not attempts to secure the favor of a God, they are merely acknowledgments of the fact that some people can’t perform ordinary tasks without first rooting themselves in the mythology of their ancestors. If the prayers were true attempts to contact a God, then they would run afoul of the Supreme Court decision. The prayers, in the context of government meetings, must be ceremonial, or they become illegal.

This state of affairs poses the true believer an ethical dilemma. When participating in the prayer, the true believer must go through all the motions of prayer without actually engaging in real prayer. They must, in effect, pretend to be praying, because the kind of prayer permitted by law must be ceremonial by nature. (Now, this is doubly confusing from an atheist perspective, because prayer is viewed as attempted communication with an imaginary being. The law now mandates that believers pretend to attempt communication with an imaginary being, which just seems a step too far.)

People of many religious faiths might take exception to the idea that they must, for secular purposes, play-act elements of their faith in a secular public forum. Some take their religion very seriously, and to perform prayer cermonially may violate their conscience. These people, when confronted with such a dilemma, might pray for real, not just pretend to. In such cases, even though it will be impossible to prove or to demonstrate, the First Amendment will be violated, according to the Supreme Court.

Some people of faith will therefore have an impossible decision: They can either betray their God by falsely praying or betray their country by truly praying, an impossible conundrum the concept of separating church and state was invented to avoid. The First Amendment was born out of a desire to protect the conscience of American citizens. In this respect, Greece versus Galloway was a very unfortunate decision for religious believers.

Atheists and Humanists by comparison, won’t have it that bad. Would we have preferred to have ceremonial prayer simply done away with? Certainly. We do not want to feel pressured to violate our consciences by pretending to pray. We don’t like the idea that when we show up at a legislative hearing to plead our case that we can immediately be marked as outsiders because we refuse to participate in the prayer.

A different outcome in Greece v. Galloway would have protected the consciences of the nonreligious and religious alike, but Kennedy’s decision contains the interesting caveat that ceremonial prayer must always be done “with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs.” The decision also mandates that the prayers do not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.” Finally, local governments must make “reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders” and welcome an invocation by anyone who wishes to give one, regardless of their faith.

This means that the State of Rhode Island, as well as all its cities and towns, must open their ceremonial prayer process to “all of the congregations located within its borders” and this includes, for purposes of the law, nonbelievers. Already the American Humanist Association has started a registry for people certified to do secular invocations. Humanists and atheists across the country are signing up, ready to enter town halls and other legislative bodies with the intention of offering ceremonial platitudes that do not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.”

We already have at least two Humanists/atheists ready to deliver ceremonial invocations in Rhode Island, and we’ll have many more lined up soon.

May heaven help those who try to stop us.*

*not an actual prayer

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling further erodes US democracy

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Not since Roe v. Wade has a U.S. Supreme Court decision permeated the public consciousness quite like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In 2010, the nation’s highest court opened the campaign finance floodgates when – in a 5-4 decision – they sided with lawyers for the anti- Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC) Citizens United who argued that PACs not be required to disclose their donors identities or the amounts of money they had contributed.

Bold and continuing campaign finance reform in our nations capitol began in Washington, D.C., in 1971 and continued until 2002. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act required the disclosure of donors’ identities and the amounts they contributed to federal election campaigns.

A little known Supreme Court decision that, at its heart, concluded that the spending of money equals free speech was handed down in 1976. A Supreme Court majority held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, which limited expenditure on election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment.

The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted due to the First Amendment. The only interest was in preventing “corruption or its appearance”, and only personal contributions should be targeted because of the danger of “quid pro quo” exchanges.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – better known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – strengthened restrictions, but did nothing to challenge or reverse the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Essentially, the Citizens United case boiled down to this.

According to the U.S. Constitution, corporations are afforded the same rights as people, and therefore should be given the same protections as individuals when it comes to political donations. This decision, by correlation, asserted that the spending of money equates to the exercise of our First Amendment rights to free speech. While the Supreme Court’s decision may be true to the letter of U.S. law, it raised a widespread concern amongst Americans as to whether corporations should, in fact and practice, be afforded the same rights as people, and whether the spending of money constituted free speech.

[vsw id=”xQqzhjstb7E” source=”youtube” width=”550″ height=”400″ autoplay=”no”]

Just this week, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to campaign finance reform advocates in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. In essence, the decision did not affect federal campaign finance laws, save for one small factor. Prior to the decision, individuals and PACs were forced to abide by a hard-and-fast limit on aggregated donations to political candidates or PACs in support or opposition to particular legislation or candidates.

Let’s look at it this way.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, there was a limit as to what I could donate to any and all political campaigns within an election cycle. That cap was $123,200. I could spend that total in any way I saw fit, as long as I abided by current FEC guidelines of $2,600 per federal candidate in each primary and general election or $32,400 per PAC in each cycle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the $2,600 or $32,400 guidelines, it did declare the cap of $123,200 unconstitutional. This means I can donate $2,600 to any candidate in any state, and $32,400 to any PAC in any state, without restrictions, up to infinity dollars.

If I had the money to do this, I would, but therein lies the rub.

I don’t.

You don’t.

98 percent of the people in the U.S. don’t.

The McCutcheon decision has basically told big time donors that they can start buying candidates and PACs throughout the country, and in turn buy legislative influence.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled in both of these cases. As they stand, the only way to rescind these decisions is to amend the U.S. Constitution to say plainly that corporations are not people, and spending money is not free speech. This is where the nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is no small task. 38 of the 50 states must ratify an amendment. Our first step in Rhode Island is to amend our own constitution. As it stands, the Rhode Island chapter of the Move(ment) to Amend has bills before both the R.I. Senate and House. On their face, these bills do nothing, but when combined with bills in other states, we send a loud and clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and our legislators in Washington.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FREE SPEECH.

Please, for the sake of our country, and our children and grandchildren, sign the petition to amend our Constitution today.

April 2, 2014April 2, 2014

Two views on SCOTUS campaign finance ruling

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.” But his was the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that strips back prohibitions on how much money people can give to candidates.

The New York Times called it “a sequel of sorts” to the highly controversial Citizens United ruling.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a staunch advocate for campaign finance reform in the other direction, said in an email, “This is a step in the wrong direction for democracy. With these limits now gone, wealthy donors will be able to give millions of dollars directly to candidates and political parties. Money is getting more and more of a voice in Washington, while the voices of hardworking American voters matter less and less in our elections.”

But Sam Bell, who is running for Gordon Fox’s seat in the House, said there’s at least some evidence that our democracy can survive without limits on campaign donations from individuals. Here’s what he wrote in an email:

Campaign finance laws will be completely gone soon enough. But I’d like to offer some words of comfort: Things are pretty bad right now. Big money already controls our politics. Sure, it’s going to get worse. But honestly, this is a battle we’ve already lost. Before you get too discouraged, I encourage everyone to take a look at Oregon and Virginia.

Oregon is a moderately blue state, one that Obama won by twelve points. Virginia, he won by 3 points. Democrats control the Oregon state legislature and governorship. In fact, Oregon was one of the first state legislatures to elect a progressive as Speaker (current US Senator Jeff Merkley). Democrats have the governorship and a razor-thin majority in the Virginia Senate, although the House is solid red. Compared to other swing states, that’s actually not so bad, especially considering Virginia only holds its elections in odd-numbered years, where Democrats are at an even worse turnout disadvantage. Those states aren’t such horror stories. And yet both of them have no campaign finance restrictions whatsoever. Corporations can actually give money directly to candidates. So even when things get much, much worse, all hope is not lost.

In total, 12 states have no limits on the amount of money individuals can give to candidates. They are: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia. See how all the state handle it here.

March 26, 2013March 27, 2013

Supreme Court Considers Marriage Equality Debate

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

What a day for the LGBT community!

The Supreme Court heard challenges to California’s Proposition 8 today, and tomorrow it will hear arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (The audio and transcript , if you have time to check them out!)

Let’s hope that Chief Justice John Roberts kept his gay cousin in mind during the Prop 8 argument, as she was in attendance with her partner, in seats reserved for guests of the justices.

Four Democratic senators reversed their stance on DOMA in the past several days, but unfortunately, not everyone sees the significance of this civil rights issue and have a change of heart. There are many who refuse to even call it a “civil rights” issue. What happened at the RI State House last week played out once more near the Supreme Court today, at an anti-gay marriage rally, when African-American pastor Rev. Bill Owens said, “I marched in this same location years ago. They are trying to say they are suffering the same thing we suffered. They are not. … Not even close.”

Engaging in “Oppression Olympics” serves absolutely no one, and I am grateful to see public displays of solidarity in all communities across the country, and a million examples of Love for every hateful word spoken.

June 29, 2012June 29, 2012

Progress Report: Religious Symbols on Public Property in RI, Curt Schilling’s Fib, Local Journalism

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There is a major and potentially very ugly battle brewing in the Ocean State that has nothing to do with tax rates, struggling cities or bankrupt ballplayers: I’m talking about religious symbols on public property, and it’s getting out of control.

The most recent example (which you learned about first from RI Future), a cross that a car wash owner put on a strip of city-owned land that he has long taken care of, is an interesting example: is it a religious symbol, a memorial or an act of protest? The business owner, Peter Montaquila, told WPRO yesterday he put it up to stand in solidarity with the Woonsocket Cross, also a less-than-Constitutionally-clear case.

But issues of legality are relatively easy to sort out … the danger is that the non-legal battle lines are being drawn in the sand – and the situation is getting tense. Montaquila, like the owner of the flower shop who refused to deliver a bouquet to Jessica Ahlquist when she won her case against a religious symbol in Cranston West High School, said he doesn’t want to do business with those who don’t agree with him on this issue. Could we start seeing signs in business windows: “We don’t serve atheists.”

Politicians, like Rep. John McLaughlin of Central Falls, and shock jocks like John DePetro, are fanning the flames with angry rhetoric against those who see a line between church and state. Their colleagues should call them out and implore them to be leaders rather than instigators.

People take both their religion and their Constitution protections very, very seriously and this is the third such nasty fight over the nexus of the two in a year here in Rhode Island. Someone should step and act like a leader before something really ugly happens.

Speaking of John DePetro, he is inviting some interesting karma picking on Gov. Chafee’s 18-year-old son for having a party … the mean-spirited talk show host could find himself in a similar situation someday…

Don’t believe a word Curt Schilling says about Gov. Chafee’s public comments about solvency crippling the company … the Associated Press reports that 38 Studios was already considering bankruptcy by the time the story went public.

AP reporter Laura Crimaldi obtained the confidential documents that led to this very telling development. Unfortunately for Rhode Island, today is her last day with the Providence bureau as she is moving on to a job with Boston Globe … what a way to go out Laura and best of luck in Beantown!

Speaking of great local reporting … no one covered the local effects and reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act better than Ted Nesi yesterday (check out his blog for a variety of different stories). We pick on Ted often because of the pro-business/pro-establishment bias he sometimes displays, but it’s also well-worth pointing out that he is far and away the most talented journalist covering the Ocean State.

One more note about local reporting … here is Kathy Gregg’s lede from her story yesterday on campaigns for seats in the State House: “How many Rhode Island lawmakers will return to the State House next year without having to face an opponent? The answer is: very few.” And here is the lede on her story today: “One out of five General Assembly incumbents is running unopposed.”

Is 20 percent “very few”? On the contrary, we think it’s a great many. Perhaps the Projo can report this yet another way tomorrow…

June 28, 2012June 28, 2012

The John Roberts Moment

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Surprisingly nearly everyone – especially CNN – the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial aspect of President Obama’s historic health care reforms: the individual mandate. It’s incredibly good news for Obama, Democrats, progressives, Rhode Island (which is already well into the process of implementing it) all the uninsured and under-insured Americans (like me!), the country and its economy.

The hero today, though, is a conservative.

Even more surprising than the outcome is that Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee to the bench, broke ranks from his fellow conservatives and wrote the majority opinion that upheld the individual mandate. It’s being called the John Roberts Moment.

According to the New York Times, Roberts’ judgment was in part a recognition that the court has “a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders.”

And ironic comment, given that the Roberts Court is best known for invalidating the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders!

But Roberts, more than the rest of the SCOTUS, was taken to task for exercising judicial activism and overturning precedent with the Citizens United decision. In fact, NPR quotes Rhode Island’s own Senator Sheldon Whitehouse admonishing the court for its lack of logic on Citizens United in an article largely critical of Roberts:

But critics of the court say it took a narrow question — whether a TV-on-demand documentary about Democrat Hillary Clinton could be shown in the weeks leading up to the 2008 presidential primaries — and answered it by vastly easing restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

“The court got way, way, way ahead of its skis here,” says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat. He has filed a friend of the court brief demanding that the high court reverse its Citizens United decision.

“It was a decision they were so eager to make, but now I think they’re embarrassed by the wild discrepancy between the world as they presumed it in their written decision and the world as we see it around us, post-Citizens United,” he says.

Maybe John Roberts realized that the winds were turning on his court’s quest to remake the country in the mold of the strict Constitutionalists?

It wouldn’t be the first time that Roberts allowed perception to dictate how the High Court determined a decision. Here’s a excerpt from Jeffrey Toobin’s New Yorker article about the Citizens United decision.

“Roberts didn’t mind spirited disagreement on the merits of any case, but Souter’s attack—an extraordinary, bridge-burning farewell to the Court—could damage the Court’s credibility. So the Chief came up with a strategically ingenious maneuver. He would agree to withdraw Kennedy’s draft majority opinion and put Citizens United down for reargument, in the fall. For the second argument, the Court would write new Questions Presented, which frame a case before argument, and there would be no doubt about the stakes of the case. The proposal put the liberals in a box. They could no longer complain about being sandbagged, because the new Questions Presented would be unmistakably clear. But, as Roberts knew, the conservatives would go into the second argument already having five votes for the result they wanted. With no other choice (and no real hope of ever winning the case), the liberals agreed to the reargument.”

That’s not to say that Roberts allowed his court’s legacy to trump his reading of the law in this case, but just to point out that even Supreme Court justices play a little politics.

June 28, 2012June 28, 2012

Progress Report: SCOTUS on Obamacare, State House Campaign Roundup, High Finance Journalism

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The nation, and Rhode Island for that matter, turns its attention to the Supreme Court this morning as the justices are expected to release their decision today on President Obama’s signature act as chief executive: health care reform. The New York Times says the landmark legislation affects “nearly every American from cradle to grave.”

Depending on what the Court does with regard to the individual mandate portion of the law, this could prove a pivotal ruling in the history of and future for the United States. Sound overly dramatic? It’s actually understated.

Way back in early April, we reported on how the SCOTUS’ ruling could affect the health care exchange here in RI.

An extremely important side narrative here is whether the High Court is seen as interpreting the law and the Constitution or, as has been increasingly the case with the Roberts Court, the justices are perceived to be operating as political rather than judicial actors. As bad as an unsustainable health care system is for the country, an politically-motivated Supreme Court is far, far worse.

…Stay tuned…

Thanks to Kathy Gregg and the Projo for the great round-up on the campaigns for seats in the state legislature this morning.

One of my favorite races to watch is Laura Pisaturo vs. Michael McCaffery for a seat representing Warwick in the state Senate. McCaffrey, the incumbent, has been a major impediment to marriage equality in the Ocean State. Pisaturo, the challenger, is a lawyer and a lesbian.

Also … RI Future contributor Mark Binder is challenging House Speaker Gordon Fox. Fox is a center-right Democrat and Binder a died-in-the-wool progressive.

Another very interesting contest pits two incumbents against each other in East Providence: Senate Finance Chairman Dan DaPonte has to defend his seat this year against Rep. Bob DaSilva … Here’s the meta-narrative for this race: DaSilva, a police officer who voted against pension cuts last year, is looking out for organized labor more than residents. DaPonte, a lawyer who sponsored the controversial but rarely discussed pay-bondholders-before-Rhode Islanders bill, is looking out for Wall Street more than residents.

By the way, what does it mean for Rhode Island that its political journalists report more on what Moody’s thinks of the state’s school funding formula than it does local cities and towns? I think it means we’ve become a little too focused on high finance and a little tone deaf to what’s actually happening here on the ground.

That said, Ian Donnis picks up on an interesting aspect of the state’s school funding formula through the Moody’s report: “The biggest single-year percentage increases in education aid are in Barrington, East Greenwich, Lincoln, Cranston, and New Shoreham. The biggest losers are Chariho, Portsmouth, Bristol-Warren, South Kingstown and Central Falls.”

And speaking of the world of high finance, the 1 percent meme has made its way into comic book culture, reports the Associated Press: “Whereas the so-called One Percent is blamed for having a majority of wealth at the expense of the other 99 percent, in Valiant Comics’ upcoming ‘Archer & Armstrong,’ it’s a secretive and sinister cabal of money managers and financiers willing to sacrifice more than jobs for profit – human lives, too – to steer the fate of the world for their own gain.”

June 26, 2012June 26, 2012

Progress Report: SCOTUS, CEO Politicians, Pension Politics

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In a mixed bag of a decision on Arizona’s immigration law, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed local authorities to continue to inquire into people’s legal status when they pull them over or otherwise detain them … this kind of law enforcement is rife with opportunities for racial profiling, which probably isn’t why white Republicans like Don Carcieri and Brendan Doherty like it so much, but we sure do wish they could see the inherent problems with such sweeping law enforcement tactics.

Speaking of the SCOTUS, Sen. Sheldon Whithouse criticized the court yesterday for not overturning its Citizens United decision, according to the Journal, saying, “It appears to be yet another demonstration of the politicization of the Court by the right-wing justices.”

Seems like the courts’ decision on Obamacare will be coming Thursday…

Retiring Republican state legislator Bob Watson makes an excellent point about why business leaders make for bad public officials: “Business is top-down management. Government is consensus building. A good politician builds consensus. A good politician makes everybody believe that they’re making the decisions … that their agenda is being catered to.” It’s why Carcieri was such a bad governor and why Mitt Romney would be such a bad president.

Projo opinion writer Ed Achorn makes the case for tax increases for the wealthy … though he probably doesn’t realize he did, and certainly didn’t do so on purpose.

State Rep. Bob DaSilva is going to challenge Senate Finance Committee Chairman Dan DaPonte, says Ted Nesi … while the meta-narrative of this contest may ostensibly be about pension cuts and reform efforts, look for the campaign to be won on the ground. While wonks care about pensions, voters still not so much…

Ever see people watering their lawns while it’s raining? Or does that kind of waste only happen here in suburbia?

May 10, 2012May 10, 2012

RI Progress Report: Chafee and Political Principles, Paying for Public Education, Gemma on Marriage Equality

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In a surprising move that really shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows him, Gov Chafee has decided to take the Jason Pleau case all the way to the US Supreme Court, if they will hear it. While talk radio, and even the Pleau family, may not agree with this decision, taking a case to the SCOTUS is not about either politics or individuals – it’s about interpreting the law, and in this case the relationship between states and the federal government. We love the way this case has right wing talk radio hosts arguing against state’s rights … so much for the conservative principles of our on air personalities. Chafee, on the other hand, has such principles in spades, and often to his political detriment.

By the way, the New York Times editorial board, far superior constitutional scholars than this state’s on air shock jocks, argues Chafee has a strong case in a piece titled Rhode Island’s Principled Stand.

With state budget season just around the corner (legislators are starting to talk about how certain bills are serving as tea leaves for the impending spending proposal) Ted Nesi posts on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities guidelines for state budget during a down economy. Many good ideas in there.

The line of the day comes from Linda Borg, of the Projo, who writes: “Now you can buy a Barrington education.” (Though you always could, if you could afford real estate there) Her article is about how the town with the best test scores in the state will now allow a small amount of students to pay tuition to go to school there. This will prove to be disastrous public policy for Rhode Island. Instead of allowing the affluent to pay for a top tier public education, the state should step in to ensure that all students get a good education regardless of how much money their parent’s home costs.

Like Senator Reed, Anthony Gemma now supports marriage equality, too. Even more so than Reed, Gemma’s announcement reeks of political opportunism -he’s a socially conservative Catholic who happens to be running against an openly gay incumbent. But we enjoyed his statement: “This is not a question of being a liberal, a progressive, or a conservative.” Well, yes it is, but as the old saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

April 4, 2012April 4, 2012

Obamacare, Broccoli and the Supreme Court

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Antonin Scalia observes in court that the government cannot compel a citizen to purchase broccoli, and the government’s lawyers are Struck Dumb. They clearly do not spend time in my local pub. Every week some bonehead appears there with the “broccoli” canard. And there is a simple answer to that stupid assertion:

The government can bomb Pakistan with drones; the government can declare one man the property of another; the government can intern Japanese citizens; the government can declare a corporation a citizen; the government can tax your income at 99 cents on the dollar; the government can make it OK to shoot unarmed strangers in your neighborhood; the government can declare who is President without regard to the popular vote or to the Constitution.

Yes, Antonin. The government can make you buy broccoli.

I practice law in the trenches with ordinary people for clients. Ask them what the government can make you do. You have to be willfully blind to think our government lacks the power to make you buy broccoli. Willful blindness can, of course, be useful to a Supreme Court justice.

This is how John Locke describes government: Government is the power of coercion, up to death, to compel citizens to act for the common good (2nd Treatise of Civil Government, §3). Your “freedom” is the freedom to elect the government that coerces you—a government for the people or a government for the privileged. That is the beginning and end of your freedom, Judge Scalia.