Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW
<small>http://www.wpta.com/story.aspx?type=nn&NStoryID=687
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Hospitalized
Jul 14, 2005 - (SUPREME COURT 7/14/05 AP)
The nation's chief justice, William Rehnquist, is hospitalized.
A spokeswoman say Rehnquist was taken to a hospital in suburban Washington Tuesday night with a fever, and was admitted for observation and testing.
Rehnquist suffers from thyroid cancer, and has been undergoing radiation and chemotherapy treatment.
But the 80-year-old justice had been going to work every day, despite his illness and intense speculation that he would soon retire from the bench.
In March, he was hospitalized with breathing problems. (Edited by Paula Hinton)</small>
<p>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/14/rehnquist.health/
Rehnquist silences retirement speculation
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Posted: 11:42 p.m. EDT (03:42 GMT)
vert.rehnquist.ap.jpg
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced Thursday night that he has no plans to step down from the Supreme Court and will continue to serve as long as he can.
"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."
A Bush administration official involved in the judicial selection process said the White House is aware of Rehnquist's statement, which was sent to the White House counsel's office.
"We take him at his word," the official said.
Two sources close to the chief justice told CNN they were not surprised because Rehnquist enjoys his work on the court -- but were surprised he felt the need to take the unusual step of issuing a statement to shoot down the retirement rumors.
"All that wild speculation must have convinced him he had to say something," one said.
Rehnquist was released earlier Thursday from a hospital near his northern Virginia home after being admitted Tuesday with a fever, said a U.S. Supreme Court spokeswoman.
The 80-year-old has been battling thyroid cancer since October and underwent a tracheotomy as part of his treatment. He endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.
His office has refused to characterize the seriousness of his illness, which forced him to work from home for several months and miss oral arguments in a number of cases.
Many court watchers had expected Rehnquist to announce his departure when the court concluded its annual session in June.
Instead, his colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, announced her retirement.
Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Richard Nixon and was elevated to chief justice in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.
Sources close to Rehnquist have said he deliberately has kept his staff and friends in the dark about his future, believing it would be a distraction to the court's business if the speculation became too rampant.
"I think he's happy now just getting his work done, and the work of the other justices done. He takes that leadership role seriously," said Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame professor and a former law clerk for Rehnquist.
He returned to his office in December and was back on the bench in March. Rehnquist braved the cold in January to uphold tradition and swear-in President Bush for a second term.
Rehnquist's trachea tube remains in place, leaving his voice scratchy, and he uses a wheelchair to get around on long trips.
CNN's Joe Johns and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12135709.htm
Posted on Fri, Jul. 15, 2005
Rehnquist says he's not retiring
He will remain as chief justice "as long as my health permits," he said in a statement last night.
By Charles Lane
Washington Post
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist emphatically denied yesterday that he intended to step down from the Supreme Court, as he sought to halt a spiral of speculation about his possible retirement.
In a prepared statement, Rehnquist, who is 80 and suffering from thyroid cancer, said: "I'm not about to announce my retirement.
"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," he said, adding that "I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."
In a sign that the announcement reflected a personal reaction to the speculation, Rehnquist released the statement through his family, who contacted the Associated Press shortly before 9 last night - rather than putting the news out through the court's public information office, as would usually be done.
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg later confirmed the statement's contents.
The announcement came just hours after Rehnquist had returned home from a two-day stay at the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, where he had gone Tuesday complaining of a fever.
The White House had no advance notice of Rehnquist's statement, press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We didn't know before the statement," he said. "The chief justice is doing an outstanding job and we are pleased that he will continue his great service to the nation."
Several allies of the White House said Rehnquist's decision to announce that he was staying would help clarify the political situation and concentrate attention back on the choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "It makes things easier in a certain sense because it makes it clear this is a process about picking a single justice," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to support Bush judicial nominees.
Although hedged in the sense that the chief justice denied only an "imminent" retirement, Rehnquist's statement ends much of the uncertainty facing President Bush, who has been weighing a choice for a successor to O'Connor, who announced her resignation July 1.
Many in Washington had assumed that the White House might be delaying a nomination for O'Connor's seat until Rehnquist clarified his plans. His statement also appears to refute another popular speculative notion: that Rehnquist had already told the White House of his retirement plans, and was merely waiting for a prearranged moment to announce them.
Now both the White House and the Senate appear free to begin planning for a single confirmation process rather than two.
Perhaps more important for the chief justice, it will end an awkward interval during which reporters have camped out near his home in Arlington.
So strong had the expectations of his leaving the court become, that several members of the Senate had begun openly campaigning for O'Connor to remain on the court as Rehnquist's successor in the chief justice's chair.
Yesterday, four female senators called upon O'Connor to reconsider her retirement, saying in a letter to her that they would support her for chief justice if Rehnquist vacated the position. The senators said they were following up a similar suggestion made by Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Democrats Barbara Boxer of California and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Republicans Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine signed the letter, saying they would "strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as Chief Justice."
It was not clear whether O'Connor had seen the letter. She was traveling out of the country yesterday, Arberg said.
Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October, missed much work while receiving treatments in November, and returned to the public eye by swearing in Bush on Jan. 20.
Since then, he has presided at court sessions, appearing mentally alert but physically weakened. He worked regularly at his court office. In recent days he has appeared thinner than he did during this spring's oral arguments.
Part of the reason for the speculation about the chief justice's plans is the mystery surrounding the precise nature of his condition. Thyroid cancer comes in several variants, most of them treatable, but some aggressive and usually fatal.
Although outside experts have often surmised that Rehnquist's symptoms and reported course of treatment were consistent with anaplastic thyroid cancer, a form of the disease that leaves most of its victims dead within a year of diagnosis, Rehnquist has neither confirmed nor denied those reports.
His emphatic statement last night lends credence to assessments by some doctors that perhaps his disease is not as aggressive as first suspected.
Rehnquist Statement
Here is the statement issued last night by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:
"I want to put to rest
the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as
my health permits."
<hr size=8 noshade width="74%" align=left>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002395242_oconnor22m.html
Friday, July 22, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Retiring justice worries about loss of states' rights
By Ralph Thomas
Seattle Times Olympia bureau
SPOKANE — Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court will likely lead to a tumultuous fight in Congress over her replacement, said yesterday there is so much "antipathy" among elected politicians toward federal judges that she worries about the future of an independent judiciary.
"I'm pretty old you know, and in all the years of my life, I don't think I've ever seen relations as strained as they are now between the judiciary and some members of Congress," O'Connor said. "It makes me very sad to see it."
O'Connor's remarks came during a round-table discussion at the annual 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, a gathering of judges and lawyers from Western states.
In her hourlong appearance, O'Connor also said she worries the federal government is encroaching too much on states' rights and stressed the importance of religious freedom. But she said the courts must "protect citizens from religious incursions by the state as well as the federal government."
In talking about her role in history as the first woman on the Supreme Court, O'Connor said the late President Reagan, who appointed her 24 years ago, deserves the most credit.
"Don't give the credit to me. I didn't make that decision; Ronald Reagan made that decision," O'Connor said. "That was just an incredible thing that he did."
O'Connor, 75, announced July 1 that she is retiring so she can spend more time with her ailing husband. The news came as a surprise in the nation's capital, especially since most people expected that Chief Justice William Rehnquist would be the next justice to step down. Rehnquist, who is battling cancer, has said he plans to stay on as long as his health permits.
President Bush this week nominated federal appeals-court Judge John Roberts Jr. to replace O'Connor.
O'Connor earlier this week praised Roberts as "a brilliant legal mind" and said he is "good in every way, except he's not a woman." O'Connor, who was confirmed unanimously, said Roberts shouldn't have trouble getting confirmed. But with some members of Congress complaining about "activist" judges, O'Connor said a lengthy confirmation process is inevitable.
She said there are efforts afoot to limit federal courts' jurisdiction "in areas that some members of Congress think that the federal courts should not be involved. And that's a new approach that is worrisome."
Courts must be independent to protect individuals from seeing their constitutional rights taken away by the legislative branch, she said. "That's a concept that we've tried to promote across the globe."
O'Connor noted that Ukraine's supreme court recently overturned that country's presidential election after finding rampant vote fraud.
"I thought that was a transforming moment in the success of our efforts to promote the rule of law and the role of an independent judiciary," she said. "And yet in our country today, we're seeing efforts to prevent that — a desire not to have an independent judiciary."
Though O'Connor was appointed by one of the nation's most popular conservative presidents, she has often riled religious conservatives. She cast the deciding vote in a ruling upholding Roe v. Wade, the landmark case legalizing abortion.
Earlier this year, she joined in a 5-4 ruling that said the display of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses violated the constitutional mandate for separation of church and state.
O'Connor said yesterday that the lack of such separation has had "violent consequences" in so many other countries, "it's hard to see why we should give that up in the face of the success that we've had."
On states' rights, O'Connor said she has always viewed state governments as laboratories. "Let them try things and see how it works," she said, citing California's effort to legalize marijuana for medical purposes as a good example. She dissented on a Supreme Court ruling that said the federal government's outright marijuana ban trumped California's law.
When O'Connor attended law school, only 3 percent of law students nationwide were women, she said. Now it's more than 50 percent.
She said she was always a little reluctant about the role-model status of being the first woman on the Supreme Court. "I never expected to be that person and was pretty scared to take it on," O'Connor said, "because it's a very hard job and I didn't want to mess it up because it would make it harder for other women to follow."
But she said her appointment by Reagan in 1981 — after the court had gone nearly two centuries without a woman justice — opened doors for women around the world.
Marsha Pechman, a federal district-court judge in Seattle, said she counts herself as one of those women. "She made such a huge difference," said Pechman, who became a state court judge in 1988 before moving to the federal bench in 1999. "I got to ride the wave of her wake."
Ralph Thomas: 360-943-9882 or rthomas@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=amecn6IvmZ0c&refer=us
O'Connor Says She Is Worried About Future of Federal Judiciary
July 21 (Bloomberg) -- Retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she is worried about the future of the federal judiciary because of a ``climate of antipathy'' in Congress.
``I don't think I've ever seen relations as strained as they are now between the judiciary and some members of Congress, and it makes me very sad to see it,'' O'Connor said today at a judicial conference in Spokane, Washington, televised on C-SPAN.
O'Connor cited congressional efforts to restrict federal court authority to decide certain issues, criticism by some lawmakers of Supreme Court decisions that cite international law and Congress's failure to raise judicial salaries to keep pace with equivalent private-sector legal jobs.
O'Connor, the first female justice, announced July 1 she will retire. President George W. Bush two days ago nominated federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed her. Yesterday, O'Connor was quoted by the Associated Press as saying Roberts was ``first rate'' though she was somewhat disappointed the nominee wasn't a woman.
Speaking at a conference of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, O'Connor cited the role of Ukraine's highest court in resolving the crisis over last year's presidential election as a ``transforming moment'' in the promotion of an independent judiciary in other nations.
``In our country today we're seeing efforts to prevent that, a desire not to have an independent judiciary,'' she said. ``That worries me.''
A `Worrisome' Approach
O'Connor said efforts in Congress to restrict federal court jurisdiction to decide particular issues were ``a new approach that's worrisome.''
Legislation introduced earlier this year would bar the Supreme Court from reviewing any government official's ``acknowledgment of God'' as the source of law or government.
Regarding judicial salaries, she said her former law clerks often earn more in their first year of private legal practice than federal judges receive. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has repeatedly called on Congress to raise judges' salaries.
``With the present climate of antipathy in Congress, I don't see any prospect for adjustment of those salaries,'' she said.
O'Connor noted that some in Congress criticized the court's March 1 decision outlawing the death penalty for juvenile murderers because it cited other nations' bans on such punishment.
``I don't personally think that it's a good idea to restrict freedom of speech or thought for any of our citizens, even if they are federal judges,'' O'Connor said.
<hr size=8 noshade width="74%" align=left>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002395238_roberts22.html
Friday, July 22, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Roberts makes the rounds
By David Espo
The Associated Press
CHUCK KENNEDY / KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr., left, meets with U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., yesterday. Schumer said he gave Roberts a list of questions and told him to "be prepared to answer them in the best way he can" when the hearings begin.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr. gained ground yesterday in his drive for Senate confirmation. He was rated a "non-activist judge, which everyone is looking for," by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was praised by several centrist Democrats.
"I'm enjoying my visits here in the Senate very much," said the 50-year-old appeals court judge, named to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
As well he might.
On the second day of a White House-choreographed confirmation campaign, Roberts had yet to draw the public opposition of a single Senate Democrat. Talk of a filibuster and partisan political brawl over the first Supreme Court vacancy in 11 years was nonexistent.
Democrats intend to use confirmation hearings later this summer to question Roberts on his views on abortion, the overturning of court precedent, invalidating acts of Congress and more. A separate struggle awaits if, as expected, they seek access to internal Justice Department memos from his days as a government attorney.
On a second day of courtesy calls in the Senate, Roberts' schedule included Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles Schumer of New York, two of the three Democrats who opposed his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals two years ago.
Schumer said he gave Roberts a list of more than 70 questions and told him to "be prepared to answer them in the best way he can" when the hearings begin.
Some were broadly written, such as, "Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn a well-settled precedent, upon which Americans have come to rely?"
Others sought the nominee's opinion about well-known and controversial decisions of the past, such as, "Do you believe that Roe vs. Wade ... was correctly decided? What is your view of the quality of the legal reasoning in that case? Do you believe that it reached the right result." Roe. v. Wade is the landmark 1973 case that established a woman's right to an abortion.
After spending an hour with Roberts on Wednesday, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said yesterday, "I think we have a man, I would interpret it, who is a non-activist judge, which everybody is looking for. Both sides are looking for a non-activist judge."
Specter, R-Pa., said Roberts had told him he didn't prefer labels such as liberal or conservative and "his view was that the court ought to be modest. ... The other word which he used which I thought was important was an emphasis on stability. When you talk about a modest approach by a court and an approach on stability, I think you have critical ingredients of a judge who would be non-activist."
Specter's remarks suggested he did not believe Roberts would inject personal views into his judicial rulings, a comment of potential political significance coming from a senior Republican who has long supported abortion rights.
Some abortion-rights organizations have announced their opposition, expressing fears Roberts would become part of a court majority that first erodes and eventually overturns the historic ruling.
NARAL Pro-Choice America has cited a legal brief he co-authored for a Supreme Court case while serving as deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration. "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," it said in part.
Asked about the legal filing, Roberts told senators during 2003 confirmation hearings to his current post that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," he said at the time.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/12173529.htm
Former Rehnquist clerk picked for Supreme Court
Experts say choice might be able to avoid divisive confirmation fight
By RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday nominated appellate Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, choosing a quiet conservative who might be able to avoid a bitter confirmation battle.
Roberts, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is a former clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and a former legal counsel in the Reagan White House. His nomination pleased conservative activists, who generally view him as a solid addition to the court’s conservative wing.
Democrats held their fire, saying they wanted to know more about Roberts’ opinions on abortion, individual rights and other sensitive issues. If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing vote who often tipped the court balance against her more conservative colleagues.
Bush praised the nominee as a man of “extraordinary accomplishment†and integrity.
“He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench,†Bush said in nationally televised remarks. “Judge Roberts has served his fellow citizens well. He is prepared for even greater service.â€
Roberts, 50, who has argued 39 cases at the Supreme Court and won 25, said he was humbled by his selection.
“I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don’t think it was just from the nerves,†he said.
The president signaled his determination to fight for the nomination by interrupting regular TV programming to announce it at 8 p.m. Central time. The timing gave him a chance to introduce his choice to the broadest possible audience.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sam Brownback said he plans to be an active participant in the confirmation process for Roberts. The Kansas Republican, who hopes for a 2008 presidential bid, called Roberts “brilliant, well-spoken and highly qualified.â€
“I look forward to discussing his view of the Constitution,†Brownback said. “Is it a living document or is it a document that is set and has boundaries to it?â€
Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, compared Roberts to O’Connor in his “dedication to the principles of legal tradition.†He said Roberts would “ensure that we continue to have an independent judiciary.â€
Abortion rights groups mobilized against the nomination, but leading Senate Democrats were more restrained. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised to withhold judgment.
“The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry,†Reid said.
The Senate is expected to begin confirmation hearings in September with the goal of approving Roberts’ appointment in time for him to join the court when the new term starts in October.
Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri, a Republican, applauded what he called Roberts’ “outstanding personal record†but said he did not want to prejudge Roberts before the confirmation hearings.
Roberts’ short tenure on the appeals court “is a reason to vet his nomination thoroughly,†Talent said.
“To me the key is, does he have an intelligent set of convictions and does he stick to them?†Talent said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush settled on Roberts after culling a list of 11 potential nominees in the nearly three weeks since O’Connor announced her retirement. Although Roberts isn’t considered as controversial as some of the other possible court candidates, he can anticipate a grilling during the confirmation process. Even before Bush announced his choice, interest groups at both ends of the political spectrum were poised for battle.
Roberts’ views on abortion are sure to be one of the biggest friction points. While serving in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Roberts was co-author of a legal brief arguing that the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling for abortion rights “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.â€
Roberts’ defenders note that he wrote the brief in his role as an advocate, not as a judge. During his confirmation for the appellate court, Roberts said he considered Roe “settled law of the land†and added, “There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.â€
NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the nation’s largest abortion-rights groups, called Roberts “a divisive nominee†and vowed to defeat him. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed “deep concern†about Roberts’ views on individual liberties, without specifically calling for his rejection.
Roberts, a native of Buffalo, N.Y., grew up in Indiana. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School. Roberts went into private practice in Washington and made a fortune after serving in the Justice Department under the first President Bush.
--
First glance
■ President Bush nominates an appellate judge from D.C. to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
■ Go to KansasCity.com for more on the Supreme Court nominee.
■ Reactions from local, national figures, text of Roberts’ remarks on Page A-6
--
Upcoming cases
The Supreme Court returns to work Oct. 3 and will immediately confront some high-profile cases, among them:
■ ABORTION: The constitutionality of a New Hampshire parental notification law that lacks an emergency health exception for minors. Justices could use the case to make it harder for opponents to challenge abortion restrictions.
■ PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE: The Bush administration’s challenge to Oregon’s law allowing physician-assisted suicide.
■ DEATH PENALTY: Four capital punishment cases, including one that will determine when prisoners can use DNA evidence to get a new trial.
■ DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL: A test of a law that requires colleges that get federal funding to allow military recruiters. Some law schools want to bar recruiters as a way of protesting the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy excluding openly gay persons from military service.
■ RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: The Bush administration’s appeal over a church’s use of hallucinogenic tea in its religious services. The government contends the tea is illegal and potentially dangerous.
■ POLICE SEARCHES: Whether police may search a home when one occupant consents but another does not, without violating the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.
— The Associated Press
Quote:
Legislation introduced earlier this year would bar the Supreme Court from reviewing any government official's ``acknowledgment of God'' as the source of law or government.
<p>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley25jul25,0,3148446.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
The faith of John Roberts
By Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.
July 25, 2005
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion. However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.
The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).
Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.
It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws. (To his credit, Roberts did not say that his faith would control in such a case).
Roberts may insist that he was merely discussing the subject theoretically in an informal setting, and that he doesn't anticipate recusing himself on a regular basis. But it's not a subject that can be ignored; if he were to recuse himself on such issues as abortion and the death penalty, it would raise the specter of an evenly split Supreme Court on some of the nation's most important cases.
Roberts could now face difficult questions of fitness raised not only by the Senate but by his possible colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the court (and a devout Catholic). Last year, Scalia chastised Catholic judges who balk at imposing the death penalty — another immoral act according to the church: "The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty."
Roberts is known to be an honest and straightforward person. His answer seems to be a frank effort to deal with a deep-seated conflict of faith and public duties. As a government attorney, he was a coauthor of a brief that argued that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. Yet later, in his appellate court confirmation hearings, Roberts was asked specifically whether he could apply Roe vs. Wade and he stated that he could. Now, as he moves toward a job in which he could ultimately be the deciding vote to narrow, preserve or overturn the doctrine, it could be a materially different moral choice for a devout jurist.
Unless Roberts denies the statement or somehow neutralizes it, it could seriously undermine the strategy of the White House for the confirmation hearings. For years, Roberts has been carefully groomed for greater things, one of a new generation of post-Bork nominees, young conservatives who have been virtually raised on a hydroponic farm for flawless conservative fruit. They learned to confine their advocacy to legal briefs so that their true views are only known to the White House and to God.
Now, however, Roberts may have opened the door to the very questions that the White House sought to avoid with his nomination. If he would have to recuse himself before ruling contrary to his faith, the Senate is entitled to ask specifically how he would handle obvious conflicts on issues such as abortion and the death penalty.
With the Roberts statement, the masterful "un-hearings" that the Bush administration hoped to have, in which nominees are not required to answer specific questions about their judicial views, would become particularly awkward.
This is not a question driven by ideology. I favor some of the conservative changes that Roberts is expected to bring in doctrine, and I believe that he has excellent qualifications for the position. I also believe that the president is entitled to such a conservative nominee.
The question of recusal raised with Durbin reflects a serious and important debate occurring within the Catholic community, in which I also was raised. It is the classic Sir Thomas More conflict of trying to serve both God and king. However, these are questions not just for a nominee to ponder but for senators.
None of this means that Roberts is unfit due to his faith. But in the end, the Senate is left a question that seems to grow each day: Who is John Roberts? The burden may now have shifted to the White House to fully answer this question.
<hr size=8 width="74%" align=left noshade>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249.stm
Downloading 'myths' challenged
People who illegally share music files online are also big spenders on legal music downloads, research suggests.
Digital music research firm The Leading Question found that they spent four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans.
Rather than taking legal action against downloaders, the music industry needs to entice them to use legal alternatives, the report said.
According to the music industry, legal downloads have tripled during 2005.
In the first half of 2005, some 10 million songs have been legally downloaded.
--Music 'myth'--
More needs to be done to capitalise on the power of the peer-to-peer networks that many music downloaders still use, said the report's authors.
The study found that regular downloaders of unlicensed music spent an average of £5.52 a month on legal digital music.
This compares to just £1.27 spent by other music fans.
"The research clearly shows that music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers," said Paul Brindley, director of The Leading Question.
"It also points out that they are eager to adopt legitimate music services in the future."
"There's a myth that all illegal downloaders are mercenaries hell-bent on breaking the law in pursuit of free music."
In reality hardcore fans "are extremely enthusiastic" about paid-for services, as long as they are suitably compelling, he said.
Carrot and stick
The BPI (British Phonographic Industry) welcomed the findings but added a note of caution.
"It's encouraging that many illegal file-sharers are starting to use legal services," said BPI spokesman Matt Philips.
"But our concern is that file-sharers' expenditure on music overall is down, a fact borne out by study after study.
"The consensus among independent research is that a third of illegal file-sharers may buy more music and around two thirds buy less.
"That two-thirds tends to include people who were the heaviest buyers which is why we need to continue our carrot and stick approach to the problem of illegal file-sharing," he said.
--Music to go--
The Leading Question survey also asked 600 music fans what devices they would be buying in the next year.
A third planned to buy a dedicated MP3 player, while just 8% said they would be buying an MP3-enabled phone.
Reasons cited for not purchasing a music playing phone included worries about battery life and concerns about losing the handset, and potentially their music collection.
The fact that phones tend to be frequently replaced also meant people had a low emotional attachment to them.
"The phone is not ready to replace the iPod as a serious digital music player just yet," said Tim Walker, director of The Leading Question.
"One of the challenges will be to develop the perception of the phone as a credible entertainment device," he said.
Providers need to look at features such as dual download to mobile and PC, back-up facilities and improved interfaces between PC and mobile, he said.
There is a huge potential market for MP3 phones. The survey found that 38% were interested in downloading full tracks to their mobile phones.
And people are happy with the storage possibilities of phones with only 4% wanting to store more than 1,000 songs to take on holiday.
Story from BBC NEWS
Published: 2005/07/27 08:10:56 GMT
© BBC MMV
<hr size=8 width="74%" align=left noshade>
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/sp_ncaa/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19874_3940406,00.html
The Albuquerque Tribune
Number of missing children treated like state secret
By THOMAS HARGROVE
July 19, 2005
The Justice Department for years has violated an act of Congress by refusing to reveal how many lost, runaway and kidnapped children have been reported to the FBI, a policy that has turned America's missing youth into a state secret.
The FBI says such information is confidential.
Advocates for missing children complain that the government's refusal to report the number of cases has allowed many police departments to escape public notice when they violate the reporting standards set by Congress in its landmark National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990.
Advocates urge swift reporting because young kidnapping victims often are slain in the first hours of their abduction. But several major law-enforcement agencies, including the New York City Police Department, typically wait four or five days before reporting missing children to federal and state authorities, and delays of two weeks are common.
Many other police departments, as a matter of policy, do not report missing children if they are runaways.
The 1990 law ordered that all children - regardless of the reason they are missing - must be "entered immediately" into state and federal police computer networks. These databases have been credited for the recovery of hundreds of children in recent years.
Congress also ordered the Justice Department to "publish an annual statistical summary" of missing-children cases received at the FBI's National Crime Information Center to ensure that provisions of its law are followed. But the FBI considered these crime files to be the property of local law-enforcement agencies, and the Justice Department has never published the required accounting.
"Why didn't they issue these reports? I've been asking that question for nearly 15 years and never got an answer," said David Thelen, founder of the Committee for Missing Children, a Georgia-based advocacy group. "We can't have the Justice Department, the top law-enforcement agency in the nation, ignoring a law like this. They should be held accountable."
Thelen said that an annual federal accounting of missing-children reports would have forced many local police departments to do a better job. "That would have opened up a lot of scrutiny of the system," he said.
Members of Congress say they are alarmed by the failure.
"This is critical. We are finding far too many cases that are going unreported," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
"Obviously, this is something the Department of Justice needs to work on. Congress wanted the information in order to assemble a comprehensive database of missing children," Foley said.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he's "deeply concerned to hear the Justice Department is evidently not fulfilling its duty to gather this information."
Dodd, hoping to improve the reporting rate for missing-children cases, for three years has proposed a bill requiring local police to alert federal and state authorities "within two hours" of receiving a missing-child report. "We need to do everything within our power to protect our children," he said.
Justice Department officials refused to comment for this story.
Telephone calls and e-mails from Scripps Howard News Service to more than a dozen Justice Department policymakers or their spokesmen went unanswered during the last three months. Letters to President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mailed in mid-May also have gone unanswered, although an FBI spokesman confirmed they were received.
But a recently retired top Justice Department official said she didn't know the law requires the report.
"I'm sorry I did not become aware there was a report that we weren't filing that we were supposed to be filing," said former Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels, whom Bush designated as America's first federal Amber Alert coordinator in 2002 to help locate missing children.
"I tried to identify all the reports we were supposed to be making, whether on a one-time basis or on a continual basis. You wouldn't believe how many there were. I don't recall finding any that we just simply had never filed," Daniels said.
She said the Justice Department is aware that some police departments are in violation of the 1990 law.
"There was an old, traditional belief that if any person was missing, police were supposed to wait 24 hours. And some state laws required 24 hours," Daniels said. "We are still in the process to convince (police) departments that, in these cases, they can't afford to wait 24 hours. Because a child is vulnerable, 24 hours could mean the difference between life and death."
Scripps Howard, to study the problem, in February asked the FBI for an accounting of how many missing-children reports it received from each state and from every county. The bureau refused, claiming the data was the property of local law-enforcement groups and not of the federal government.
"It is inappropriate for the FBI to divulge information to the media about state and local law-enforcement records that reside in a law-enforcement-only database," said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson.
Bresson later said he was unaware of the reporting requirements under the National Child Search Assistance Act. "I'm not sure what, if anything, the act specifically directs the FBI to do," he said.
The bureau prepares monthly summaries of missing-person cases, including the number of missing children. These records are confidentially maintained by the Justice Department, even though the 1990 law instructs the attorney general to publish annual summaries of missing-children reports.
"The FBI does provide an annual report on missing persons to the Department of Justice. You would have to speak with DOJ on whether or not the numbers are released publicly," Bresson said.
Further attempts to obtain missing-children data from Justice Department officials were unsuccessful.
Scripps Howard was able to make a limited study of child-reporting rates by some police departments by using 37,665 missing-children cases received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2004. Most of these reports were given to the center by parents of the missing children. That study was based on a small sampling of missing-children cases. The FBI received nearly 4.2 million missing-person reports during the same five years, most of whom were children.
Because Congress gave the National Center the authority to review FBI files, its investigators could check whether cases they received had been properly reported to federal authorities. About 12 percent of all of those missing-children cases did not appear to have been reported to the FBI.
The New York City Police Department had one of the worst reporting rates in the study because detectives keep missing-children cases at the city's 85 precincts for days or weeks before passing them on to the central Missing Persons Unit, which alone has authority to report missing children to the FBI.
Many other police departments were found to have low reporting rates, often because police have a policy of not reporting runaways. The Honolulu Police Department, for example, reported only about 10 missing children last year even though it arrested more than 2,700 runaway children.
Daniels said that "most departments do an admirable job" in promptly reporting missing children, "but there's still some work to be done."
She agreed with the FBI's claim that specific details contained in case files recorded in the National Crime Information Center database belong to local police departments. But she said she does not know why previous Justice officials did not begin reporting summary information when directed by Congress 15 years ago.
"I have no idea what they thought in 1990," Daniels said. "I would have thought we would have been doing this on a regular basis."
(Contact Thomas Hargrove at hargrovet(at)shns.com)
Copyright 2005, The Albuquerque Tribune. All Rights Reserved.
<hr size=8 width="74%" align=left noshade>
http://www.jimhightower.com/air/read.asp?id=11722
THE ARMY GETS PERSONAL
7/26/2005
Hey, youngsters–Uncle Sam not only wants you, he's got your number!
Not yet sure what you want to do in life? Why not get paid and see an exotic part of the world while you're getting it all together? Yes, you could summer in sunny Iraq...and be a part of our exciting occupation forces there, where there's never a dull moment!
If you are 16 to 25 years old, chances are you'll soon be receiving such a sales pitch from the Army. How will recruiters find you? Easy–thanks to a new database secretly built by the Pentagon, they know where you live. They also know your phone number. And your social security number, your email address, your height and weight, your grades in school, your ethnicity...and so much more.
The Pentagon's "Joint Advertising Market Research Studies Division" (did you know they had one of those?) brags that this superdandy database is "arguably the largest repository of 16-to-25-year-old youth data in the country, containing roughtly 30 million records." It includes the names and personal info on 3.1 million graduating high school seniors and 4.7 million college students–possibly including you or someone you know. All this is to be used to target, reach, and recruit young folks to fill the troop quotas for George W's war in Iraq.
There are, however, two little glitches with the Pentagon's sweeping new database. First, it was illegally compiled. Officials began building it three years ago without giving public notice and allowing public comment–a flagrant violation of the Federal Privacy Act. Second, (and more alarming to mothers and fathers) the private data allows military recruiters to intrude surreptitiously into people's homes and put a sales job on their children. As one appalled mom says: "It's a direct shot to someone's child without consent from a parent."
This is Jim Hightower saying...To help shut down this illegal, intrusive database, call the Electronic Privacy Information Center: 202-483-1140.
"Age 16 to 25? The Pentagon Has Your Number, and More," New York Times, June 24, 2005
<hr size=8 width="74%" align=left noshade>
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072605A.shtml
Go to Original
Lawmakers Reach a Deal on New Energy Policies
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times
Tuesday 26 July 2005
Washington - House and Senate negotiators came to agreement on broad energy legislation early today, hoping they have put together an overhaul of national energy policy that can clear Congress after years of stalemate.
"We hope to have the bill on the House floor on Wednesday and I think the Senate is going to put it up on Thursday," said Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as he concluded negotiations shortly before 3 a.m. Eastern time.
The measure touches on virtually every aspect of American energy production and consumption, including the electrical grid, hybrid cars, traditional oil and gas drilling, and incentives to develop new energy sources. But it does little to immediately lower the price of gasoline at the pump.
As they wound up their talks, lawmakers agreed to a significant new requirement to add corn-based ethanol to the gasoline supply, which will build support for the measure from farm state lawmakers.
Working furiously to try to strike an energy deal, the negotiators killed two major provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal. They also agreed to slow the potential takeover of Unocal by a Chinese oil company to allow for a study of the national security and economic implications of the acquisition.
In a decision that could cost support for the bill from some coastal state lawmakers, negotiators beat back efforts by Florida and California House members to strip from the measure a provision that would allow an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Some lawmakers view the inventory as a precursor to a push to allow drilling off states that have opposed it.
"I'm here to say that the people of North Carolina right now don't want drilling," said Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina. "We can force it on them or wait until they are ready."
The House and Senate reached similar agreement on energy legislation in 2003, but the measure stalled in the Senate over objections to a plan to provide producers and distributors of the gasoline additive MTBE some legal immunity from lawsuits. In a decision that helped the bill's prospects this year, lawmakers on Sunday abandoned that plan. Hoping to dodge another obstacle, senators on Monday rejected a House proposal to relax some clean air standards.
Approval of the legislation would be a victory for President Bush, who has pressed for a new energy policy since taking office in 2001 and urged lawmakers to deliver a plan before leaving at the end of this week for a monthlong summer recess.
"Four years is long enough to wait for comprehensive energy legislation," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Monday.
The final version of the energy plan is certain to come under attack by some lawmakers and conservation groups who consider it too heavily skewed in favor of traditional oil and gas companies, which it showers with billions of dollars of aid and tax breaks at a time when high oil prices are producing huge profits.
As the nine-hour negotiating session was nearing an end, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, failed in an effort to eliminate some of the relief from drilling royalties that the industry would receive through the bill, arguing that it was wrong to let oil companies escape fees for drilling on public land. "We might as well be giving tax breaks to Donald Trump and Warren Buffett here tonight," said Mr. Markey. The Republican-led House majority on the conference committee quickly rejected his proposal.
In a disappointment for environmental advocates, House members on Monday rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one million barrels a day within 10 years.
Backers of the initiative to identify the oil savings said it was an alternative to the politically difficult approach of increasing automotive gas mileage standards and would demonstrate that Congress was serious about cutting the nation's dependence on oil imports.
"We are having an energy bill that is doing so much on the supply side that we need to address the demand side," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who said the goal was the "bare minimum of what we ought to be doing."
But Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president.
"Just telling the president to wave a magic wand and tell each and every one of us that we need to conserve may sound good," said Mr. Barton, who was in charge of the House-Senate negotiations, "but those of us elected by the people every two years have a different view of that."
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said his plan to require power plant operators who now rely on coal, oil and natural gas to increase their use of renewable fuels was a low-cost, market-driven approach to cutting demand for fossil fuels and easing air pollution.
Under the proposal, which has repeatedly passed the Senate, utilities would have to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020.
But opponents of the initiative, known as the renewable portfolio standard, said it would drive up the cost of electricity, conflict with similar state initiatives and put a burden on utilities in some regions where acceptable alternative fuels are in short supply.
While House and Senate negotiators on energy policy met into the night in an effort to agree on an energy measure that could clear the House and Senate this week, a separate group of lawmakers was trying to hash out the tax elements of an energy proposal.
Lawmakers and aides said they expected the tax breaks and incentives to cost in the neighborhood of $11.5 billion: more than sought by the House and White House but less than approved by the Senate. Should lawmakers agree on that figure, the tax package was expected to include a substantial emphasis on tax credits for energy efficiency.
-------
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
<hr size=8 width="74%" align=left noshade>
Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove - Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501586_pf.html - Nine Defy Vatican's Ban on Ordination of Women
dumbness! - State plans to help cigarette maker: Critics upset policies clash on smoking
Quote:
You can’t make a connection with two screws. It takes a screw and a nut!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests