...As our country anxiously awaits the Supreme Court's verdict on health-care reform, the media has reduced the case to the narrow terms of a political horserace. This characterization ignores the enormous significance of this case -- a shift from the modern fight between liberal and conservative Constitutionalists back to an older and more nationally divisive debate between Constitutionalists and Confederates.From the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America to the Lochner-era Supreme Court, confederationists have long believed in a United States consisting of states loosely united by a small, weak central government, and they have fought for more than 230 years to prevent, undermine, and erode the Constitution. While the term "Confederate" rightly conjures up America's sin of slavery and the racially charged movements for states' rights and state nullification,the present-day confederationists include conservative libertarians and corporatists who support a central government too weak to regulate or tax commerce.Coincidentally, I'm currently about 3/4 finished reading Ron Chernow's magisterial, definitive biography of Alexander Hamilton, which goes into great depth bringing these very same arguments to life. As the book explains, the fight between "federalists" like Hamilton, Washington and Adams on the one hand; and anti-federalists/"Republicans" like Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe -- and, bizarrely, "Federalist Papers" co-author James Madison! -- were incredibly heated back in the late 1790s, with accusations flying around about treason, monarchy, you name it. Back then, the core of the differences resolved around no less than diametrically different visions for America: 1) the Jefferson/Madison vision of a primarily agrarian (aka, slave-based) nation, with a relatively weak executive branch and federal government vis-a-vis the states, and few if any modern financial instruments like banks, credit, etc. (also, the U.S. was to be allied with France, whose bloody revolution Jefferson admired, believe it or not); and 2) the Washington/Hamilton/Adams vision of a vibrant economy of both manufacturing and agriculture, plus modern methods of finance and trade (including a strong economic relationship with Great Britain), a relatively strong federal government promoting national economic, political, diplomatic and military strength, etc. (basically, this is the vision of America that won out, although it took the bloody Civil War to settle it once and for all, or so we were taught in school...).Today, however, those same old arguments, which many had thought long settled (certainly since FDR's, if not since TR or earlier) have flared up again, led by radical anti-constitutionalists (as much as they like to say they are "strict constructionists" relying on "first principles," in fact they are nothing of the sort, but are violently opposed to those very principles they falsely claim to support!) like Ken Cuccinelli, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, who clearly want to roll back most of history since the Civil War (including the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and many/most Supreme Court rulings on federal power over the past century). Tomorrow, as Tom Perriello explains, we will see whether the Supreme Court is willing to rule in a way that some of the top conservative legal minds in the country have described as "in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent." Instead, we may find out tomorrow that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts have essentially taken our Constitution and ripped it to shreds, sending us lurching backwards to the Articles of Confederation. Stay tuned... |
Tom Perriello Argues the Real "Obamacare" Battle is "Constitutionalists vs. Confederates"
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Ken Cuccinelli: Loser
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
by Kindler
 Not since the Chicago Cubs has anyone assembled as impressive a losing streak as Ken Cuccinelli. With his reverse Midas Touch, every major case that Virginia's chief legal officer champions just ends up swirling down the judicial toilet. The latest flush came today, as the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected his baseless challenge of the US EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gases represent a threat to human health. If the man were capable of embarrassment, now would be a good time to show it.This, of course, is not the first time he's been thrown out of court on a climate change case. No, actually it's the THIRD time. First, Albemarle County Circuit Court Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled in August 2010 that Cuccy didn't have any "objective basis" for his witch hunt against former U-VA climate scientist Michael Mann. Bravely, our Ayatollah General then took his case to the Virginia Supreme Court -- which in March of this year ruled that he had read the law wrong and didn't even have jurisdiction to challenge U-VA in the case. This of course is on top of the smackdowns that Cuccinelli received from the courts in his challenge to President Obama's health care law. After somehow winning his first round on the issue, he lost his next two. In September 2011, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that he lacked standing to even bring the suit, derisively commenting that allowing standing in such cases would "convert the federal judiciary into a forum for the vindication of a state's generalized grievances about the conduct of government." |
| kindler :: Ken Cuccinelli: Loser |
| The next month, the Supreme Court left Cuccinelli's health care appeal off its docket, even as it took on other state attorneys general's cases on the matter. One of the striking things about Cuccy's loss record is how often his position is struck down on basic, threshold issues that you would expect a wet-behind-the-ears legal intern to get right. Basic issues of who has standing to sue, what sorts of entities are subject to the laws in question, etc. are matters that you'd think a man with a position as important as his might spend a few minutes on Wikipedia to double-check. You may say that none of this matters to Cuccinelli or his rabid supporters -- it's not about winning, it's about going down fighting! Well, fine and dandy, but a habitual loser is generally not what Americans admire. The man has lost so many times because he takes positions that make no sense legally, logically or morally -- and then fights them, unbending, to the death. Perhaps that's the rebel spirit of the Confederacy, but what does it get you? Just another reason to be pissed off and blame the commie socialist pinkos who nefariously run the world, I guess. (Never mind that many of the judges who've laughed Cuccinelli out of court have been Republican appointees.) Meanwhile, the hero of the tea party courageously continues his quixotic quest, proclaiming, like the Black Knight of Monty Python fame: "It's just a flesh wound!" |
Live Stream: UVA Board of Visitors Meeting [UPDATE: Board Unanimously Reinstates Pres. Sullivan]
 "There will be a special meeting of the Board of Visitors on Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Rotunda, to discuss possible changes in the terms of employment of the President."FYI, a good Twitter feed to follow is #UVA. Here's an interesting tweet by Washington Post reporter Anita Kumar, for instance: "#UVA Rector Dragas called President Sullivan at 2 and offered to walk her to BOV meeting from Carr's Hill." UPDATE 3:05 pm: As the meeting is about to get underway, over 9,000 people are watching on the live stream. UPDATE 3:07 pm: @UVA tweets: "#UVa Pres. Sullivan and Rector Dragas just entered Rotunda together, we are hearing from the Lower West Oval Rm" UPDATE 3:09 pm: @scontorno tweets: "Dragas: "The buck stops right here with us. What we do today will indeed be the final word on the subject." #BOV #UVA" UPDATE 3:15 pm: @amasays tweets: "#Fralin: "The process was flawed." #UVA" @UVA tweets: "Fralin: We can't question integrity of those who supported decision to have Sullivan resign. #uva" @amasays tweets: "#Fralin: "No one knows what the vote would have been... I apologize to the University community that I did not think of this sooner." #UVA" UPDATE 3:17 pm: Fralin offers resolution to reinstate Teresa Sullivan as President of UVA. It is seconded. UPDATE 3:19 pm: Dragas says UVA had a "near-death experience to get here." References "a mob mentality," "vitriolic" communications the board has been subject to. "The garden of my inbox also has a lot of fertilizer in it as well." Dragas says she met with Sullivan and concluded it was time to bring UVA family back together. "We've always respected each other on a personal level." "It is clear this board wants to come together." "We look forward to working with President Sullivan...to rebuild a sense of mutual trust." Therefore, "I support the resolution." UPDATE 3:25 pm: Roll call vote. Dragas and the rest of the board unanimously (15-0) vote to reinstate President Sullivan. The board now moves to support Dragas and affirm her integrity. The board approves that resolution unanimously (again, 15-0). Can we say "one big happy family?" ;) UPDATE 3:30 pm: President Sullivan thanks board, asks for everyone's support to "help us move forward together," says she's grateful to have "this renewed opportunity." Says nothing should be swept under the rug, but that issues should be discussed candidly/frankly. @cvillenewscom (Waldo Jaquith) tweets: "The crowd is thrilled. Cheering, I see people crying." UPDATE 4:26 pm: Coy Barefoot/WINA has a podcast of the meeting. |
ExxonMobil/Koch Industries Supreme Court Rules: Democracy for Sale to Highest Corporate Bidder
Monday, June 25, 2012
P.S. I strongly agree with the dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, which correctly states that "Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so." UPDATE: With regard to the Arizona case, 5 Justices "struck down criminal restrictions that would have barred those in the U.S. illegally from seeking work or being in Arizona without proper documentation" and "said the final answer on the centerpiece of the law -- a requirement that local police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect might be in the country illegally -- will depend on how the provision is enforced." Of course, the three hardest-core right-wing radical judges (Scalia, Alito, Thomas) disagreed, which once again demonstrates the crucial importance of having a Democratic president fill the next few vacancies on the Court. UPDATE #2: Justice Scalia utterly contradicts himself on these two rulings, while demonstrating that he's nothing more than an enraged, "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" Teabagger at heart. On the one hand, Scalia wrote that "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State." On the other hand, Scalia voted to prevent the supposedly "sovereign state" of Montana from writing its own campaign finance laws. So which is it, Justice Scalia? |
Del. Englin Announces Resignation, Endorses Karen Gautney to Replace Him
Thursday, June 21, 2012
I spoke with Rob Krupicka a few minutes ago, and he told me his focus in this race will not be on personalities, but 100% on serving the community, on the direction of the district and the state, and on the issues he cares about. Krupicka added that his campaign will stress three things: 1. The need for experienced leadership in Richmond, people who have done the work on education, transportation and a range of issues. 2. A particular focus on education, including the UVA situation, but more generally about his concerns over how privatization is a threat to high-quality public education. As Krupicka said, "The UVA case is a specific one, but it points to a larger issue." 3. Sustainability issues - environment and transit - which are crucial to our state and to our planet. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and Karen Gautney certainly is impressive, but my strong inclination right now is to support Rob Krupicka for this seat, given his strong experience, his tremendous knowledge of transit and environmental issues, and the fact that he's a big-time policy wonk (that's a major compliment, in my view). I'll certainly be following this race closely, and hope that it stays on the high road - focused on the candidates' respective visions for the district and the Commonwealth - to the greatest extent possible. We'll see... P.S. Arlington School Board member James Lander is also a candidate for this seat. UPDATE: The Alexandria Times calls this an "abrupt reversal," writing that "Englin initially told supporters he would serve out the remainder of his term in Richmond, which expires in 2013." |
President Sullivan to be Reinstated? Rally for Honor on Sunday!
 If you care about the future of the University of Virginia, one of the greatest institutions of higher learning in the country, let alone in Virginia, I strongly encourage you to attend the rally on Sunday, from 2 to 4 pm, on The Lawn at UVA. Meanwhile, in encouraging news, The University of Virginia board of visitors announced a little while ago that it "will meet Tuesday to reconsider its forced resignation of President Teresa Sullivan." I would think that Sullivan supporters would only have called such a meeting if they knew they had the votes to win, especially given that the board of visitors' announcement "came shortly after the deans of U.Va.'s colleges urged the board to reinstate Sullivan, joining the faculty senate in opposition to her ouster." Great stuff, let's get this situation straightened out and stop messing with this great university and justifiable lauded Virginia institution! |
The Education of Famed UVA Professor Larry Sabato
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
by Paul Goldman
On paper, Ms. Dragas, who runs her father's business building homes in Tidewater, is no match politically for Professor Sabato, who I first met on the sands of Virginia Beach during a discussion of his idol, famed civil rights advocate and anti-Byrd politician Henry Howell. As I have said many times, I couldn't think of a better person in the world to teach my son's introductory course in politics, or guide him through an academic career. If there is a more dedicated fully tenured professor with Larry's credentials to high school students or college frosh who like politics, that individual has been in hiding for some many years. Larry Sabato embodies what is great about the world of academics and UVA. But he, his students, indeed all the professors of political science at UVA and around Virginia, just had their Demi Moore moment. In the great movie A Few Good Men (taken from the Broadway play), Ms. Moore plays a lawyer who makes a rookie mistake during a court-martial proceeding. This is her first time in the high-stakes world where you either lose or win: there is no middle ground. Ms. Moore's character doesn't understand the mistake. "It's the difference between paper law and trial law" explains a co-counsel. |
| Goldmanusa :: The Education of Famed UVA Professor Larry Sabato |
| Professor Sabato has written millions of words on politics, had his views over these many decades repeated hundreds of thousands of times, taught tens of thousands of students, and opined on what it takes to make real change in Virginia countless times. He even publishes his "Crystal Ball" on politics.But he and the other academic experts, along with their students and ex-students, proved no match for Ms. Dragas. The same for the other alleged savvy politicians on the UVA Board of Visitors - I will save them the embarrassment of naming them - who were telling the media anonymously they had not been part of Ms. Dragas' efforts to oust Teresa Sullivan. When push came to shove, they proved to be all Talk and no Walk. Those of us who have actually been in the arena, - not the John Paul Jones Arena at UVA to cheer from the stands or play kid games on the field but on the field of real politics trying to make real change for generations to come - understand that anyone can Talk The Talk. But to make real change, you have to play in the real world and overcome the real forces out there pushing back against you. It looks easy from the bleachers, but no one ever changed anything on paper. It is all about WALK, not TALK. We remember the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence the way we do because they had WALK, NOT TALK. Change the outcome, and it is likely no signed copy of Mr. Jefferson's handiwork might even exist. "All men are created equal" are very likely the five most powerful words ever streamed together in the English language. Yet not because the phrase stated a truth believed at the time by most of those who risked their lives, fortunes, and honor to achieve freedom from the British. But we won for this reason: We were led by individuals who were "all in." They weren't engaged in some parlor room "battle" over academic concepts, a grand game of trivial pursuit. They couldn't look at their watches and say: "We talked a good game. But it is late, time to go home, we can pick it up at another time." As Benjamin Franklin said: We either hang together or we hang separately. That is the difference between paper law and real law; the difference between paper politics and real politics. Helen Dragas was "all in." So were those backing her play. She had a vision for her university, and was willing to be seen as the "Dragon Lady" - even give up her seat on the board - to be cast into UVA academic "purgatory" for all time as the price for getting her way. Whatever you want to say about Ms. Dragas and her posse, they came to the OK Corral prepared to die with their spurs on. The Dragas forces wanted Teresa Sullivan out. They never offered a cogent reason; it is possible they never had one. Dragas' posse - backed by some very powerful people who have hidden in the shadows - adopted an ABS posture - Anybody but Sullivan. This is not unusual: indeed, the next President of the United States will be elected by either the ABR voters - Anybody But Romney - or ABO partisans - Anybody But Obama. Bottom line: Dragas and crew were ready to win or leave. Teresa Sullivan was not. That's is actually the first lesson in politics, the one that should be taught on the first day of the first class of the frosh year. One thing I always admired about Henry Howell - and we had some bitter arguments - is that he was an "all in" guy. He gave everything he had to get African-Americans, women, Jews, Catholics, you name it equal rights in Virginia. He took more personal abuse than you can imagine. In retrospect, I never quite appreciated that and probably - no definitely - didn't give him the respect he had EARNED from me. I can't change that now. In a small way, I do hope some of the work I did to help Doug Wilder break the color line in state politics redeems me some. But if not, it's my fault. Henry and Doug did teach a valuable lesson which allows me to say this without fear of being proven wrong: Teresa Sullivan is not the person of UVA mythology being created. Not even close. Read her speech yesterday; it is all there if you want to see it. As the saying goes, it isn't the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it is the size of the fight in the dog. At the moment of truth, Teresa Sullivan was ALL TALK, but NO WALK. Think about it: Sullivan claims to have been shocked by Dragas blind siding her with the famed "Godfather" option -- it can either be your signature or your blood in the resignation letter, your choice, the Board wants you out, but I will give you the chance to resign and save face. Sullivan in her speech suggests this is a battle between two fundamentally different visions of higher education in the future, the choice critical not unique to UVA as she knows. Sullivan postures herself as the true agent of positive change, and Dragas et al as actually the enemy of such change. In sum, Sullivan spends a long time making the case why she is right about the future of UVA, and why her detractors are wrong. The Faculty Senate backs Sullivan big time, demanding Dragas resign. A mass of students, wildly supportive and presumed to speak for most of the UVA population, likewise see her as the champion of the University against the usurpers. Professor Sabato and others are willing to put their reputations on the line to back her, to join a great showdown over the future of a great University. They are willing to draw a line in the sand. In the real world of politics, this is often how it goes: change isn't an academic treatise or Moot Court discussion, it is done in real time with real people who "bring it", warts and all, to moment of truth. "Truth crushed to Earth will rise" said Dr. King. But someone has to have the guts to plant that truth. Otherwise it can't rise. As I say: Whatever you think about Ms. Dragas, she has the courage of her convictions. Can we really say that about the other side? For now, this is what we do know: Teresa Sullivan refused to fight for her job. There was plenty of TALK, but no WALK. That's the thing about politics. The Teresa Sullivans of the world are articulate when it comes to the plight of so many beaten down by the system. They can say all the right words, back all the right causes, contribute all the right amounts of money. And then they wonder why nothing changes like they think it should. Teresa Sullivan doesn't need the money she will get from UVA in whatever settlement she knows they will have to make for breaking her contract. Her husband doesn't need the money. She has a tenured position on the faculty of UVA, he is lion at the law school. So they have all the money, all the support, all the reputation few get in a lifetime. Moreover, they have the type of public support to be an agent of change that even fewer get in a century. There is absolutely nothing Ms. Dragas and posse can possibly do to hurt Ms. Sullivan on any of these fronts. Based on Ms. Sullivan's own speech, the future of UVA, and the future of higher education in America, is at a cross-roads. Yet she refuses to fight for what she claims is right. The reason Larry Sabato idolized Henry Howell wasn't because Henry had the telegenic look, the pleasing personality, the super wealth, the ability to do little things and make it seem like something big, all the attributes glorified by today's politics. None of that. Rather, the reason Larry loved Henry Howell is the same reason the segregationists and others hated him: because Henry Howell was the real deal. This isn't to say that Howell was a perfect guy, far from it. He could be exasperating, he could be personally mean at times, he was hardly the liberal claimed by his detractors. No, he wasn't a lot of things, but he was this: When it came to fighting for Virginia's future, Henry Howell was "all in." He couldn't be bought, he couldn't be bullied, he couldn't be sold a bill of goods, and he was there in the foxhole in the morning no matter the forces aligned against you as the sun rose over the battlefield. He was all WALK. I am not an expert on what is happening at UVA. But I am an expert on what is not happening. Sullivan, Sabato and others have made this a seminal moment for the state's flagship University. Even former President John Casteen has suggested as much in terms of state education policy. So they have drawn that line in the sand made famous by Colonel Travis or I suppose the legend of The Alamo. No one is suggesting that Sullivan, Sabato, et. al walk the plank. But at the same time: IF ALL THERE IS IS TALK, BUT NOT WALK, then what are we to make of it? Just what we always have: If you really want to make change, if you are really willing to fight the forces of racism or sexism or whatever, you can only count on the people who are on the field with you. This is not to suggest you are better than anyone else, far from it. It is just a statement of real Politics 101. Give Dragas and company their due for understanding politics at the gut level. Dragas knew she could have lost the fight. But she read her opponents perfectly. Teresa Sullivan may have had a million reasons not to fight for her job. But if she wasn't going to fight for it, then she owed her supporters the truth from jump street. If the privileged - with nothing to lose except money they don't need - aren't willing to risk it, then what hope is there for those who can't afford to lose what little they have? Teresa Sullivan had her chance to be a real leader: but that would have required giving something up apparently. She had her Demi Moore moment. So did many at UVA these past days. Whatever you want to say about Ms. Dragas, she is the one you want on your side in the foxhole when the game gets serious. All the dominoes have yet to fall. So the winners and losers could look differently soon enough. Just not at this moment. |
House Minority Leader David Toscano: Sullivan Firing Was "fundamentally flawed"
Monday, June 18, 2012
The following statement is from Virginia House Minority Leader David Toscano, who represents Charlottesville in the Virginia House of Delegates. This situation is becoming more and more troubling every day. Where is Gov. McDonnell's leadership, exactly? Completely AWOL so far, as he's been in so many other areas since he took office in January 2010. #FAIL Also, see Sen. Donald McEachin's thoughts in the comments section.
DELEGATE DAVID TOSCANO STATEMENT ON FORCED RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT TERESA SULLIVAN
"I have spent significant time over the last week attempting to discover as many facts as I can involving the forced resignation of President Teresa Sullivan from the University of Virginia. My discussions have been with faculty members; members of the University community, including former administrators and Visitors; alumni; donors; students; members of the General Assembly; and current members of the Board of Visitors, including Rector Helen E. Dragas, who graciously agreed to meet with me and Senator Creigh Deeds, in my office last week. I have not spoken with Teresa Sullivan.
The more information I have gathered, the more troubling the action has become. Among my concerns are:
My conclusion is simple and straight-forward -- the process by which President Sullivan was forced to resign was fundamentally flawed, dramatically at odds with our history as the flagship University in the Commonwealth, and inconsistent with a transparent decision-making process required of a public University.
The action places the University at substantial peril, in the short and long term...[See the "flip" for the conclusion]
|
Bruce Shuttleworth Writes Funny, Classy Concession Email to Jim Moran
Thursday, June 14, 2012
 I certainly had my criticisms of Bruce Shuttleworth's campaign, but I most definitely don't have any criticisms of the following concession/congratulations email he sent to Rep. Jim Moran yesterday morning. Funny, classy...nice job by Bruce Shuttleworth on this one!Dear Jim (and Mary),With my apologies for my concession call coming in too late to catch you last night, congratulations on your hard-fought victory yesterday. And, certainly, congratulations in advance on your victory to come in November! |
Congratulations to New Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland!
 Remember the May 15 fiasco in the Virginia General Assembly, when a bunch of homophobic bigots rejected the nomination of the eminently qualified Tracy Thorne-Begland to the Richmond District Court, simply because Thorne-Begland's an openly gay man? Well, now, it appears that sanity and decency have regained the upper hand in Virginia, at least for the time being. Heck, even Governor Bob McDonnell's spokesman has showed class on this one, commenting that "The governor believes Mr. Thorne-Begland is well-qualified to serve on the bench" and that[Governor McDonnell] congratulates him on the appointment." Wow, is hell about to freeze over or what? Here's the order by Richmond Circuit Court Chief Judge Richard D. Taylor.  |
P.S. Also, see the "flip" for Sen. McEachin's statement regarding the reversal by Del. Richard Morris (R-Isle of Wight) on this matter. Good for Del. Morris, now if he could only convince a few of his Republican colleagues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
