It seems I was premature in saying that H.R.3073, a bid to grant Congress the right to overturn Supreme Court decisions, didn’t have a chance in hell of passing. Looks like I was wrong. In the last few days, it’s picked up 15 cosponsors. Here’s the List of Shame:

Sponsor: Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2]
Cosponsors:

• Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Hefley, Joel [CO-5] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 6/28/2005
• Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 6/28/2005
• Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/28/2005

Read the full text of the bill here.

The short title of the bill is listed as “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2005″. What it actually is, however, is an attempt to strip the Supreme Court of the power to rule acts of legislation unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court–

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress. [emphasis TK]

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

The right of the Court to exercise constitutional review of acts of Congress was established in 1803, in the case of Marbury Vs. Madison. That decision has protected us from the tyranny of the majority for over 200 years.

If this bill were enacted, Congress could pass any fool legislation it wants, including violations of the Bill Of Rights, and then thumb their collective noses at the Supreme Court and the citizens of this country with a two-thirds vote. In other words, Congress would have no watchdog but its own conscience. Very bad idea.

Introduced in this fashion, rather than as a consitutional amendment, it requires only a simple majority in each house to pass and needs no confirmation from the states. I can’t unravel the circular logic enough to tell if this bill itself would be unconstitutional. The right of review is not enshrined in the Constitution, but was established by precedent, becoming the bedrock of our separation of powers. Never again would Congress need to pass the high test of the constitutional amendment process; they could change the constitution at will. There would be no limit to their power.

Just by its introduction this bill tells us something about the current political climate. The majority cannot imagine a time when they are not at the helm, and cannot imagine a time when they too might need protection of minority rights.

In my humble opinion, this is not just a bad bill. It’s immoral, unethical and down right terrifying.

I used to be a huge pro basketball fan. Back in the glory days, I followed two teams: the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics. It was a win/win situation - if one team didn’t take the championship, the other did. What the teams had in common was phenomenal–and underrated–centers leading true team efforts.

The Lakers’ Wilt Chamberlain was a master of the game, playing with finesse as well as power, even as the league changed the rules in a futile effort to neutralize him.

The Celtics’ Dave Cowens, on the other hand, couldn’t find finesse in the dictionary. He was raw heart and determination, a “small” center in the era of the 7 footer. He got battered under the basket more than any ref should allow, but he stood his ground and never gave up.

These two men defined my image of what a ball player should be. Then Wilt retired in ‘73, and Davey left the Celts in ‘80, ending the golden era of the game. Eventually I switched my allegiance to college ball, where the ideals I’d seen in Chamberlain and Cowens still held sway.

Now, after a 15 year hiatus, I’m going to have to start following the NBA again. Gonzaga’s Ronny (pronounced RO-nee for the uninitiated) Turiaf was drafted by the LA Lakers in the 2nd round, 37th over all. This kid is a joy to watch, glowing with the traits I’d loved in my youthful heros. Every emotion is written on his face as he outmaneuvers and outrebounds the competition like Wilt, taking hit after hit in the lane and comes back fighting, just like Cowens.

I remember watching him as a lanky sophomore, apparently baffled by all the trips and elbows to the ribs to which he was subjected. He played for the sheer love of it, his grin announcing “aren’t I lucky they let me come along!” Interview questions to coach Mark Few about him tended to center around his lack of “killer instinct” and the chances that that level of competitiveness could be taught. One of my strongest memories of that year is a close-up of coach Mark Few making an exagerated “angry face,” and Ronny ineptly trying to copy it.

Three years later, in his 5th year senior tour, he could still be seen putting on his Angry Face before walking back on the court from a time out. He learned competitiveness, all right, but implemented it in his own way. He brought passion to the court, but not rage. It was like watching Wilt and Davey all over again.

It’s enough to make me give the NBA another chance.

In light of the Supreme Court eminant domain decision granting government the right to condemn and seize property from one private owner and give it to another, Logan Darrow Clements has an interesting proposal; seize Justice David Souter’s colonial farmhouse and turn it into a hotel.

“The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare,” he wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday. Souter’s two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The proposed hotel would be called the “Lost Liberty Hotel” featuring the “Just Desserts Cafe” and a museum documenting the “loss of freedom in America.”

From Wired:

“Am I taking this seriously? But of course,” said Charles Meany, Weare’s code enforcement officer. “In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin.”

By all means, let’s let them chickens come home to roost.

Yesterday the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Judith Miller (of The New York Times) and Matthew Cooper (of Time Magazine), letting stand a decision by a federal judge to hold the pair of reporters in contempt of court. Their offense? Refusing to disclose the identity of a source who contacted them with a CIA operative’s name. An appeals court has rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. They face up to 18 months in jail.

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, said he now looks forward to wrapping up the investigation, saying his only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller. We are to assume, then, that these reporters’ silence has stood in the way of a swift resolution to the inquiry.

But the big pink elephant at the tea party is this: why these charges against 2 reporters who did NOT publish the information, and none against the one–Robert Novak–who did? The special council isn’t saying. Since disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer’s identity can be a federal crime, why no pursuit of the columnist who clearly did that, irregardless of the source of the leak?

It reminds me of trying to get get my kids to help with housework when they were younger. They would go out of their way to do a bad job, often taking longer to “fail” at the task than if they’d just buckled down and done it right the first time. Fitzgerald is spinning his wheels and wasting our time trying to prove to us that the source is unknowable, or at least unknowable as long as reporters have any First Amendment rights, taking more time and effort than if he’d just put the obvious suspect on the stand in the first place. It’s a great strategy if you want to make sure the truth never comes out. And if it ends up costing symbols of the “liberal media” some jail time, so much the better.

What should be a straight-foward investigation–who in the Bush Administration told Novak, who then told the world–becomes instead an opportunity to chip away at the freedom of the press.

It’s the “bait & switch” we’re fast becoming accustomed to from this administration, and the Supreme Court is letting them get away with it.

For shame.

UPDATE: The full text of the bill is now available. Read it here.

The reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on Kelo vs. The City of New London et al has been swift. I’ll post the full text of the bill as soon as it becomes available.

S.1313 : A bill to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.
Sponsor: Sen Cornyn, John [R-TX] (introduced 6/27/2005)
Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/27/2005 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

UPDATE: The full text of the bill is now available. Read it here.

Here’s an interesting little bit of wing-nuttery. I don’t think it has a chance in hell of passing, but this attempted end run around the Constitution got my attention.

H.R.3073
Title: To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.
Sponsor: Rep Lewis, Ron [Republican - KY-2] (introduced 6/27/2005)
Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/27/2005 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

It’s been a couple of years since I’ve been to a movie in a theater. Between the overly loud soundtrack and and background sound effects, I can’t understand the dialog, so I prefer to wait for video so that I can use closed captions. But that’s about to change.

Regal Cinemas, which owns the multiplex closest to my home, has begun special open caption showings of new release movies. The schedule for all their theaters is available online where you can search by state and city.

Even if your hearing is just fine, I urge you to consider attending a captioned showing to express your support for their inclusiveness. If we want Regal to continue this program, we need to support them financially. Show them that captions for the hearing impared is not only good social conscience, it’s also good business.

If you click on a pop-up, does that mean you like having spyware or adware on your computer? That’s the contention of Melinda Tiemeyer, spokeswoman for Sprint PCS, quoted in a AP article carried by the Houston Chronicle. Sprint is OK with using adware because users, she said, accept it in exchange for phone service offers and discounts.

So far, lawsuits over spyware and adware have focused on the company delivering the ads. Intermix Media has agreed to pay $7.5 million in a tentative settlement of a lawsuit by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

But others say that the advertisers themselves should be held accountable. Some big companies, including Verizon, Mercedes Benz, Netflix, Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, JC Penneys, Sony, Circuit City and major banks hawking credit cards, have made use of adware companies to promote their services, though they claim to shun any programs that monitor online surfing or extract personal information.

Spyware is a harsh term and unfairly negative, some purveyors say. Claria Corp., formerly known as Gator Corp., has sued several anti-spyware companies and Web sites for calling its advertising software “spyware.”

From AP, via SiliconValley.com:

Though it has yet to sue, 180solutions Inc. takes issue with “adware,” preferring “searchware” or “sponsorware.” “Adware” has become too linked with bad actors, and the industry needs more differentiation, said its chief executive, Keith Smith. Most anti-spyware vendors, however, still put 180solutions in that category.

Aluria Software LLC says one company, WhenU.com Inc., has changed its practices enough that it is now spyware- and adware-safe.

[snip]

“If an anti-spyware company recommends that the software (gets) blocked, consumers will typically block it,” said Keith Smith, chief executive of 180solutions. “It doesn’t matter how good an experience they have with it.”

Alex St. John, chief executive of WildTangent Inc., says anti-spyware companies have an incentive to overlist programs: It makes their products appear effective. Better definitions, he said, would help clear his company’s game-delivery product.

“We want to do anything under our power to be clearly defined as a legitimate, upright consumer company,” he said. “We would love to have something to adhere to.”

Sure they do.

In my opinion, the problem will continue as long as advertisers get a free pass in the blame game. Plausible deniability is built into the equation, with advertising contractors and subcontractors, allowing the source of the money to remain detached from the means of delivery.

I keep my machine scrupulously clean and use 2 pop-up blockers, so I seldom get stealth ads. But when one slips through, I make note of what company is being promoted. When it comes time to shop for a product, believe me, I remember who bombarded me.

It is a season of change. Even pleasant, moving-forward change unsettles me, leaves me scrambling for the comfort of the familiar and stable. Were Fate kind, changes would come one at a time, each surrounded by a buffer of peaceful reflection that would allow me to contemplate and slowly adjust before moving on to the next topic. Unfortunately, Fate prefers to toss them all at me all at once and get it over with. I respond by eating crepes rolled up with butter and sugar inside like my grandmother used to make, and reading romance novels. I take my comfort where I can find it.

Some of the changes are anticipated. Julia, my oldest, is moving from Portland, Oregon (6 hours away) to Tucson, Arizona (2,000 miles away) for graduate school. At the same time, Meredith, my middle child is heading off to Tacoma, Washington for college. Leaving the nest is a natural progression of things, as they grow and reach for new challenges, but that doesn’t make it any easier. I’m proud of them both, and happy for the opportunites they’ll be grasping. I’ve had a year to get used to the idea, to wrap my mind around the separation in advance, and to plan ahead for the times when they’ll come home, however briefly. Already I miss them, and the departure dates haven’t yet arrived.

The same is true with Tony, my son. He’ll be taking Drivers Ed this summer and getting ready for a big burst of independence. This one sneaked up on me, lost in my preoccupation with the girls moving away. In March, he’ll be 16. Already he needs less mothering than I need to give as he begins making plans for the time when he, too, will leave home. At least that date is far enough in the distance to feel unthreatening as yet.

Having my family here for Meredith’s graduation was a time of change, too. Not having seen them for a year, I was surprised and saddened by how frail my parents seemed. In my mind, they’ve forever stayed in their mid-40s, the age they were when I left home. For the first time, their mortality hit me full force. The time I have left with them is measured, and 2,000 miles separates me from their daily lives. I see now that my move across the country was as hard for them as seeing my children leave is for me. The telephone can’t take the place of sitting together on the porch on hot summer evenings, but it’s the best I can do.

Some changes catch me by surprise, though in retrospect I should have seen them coming. Julia called Thursday night to tell me she is engaged. I’m so happy for her, that she’s found a man she loves who loves her in return. Aaron is a good man; he respects her, treasures her, and gives her the loving stability she needs to blossom into her full potential, and I’m thankful for him in her life. I love him for what he is to her. So in all aspects, this is a good change. Even so, I’m still a little lost. She’s no longer my baby. In the back of my mind I’ve known that for quite awhile, but I have to admit the full truth of her maturity has thrown me for a bit of a loop. Hence the crepes and Julie Garwood books. For now they’re my substitute for rocking her in my arms and singing her to sleep. It’s an bittersweet ending for me and a bright beautiful beginning for her.

In the midst of all this external change, my body is changing, too. My reflection in the mirror is no longer a constant. Intellectually I know I’ve lost 30 lbs, but when I went shopping yesterday all of the things I picked off the rack to try on were too big. 3 sizes to big. As I blinked to readjust my self-concept, I took in the lines around my mouth and eyes I hadn’t really seen before. I’m in the process of becoming … what? Someone different, I think. Someone better, I hope.

One day at at time I get closer to incorporating these changes into my view of the world. With the help of comfort food and books.

In a suprise move, the US Supreme Court yesterday cut the legs out from under private property owners with its ruling on Kelo vs. The City of New London et al, affirming the right of government to take private property for the greater good of economic development, even when the beneficiary is a private company rather than the government.

For years, eminant domain has been used to take private property for roads, schools and other public facilities in exchange for “fair market value.” But in the New London case, the purpose of the land grab is to replace the working class Fort Trumbull neighborhood with a hotel, office space and upscale homes. The city only has a budget of $1.6 million to pay for the 15 homes affected by the ruling, an average of $106,000 each, in a city where the average home price is $179,355. The amount of cash the home owners will have to relocate will, in practical terms, be reduced by the amount still owed on their morgages.

What are the chances that these home owners will be able to buy into the new development of “upscale homes” built on the ashes of their property after the city turns around and sells it to the developer? My guess is slim to none.

This opens the door to other cities with Reverse Robin Hood intentions. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her dissent: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

In other words, cities now have a license to rob from the poor to give to the rich. With this ruling in place, big business developers will have little or no incentive to bargain with property owners over the price of the property they wish to acquire. They can set a low-ball price, based on past property values instead of the highest use price, and if the owners don’t like it, the city may condemn the property and take it at a price of their own choosing, and the little guy will have no recourse.

The ruling has not gone unnoticed by the House of Representatives.

H.RES.340
Title: Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 6/24/2005)
Cosponsors: (14)

• Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Harris, Katherine [FL-13] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-8] - 6/24/2005
• Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 6/24/2005

Latest Major Action: 6/24/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

As I understand it, this resolution is just whistling into the wind, since the Supreme Court ruled on the case as a constitutional issue. Still, I’m glad to see some sort of organized protest.