Will It Take Courage to Win the Arizona Senate Primary in 2018?

Congresswoman Martha McSally (R-AZ 2nd) announces her candidacy for the U.S. Senate to replace Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ). 

The Republican field is already populated by Dr. Kelli Ward, a candidate endorsed by Steve Bannon, and Joe Arpaio, the 85 year old long-time ex Maricopa County sheriff renowned for his tough treatment of criminal aliens who was recently pardoned by President Trump.

[L] Dr. Kelli Ward [R] Ex Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arizona GOP candidates for US Senate

Although Democrats need to defend 25 of 33 Senate seats in the 2018 election cycle, including in 10 states in which President Trump carried in 2016, Republicans are worried about losing their slender control of the Senate.  Senator Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) decision not to stand for re-election puts another "safe" GOP seat up for grabs.

In some respects, the GOP primary might be made up of voters with trollish Trump-eteer tendencies (infamously redubbed by Hillary Clinton as the "Basket of Deplorables") who think that strong immigration stances are the way to win via Arpaio's reputation and rhetoric.  Kelli Ward had positioned herself to be a Bannon disruptor of the GOP Establishment,  but now is backing away from "Sloppy Steve" after his fall from grace in the "Fire and Fury" fiasco.  

Establishment Republicans hoping to avoid a repeat defeat akin to the Alabama special election, seem to favor McSally to keep the seat as she has legislative experience and is not an agitating lightning rod. However, when an ex fighter pilot urged her colleagues to "grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done", such a candidate might not be exactly safe for the go along to get along in the so called Senate country club in the District of Calamity (sic).

[This piece originally was published at DistrictofCalamity.com ]

When Swamp Rats Are Dirty Rats

The revelation of sexual misconduct by Hollywood's Harvey Weinstein has transitioned to the District of Calamity.  Accusations of sexual impropriety threatens to swing two Senate seats and effect the balance of power on Capitol Hill.

Much has been made about  allegations of skivvy conduct by Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore (R-AL).  These accusations stem from conduct nearly four decades ago that were unreported to authorities, but came to light in the closing days of a special election to fill the seat vacated by now Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  The alluvia of allegations sound bad, but are past the statute of limitations, based she-said-he-said allegations with little to no corroborating evidence and relies upon the court of public opinion. 

From a political standpoint, Democrats are anxious to make Roy Moore a poster child for Republicans in 2018 and use the hermaneutic that Republicans condone sexual harassment as a cudgel to impeach President Donald Trump if Democrats regain the House of Representatives.  In the near term, the muck about Moore put the White House in a box.  On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, establishment Republicans did not like a loose cannon like Judge Moore to be in the Senate chambers, when it endangers the clubby atmosphere of the Upper Chamber and he could help shake up the leadership.  So many GOP party loyalists were quick to condemn Moore for the alleged but unproven misconduct.

There are concerns that Republicans might lose this previously considered "safe" seat, as Moore is polling with a double digit deficit after these allegations have been publicized.  Since candidate Moore refuses to step aside due to this scandal, the DC GOP suggested writing in another Republican. Apparently, this did not test well and was dropped.  After a careful reading of the Alabama state statutes, centrist Republican Hugh Hewitt claims that the problem could go away if   Senator Luke Strange (R-AL) resigned, creating a new vacancy which would cancel the shaky December 12th election, and Governor Kay Ivey (R-AL) could appoint another caretaker Senator until the next general election (in November 2018).  Considering the shaky ground Jeff Sessions is in at the Department of Justice, it is possible that Sessions be appointed back to his own seat.

[L] Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) attending [R] Senator Luther Strange (R-AL) swearing in

Recently, after a pleasant Sunday brunch, we chatted about the troubling news about Roy Moore. As the topic expanded to include sexual harassment by elected officials, two ardent feminists insisted that Congress needed to do something about it and make offenders on Capitol Hill as accountable as the rest of us.  I asked who were their bosses.  The obvious answer was the people.  I maintained that voters get to fire their elected officials periodically and they should decide rather than an insider committee.  That viewpoint was not well received.

Well, it seems that when Congress pushed to make the same rules apply to them as their constituents, there were a few quirks.  Regarding charges of sexual harassment with members of staffers, there is 30 day waiting period before pressing charges.  In addition, the victim making the accusation must undergo mandatory counseling.  That sounds munificent, except the counseling comes from the employer whom someone is accusing.  It would seem that it could be made clear to accusers that going public would not be in anyone's best interests.   If I recall correctly, John Batchelor's news-maker interview indicated that this system has paid out $15 million since its advent in the 105th Congress with nary a word making the press.

Congressional Sexual Misconduct payout ledger

What took party hacks off their sexual harassment game plan was the revelation by a Los Angeles radio personality of Al Franken's inappropriate conduct during a USO mission to the Middle East in 2006, before he was elected as Senator from Minnesota.  The woman reported that she was supposed to do a skit written by Franken that involved a kiss and wanted to rehearse-- she demurred but eventually consented.  During the practice, she alleged that Franken put his tongue halfway down her throat and grabbed her head.  She immediately insisted "Don't do that again!", and she deflected his approach during the skit.

The problem with sexual conduct and Al Franken is about the contemporaneous  photographic evidence. The woman in question wanted to grab some rack time during the 36 hour military flight.  When she was asleep, Franken was seen with a coprophagic grin cupping at her breasts.  No doubt, Franken thought this was funny at the time (and probably a great way to get back at her).  Franken has been known to take outrageous photos for laughs (but the infamous Franken diaper photo was a fake).

Citizen Al Franken takes a picture with a sleeping beauty during a 2016 USO tour.

But this Al Franken moment  was captured on camera. Oops. And the accuser is Leeane Tweeden, a KABC-AM radio personality. Tweeden initially posted #MeToo, but she decided to come forth after hearing Congresswoman Speier's (D-CA 14th)  allegations that members on both side of the aisle have thrust sexual advances while in Congress.

Now this puts a kink into progressive partisans' plans. One of their prominent members stands accused. The public has been primed to always accept the word of victims.  In addition, there is photographic proof. This takes away from the rip the GOP as blanket sexual predator smear.  Rush Limbaugh points out that in this environment, Democrats will have to proverbially throw Senator Franken (D-MN) under the bus to not to seem hypocritical and prospectively use it against their ideological opponents. 

Franken publicly apologized to his victim, claiming that he thought that it was funny.  In addition, Franken submitted himself to scrutiny from his peers.  Maybe this gets it out of the headlines and it gets buried by the press.  If push comes to shove, Minnesota has a Democrat Governor Mark Dayton (D-MN), so Franken would undoubtedly be replaced by another Democrat. 

While justice is a noble pursuit, in this charged environment, the court of public opinion may well condemn non-guilty people just based on innuendo or unproven accusations which are promptly swept under the rug out of convenience.   The reform from the 105th Congress seems to allow members to slide, in a process intended to apply the peoples' law to Congress.  Although there are Ethics Committees to punish members egregious actions, I suspect that the ballot box is still the most efficacious way to punish when swamp rats act like dirty rats. 

Concept Video: Federation Law and Klingon Justice

One of highlights of the Museum of Science Fiction's Escape Velocity 2017 Convention was the symposia on the Law and Star Trek. A panel of distinguished lawyers, including a law professor, a partner in a private practice along with a couple of attorneys working in the court system lent their collective wisdom on how legal concepts were applied on The Original Series (1966-1969), The Next Generation (1987-1991), Voyager (1995-2001) as well as several major motion pictures. The discussion consciously avoided the many violations of Star Fleet's Prime Directive, which sought to prevent the imposition of values and technologies by superior space races (i.e. civilization which had achieved warp speed).

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry originally envisioned Star Fleet justice to be meted out as would an  18th Century colonial captain. Under Admiralty Law, the highest in command in an area was the person who wheeled great discretion because of scant communications with Star Fleet Command.  But as Star Trek progressed, it seemed to favor Common Law tendencies to individual rights, guarding due process and being conscientious about justice rather than the blind application of law.

As the session was ending, these words were tested by Klingon Justice. 

The Legacy of Dirty Harry and the Reid Rule on Senate Filibusters

A legacy of former Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid (D-NV) was the effective elimination of the confirmation filibuster.  

Under the Constitution, it is the Senate's duty to confirm Executive and Judicial Branch appointments.  Senate rules allowed for confirmations with mere majorities, but needed to obtain 60 votes to cut off debate (Cloture) and preclude a filibuster.  The Cloture vote was intended to prevent endless obstructionism while still giving the minority some say in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber of Congress.

Needing to get enough votes for cloture was an incentive for Republicans to select more moderate appointees which required Senate consent.  But such Senate niceties stopped political steamrolling by Majorities who wished to exercise their unadulterated will.

When the Obama Administration sought to pack the Court of Appeals for DC (aka the DC Circuit), which is the court of authority for regulatory bodies, it ran into trouble when its candidates might not have received the requisite support for a Cloture Vote.  So then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, exercised "The Nuclear Option".  Exercising the Nuclear Option had been hotly debated in the preceding decade, but then Senate Majority Leader  Bill Frist (R-TN) opted not to circumvent tradition. 

Through Parliamentary legerdemain, Reid established a precedent in which he said that all judicial nominees, save Justices of the Supreme Court, would be considered on majority votes and did not have to pass the Cloture Vote threshold.  

The Reid Rule was great when one's party is in control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2017, President Donald Trump will occupy the White House and Republicans have a two seat majority in the Senate.  Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks that he can stymie the Trump Administration through the advice and consent clause as well as any Supreme Court nominations which do not represent progressive Democrat values.  However, Schumer may well rue the Reid rule legacy from Dirty Harry Reid. 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt had an informative colloquy on the Reid Rule.

 Republicans may not moderate their choices for positions which need to be confirmed by the Senate.  Despite Harry Reid's contention that the "Reid Rule" excludes Supreme Court nominees, it is contented that avoiding Cloture for a Supreme Court nomination would simply be a second application of the Reid Rule precedent.

Supreme Reflections on the First Monday in October

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  A Federalist Society panel previewing the Supreme Court's new term expected that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement. It  is assumed that the Supreme Court is avoiding some controversial cases to avoid having a 4-4 tie, which does not establish precedent and upholds the Appeals Court ruling.

There are several schools of thought concerning the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  If Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wins the election but if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there is good reason to believe that Obama designee Merrick Garland will be confirmed during the Lame Duck session.  Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that Lame Duck sessions are not appropriate for SCOTUS confirmations, the thinking from the GOP may well be to go with the Devil they know rather than one which they don't know.

Some Democrats believe if they win both the White House and the Senate, then Hillary would want to install her own (presumably more progressive pick).  But some optimistic institutionalists hold fast to the notion that Mrs. Clinton would abide by the process and still push forward her predecessor's choice.  Either way, in such a scenario, it would be expected that there would be a lengthy evaluation and vetting process to achieve Senatorial Advice and Consent, thus keeping the evenly divided court well into the term.

Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  A common rallying cry in Presidential elections is control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia's passing in February levels an ideologically fractured SCOTUS (four liberals, three conservatives and Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy), but with indications that progressives are itching to be more activist. 

Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected (thus unaccountable) and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While the Article V safety valve for a Convention of States has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility. 

The Star Spangled Banner-- Sing It America!

Last year was the bicentennary of the penning of Francis Scott Key's of the Star Spangled Banner. Our National Anthem is based on a poem "The Defense of Fort McHenry" about the bombardment of Baltimore by the British during the War of 1812.  The British had just burned Washington, DC  and their forces were heading North to beat "rebel" American forces in Baltimore.  What stood in the way of British military dominance was Fort McHenry, which blocked warships from entering Baltimore harbor.

The British bombarded Fort McHenry for 27 hours.  Key was aboard a Royal Navy warship negotiating the release of a prison.  During the aerial siege, the American lawyer was taunted that soon the Stars and Stripes would be replaced by the Union Jack.  On the dawn of September 14, 1812 when Francis Scott Key saw the American flag still flying over Fort McHenry, he was inspired to write: 'Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?".

Shelli Jones Manuel 

Shelli Manuel, an accomplished musician and vocalist, was inspired to educate people about the Star Spangled Banner when she interviewed Baltimoreans about the National Anthem in the city of the song's birth, yet 80% of the adults and none of the youths knew any of the verse.  No wonder people chuckle nervously at scene in The Naked Gun (1988) when Detective Frank Drebin stumbled along when singing the Star Spangled Banner at a ballgame.

There have also been movements to replace the Star Spangled Banner as the National Anthem with the Woody Guthrie folk song "This Land Is Your Land" (1940).  Guthrie's ditty was written in reaction to his repulsion to hearing Kate Smith sing  Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" (1918) on the radio, as he thought that the lyrics were unrealistic and complacent. Guthrie tinkered with the tune to occasionally include overtly political verses which showed communist sympathies. It may be a fun song to sing around a campfire but does it really depict universal American values?

Pit Bull singing Nuestro Himno (2006)

In 2006, there was a push by a bunch of Latino pop stars like Pit Bull and  to make "Nuestro Himno" a de-facto hip-hop Hispanic National Anthem. Clearly, a Spanish version of a National Anthem takes away from the unity of one song brings a nation. This was foisted on the public in the midst of the 2006 push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  What a way to Balkanize the country! 

But there is also the trickiness of translation.  The first stanza of "Nuestro Himno" was fairly accurately rendered, although references to bombs and rockets were referred to as "fierce combat" so as not to sound too militaristic.  However, the second stanza seems to totally rewrite Key's lyrics, expressing "we are equal, we are brothers."  An alternate version of "Nuestro Himno" including rapping in English exhorting: "Let's not start a war With all these hard workers They can't help where they were born."  Did they channel Woody Guthrie with some Latino flair? Fortunately, Nuestro Himno got mixed reviews and seems to have faded into the sunset. 

Miley Cyrus at 2015 VMA

In 2014, Miley Cyrus backed a "We the People" petition to President Obama to change the National Anthem from the Star Spangled Banner to "Party in the USA". Of course that publicity stunt should have been taken as seriously as Miley Cyrus would be by a Music Conservatory.  Still, the petition only fell 90,000 votes short of being addressed by the White House. Shelli Manuel and the Veterans of Foreign War also muted this mutiny of our National Anthem.

Why is it that there are multiple moves to replace the Star Spangled Banner as America's National Anthem?  Obviously, education is a key component for the anthematic cognitive dissonance. Our educational system seems to stress social history in lieu of patriotic concentrations.  Moreover, students are conditioned to consider the United States a warmonger, misinterpreting the "bombs and rockets" as aggression rather than standing in self-defense.

Another aspect which people wonder "What the Hail?" about our National Anthem is the tune.  Key was a lawyer and poet, not a composer. Hence he borrowed the already established tune "The Anacreontic Song" (To Anacreon in Heaven). Unfortunately, that was a popular English tavern tune which was used as a sobriety test-- members could be refused another round if sang off key or flubbed the lyrics.   Key ought not be chagrined at borrowing popular melodies, as that is what Guthrie did for "This Land Is Your Land" too.

There has been some consternation about stylized instrumental arrangements of the Star Spangled Banner, like Jimi Hendrix guitar solo rendition at Woodstock (1969) or Jose Feliciano's soulful arrangement at Tiger Stadium during the 1968 World Series.  

Tastes can differ but so long as the musician does not make a mockery of the National Anthem like Rosanne Barr did in 1990, we can tolerate it so long as the lyrics are not butchered or altered.


To combat this ignorance and indolence about the Star Spangled Banner, Shelli Manuel took a multi-faceted approach.  After singing at a subdued 2014 bicentennary celebration for the Star Spangled Banner in Baltimore, Shelli Manuel sprang into action.  Manuel organized Sing It America to educate the public about our National Anthem.  The group convinced the United States Senate to honor and give thanks to the Star Spangled Banner  to have a year long celebration of the Star Spangled Banner. Moreover, Senate Resolution. 550 (2014) expresses the Senate sentiment that all the current verses of the Star Spangled Banner remain the National Anthem in perpetuity, including the "Forgotten Prayer Verse". 

But aside from symbolic Senate votes, Sing It America launched a comprehensive educational program to help students learn about the Star Spangled Banner.  

In the Bicentennial year, the National Symphony Orchestra premiered a new symphonic arrangement of the Star Spangled Banner at "A Capitol Fourth". But Shelli Manuel wanted to demonstrate that the Star Spangled Banner can be performed well in a variety of arrangements and settings.  So Sing It America arranged a Marathon 24 hour celebration of the Star Spangled Banner on the 201st anniversary from 5am to 5am on the National Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Dozens of groups will sing the National Anthem every hour on the hour.

This dedication to the Star Spangled Banner shows that the National Anthem is not just a pro-forma tradition before sporting events.  The Sing It America Marathon and educational efforts invite Americans to deeply enter into the meaning of the Star Spangled Banner and see the lyrics of our National Anthem as a credo reflecting our freedom, our history, acknowledgement of Divine Providence, and self defense.

Judging the Judge

In reaction to King v. Burwell (SCOTUScare previously known as Obamacare) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which imposed Same Sex Marriage through out the US) by the US Supreme Court, Senator Ted Cruz offered a modest proposal to remedy judicial activism without recourse--judicial retention elections.

.

Richard Kopf, a US District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska and publisher of the blog Hercules and the Umpire: The Role of the Federal Trial Judge, wrote a piece which scathed Senator Cruz and his "modest proposal".

Kopf's piece was provocative and engaging for a policy wonk.  However, an article which Judge Kopft titled:"Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President" seems to go beyond responding to a policy proposal and directly into the political field.

One does not have to slog through sometime like Judge Kopf's 474 page opinion in Carhart  et ali. v. Ashcroft (2004) which struck down Partial Birth Abortion bans to read Canon 5(A)(2) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which states: "A judge should not . . . make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."  Even the hoi polloi without law degrees can understand that a article like "Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President" falls under Canon 5(A)(2).

This illustrates Senator Cruz's point about checks on the judiciary.  In a Congress which can not muster 60 votes to block an Attorney General like Loretta Lynch who vowed not to follow certain lawbreaking by the Obama Administration (such as on immigration), impeachment is unlikely.  So there are black robed politicians who can participate in the political process and even legislate from the bench without recourse by "We the People". 

It could be argued that  some slack can be cut for  Kopf as the 68 year old Judge  assumed Senior Status in December, 2011.  However, Kopf's public opposition of a candidate for public office seems to be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.  As a senior status judge, Kopf receives full salary with a reduced case load.  Hence, a senior status is not an honorific emeritus title. So a compromised jurist is still sitting on the bench, unless Judge Kopf does the honorable thing and resigns.

As people become more frustrated with judicial tyranny, reformers may find ways to remedy usurpations of the Constitution.  While it is dubious if judicial retention elections would work on a federal level, Judge Kopf's case epitomizes that the system is broken and the rule of law is unreliable as things stand.

UPDATE 07/09/2015

 Judge Kopf offered a half hearted apology for his "Ted Cruz is unfit to be President" piece.  In a letter to Professor Orin Kerr (also published on Judge Kopf's blog)  Judge Kopf acknowledged the analysis by The The Volokh Conspiracy on the  Code of Judicial Ethics Canon (5)(A)(2). However, Kopf insisted that a Second Circuit ruling in Calabresi was not strictly speaking  precedent in in the District of Nebraska. Still Kopf anticipated that the same standard might be applied in his Eighth Circuit.  So, Kopf wrote:  " Consequently, apologize to you, Senator Cruz and everyone else for my error."

Yet rather than have to good grace to admit an error and be gone, Judge Kopf pressed his point about judicial elections of Supreme Court Justices, insisting that such commentary fell under Code of Judicial Ethics (4)(A)(1).   Some apology. I was wrong for going too far but I'll still stand by my political pontifications.

Violators of civil infractions do not get to just say "My bad" and be done.  While an apology is appreciated, it is insufficient. Judge Kopf demonstrated that he does not (or no longer) exercises judicial temperament to have violated such a basic tenant of the profession.  If there were any justice, Judge Kopf would resign his senior status and no longer preside from the bench.  He seems to enjoy publishing.  May he continue to opine on Hercules and the Umpire and enjoy his retirement since he has trouble operating under judicial ethics.

Why the Red Card on the FIFA World Cup of Corruption?

In the wake of Attorney General Loretta Lynch pulling out a red card on 14 F.I.F.A officials for an alleged World Cup of Corruption, Russian President Vladimir Putin opined that the Americans were offsides. 

It is bizarre that Putin purports that the United States is culminating a three year investigation in order to interfere with the F.I.F.A. election of Joseph Sepp  Blatter, but that sort of agiprop distracts from the Russians continuing to mass heavy firepower on the Ukrainian border. But then again, Putin's Russia used the Sochi Winter Olympics as cover for initially invading Crimea in 2014.

To answer why the Department of Justice issued a 47 count indictment over F.I.F.A. corruption, it is worth noting that the plots were hatched in the United States and utilized the U.S. banking system.  It is wrong to think that the F.I.F.A. case does not affect American politics either.  The United States missed out on winning the 2018 World Cup to the Russian Federation's Sochi bid and the out of the box award to Qatar in 2022.  The U.S. would be a natural backup in case either the Russian or Qatari bids fall through.

Moreover,  the Clinton Foundation received between  $50,000 and $100,000 and partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association.  President Bill Clinton was said to have been so upset at the US losing the 2022 World Cup bid to Qatar that he smashed a mirror.  But the Qatar 2022 tried to make it up by giving the Clinton Foundation  $250,000 and $500,000 as well as the Qatari government pitching in between $1 million and $5 million.

This may only be the beginning of the F.I.F.A. fallout. Suddenly the business of soccer has become very exiting.  Goooooooooooool!

h/t: Steve Bell

Dead Man Walking Nun Gives Explosive Testimony on Boston Bomber's Private Remorse

Before the defense rested its case during the penalty phase of the surviving Boston Bomber's trial,  Attorney Miriam Conrad called to the stand Sister Helen Prejean, C.J.S. to testify about Dzhohkar Tsarnaev's character. The 76 year old nun gained renown for her book Dead Man Walking (1994), that has been made into a movie (1996) an opera (2000) and a play  written by Tim Robbins (2002).  Dead Man Walking chronicles insights of the mindset of convicted murderers drawn from interacting with two prisoners on death row. The experience lead Sister Prejean to become an ardent anti-capital punishment activist.

Sister Prejean met with Tsarnaev five times since early March 2015. Sister Prejean testified that the 21 year old Tsarnaev brother seemed genuinely sorry for his actions. In fact, Prejean quoted the Boston Bomber: "No one deserves to suffer as they did." Prejean purported that Tsarnaev's "face registered" what he was saying as "absolutely sincere".  CNN reporter Deborah Feyerick claimed this was nothing short of explosive testimony.



It's a pity that Dzhohkar Tsarnaev chose not to take the stand during the guilt phase, in which he was convicted on all 30 counts, nor during the penalty phase, so that the people could discern if it was real remorse or crocodile tears delivered through an earnest activist. Boston Bombing victims in the gallery shook their heads during claims that Tsarnaev was remorseful.

One revealing threat of testimony which was quickly quashed was when Sister Prejean started to speak about comparative religions.  Sister Prejean noted that the Catholic Church had become more and more opposed to the death penalty. The prosecution objected on that point (as they had been chary about an anti Capital Punishment advocate testifying in the first place).  Defense Attorney Conrad interjected "Let me stop you right there".

 Was this a quick acquiescence to an inevitable objection or did the Defense not want to be too explicit in revealing their hand to the jury on Prejean's presence? Defense experts note that if one juror objects to the death penalty, then the Defense achieves its objective and Tsarnaev gets a life sentence without parole.  It is thought that someone of Sister Prejean's stature might be able to influence the jury.

Another ancillary aspect of Sister Prejean's testimony was playing to the look of innocence.  Prejean testified that when she first met Tsarnaev: "I walked in the room, I looked at his face and said, 'Oh my God, he's so young!'" .  This played into the defense argument about youthfulness and impressionability.  It echoes the Tiger Beat style cover of Rolling Stone.  This innocent impression lends more sympathy then the fact that Tsarnaev was convicted of mounting a jihad inspired attack to punish American which killed three people and wounded 264 people.

Although it is understandable that an anti-Capital Punishment advocate like the Sister Prejean would want to testify on behalf of the Boston Bomber, it strains credulity that Tsarnaev's defense would rely on hearsay of remorse rather than have the convicted criminal show his true self up on the stand.

After eight days of testimony which called upon 44 witnesses, the defense rested its case after Sister Prejean's testimony.  The twelve jurors will begin deliberations on Wednesday to determine if Tsarnaev would be in line for a lethal injection or serving a life sentence (presumably at Supermax) without possibility of parole.

Scrutinizing Sonia Sotomayor on Judicial Activism

  

 When speaking before the Forum Club in Palm Beach and the Palm Beach County (Florida) Bar Association,  Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor dismissed concerns about judicial activism by denying that it exists.  She later elaborated: "What you will find out is that both sides always base it on a legal analysis. We don't come to our conclusions willy-nilly or arbitrarily. There won't be any decision you read where you will think that a judge is an activist." But Sotomayor's pithy quip raises questions about her judicial philosophy. 

 While the "Wise Latina" has occasionally uttered allegiance the rule of law and that the role of a judge is not to make the law but to apply it, Sotomayor sometimes seems content to include herself in the process. Sotomayor earned the moniker during her Senate confirmation hearings when she refused to renounce her inspiring words about being a "Wise Latina" judge who would make better decisions. Sotomayor tried to walk back the exclusivity of the exclamation, but that is hard when you say: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while male who hasn't lived that life." 

 As Justice Sotomayor was publicizing her autobiographical book Mi mundo adorado / My Beloved World (2013), she revealed to the New York Times that:

“It is my great hope that I’ll be a great justice, and that I’ll write opinions that will last the ages. But that doesn’t always happen. More importantly, it’s only one measure of meaning in life. To me, the more important one is my values and my impact on people who feel inspired in any way by me....Serving as a role model is the most valuable thing I can do.”

But does a consciousness on being a role model make for a sort of judicial activism which inserts the self into a rendering of justice?

Justice Sotomayor has been candid about how her unconventional background permeates her position.  As she has said: "Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means - and in any context, whether it's judicial or otherwise - I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system."  Moreover,  Sotomayor has mused that: "Personal experiences affect the facts which judges choose to see."  And Tea Party types hold that silly thought that justice is blind.

 Justice Sotomayor has even reached out to the crumb chasers  with her appearance  on Sesame Street in which the dialogue sounded as leaden as the cafecita.

 

 While the baby talk explanation of what her job is works for the kinder care sect, one wonders if it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Justice Sotomayor's role on the Supreme Court.   Sotomayor describes her duties as being a judge who solves arguments by giving his or her opinion. Really?  As the nation's highest court, SCOTUS determines the law not solving arguments.  Is this done through giving one's opinion or through judicial interpretation (her opinion on the law)?

No wonder Justice Sotomayor does not believe in judicial activism as it seems like the root of her judicial philosophy with a veneer of the rule of law and the spiff of class conscious inspiration.

Duke Ditches Plan to Sound the Friday Call to Prayer Across Campus

Duke University announced that the Muslim Call to Prayer would be broadcast every Friday at 1PM. This was being done to promote religious pluralism for the 700 Muslim students on campus. Imam Adel Zeeb, the Muslim chaplain at Duke explained: "The adhan is the call to prayer that brings Muslims back to their purpose in life, which is to worship God and serves as a reminder to serve our brothers and sisters in humanity." 

 Off-campus, however, reaction to this news was swift and condemnatory.  The Reverend Franklin Graham took to social media to express disapproval of Duke's decision.  Although Muslim students had been meeting in the basement of the Chapel for years, Rev. Franklin felt that amplifying the adan was poisonous pluralism.  Franklin posited that: "You're taking that bell tower, and you're turning it into a Muslim minaret. I think it's a slap at the Christian faith."

The day after the Duke Call To Prayer idea was shared with the world, Duke University backtracked on the decision. Michael Schoenfeld, Duke's Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations, stated:

“Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students. However, it was clear that what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect.”

It may not have just been Franklin Graham's moral suasion which won the battle for the bell tower. Franklin Graham's initial Facebook post suggested that alumni and donors ought to withhold support until the decision was reversed.

After University officials opted  against amplifying the adan, Rev. Graham posted his support for Duke's decision.

Omid Safi, the director of Duke's Islamic Studies program, disputed the notion that the Call to Prayer was an effort to supplant Christianity on campus.

"Every day from that same Duke chapel, church bells ring, and twice on Sunday. The cross is on the emblem of Duke University. The entire quad, and the entire campus of Duke University is laid out as a cross. And the Christian chapel is the very symbol of Duke University. So the kind of fanatical proclamation that Christianity is being erased from Duke’s campus is frankly a poor indication of the intelligence of that argument."

While it is true that Duke University was founded by Methodists and Quakers, the Blue Devil's campus has long been operating as a secular school.  It is facile reasoning that the church bell rings twice on Sunday at Duke Chapel as it ignores the symbolic importance of the adan.  Duke's Chapel is at the highest ridge on campus and one of the highest points in  Durham County.  Having the Collegiate Gothic Chapel broadcast the prayer Friday afternoon would be interpreted by radicalized religious as establishing the dominance of Islam over those academic ivory towers.

It is reminiscent of the controversy over the 2010 proposed "Cordoba House" at Park 51 near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.  There was a great effort by Developer Sharif El-Gamal to plant a mosque in the area, even though there was not a large enough community to support it.  Three years after the mosque opened, El-Gamal announced that he aspired to build a three story museum dedicated to Islam near Ground Zero.  

What explains this obsession with establishing iconic Islamic edifices near prominent real estate?  As Robert Spencer speculated about the current Park 51 plans:

“The structure as you describe it would be as grotesque as a three-story museum dedicated to exploring the faith of Shintoism and emperor-worship, and its arts and culture, with a sanctuary for prayer services and community programs, at Pearl Harbor." 

We in the west seem like we are metaphobes who are incapable of appreciating the significance of symbolism or the political impact of Islam.  They fail to consider that Islam is a holistic system which incorporates law, governance as well as spirituality.  

Radicalized Islamists seek to impose sharia law through cultural jihad.  France is grappling with a suspicion the political correctness coupled with Islamic accommodations is creating an Islamicized France. While the majority of North American Muslims seem content to live in a secular society with a pluralistic polity, it is easy to understand why some are chary about allowing accommodations which can be seen as a primus entre pares situation.