Is Obama paying back David Paterson?

There has been a minor dust up regarding President Obama urging Gov Paterson of NY not to seek reelection. We saw Michael Steele make the assertion that it was "curious" on why the White House would ask New York Gov. David Paterson (D) not to run for reelection in 2010.

"I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for reelection,"
...
"It raises a curious point for me. I think Gov. Paterson's numbers are about the same as [New Jersey] Gov. [Jon] Corzine's. The president is with Gov. Corzine."

The implication here is that Obama is paying back Gov Paterson for not choosing Caroline Kennedy to replace Sen Hillary Clinton. This is the argument made forcefully by Professor Darren Hutchinson at Dissenting Justice here and here. I disagree with Professor Hutchinsons analysis on several points. He makes the link between Corzine just as Steele does but this is a bad comparison as steve benen points out.

First, Corzine and Paterson are not exactly in the same boat, and the comparison is silly. Corzine is running this year; polls show him trailing but closing the gap; and there wasn't a stronger candidate last year, waiting in the wings. Paterson is up next year; polls show him with almost comically low approval ratings; and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) is strongly favored by voters, both among Democrats and among voters in general.

Professor Hutchinson makes several other points involving the role that race plays here. I am not going to deny that patterson's opponents may be racially motivated. i dont have evidence either way. What i could say is that it places the president in an awkward position when Gov Paterson runs and gets trounced by Cuomo. He has to either support one of the only black governors in the country in a losing bid risking charges of racial bias or he has to back cuomo instigating charges such as the ones that prof. hutchinson makes, favoritism for elites, pay for play etc. It is better for Obama to try and head off this type of choice.

Developing a deeper bench of african american candidates is an important goal. backing a losing candidate because he is black is not. paterson running creates a mess and its not something obama will want to deal with. obama has shown himself to be adverse to these types of complications. he wants the safe noncontroversial candidate ala joe lieberman over lamont.

The point is that i think there are very compelling reasons for Obama to urge Paterson not to run that have nothing to do with the Kennedy appointment fiasco. the world wont end if paterson runs but it will make obama's life more difficult.

Read more...

Race and Colorblindness

I have been extremely busy but David has a link and post up on racial views of children that have implications for the way we treat race in society and i wanted to discuss it.

It is a very good piece, particularly because it explodes a lot of myths. One is that diverse schools are not a panacea that will lead to cross-racial friendship and understanding. Apparently not: students in integrated schools still tend to self-segregate dramatically. Of course, they do that in segregated schools too -- the article claims that only 8% of White kids and 15% of Black kids have a "best friend" of the opposite race -- but integrated schools don't seem to help.

Second, the article takes aim at what I have elsewhere called colorphobia: the fear of race as a conceptual category. The article opens by noting the failure of a study which sought to measure the effect of multicultural and egalitarian messaging by parents to young children. The problem was that the parents resisted engaging in specific race-talk as required by the study parameters. Some dropped out entirely, others just didn't say anything beyond extremely vague bromides like "everyone is equal". And, unsurprisingly, this had very little effect on the attitudes of young children.

The first step in treating a problem is admitting that you have a problem. This post goes directly to the heart of a major problem in contemporary politics and American Society--the failure to acknowledge race as a legitimate factor in decisions. The recent trend among conservatives and the public at large seems to be in favor of a colorblind system akin to that exacted in france where race and ethnicity data wasnt even collected until recently.

We see strains of this thought most often in reverse discrimination cases where the majority is discriminated against. Personally im not really in favor of protecting the majority with the 14th Amendment in the way that prevents all considerations of race. reading the 14th Amendment to prevent racial considerations is a way to prevent direct action aimed at eliminating systematic discrimination. While it makes sense in theory to treat equally qualified people with no regard for skin color in truth there is no complete equality in two candidates. Each will be better than the other at certain things and racial diversity itself has value.

The study David cites shows that children who are not given serious information on race pick up the generally negative and seperational tendencies of our society at large. By not recognizing that the differences need to be addressed and not papered over we are locking in the traditional systematic views that regard racial differences as being important. It typifies the problems of the colorblind system. Existing problems cannot be ignored and they dont work themselves out.

Im sure there is a ton of literature on this out there but i just wanted to make the colorblind legal connection explicit

Read more...

Hal Turner and the Limits of Free Speech

When you state that someone deserves to die and that their death would replenish the tree of liberty as well as assure the freedom of millions, is your speech protected? That is the central question in the case of right wing radical and white supremacist associate hal turner. Turner's blog entry of June 2 and his subsequent arrest set off a rather large wave of discussion across the Internet. Turner isnt an unknown fringer blogging but a prominent right wing radio host. His speech is often shocking and because of his history and the nature of his speech he provides an interesting case for the boundaries of free speech.

Turners exact conduct

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed," Turner wrote on his blog on June 2, according to the FBI. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."

The next day, Turner posted photographs of the appellate judges and a map showing the Chicago courthouse where they work, noting the placement of "anti-truck bomb barriers."
...
On his blog, Turner cited another 7th Circuit ruling against white supremacist Matthew Hale, who once called for Lefkow's assassination. Turner also mentioned the Lefkow murders, although they were unrelated to the Hale case.

"Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed," Turner wrote. "These judges deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary: Obey the Constitution or die."

The current test to determine when speech crosses the line from protected speech to unprotected speech comes from brandenburg v ohio. From Brandenburg v. Ohio

"... the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

So turners potential protection rides on three factors.
1) Is what he wrote considered advocacy?
2) Was the lawless action imminent?
3) Was the production of the action from the speech likely?

The first step is deciding whether Turner was actually advocating for the deaths of the three federal judges. Based on his statements that the judges deserve to be killed it is still plausible to categorize the speech as opinion and not advocacy. There is a gap between suggesting that were something to occur it would be ok or even good and actually directing someone to do it. It is a thin line -- but a line. If all he had said was that, Turner might have a decent chance. His problem is that he went a little further.

In addition to positively speaking about their deaths turner provided pictures of the judges, directions to the courthouse, and locations of security measures. These actions in association with his words make it very hard to say that he didn't intend for something to happen to them. Those actions provide some context that indicates his words were more than opinion. The references to a previous assassination also make his statements look less like opinion and more like a call to action. My feeling is that will find that he was advocating not spouting opinion.

The second part of the test is the temporal element. Was turner advocating for the imminent assassinations of the judges. If we take the OSHA version we define imminent danger as immediate serious risk of death or serious physical harm. I think it is safe to say that if he was advocating for their assassination he was asking for it to happen soon before they could make more adverse rulings or otherwise rule against his perceived definition of liberty. Turner certainly wanted it to happen before they ruled to take his guns away. he seemed to portray that this would happen soon. I am satisfied that he was not advocating for this to happen at some undefined date far into the future.


The final piece of the puzzle is the likelihood that the actions turner was advocating could come to pass. It's hard to say whether the violence turner advocated was truly likely. There have not been any reports of someone acting based on turner's words but actual danger isnt the standard. How long do you have to wait before something can be considered likely? Till the bomber buys the material? Till the bomb is made? For myself im satisfied that in the current political climate with the assassination of George Tiller and the shootings in Stanton Heights and the Lefcow killings the nature of the threat turner was inciting could be classified as likely. The issue may eventually make it to the Court simply to provide guidance on this term.

I agree with First Amendment scholar Martin H. Redish quoted in the WaPo that

"...much of what Turner wrote is protected by the Constitution, including his declarations that the judges should be eliminated. But he said Turner probably crossed a line when he printed information about the judges, their office locations and the courthouse.

"I would give very strong odds on a thousand bucks that once he said that stuff, it takes it out of any kind of hyperbole range," said Redish, a professor at Northwestern University Law School. "I just don't see him being protected."

Turner's speech should not ultimately be protected. Not explicitly mentioned in the WaPo article is the undercurrent that the judiciary is not likely to be lenient on calls for their deaths. I dont believe that a court is going to need a particularly strong likelihood that a fellow judge is going to be assassinated before they criminalize the speech. Maybe they shouldnt take the fact that the potential targets are fellow judges into account but i think they will. If it comes down to it they might even try and fit this into the "fighting words" doctrine. Turner is going to be going to prison for his blog entry. I think he exceeded the bounds of protected political speech.

Read more...

The Next Justice

With the recent confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor President Obama managed to add two axis of diversity to the Court. So whats next? Given the temperament of both obama and justice sotomayor i dont envision obama nominating someone radically different in judicial philosophy or style. When you have nailed down the type of person that president obama is likely to nominate the next logical question is exactly what vessel the philosophy will come in. i think Obama should actually nominate another woman of color. My prediction is that he will nominate a white guy the second time around.

It would be a bold stroke to nominate another woman of color. Given the rather white and male history of the court adding more women to the mix sets an important precedent. Adding a woman should be common place, unremarkable. It can only get that way if presidents establish a pattern of nominating women often. Likewise nominating people of color, asian or black or latino or whatever it doesnt matter, is something that should be considered common. If President Obama doesnt start to establish the precedent i am not confident it will happen any time soon.

The reason i am skeptical about the nomination of another woman of color to the Court is that the reaction will be great at this point in time. I do believe their would be a rather large racial backlash from the right claiming that the black man is executing an affirmative action plan for minorities by nominating them to the court. This would likely be a big political headache for the president and i doubt obama cares enough about placing an actual woman or minority on the bench as long as he feels their interests are well represented by the person he does choose. Its a fight he doesnt have to engage in. Instead he can preserve all his energy for fights on his other big challenges like energy reform or immigration reform or health care reform if we are still dealing with that.

Read more...

They took our healthcare!

I havent written very much this summer mostly because i have been busy. Also im not a healthcare wonk and thats been the main conversation. The townhall disruptions do remind me of this.



The entire idea behind the townhall disruptions is to intimidate, bully, and oppress. When conservatives cant win on the merits of an intellectual argument they resort to violence and fear as the primary tool.

Read more...