Tom Goldstein, editor of SCOTUSblog and speaker at the RAC’s recent conference “The Pew and the Bench,” wrote a great article in SCOTUSblog yesterday, with a title tells all: “On October 4th, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice and Justice Ginsburg Will Look Across the Bench at Her New Colleague and Smile.” This prophetic piece debunks the rumors that there will be two Supreme
Court vacancies this summer and makes a convincing argument that Elena
Kagan, Solicitor General, is the presumptive nominee to fill Justice
John Paul Stevens’ seat. Goldstein’s insights into the politics,
process, and posturing that are involved in the nomination of a Supreme
Court Justice make this article a must-read.
But, do you think Goldstein is right? Is there going to be just one
vacancy? And, is Kagan the best choice to fill it?
Sometimes, believing in gender equality and working toward it means celebrating victories. There were victories in achieving women’s suffrage with the 19th Amendment, passing women’s rights legislation such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, affirming a woman’s dominion over her own body in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, and more recently, in last year’s Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
But more often than not, being an advocate for women’s rights means being surrounded by reminders of the work yet to be done, of remaining inequalities and injustices. A “one-stop-shop” for these reminders, this article from Sunday’s Washington Post takes a sobering perspective.
Perhaps the author discounts the progress made against systematic and legal discrimination in this country, but she is not wrong when writes that “the appearance of equality…is a dangerous distraction from the pervasiveness of sexism.” There is an “epidemic of sexism” in this country, women aren’t yet equal, and more remains to be done. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act needs the Paycheck Fairness Act to be effective, the news is full of instances of targeted violence against women, both internationally and here in America, and a woman’s fundamental and constitutionally-assured right to privacy is under relentless and insidious attack from anti-choice advocates and legislators.
If I disagree with the tone and perspective of the article it is in this way: We cannot live solely in the world as it should be, but rather, must also live in the world as it is. What this means is that while arguments framed in morality, those that rely on what we should do or believe, are significant and powerful, we must also move beyond them to new lines of reasoning.
We need to talk about how pay equity benefits businesses, how ending violence against women grows local economies and how strengthening the rights of women abroad and ending violence against women internationally is a down-payment on our national security. As we work for the rights of women we must find strategies to convince hold-outs that it is actually in their best interests to choose justice over injustice, equality over discrimination.
So I urge you to read the article, but rather than allow it to leave you disheartened and discouraged, move beyond the shortcomings of our society. Find allies, including the Religious Action Center, and explore new arguments and perspectives for achieving gender equality.
Please feel free to contact me at (202) 387-2800 or at [email protected] with any questions.
I’ve always been an international news-enthusiast (some may say junkie – when cleaning up my childhood room a few months ago, I found articles clipped from New York Times and Wall Street Journal that had fascinated me over the years). I have continued to enjoy keeping my finger on the pulse of the world, especially the Middle East.
Navigating the morass of information available both in print and on the internet can be daunting, but I am a firm believer in synthesizing multiple perspectives and sources. Toward this aim, I subscribe to the Daily Alert, distributed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
The Conference of Presidents is a central coordinating body for the American Jewish community, representing 52 national Jewish agencies from across political and religious spectra, including the Union for Reform Judaism.
Arriving at my inbox around 7am EST each morning, the Daily Alert is a digest compiled from a broad range of respected news sources. To all those interested in keeping abreast with the latest on Israel, Iran, and issues of importance to the world Jewish community, I recommend subscribing to the Daily Alert. Below are some of the headlines and news summaries from today’s Daily Alert – I highly recommend signing up. And if you want to talk Mideast news and politics, drop me an email!
Iran to Build Enrichment Sites Inside Mountains – Ali Akbar Dareini Iran
said Monday it plans to build two new uranium enrichment facilities deep inside
mountains to protect them from attack. Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi
said Tehran intends to use
its more advanced centrifuges at the new sites, which will be able to enrich
uranium much faster than the old ones. This means Iran
could amass more material in a shorter space of time that could be turned into
the fissile core of missiles.
Salehi said the new enrichment sites will be equal to that of
Natanz in terms of production capacity but smaller in geographical size. More
than 8,600 centrifuges have been set up in Natanz, but only about 3,800 are
actively enriching uranium, according to the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The facility will eventually house 54,000 centrifuges. (AP-Washington
Post)
See also U.S.: Iran Plan Is Further Evidence It Rejects
Engagement
The U.S. said Monday that Iran’s plan to build two new uranium enrichment
plants is “further evidence” it rejects engagement with the
international community. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley added that
the U.S.
and other powers were reviewing Iranian targets for sanctions and Washington
would offer specific proposals to the UN in the coming weeks. President Obama’s
administration has increasingly turned its attention to sanctions after its
first-year bid to engage Iran
in talks over its nuclear program yielded nothing concrete. U.S. officials say Iran‘s
behavior shows it does not want to cooperate with the world community. (AFP)
Gen. Mullen: Iran Concerns Middle Eastern Neighbors – Donna Miles
Just back from a trip to the Middle East, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, on Monday cited widespread concern about Iran’s nuclear
program, but emphasized the importance of diplomatic and economic pressure,
rather than military action, to stem it. Mullen cited concern about Iran as an overarching
theme during his recent visit to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
All share the U.S.
belief that Iran‘s
nuclear program is headed on a path to achieve weaponization – a pursuit Mullen
said further destabilizes the region.
“Like us, it isn’t just a nuclear-capable Iranian military
our friends worry about,” he said. “It’s an Iran
with hegemonic ambitions and a desire to dominate its neighbors. This outcome
drives many of the national security decisions our partners there are making,
and I believe we must be mindful of that as we look to the future, post-Iraq
and post-Afghanistan.” (American Forces Press Service-U.S.
Defense Department)
Archaeologist
Finds Jerusalem Wall Matching Biblical Story – Nir Hasson
A team of Israeli archaeologists has announced the discovery of a massive wall
they say dates to the 10th century BCE in Jerusalem‘s Ophel Park
on the slope between the Temple Mount
and the village of Silwan. The
dig director, Dr. Eilat Mazar, dates the wall according to potshards found
nearby to the period of King Solomon and the major period of construction in Jerusalem in the FirstTemple
period, as described in the Bible. The dig is a joint project by the HebrewUniversity,
the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.
Along with the wall, which is 10 meters high and 70 meters long,
other structures were found, including a monumental gatehouse and a tower.
“This is the first time a structure has been found that could conform to
descriptions of King Solomon’s construction in Jerusalem,”
Mazar says. (Ha’aretz)
Iran at History’s Fork in the Road – Richard N. Haass
One future for Iran
would be mostly an extension of what already exists, i.e., an Iran
run by conservative clerics and an aggressive Revolutionary Guard. The
emergence of such a future would present the world with a stark choice: either
acquiesce to an Iran
that possesses or could quickly assemble a nuclear device, or launch a
preventive military attack designed to destroy much of the Iranian nuclear
program.
While a preventive strike would delay Iran‘s
nuclear efforts, it would not stop the regime from rebuilding, and it might
also create conditions that cause problems for the regime’s domestic opponents.
Despite these potential drawbacks, an armed attack on Iran‘s nuclear facilities
will and should remain a distinct possibility given the enormous strategic
costs of a nuclear-armed Iran.
If history is a guide, even strong sanctions may not be enough to
persuade Iran‘s
rulers to negotiate constructively and accept meaningful constraints on their
nuclear activities. These considerations raise the prospect of trying to bring
about an alternative future: an Iran
with a political leadership that is more moderate at home and abroad, and that
forgoes developing a nuclear weapon or anything close to it. The writer is
president of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Korea
Times)
The Best of the Bad Options on Iran – Leslie H. Gelb
No one has a magic bullet for the Iran
puzzle. What can be done is to work very closely with our Arab friends in the
Gulf to strengthen them in the face of increasing Iranian pressure. This would
include efforts to bolster the legitimacy of friendly regional governments plus
very public upgrades of U.S.
capabilities to defend them, as the Obama administration is doing with missile
defenses. It also means proceeding with sanctions against the Revolutionary
Guard. It entails continuing to try to sabotage Iran‘s
uranium-enrichment and other nuclear programs as well. Finally, it also means
preserving present negotiating proposals, but not pushing them. The writer
is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Daily Beast)
Are gasoline sanctions against Iran
a bad idea? The White House worries that without plentiful petrol,
Iranians might grow angry and rally around the regime.
Sanctions hitting the energy sector could also be
viewed by Tehran as
outright war. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could counter in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And to make these sanctions effective, Washington
might need to coerce our European allies, whose companies have the lion’s
share of the gasoline import and import-related insurance business.
(Without insurance, tankers never leave harbor.)
For sanctions to be a game changer, they have to be
crushing. And sanctions must complement the only thing that has so far
rattled the regime: the pro-democracy Green Movement. Gasoline and
insurance sanctions tied to the cause of democracy might – just possibly –
work.
Iranians who are fed up with theocracy are certainly
not going to embrace it if Obama declares gasoline sanctions the midwife
of representative government. If sanctions are waged in the name of the
Iranian people, we are much more likely to see Western opinion remain
solidly behind them.
Vice President Biden delivered his speech at the National Defense University, a higher education institute that trains military and national security personnel. I was already excited to see another political celeb in person, but I was hardly prepared for how up-close-and-personal I would be with the Vice President!
As an invited guest of the White House, I cleared security in minutes, received a personal escort to the auditorium, and was invited to “sit anywhere in the second, third, or fourth rows” – what a treat! I promptly seated myself in the second row.
Taking in my surroundings and securing a clear view of the dais, a White House staffer affixed the Vice Presidential seal to the podium. The audience was an incredible commingling of military personnel (the officers seated ahead of me in the first row were having a great time taking group photos), long-time NGO non-proliferation advocates, and political employees. Within minutes, the Vice President and Defense Secretary Robert Gates emerged, paused for a photo-op, and took to the stage. Secretary Gates pointed out other notables in attendance, including Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Cartwright, and then welcomed Vice President Biden to begin.
With a brief bit of humor (after stumbling over the word “statesmen,” he went on to ad lib: “many statesmen have walked these grounds before me – and all of them have pronounced ‘statesmen’ better than me!”), the Vice President briefly touched on the history of the United States nuclear program, noting “that the past century’s defining conflicts were decided not just on the battlefield, but in the classroom and in the laboratory.”
The negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia,
The strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims both for nuclear powers to pursue disarmament and the prevention of non-nuclear states from achieving nuclear capability; and
The Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), with the goal of preventing terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Vice President Biden noted the importance of preventing North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through the implementation of strict sanctions. Further, he emphasized the President’s intended $7 billion in FY 2011 budget for maintenance and modernization of our nuclear stockpile. For me and many others, this announcement was seemingly incompatible with the strong commitment for the United States to lead and pursue the cause of a world free of nuclear weapons. To that end, the Vice President made the following remark:
“As both the only nation to have used nuclear weapons, and as a strong proponent of non-proliferation, the United States has long embodied a stark but inevitable contradiction. The horror of nuclear conflict may make its occurrence unlikely, but the very existence of nuclear weapons leaves the human race ever at the brink of self-destruction, particularly if the weapons fall into the wrong hands….The awesome force at our disposal must always be balanced by the weight of our shared responsibility.”
Looking to the future, these three treaties will shape arms control policy for the United States and the entire world. Will you be watching and speaking out to see and influence what happens? I know I will!
Last week, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “the biggest open secret” in the federal case currently being argued in California challenging Proposition 8 is that the judge who is hearing and deciding the case, Vaughn Walker, is gay. In accordance with the normal procedures for district courts, Judge Walker was randomly assigned to hear the Prop 8 case. While Judge Walker has not publicly declared his sexual orientation (nor should he be expected to), the newspaper’s story has nonetheless sparked a debate about whether his sexual orientation should be relevant to the trial and whether he should have recused himself from the case.
On the question of whether or not his sexual orientation is relevant, Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog declared, “it’s hard to see how it isn’t, especially if you believe that the opinions of judges, try as they might to divorce their personal opinions from their rulings, are invariably colored and informed by their own experiences, just like the rest of us.” But, of course, this begs the question of whether a straight judge would have been the subject of similar accusations of bias. As People for The American Way explained so eloquently, “The unspoken offensive presumption at work here is that people who come to the law with a life experience that is considered “normal” – say, straight white male Christian – are inherently unbiased, or that their life experience somehow gives them a singularly correct way of viewing the law. Others are suspect.”
Setting aside the legal question of whether Judge Walker had to recuse himself, there is the question of whether he should have recused himself. This is largely a question of optics. Debra Sanders of the San Francisco Gate makes this argument: “The problem is that where there may not be a conflict of interest, there may be the appearance of conflict – and that matters, too. Many California voters already are fed up with imperious judicial rulings – and a majority of California voters approved Prop. 8. While Walker certainly did not have a legal obligation to recuse himself, it might have been better if he had let some other judge decide this case.” But, is this a betrayal of principles? Would Judge Walker’s recusal simply be a nod to those who believe that his sexual orientation makes him inherently biased?
Of course, these questions are largely rhetorical because Judge Walker has not spoken about his sexuality, has not recused himself, and has not indicated that he has any intention of doing so. But, the debate raises fundamental questions about how we portray and understand the process of judging and the people who sit on the bench.
Last week, I wrote about the issue of high unemployment among people with disabilities in the United States, some of the issues that contribute to this, and particularly, inadequate or limited education opportunities for young people with disabilities. I want to address an extreme case of this last problem – the use of “restraint and seclusion” methods for students with disabilities in many American public schools.
It sounds unbelievable, but many American public schools use what are called “seclusion and restraint” methods to “educate” children with disabilities. These include:
Placement in small rooms, closets or boxes
Prolonged restraint using manual, mechanical or chemical means
Seclusion and restraint techniques are the sort of thing regularly used on prisoners in a bygone era, some of which the Geneva Conventions were written to outlaw during war. That they are used on students is both disgusting and unacceptable. If schools and teachers had the curriculae, resources, funding and support to understand how to teach students with different needs and were accountable to enforced laws written to punish offenders, we could move beyond these barbaric methods and provide supportive educational opportunities.
There is a bill in Congress that would address this issue. Just introduced at the end of last year, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act (H.R. 4247/S. 2860) would protect all students, including students with disabilities, from physical or mental abuse, behavioral interventions which compromise health and safety, and restraint or seclusion used for the purposes of punishment or convenience.
Please email me or call me at 202-387-2800 for more information and what you can do to become involved in preventing the use of these barbaric methods upon American students.
It seems we’ve been here before: unemployment hovering around 10%, restlessness about the economy, gridlock in Congress on issues that affect a broad range of people agree on, and, most tragically, millions of Americans wondering if their federal unemployment benefits are going to run out. Indeed, without Congressional action, federal unemployment benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; the stimulus bill) in February of 2009 will run out at the end of this month. Should they run out, more than 1 million people will lose their benefits; by June, that number could swell to 5 million.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time in the past year Congress has had millions of unemployed people worrying about their unemployment insurance; in October, weeks of failure in passing an extension before the original ARRA benefits ran out saw 7,000 people daily losing their benefits, never to be paid back. After much delay, an extension was signed into law on November 6th (which was passed by a 98-0 vote in the Senate, I might add), prolonging the measure 13 weeks, until late December, when unemployment benefits were again extended for 2 months through an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill (you still with me?).
So, the time has come once again. Congress is waiting until the last minute (the current extension lasts until February 28th) to extend unemployment benefits. But, as this Huffington Post article points out, “it’s a huge administrative burden for state agencies” that give out unemployment benefits and must prepare to wind down federal benefits, as they don’t know when, or if, Congress will reauthorize them. It is our hope, of course, that they will. Send an e-mail to your representatives in Washington telling them to extend unemployment benefits through the end of the year so that families are not on the edge of their seats while Congress takes its time yet again.
Examining public, private and out-of-pocket spending on health care between 1999 and 2006, this study focuses on three groups: adult naturalized citizens, immigrant noncitizens, including the undocumented, and native citizens. The conclusions are essential to informing our understanding of the health care debate – a political conversation-turned-polemic steeped in propagandistic rhetoric that threatens the success of much needed reform.
As arguments abound that immigrants saturate public health programs and incur disproportionate costs, it’s time to set the record straight.
Below are some of the valuable conclusions from the study:
While overall spending on health care increased for all groups during the study period, spending for noncitizens was an average of 50% less than for US natives.
Public spending for immigrants is lower per capita than spending for US natives in public programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
While 11% of US natives sought uncompensated medical care, roughly 13% of noncitizens sought such care, a consequence of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which bars immigrants from Medicaid coverage during their first five years in the country.
Opponents of universal health coverage frequently revert to the erroneous argument that health care benefits attract immigrants. In fact, pieces of legislation like the 1996 law mentioned above and even newer budget cuts like California’s elimination of Medi-Cal services, which provide Medicaid to over 100,000 immigrants, mean that it is more difficult than ever for immigrants to obtain basic health care.
It is clear from the Health Affairs study and the budget cuts in California, that immigrants are neither burdensome to the health care system, nor are they receiving a level of care that even mirrors what we could consider adequate coverage. Rather than infusing the health care debate with skullduggery and scapegoating immigrants for our failing system, let’s reclaim honest rhetoric – let’s have a conversation. With the record straight and our tempers cooled, the time for reform is now.
If you have read the news, turned on the TV, or Googled the word ‘snow’ in the past two weeks, you’ve heard about the storms that battered the Mid Atlantic region and shut down D.C. for days. As the winter wonderland that is Washington recovers, some politicians and pundits have taken to declaring that the recent weather conclusively disproves the ‘theory’ of global warming. Not only are these assertions incorrect and dangerously short-sighted, but they also reveal a deeper current running through the climate debate and preventing constructive steps forward. We’ve lost sight of something much broader than climate change and much longer-lasting than the recent snow: environmental sustainability. And regardless of the politicized debate over human-caused climate change, sustainability is a goal we can all embrace.
More frequent and more severe extreme weather events are one of the many predicted effects of our changing climate, and the contrast between the fierce storms on the East Coast and lack of snow at the Olympics (which are doing their best to go green) is illustrative. Yet, continuing to trot out scientific and economic studies clearly won’t win the day. The voice of reason on energy and the environment seems to be buried as deeply under the recent snowfalls as the streets and sidewalks. How can we shape the discussion on the environment without the short-sightedness, fights over money, and utter vitriol dominating the political debate over climate legislation? One idea: respond as Reform Jews.
The faith-based environmental community works consistently to broaden the climate conversation, reminding our friends on Capitol Hill and across North America that caring for our environment is a justice issue, a moral issue, and a human issue. We don’t just need to cut our carbon emissions; we need to think critically about our lifestyles and their effects on both ecological and human health, for ourselves and for centuries to come. It’s not just about graphing our greenhouse gas emissions or measuring melting glaciers; it’s about “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This long-term perspective on climate and energy is in desperately short supply. Yes, storms will likely become more frequent and more severe with climate change, and costs for our economy and our health will continue to pile up on top of costs for our environment. But even as we work toward better energy policies, we can’t lose sight of the larger picture. As Jews, not only are we commanded to be wise caretakers of our resources, but we are continually reminded to think not just of our own communities but of all people, and not just of our own needs but those of future generations. It’s this long-term thinking that underlies ideals of true sustainability, and one that will outlast even this seemingly endless Washington winter.
Robert D. Francis is the director for domestic policy for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. This post originally appeared last week on Theolog and is republished with permission.
The federal government finally reopened today after four days closed due to record snowfall in the DC area. As for health-care reform, it’s seemed frozen since Scott Brown was elected to the Senate last month.
A senator shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster, Democrats face an uncertain path forward. The House could simply pass the bill the Senate already passed, except that too many House Democrats–both Progressive Caucus members and conservative Blue Dogs–find elements of the bill too objectionable to pass it as is. A variation on this would add a separate package of “fixes” to the Senate bill as part of the budget reconciliation process, which is not subject to filibuster.
Another suggestion is a scaled-back reform package that can get bipartisan support. This may be tempting, but it would forfeit a historic opportunity to achieve the comprehensive reform the system badly needs–not to mention the fact that several of reform’s major pieces won’t even work separate from one another. While the road to reform has been perilous and often partisan, we shouldn’t lose sight of how far we’ve come. In the early 1990s, Bill Clinton’s health-care reform proposal didn’t make it out of a single congressional committee. The current effort has seen bills pass out of five committees and both full chambers, the farthest health-care reform has ever gotten. Down by five with seconds left and an inch to go is no time to kick a field goal.
Or to punt. A recent poll found that while 55 percent of Republicans support abandoning reform entirely, 56 percent of independents and an overwhelming 88 percent of Democrats urge lawmakers to keep going. Abandoning reform might please some voters, but those who gave Democrats the presidency and large majorities in Congress did not elect them to walk away from one of the party’s long-time policy goals.
Another poll shows that while Americans are divided on the reform proposals themselves, many become more supportive when told about their major provisions. In other words, many who are skeptical of reform aren’t actually clear about what it will do, giving hope that public opinion will rise once reform is passed and people understand it better.
Many pro-reform faith groups are staying out of the business of prescribing a particular legislative path forward, but they remain unified in the call for the completion of comprehensive reform. (See my Century article from last year.) In a recent letter, 56 religious organizations–including the ELCA, where I work on domestic policy–called on Congress to “complete the task at hand on behalf of the millions who are left out and left behind in our current health care system.” (The letter is now open to individual signers as well.)
A lot of these faith groups have been working for comprehensive health care reform for decades; they’re acutely aware of how historic the current opportunity is. “Turning back now,” says the letter, “could mean justice delayed for another generation and an unprecedented opportunity lost.”
An intense and record-breaking snow storm descended on D.C. this week, halting most official business throughout the city–including within our courts. Court dates and trials were postponed and hearings and confirmation votes for judicial nominees were rescheduled. The Blog of the Legal Times featured photographs of snow-covered federal courts in D.C.’s Judiciary Square.
Of course, being stuck inside is a great excuse to catch up on reading! I want to recommend a few Court-related reads to keep you busy, whether you are fighting to stay cozy indoors or just looking for some interesting new material:
1) In honor of Black History Month, SCOTUSblog is featuring posts about the impact of the federal judiciary on issues related to racial justice and civil rights. They will have posts throughout the month of February from “law professors, litigators, historians, journalists, and other top professionals” on various topics, all of which contribute to SCOTUSblog’s effort to further educate the American public about the impact that the courts have had (and continue to have) on American society and our current social and political realities.
2) If you haven’t already done so, check out Brent Walker’s “The Decade in Religious Liberty.” This piece, featured in a previous post on the RACblog, provides a concise and insightful overview of how Establishment and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence have fared in the first decade of the 21st Century.
3) The Citizens United v. FEC decision may seem like “old news” by now, but it is a decision that will potentially have consequences, both predictable and unforeseen, on electoral politics for years to come. Last week, Stanley Fish wrote an interesting and informative opinion piece for the New York Times, explaining both the majority and minority opinions in this decision. He makes both sides of the argument more accessible and understandable–not an easy feat for such a complex case. (You should also check out Fish’s follow-up piece, responding to various comments that he received and clarifying a few more of the issues involved.)
4) Go back a few issues of Newsweek to read a profile of our newest Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This lengthy exploration of Justice Sotomayor’s life offers fun, interesting, and probing tidbits about her journey from the Bronx to the bench. It also illuminates some details about how she has fared during her first term as a Justice.
Imagine my surprise when, comfy on my couch and enjoying the Super Bowl, I saw a commercial – aired not once, but twice – featuring a classroom full of children reciting the following mock pledge of allegiance:
“I pledge allegiance to Americaʼs debt, and to the Chinese government that lends us money. And to the interest, for which we pay, compoundable, with higher taxes and lower pay until the day we die.”
Forgoing my first thought – how ironic it is that an organization would spend millions of dollars on 30 seconds of air time for a commercial preaching fiscal responsibility – my second thought was how amazing it was that a commercial about decreasing the deficit would air during the Super Bowl and NOT a commercial pressuring our lawmakers about somehow lowering our 9.7% unemployment rate or supporting the millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Yes, it’s true, there does seem to be a loud and proud movement afoot to cut government spending in order to reduce our national deficit.
While the deficit is a major problem, when it comes to government programs, the truth, as a New York Times editorial from last weekend puts it, is that “At a time of high unemployment and fragile growth, the last thing the government should do is to slash spending. That will only drive the economy into deeper trouble.” Pulling the plug on support systems at the time of worst need for Americans in the most financial trouble makes little short-term or long-term economic sense. While spending must always be done responsibly, trumpeting deficit reduction should be saved for more prosperous times when fewer than one in eight Americans receive SNAP (food stamp) benefits, or when fewer than 1.2 million Americans are fearing that the government unemployment benefits they rely on will disappear due to Congressional inaction (that number could be 5 million by June).
Americans need their government now more than ever. Football fans are now turning their attention to April’s NFL draft, where the worst team from the previous year gets to pick first. The most vulnerable citizens need the most help, just as the worst teams do, and kicking them to the curb now, even if it means pushing our deficit problem to a later date, will lead to millions more without a place to turn. As Don Peck wrote in an excellent article on the long-term social aspects of joblessness in The Atlantic, “At the very least… we should make the return to a more normal jobs environment an unflagging national priority.” Where are their Saints in Congress? You can send an e-mail to your Representative and Senators urging them to extend unemployment benefits, fund the construction of affordable housing, and increase the reach of anti-hunger programs at the RAC’s Chai Impact Action Center.
If the historic DC snow ever ends, I might head to the movies this weekend. Now, I’m a movie buff, so there’s not much I won’t see. But I admit to a particular soft spot for Garry Marshall productions. He’s got quite a track record on tv (creator of Happy Days, Mork and Mindy, and Laverne and Shirley, among others) and at the movies (director of Beaches, Pretty Woman, and the Princess Diaries, to name a few.) I admit it: I’m a sucker for his mix of light comedy and schmaltz. His newest movie, “Valentine’s Day,” opens Friday with a cast list reads like a who’s who of Hollywood stars: Shirley MacLaine, Julia Roberts, Patrick Dempsey, Ashton Kutcher, George Lopez, Jennifer Garner, and one of those werewolf kids from the Twilight movies. I am very much looking forward to every cheesy and predictable moment.
But beyond the escapist fun the movie promises, it seems that during filmmaking, the producers made a conscientious effort to be as green as possible. This story from the LA Times notes that just by switching to reusable water bottles, the production reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 67 metric tons. They also used solar-powered generators (you can do that in L.A.) and rented each star a hybrid car to get to work in each day. The whole process was documented and is now being used as an example for other filmmakers.
Maybe there’s a trend in the works. At last week’s Grammy awards, the theme was “Grammys Go Green.” The venue was powered by renewable energy and the invitations and program books were printed using recyclable products. No one is estimating the carbon footprint of transporting the musicians, their equipment, and entourages (never mind Lady Gaga’s costumes) but hey, every little step counts.
At this point, it’s anyone’s guess whether the
Senate will take up climate and energy legislation this year: One day the
President highlights clean energy in the biggest speech of the year and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) rejects “half-ass” energy bills, and the next day critics argue that such a controversial policy can’t possibly
pass any time soon.
But as the climate clock ticks on, others in government are moving ahead using the strongest available
environmental laws. The Environmental Protection Agency is finally preparing to
implement its scientific finding that global warming pollution endangers our
health by regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act. It’s an important step
to help ensure that the worst polluters limit their negative impact on human
and ecological health using the best available tools.
And yet, some in Congress are
trying to stop the EPA from moving ahead on climate; instead of cracking down
on polluters, these Senators and Representatives argue that the EPA is trying
to buck Congressional authority and hamper our economy in the process. But with
study after study showing that burning fossil fuels hurts our health and that
clean energy alternatives are an environmental and also an economic boon,
the EPA has both precedent and logic on its side.
Even as we fight for a more
sustainable energy future, the effects of environmental degradation are already
on view around the world. But pollsters find consistently that the overwhelming
complexity of climate science and the messy political process around clean
energy turns the public off from the issue.
That’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) launched
its new climate portal earlier this week. The online resource aims to engage
the American public in the conversation around climate with accessible facts
and figures, the latest climate news, and video testimonials.
When DC digs out from the snow
storm and gets back to its busy schedule later this month, there will be
limited time before the 2010 election season gets underway to tackle key issues
like health care, finance reform, and clean energy. But until we move forward
with new legislation, and as we continue to better understand our climate, let’s
ensure that we don’t take a step back by blocking enforcement of the laws that
have been central to protecting our environment and our health for decades.
This weekend, I will be joining NFTYites from across the country at URJ Greene Family Camp for Veida, which is NFTY‘s yearly business and elections meeting. Along with my three-ounce bag of liquids, URJ camp sweatshirt, and plenty of RAC stickers, I am packing my tallit.
We have a unique opportunity in that NFTY’s Veida falls on Rosh Chodesh – the new Jewish month of Adar begins on Sunday. During services throughout the weekend, we will be including readings in support of the Women of the Wall.
Additionally, I welcome anyone who feels comfortable to wear a tallit at Veida‘s services as a symbol of solidarity with the Women of the Wall and their struggle for religious equality. And if you won’t be with us in Texas this weekend, I invite you to do the same in your home communities.
NFTYites: if you are able, I invite you to bring a tallit (or two, if you have more to share!) to Veida. It’s not always an item on everyone’s packing list, but I hope that you will consider bringing one in support of the Women of the Wall this weekend!
For those interested in organizing a Rosh Chodesh solidarity event in your own community, information and educational resources about the Women of the Wall are available at www.urj.org/israel/wow. If you and your congregation are planning to pray, learn, or take action in support of Women of the Wall, be sure to take pictures and send an email to tell me all about it!
Safe and just travels to those joining us at Veida!
In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it’s been common practice for the First Lady to champion a cause: Lady Bird Johnson was a staunch environmentalist. Barbara Bush was a strong advocate for family literacy. Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took on health care while her husband was in Office. Today, Michelle Obama unveiled her own project. Amid reports that suggest one third of all children born in 2000 or later will suffer from diabetes at some point in their lives and health care costs of obesity-related diseases may average $147 billion per year, the First Lady is taking on childhood obesity through Let’s Move, a “comprehensive, collaborative, and community-oriented [campaign that] will include strategies to address the various factors that lead to childhood obesity.” A big part of this movement, especially the healthy schools initiative, is reauthorizing the Child Nutrition programs for the next five years. These programs provide meals for over 31 million children throughout the year and must be robustly funded in order for the meals to reach the greatest number of students and contain the highest nutritional value possible. You can e-mail your Representatives in Congress asking them to fully fund Child Nutrition Programs here, in the RAC’s Chai Impact Action Center.
The First Lady is not the only one noticing the need for a new way of looking at food: At last year’s Biennial, Rabbi Eric Yoffie urged members of the URJ to seek ethical and healthier ways of eating. At the URJ’s “Just Table, Green Table” website, you can find advice on how to get started in promoting healthy, sustainable, and ethical eating at your synagogue, alongside a study guide on how to think critically about the ethical implications of food choices and food systems. As Rabbi Yoffie said, as Jews, we are not exempt from thinking deeply about how our food affects our bodies. “Reform Jews are ethically aware, ecologically responsible, and sensitive to matters of physical and spiritual health,” he said. “We know that our Jewish tradition speaks to these issues, and that our young people care about them. At such times, Reform Judaism does not remain silent.”
Follow our specially tagged blog posts throughout the week for more on how the proposed budget affects many of the priority issues for our Movement.
While Americans prepare to privatize the moon and the Department of Defense embraces vintage helicopters, many groups have reason to cheer the Obama Administration’s pared down, but thoughtfully allocated budget for fiscal year 2011. Among them are Native Americans who have received increased monies toward governance, education, law enforcement and health care.
The most promising appropriation is an additional $9 million in funding Native American schools from the elementary level through to tribal colleges and universities. This financial boost comes at a welcome time when Indian educators are pushing for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is on this year’s legislative agenda. Creating high-level federal Indian education positions, fostering language and cultural learning, and increasing funding for Indian serving institutions are priorities of the National Indian Education Association, which has reached out to retiring Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to request that he focus increased energy on Indian education in his last year in Congress.
Much needed additional funds have also been appropriated for the Indian Health Service, which will receive a $354 million increase to its $5.4 billion budget for the improvement of health services in the hope of reducing disparities for Native Americans and Alaska Natives who have historically faced barriers to high quality health care. It is crucial to note, however, that additional monies are merely a palliative solution to the woefully inadequate health care system that serves this population. True improvement will come with the overhaul of our nation’s health care system, which includes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This legislation expands coverage for Native Americans under Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP and aims to recruit and retain professionals to work on isolated reservations.
Native American tribes are cheering the allocation of an additional $19 million to the FBI to fight crime on reservations, but in this case as well more must be done. While welcoming increased efforts by federal law enforcement to protect their communities, tribal leaders continue to push for passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 (S. 797) in the hopes of increasing Native American tribes’ law enforcement powers as well as federal powers and responsibilities regarding crimes on Indian land, which frequently go unprosecuted.
Overall, the Obama Administration has shown a clear commitment to improving access to resources and protection of Native American communities, but the budget falls far short of achieving much-needed change. Let this be a first step forward on an ambitious path to reform.
Our Torah portion this week is Parshat Yitro, named for Moses’ father-in-law, a man with whom the Jewish people had an exemplary interfaith relationship. In this parsha, God instructs us, “V’atem tihiyu li mamlechet cohanim v’goi kadosh – You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” (Exodus 19:6). The “You” in this verse is decidedly plural. God is not just speaking to Moses or even a select few individuals. Each and every Jew belongs to this holy nation and is a “priest,” – a leader in his or her own way.
Moses himself learns this important lesson in a governance suggestion from Yitro. In his wisdom, Yitro recognized that Moses would not be able to endure as the leader of the Jewish people if he continued to be the sole arbiter of each and every dispute that arose in the community.
Just as Moses learned from Yitro, there is much that we can learn today through interreligious dialogue and interfaith partnerships. In addition to this system of judges, Parshat Yitro introduces another cornerstone of our Jewish legal system: The Ten Commandments. In the spirit of Yitro, here are ten interreligious learning and dialogue resources that will assist you and others in becoming an empowered community of interfaith leaders.
1. The URJ’s commitment to interreligious dialogue is actualized through two dialogue curricula: Open Doors, Open Minds, for Jewish-Christian Dialogue, and Children of Abraham for Jewish-Muslim Dialogue. Both curricula are available online, as well as in hard copy (by request).
5. The Washington Post’s On Faith blog focuses on the intersection of religion and politics, with guest contributions from a diverse range of faith voices, including our own Rabbi David Saperstein!
6. Faith in Public Life is a strategy center with the mission of “advancing faith in the public square as a positive and unifying force for justice, compassion and the common good.” I highly recommend you to sign up for FPL News Reel, an excellent daily roundup of faith and politics news coverage.
7. The Pluralism Project, based out of Harvard University, is a decade-long research project to engage students in studying the new religious diversity in the United States. Their resources by state are both fascinating and useful for interfaith efforts on a more local level.
8. Much of the work of the RAC is done through interreligious partnerships and coalitions. Faithful Reform is an interfaith coalition of organizations that are committed to lifting up the moral voice for health insurance reform in the United States.
9. The mission of the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel (ICCI) is “to harness the teachings and values of the three Abrahamic faiths and transform religion’s role from a force of division and extremism into a source of reconciliation, coexistence, and understanding.” For more information with their work with youth, women, and religious leaders to promote Jewish-Arab coexistence and peace-building projects, check out their website.
10. The Arava Institute is an Environmental Studies and Coexistence program on Kibbutz Ketura in Israel. The residential academic program brings together Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, and North American students to learn about shared environmental resources and challenges, as well as engage in interfaith dialogue about the Arab-Israeli conflict. As an alum, I can tell you it’s a life-changing experience!
Former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor has made headlines in the past week in the wake of the Citizens United campaign finance case. Her comments are notable both because the recent ruling overturned a decision in favor of imposing limits on corporate spending for which O’Connor was a key vote just a few years ago and because the decision has a direct impact on the major cause that she champions– judicial independence.
Since her retirement, Justice O’Connor has remained an active and vocal member of the legal community, sharing her knowledge of and vision for the United States court system in TV and print media and with audiences across the country. As part of her commitment to judicial independence, Justice O’Connor has recently spearheaded a major push for states to eliminate judicial elections and implement less-political systems for selecting judges. Currently, 39 states elect at least some of their judges.
Justice O’Connor believes that judges should be selected “on the basis of merit, rather than their ability to win an election.” She argues that when judges are reaching a decision in a case, they should not have to consider whether the decision will be “popular” enough to secure them re-election. Instead, they should be unfettered by their need for campaign donations and free to decide cases based solely on the facts of the case before them.
So, how, you might ask, does this relate to the Citizens United case? Now that corporations are allowed to use unlimited funds to advocate for or against the election of a candidate, they can have a significant impact on local judicial elections. A particular company or industry can devote resources to ensuring that they have a “partner” on the bench.
The counter-argument to eliminating judicial elections is that judicial elections are no less political than judicial appointments, which are simply political in more hidden ways. Further, some argue that judicial elections increase diversity on the bench and enhance democracy by making judges more accountable to the people who elected them.
It’s certainly an interesting debate- weighing the desire to put power in the hands of the people with the equally important need to find judges who will truly be impartial.
What do you think? Are judicial elections a reasonable approach to selecting judges? And, do you think that the decision in Citizens United will significantly impact who is serving on the bench in the various states that still hold judicial elections?
As aid flows to the victims of Tuesday’s earthquake in Haiti, we cannot forget that those suffering the effects of this disaster will not be affected equally. Some will be shaken from lives of prosperity into poverty; others, those already vulnerable in this poorest of western hemisphere nations, will face some of the worst and most desperate circumstances in the world.
Circumstances such as these directly enable trafficking in persons – modern slavery. After the 2004 tsunami which wreaked terrible devastation across coastal Southeast Asia, human trafficking rates spiked in Sri Lanka and Indonesia (see page 18), with women and orphans in particular at the highest risk for being kidnapped or coerced into slavery. Southeast Asia’s human trafficking rates dropped only when the Sri Lankan, Indonesian, Indian and Thai governments created information campaigns and worked to step up enforcement and prosecution.
The obvious difference today is that the Haitian government is in pretty bad shape. Infrastructure and social services are in tatters. Even before the earthquake, unstable, impoverished, and hurricane-wracked Haiti had a large human trafficking problem. In the wake of this latest disaster, will the Haitian government have the capacity to protect the freedom of their citizenry when so many other priorities will distract them?
The United States has an opportunity to provide that assistance. America has its problems with trafficking but by engaging on the issue of human trafficking both within our borders and abroad we can provide this necessary service to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. What do we do? We focus on the Department of State’s “Three ‘P’s:” Punishment, Protection, and Prevention.
If our nation takes the initiative, we can provide lasting help to Haiti, protecting its young and vulnerable from the horrors of slavery, and simultaneously work to end slavery in our own country.
