Supreme Court:  Democrats Hope For Not Crazy

---

MinutemanMedia

by Donald Kaul

You know that liberalism in this country is at low ebb when liberals go around mourning the loss of Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.

Not that Justice O’Connor was so awful. She was the deciding vote in cases that upheld a woman’s right to abortion, ruled prayer at high school graduations unconstitutional, struck down Nebraska’s ban on “partial birth abortions,” upheld the use of race as a “plus factor” in college admissions and held that the display of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls was unconstitutional. All of these are more or less the liberal position.

But let’s get real. She was a conservative. During her nearly 24 years on the Court she voted with Chief Justice William Rehnquist about 70 percent of the time in cases that were not unanimously decided. In decisions that made conservatives hearts go pitty-pat she was the key vote in upholding the use of publicly-financed vouchers for religious school tuition, rejecting a constitutional basis for gay rights, allowing the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexuals, striking down the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act and refusing to rule that the death penalty was racially discriminatory.

And, most egregiously, she sided with the conservative (and Republican) majority on the Court in stopping the Florida recount in 2000, thereby handing the election to George W. Bush. It was one of the Court’s worst decisions in recent decades, not quite up there with Dred Scott (the one that, in effect, made the Civil War inevitable) but close.

Moreover, it violated the principles that members of the conservative Court majority had espoused for years: a strict, narrow reading of the Constitution and a bias toward federal deference to state authority.

Instead of leaving the Florida recount to be fought out by the state Supreme Court and legislature, as the federalist principles they held in such high regard demanded, the Supremes moved in and gave the game to Mr. Bush.

How bad was the decision? So bad that no one in the majority had the nerve to sign it. It also contained the proviso that it should not be considered a precedent for any subsequent case. That bad.

Still and all, it can be said of Ms. O’Connor that she was truly a remarkable woman. She graduated third in her class at Stanford law school (not chopped liver) but was unable to get a high profile clerkship or a job with a prestigious law firm because, well, she was a woman.

So, she got married, raised a family, entered public life and became the majority leader of the Arizona Senate, the first woman in the nation to hold such a post. She was appointed to the state appeals court by a Democrat, then to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan as our first woman Justice.

Her main strength, and one that argues for diversity on the court, was that she brought to the Court the unique perspective of someone who had been discriminated against because of her gender, yet one whose eventual rise owed a great deal to affirmative action. (No Justice before her, all men, had come to the court carrying such modest judicial credentials.) Both sides of that seemingly contradictory personal history are reflected in her decisions.

And now liberals are sorry to see her go because they know her successor will be much, much worse.

The name of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has been put forward as a candidate and already right wing groups are forming torchlight parades to protest his consideration because he isn’t conservative enough.

Meanwhile, Democrats are forming ranks for a bloody battle but the best they can hope for is a nominee who is very conservative but not crazy. Federal Appeals Court Judge Harvey Wilkinson III would fill that bill, but don’t hold your breath. The radical right likes crazy.

Fasten your seat belts, folks. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

________

Donald Kaul recently retired as Washington columnist for the “Des Moines Register.” He has covered the foolishness in our nation’s capital for 29 years, winning a number of modestly coveted awards along the way. His column can be found weekly at MinutemanMedia.Org.

---

Join these Iowa Media Reform groups:

    Click here to receive action alerts from Rapid Response - Iowa

  
Click here to join  Iowans for Better Local TV (IBLTV)

---

 

U.S. Unborn Babies Soaked in Chemicals, Survey Finds

---

by Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent, Reuters

*    *    *

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - Unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides, according to a report released on Thursday.

Although the effects on the babies are not clear, the survey prompted several members of Congress to press for legislation that would strengthen controls on chemicals in the environment.

The report by the Environmental Working Group is based on tests of 10 samples of umbilical cord blood taken by the American Red Cross. They found an average of 287 contaminants in the blood, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA.

"These 10 newborn babies ... were born polluted," said New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who publicized the findings at a news conference on Thursday.

"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb," Slaughter, a Democrat, said.

Cord blood reflects what the mother passes to the baby through the placenta.

"Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests," the report said.

Blood tests did not show how the chemicals got into the mothers' bodies.

MERCURY AND PESTICIDES

Among the chemicals found in the cord blood were methylmercury, produced by coal-fired power plants and certain industrial processes. People can breathe it in or eat it in seafood and it causes brain and nerve damage.

Also found were polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are produced by burning gasoline and garbage and which may cause cancer; flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated dibenzodioxins and furans; and pesticides including DDT and chlordane.

The same group analyzed the breast milk of mothers across the United States in 2003 and found varying levels of chemicals, including flame retardants known as PBDEs. This latest analysis also found PBDEs in cord blood.

The Environmental Working Group report coincided with a Government Accountability Office report issued on Wednesday that said the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the powers it needs to fully regulate toxic chemicals.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found that the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act gives only "limited assurance" that new chemicals entering the market are safe and that the EPA only rarely assesses chemicals already on the market.

"Today, chemicals are being used to make baby bottles, food packaging and other products that have never been fully evaluated for their health effects on children -- and some of these chemicals are turning up in our blood," said New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who plans to co-sponsor a bill to require more testing of toxic chemicals.

Pollutants and other chemicals are believed to cause a range of illnesses. But scientists agree the only way to really sort out the effects is to measure how much gets into people and then see what happens to their health.

(Source)

---

Scientists agree, do they?  Well, then, if they are all so sure that the only way to "sort out the effects is to measure how much gets into people and then see what happens to their health," why don't these pseudo-objective pseudo-thinkers who can't see what's happening right under their noses volunteer their own children to be the "people" who get polluted and observed?  No, no, that wouldn't work.  It would have to be people they don't know or actually care about.