.

.

.

Hi there denizens of this strange blog. I am a spooky hacker (No como se Adrian Lamo) and have determined there is far too much negativity in the common daily activities here. I protest. Like an Egyptian. Time to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. So here is a little music with which to celebrate what can be accomplished by the youth of a country when they are engaged, mad as hell and not going to take it any more.

.

.

.

.

.

For years, we have been trying to figure out what it will take to wake up the American government, Congress, powers that be and get them to return to the ethos of what this country – the United States – is supposed to stand for and exemplify. Instead of watching Obamaco Organizing For America and Move On lamely and pathetically try to suck up and pray the youth will come out and vote for centrist, status quo, Bush-Lite bullshit in 2012, maybe we should be telling and encouraging the youth to figure out where the American version of Tahrir Square is and helping them get there. It is the least we can do. Seriously.

Our generation has borne the climate change deniers, Tea Party, evolution deniers, Andrew Breitbart and Fox News horse manure and propounded freaking Barak Obama as the hopey-changey salvation. In short, we are totally fucked. Turn the gig over to our kids and get out of the way. If Egypt has proven anything which can be taken home here, it is that we need to be talkin bout a new generation. We are done and have screwed the pooch big time; it is up to them, but we can help them and “prepare the battlefield”.

Okay. Here is the legal disclaimer. There is no way in hell I was going to post the fucking Bangles, even though I kind of like Walk Like An Egyptian. Not gonna do it. So, Live at Pompeii may not quite be Egyptian, but close enough for rock and roll. By the way, I think Suleiman is Pink.

Three weeks ago I woke up and started organizing my thoughts to write this post. I had no more than written the title when news started coming in hot, first on Twitter and then local news channels, that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had been shot in Tucson. In a strange dichotomy, it was both an event which brought the ugly underbelly of hate in my state into even better focus than it had been before, which is the subject of this post, as well as an event which put the desire to write it, and the moment for it, on the back burner. With the filing in the Arizona legislature of twin bills at the end of this week attacking the automatic citizenship granted to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants under the 14th Amendment, it seemed like time to return to the matter.

Specifically, we are talking about the following Arizona Legislative measures:

– House Bill 2561 and Senate Bill 1309 would define children as citizens of Arizona and the U.S. if at least one of their parents was either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent U.S. resident and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

– House Bill 2562 and Senate Bill 1308 would seek permission from Congress to set up a system so states can create separate birth certificates for children who meet the new definition of a citizen and those who do not.

These are the provisions engendered by the hateful right wing “anti-anchor baby” effort. Arizona is, as it was with the previous “immigration papers please” law enacted in SB 1070, on the cutting edge of the national anti-immigrant and hatred of brown movement. While Arizona may be the test lab, it is certainly not necessarily the originator for these discriminatory and bigoted efforts. The “father” of the measures, leader and vocal mouthpiece for them in the Arizona legislature is State Senator Russell Pearce, newly crowned President of the state senate. Pearce worked off the template written by national movement conservative Kris Kobach for SB 1070, and the attempt to blow up the 14th Amendment birth citizenship guarantee is also being pushed by national extreme right wing movement conservatives such as Rand Paul and David Vitter.

But the point man and patron saint of anti-immigration hate in Arizona is indeed President of the Arizona Senate Russell Pearce, a former top deputy and confidant of the pernicious Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. When Pearce first arrived in the Arizona state legislature in 2001, it was as a state representative from the heavily Mormon (Pearce’s religion) area of Mesa, and he was known for little more than being a

…loudmouthed backbencher, unhealthily obsessed with illegal immigration.

So how did this two bit back bencher, who only came to the legislature because he was terminated as the state director of the Motor Vehicle Department for malfeasance in tampering with department records, come to be the most powerful man in the Arizona legislature? The old fashioned way, money, lobbyists and a push from the movement conservative national political machine. In short, the craziness of the ever more extreme and immigrant fear mongering national Republican party caught up to Russell Pearce’s local innate bigotry. And the big money and high powered lobbyists now backing and fueling Pearce is the story of this post.

On Friday night, January 7, a high dollar fundraiser was held for this front man for divisive hate and bigotry in Arizona, Russell Pearce. But the fundraiser was not in the middle and lower class neighborhood Pearce represents, but instead in the tony Camelback Mountain/Biltmore area of East Phoenix (picture of the estate above). As fundraising is prohibited during the legislative session that was set to start the following Monday, it was a last chance for big business and the moneyed elite to pump up Pearce and give a push to the “anti-anchor baby” legislation he had stated would be a priority as he began his new position as President of the State Senate three days later. The money for hate fest for Pearce ended less than twelve hours before Gabby Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and approximately twenty other souls were shot down by Jared Loughner, in an act that would instantly come to symbolize the divisive brand of hatred sown by Russell Pearce and his right wing supporters.

Who were these people bankrolling and gleefully toasting Pearce and his in your face brand of bigotry? It is all too easy to pin this movement on the supposedly grass roots “Tea Party” movement. Except the truth is the “Tea Party” is not particularly grass roots in the first place and instead is an outgrowth of mainstream GOP lobbyists, and this group of luminaries comprise the monied elite of the traditional Republican party in Arizona, not to mention more than a few national interests. The hate is quite mainstream and is the work product of big money and big political lobbying operations.

Stephen Lemons, who pens the excellent and biting Phoenix New Times political blog and column Feathered Bastard clues us in on the names behind Russell Pearce:

There are some familiar ones: Corrections Corporation of America shill and Governor Jan Brewer’s Svengali Chuck Coughlin; Mark Spencer, President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association; Bas Aja of the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association; Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu; and former Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon, of the Washington, D.C.-based Upstream Consulting.

But Lemons did not stop there; working off of an official invitation to the uptown fundraiser soiree obtained by Tucson political blogger extraordinaire Three Sonorans (pictured above; click for larger size), Lemons provided a true service to one and all and did the research to provide the affiliations for all the power players hosting the Pearce event. As it is such a roster of the who’s who of mainstream Republican political elite in Arizona, I am going to include the entire stunning list:

Barbara Meaney, Triadvocates LLC

Barry Aarons, Aarons Company

Bas Aja, Arizona Cattleman’s Association

Brian Livingston, Arizona Police Association

Brian Tassinari, Upstream Consulting

Charles Bassett, Blue Cross Blue Shield

Chris Herstam, Lewis & Roca

Chuck Coughlin, HighGround Public Affairs (clients include Corrections Corporation of America)

Courtney LeVinus, Capitol Consulting LLC

Dave Childers, (lawyer)

Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League

David Landrith, Arizona Medical Association

Richard Foreman, Southwest Gas

Donald Hughes, Kutak Rock LLP

Donald Isaacson, Isaacson & Moore

Doug Cole, HighGround

Ellen Poole, United Services Auto Association

Farrell Quinlan, National Federation of Independent Business – Arizona

Genevra Richardson, Ziemba Waid Public Affairs (clients include Democratic candidates)

Gretchen Jacobs, AZ Governmental Affairs

Gretchen Kitchel, Pinnacle West Capital Corp.

Gibson McKay, Veridus, LLC

Jaime Molera, Molera Alvarez Group

Jake Logan, former aide to Jake Flake, not sure who he works for

Janna Day, Fennemore Craig

Jason Bezozo, Banner Health

Jason Isaak, Policy Development Group (clients include CCA)

Jay Kaprosy, Veridius, LLC (clients include ATT, American Express)

Jeffery Hill, Hill and Hill Accounting

Jeff Sandquist, Veridius LLC

Jim Norton, R&R Partners

Joseph Abate, of counsel, Curtis Goodwin Sullivan Udall

John Kaites, Public Policy Partners (clients include EDS)

John MacDonald, Husk Partners, Inc (clients include CCA, Hopi Tribe)

John Mangum, Law Offices of John Mangum

John Wentling, VP, Arizona Citizens Defense League

Joseph Sigg, Arizona Farm Bureau

Ken Quartermain, Public Policy Partners

Kevin DeMenna, DeMenna & Associates (clients include City of Phoenix, Pickens Fuel Corp)

Kristen Boilini, KRB Consulting,

Kurt Davis, FirstStrategic Communications and Public Affairs (clients include AZ Cardinals, American Traffic Solutions)

Laura Knaperek, former legislator

Lee Miller, Mario E. Diaz and Associates

Lyn Harry White, FreeportMcMoranCopperandGold

Marc Osborn, R&R Partners

Marcus Dell’Artino, FirstStrategic Communications and Public Affairs

Mark Barnes, Barnes and Associates

Mark Spencer, PLEA

Matt Salmon, Upstream Consulting

Michael Racy, Racy and Associates

Michelle Ahlmer, Arizona Retailers Association

Mike Gardner, Triadvocates, LLC

Mike Williams, Williams and Associates Public Relations

Nick Simonetta, KRB Consulting

Norm Moore, Isaacson & Moore

Penny Allee Taylor, Southwest Gas

Rip Wilson, SRW Consulting

Rob Dalager, Galagher and Kennedy

Robert Shuler, The Shuler Law Firm

Russell Smoldon, SRP

Sheriff Paul Babeu

Stan Barnes, Copper State Consulting Group (clients include Covance, Blue Cross)

Spencer Kamps, Home Builders Association of Southern Arizona

Stuart Goodman, GoodmanSchwartz

Susan Anable, Cox Communications

Susie Stevens, Stevens and Stevens Law

Sydney Hay, Southwest Policy Group

Thomas Dorn, Dorn Policy Group

Suzanne Gilstrap, Capitol Consulting, LLC

Tim Lawless, NAIOP-AZ, trade association representing the commercial real estate industry in Arizona

Tom Farley, Arizona Association of Realtors

Wendy Briggs, Veridius LLC

These names may not all ring a bell with the national readership of this blog, but it is pretty easy to see their status and positions of power from Stephen Lemons’ fine work in ferreting out the affiliations and, as a native Arizonan, I can assure you these are the highest levels of movers and shakers in the business and legal world here. They are NOT the “grass roots”, and do NOT represent the “power of the people”. No, they are, quite instead, the people with the power. They would surely not want it, but should be known far and wide for the bigotry, hate and disrepute they have encouraged and bankrolled for the state of Arizona. It is their handiwork Russell Pearce fronts for.

And nothing brought the ugly face of Arizona painted by Russell Pearce and his merry band of backers to light more than the horrendous carnage of the Giffords shooting less than twelve hours after their party concluded. The picture painted of Arizona in the aftermath was a hideous one of bigotry, hate and guns run amok. Nothing, at least for me, captured this picture quite as well as an article by Will Bunch in the Huffington Post entitled “Arizona, Where the American Dream Went to Die“:

Welcome to paradise. Indeed, it doesn’t take much time in the Arizona desert, or a lot of shoe-leather reporting, to see how the nation’s 48th state had become the undisputed No. 1 in vitriol and bile. Just in the remarkably short time I was in the greater Phoenix area last March, the newspaper was full of stories about a bill in the Arizona legislature — that turned out to be SB 1070 — that would be so harsh toward undocumented immigrants that its sponsors openly admitted to making the streets so hostile to Mexicans that they would leave. On Saturday, I saw campaign volunteers swoon to get Sheriff Joe Arpaio to autograph a pair of the pink underwear that he makes his immigrant prisoners wear in the brutal desert heat to humiliate them. On Sunday morning, I rode past fathers and sons cheerfully walking to a spring-training game in Tempe so I could meet a Baptist minister named Steven Anderson who told me that Obama “deserves to die” because the president supports abortion rights, and over lunch a Tea Party leader calmly told me that Mexicans want to reconquest Arizona up to 16th Street in Phoenix and “kill all the white people.” While I was on my way home to Philadelphia, there was the death threats against Mitchell, and when a militia leader called for Tea Party activists to break the windows of House members who voted for health care, some responded. In Tucson, at 2 a.m. someone shattered the window of a congressional office, possibly by firing a pellet gun, belonging to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

It it any wonder that they call Arizona the Grand Canyon State? When news bulletins first flashed on Saturday that a congresswoman had been shot at a public event, it didn’t take too much imagination to correctly surmise that it was Arizona, and that the victim was Gabrielle Giffords. Nor were you shocked, as some clearly were, when Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik declared his home state to have become “a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” The grim, blood-soaked crossover from death threats and broken windows to actual murder and mayhem seemed inevitable. But why here, in such a naturally blessed, sun-soaked corner of God’s earth?

Why Arizona?

I have long read and respected Will Bunch, and his entire piece is well done and worth a read. His words hurt deeply, and I contacted him to tell him so. But, in fact, there was more truth to his biting article about my home state than I, and probably anybody else who lives here, would like to admit. When Bunch asks “why Arizona” the Republican lilly white monied elite and politically powerful described above are exactly why. Loudmouthed ignorant bigots like Russell Pearce have always been around here and there, but nobody paid much attention to them until the mainstream GOP gravitated to the extreme right and merged with the crazy. Now they are one, as clearly evidenced by the willing and celebratory backers of Russell Pearce at the fundraiser prelude to the massacre at Congress on the Corner the following morning.

Far from being limited to the random wingnuts like Pearce, Rand Paul and David Vitter, the New White Panthers of hate are led by mainstream GOP voices like John McCain, Jon Kyl, the current power center in the GOP Senate caucus Jim DeMint, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority leader Eric Cantor.

Republicans have made a cottage industry of whining about, and ginning fear of, the New Black Panther Party; all stemming from a harmless and uneventful episode where two well behaved men were present at a polling place in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. As Adam Serwer recently pointed out, the entire story is a manufactured fraud. But while the New Black Panthers scare is a hoax perpetrated by the Republicans, the New White Panthers constituted of the Republicans, their money men, lobbyists and front men like Russell Pearce are certainly no hoax and far, far from harmless.

When Pearce and his elite backers held their fundraising sunset soiree, only a dedicated but somewhat rag tag group of about 40 protesters (photo of the remnants thereof above) in the street outside stood up to object. Without a larger and stronger voice of opposition from national Democratic leaders, including Barack Obama, this pernicious brand of hatred and bigotry that has turned Arizona into a laughingstock will take hold and grow in other states. Like the security state and loss of privacy, it will become the unacceptable, yet ratified, norm.

[Editor’s Note: I apologize about the too dim pictures of the event. I live rather close to where it took place and rode my bike over to check it out, and take pictures, after my wife and daughter saw it while walking the dog and reminded me about it. I had forgotten, was blithely home watching the Cotton Bowl and, by the time I got there, the fundraiser was ending and it was nearly past sunset (although a quite beautiful one)]

We have unexpectedly quick news out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proposition 8 marriage equality appeal. As you will recall, the case is in the 9th on appeal from the three week long evidentiary trial in the Northern District of California last January in front of Judge Vaughn Walker with closing arguments made on June 16 (summary of EW live coverage here) and Judge Walker’s opinion finding such marriage discrimination unconstitutional was issued on August 4th. The current appeal had oral argument less than a month ago, on Monday December 6th.

Now we have the surprisingly fast first decision, if you can call it a “decision”. It is really a disguised punt. The main opinion is in docket No. 10-16696, where the effective docket order reads:

Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) for certification to California State Supreme Court. Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below. (See order for full text).

….

The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Now, as you will also recall, there were two cause numbers consolidated for oral argument and that, really, comprise the same effective case. In the second one, Docket No. 10-16751, the part of the action initiated by Imperial County attempting to intervene and provide governmental cover for standing on appeal, the effective corollary docket order reads:

FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT.

In the second cause number, 10-16751, the court issued a 21 page per curiam (by the whole panel collectively) opinion addressing the Imperial county attempt at intervention. the court held:

None of the Imperial County movants has demonstrated a “significant protectable interest” at stake in this action, as it was brought by Plaintiffs, and we affirm on that basis alone.

The court effectively laughed at the attempt to use Deputy County clerk Isabel Vargas as a mule for intervention, wondering why the hell a minion would be used instead of, you know, the actual County Clerk. A real valid question, and the court found no good answer. The court similarly found that the Imperial County Board of Supervisors was not a proper vehicle, stating “…the Board plays no role with regard to marriage, which is “a matter of ‘statewide concern’ rather than a ‘municipal affair’”. The court rounded out the fisking as follows:

Moreover, the duties of the Supervisors themselves are not directly affected by this litigation, so they lack a significant protectable interest.

Second, the County itself has failed to demonstrate any interest of its own, apart from those claimed by Vargas or the Board of Supervisors.

So, in a nutshell, the argument by Imperial County that they were entitled to intervene as a matter of right was denied in full. Oh, and the 9th also found that Vaughn Walker was correct in finding no necessary basis for permissive intervention by Imperial County as well, and affirmed that denial. So Imperial County, unless they get some appellate relief, which is unlikely, is toast.

And, so that completes the fun today, right? Oh no! We have more! The estimable Judge Stephen Reinhardt lodged a concurring opinion that is a little, shall we say, more interesting. I will excerpt a few key quotes, but this one is only ten pages long and is well worth the read. I think you will quickly understand why I have said Reinhardt is such a wonderful treasure as a judge.

Today’s two orders involve a procedural question known as “standing.” The public may wonder why that issue is of such great importance, and what the significance of our standing decisions is. For that reason, while I agree entirely with our two dispositions, both of which are filed in the names of all three of us who are considering the appeals and both of which represent our unanimous views, I believe it desirable to set forth a few explanatory remarks of my own.

The standing problem arises out of a trend in our judicial system over the past few decades. It is a trend that emphasizes technical rules over deciding cases on the merits, and indeed over the merits themselves.

Reinhardt’s disdain for the avoidance of meritorious claims on technical standing issues just drips off the pages. Indeed he cites his own previous tomes on just this subject in a prominent footnote (See footnote 3 for the cites). But as to the instant case, Reinhardt acidly remarks:

All I can say now is that the issues concerning standing were wholly avoidable in this case.

He goes on to take a crystal clear shot directly at the broadside of Ted Olson and David Boies for filing their action, and obtaining their relief, against one two of the 58 counties in California:

Whether Plaintiffs are correct or not, it is clear that all of this would have been unnecessary and Plaintiffs could have obtained a statewide injunction had they filed an action against a broader set of defendants, a simple matter of pleading. Why preeminent counsel and the major law firms of which they are a part failed to do that is a matter on which I will not speculate.

Ouch. Reinhardt then goes on to blast Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, the Governor and Attorney General at the time respectively, for not giving the intervenors appellate cover (as I have consistently carped about as well) and Imperial County for the incredibly lame effort of trying to appear through a common deputy clerk. Reinhardt is spot on in each of these regards.

The last paragraph from Steve Reinhardt’s concurring opinion summarizes where the case stands, and is likely to do so better than I could, so I am going to let him speak:

None of this means that ultimately there is no standing in this case. Because of a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding the availability of standing to proponents of initiatives, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997), we have certified to the Supreme Court of California the question of an initiative proponent’s authority and interests under California law. Although that matter must be decided by the Supreme Court of California, Proponents advance a strong argument on this point. Thus, in the end, there may well be standing to maintain this appeal, and the important constitutional question before us may, after all, be decided by an appellate court – ours, the Supreme Court, or both – and may apply to California as a whole, instead of by being finally decided by a trial court, or by default, in only two counties or in none. As a result, the technical barriers and the inexplicable manner in which the parties have conducted this litigation may in the end not preclude an orderly review by the federal courts of the critical constitutional question that is of interest to all Americans, and particularly to the millions of Californians who voted for Proposition 8 and the tens of thousands of same-sex couples who wish to marry in that state. In the meantime, while we await further word from the Supreme Court of California, I hope that the American public will have a better understanding of where we stand today in this case, if not why.

The one last parting thought I have is that this California Supreme Court certification process is likely to take some time. Six months would be a miracle, a year is far more likely. First off, the California Supreme Court does not have to accept consideration, and there will be a briefing process on whether they even should do that. Assuming they then accept consideration on the merits, and I do think it extremely likely they will, there will then be a full briefing schedule on the merits before any decision.

It would have been expected that the Court under Chief Justice Ron George (very nice article here) would take this up, but he just left and the new Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, literally was just sworn in yesterday. She is known as being cautious and moderately conservative, but fair and open minded. Which, really, is probably a fair description of Ron George, so there may not be that much of a change at the top of the California Supremes.

I still look for the California Supreme Court to certify this issue, and my best guess is they will find standing, the case will be sent back to the 9th Circuit for a merits decision and the 9th will uphold Vaughn Walker. Assuming all that is the case and plays out accordingly, it will sure eviscerate much of the ability of the US Supreme Court to avoid the merits on standing (which I think they otherwise would do). The bad news is this is going to take well over a year, and could easily be two years if there is an en banc process as well in the 9th. An attempt to repeal Proposition 8 will almost certainly be on the ballot for the 2012 election and if it gets repealed, this case is moot. That would not be so bad, as it would reinstate marriage equality in California. However if it fails, and Barack Obama loses in 2012, and there is a very early opening on the Supreme Court, the resulting extreme rightward shift would be very detrimental. There are a lot of ways this could go in the future, stay tuned!

UPDATE: Here is Judge Reinhardt’s collateral final order on the earlier motion to disqualify him that he previously denied long before oral argument.

[The absolutely incredible graphic, perfect for the significance and emotion of the Perry Prop 8 case, and the decision to grant marriage equality to all citizens without bias or discrimination, is by Mirko Ilić. Please visit Mirko and check out his stock of work.]

I was going to post on boring depressing things. But instead I’m kibbitzing as my cousins play Fable 3. They suggested I post this YouTube instead.

Maybe I’ll get around to those boring depressing posts after Santa comes.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to you all! Thanks for being such an integral part of this joint all year.

Merriam-Webster has made “austerity” it’s word of the year for 2010.

Topping the list is austerity, defined as “enforced or extreme economy.” Lookups for austerity peaked dramatically several times throughout the year, as people’s attention was drawn to global economic conditions and the debt crises in Europe, but lookups also remained strong throughout the year, reflecting widespread use of the word in many contexts. “Austerity clearly resonates with many people,” said Peter Sokolowski, Editor at Large at Merriam-Webster, who monitors online dictionary searches. “We often hear it used in the context of government measures, but we also apply it to our own personal finances and what is sometimes called the new normal.”

I’m so cynical my first response was to wonder whether Pete Peterson had bought off the dictionary company like he did the Washington Post. But M-W says the list is based off of top online dictionary searches. Which is why some of the other words are perhaps more interesting:

4) socialism

5) bigot

7) shellacking

9) dissident

Remember, these reflect actual searches of the online dictionary. That suggests a significant proportion of the people still inclined to actually look things up in the dictionary chose (or needed) to refer to the dictionary to figure out what socialism actually is. And did Obama’s use of the term “shellacking” send journalists and Obama fans to the dictionary to find out just how badly Democrats got whupped at the mid-terms?

Use this thread to predict what words will make up next year’s list.

Alright, this is a quick hit because it is so freaking absurd. And it flat out cracks me up. Do these dogmatic conservative religious nutjobs ever stop to think how completely insane they sound? No.

Via Jillian Rayfield at TPM:

Becky Yeh of right-wing American Family News Network’s OneNewsNow, a product of the American Family Association, writes that Morse says “the rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with man.” Morse told ONN: “Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color. We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow.”

Morse continued: “We can’t simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children’s nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows…Noah’s Ark and all the animals…. Those are great Christian symbols, great Jewish symbols.” She also described how she wore a rainbow scarf to the Prop 8 hearings to show that anti-gay marriage activists still own the symbol.

You know, I don’t recall them specifically citing the theft of rainbows, but this is literally about the same kind of stupid shit argued by Charles Cooper, Andy Pugno and their battery of genius bigots attorneys in and around the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 trial.

They’re all ripping off Richie Blackmore.

If there was ever any illusion that the super-rich would start acting nicer after Congress gave them both income and estate tax breaks, I present Wal-Mart’s thanks for Congress’ willingness to make the Walton family even richer: (h/t Consumerist)

Wal-Mart managers in the U.S. received instructions to mark up an average of 1,800 types of toys per store, according to a company e-mail dated Nov. 30 obtained by Bloomberg News. The e- mail didn’t disclose specific increases.

[snip]

“In previous years Wal-Mart has come out and hammered everyone with unbelievably low toy prices,” said Eric Johnson, director of the Center for Digital Strategies at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire. “They stepped away from that this year, and after Thanksgiving their prices have crept back up.”

In a year when kids keep begging Santa for bare necessities for Christmas, the Walton family has been made even richer by Obama and Congress. And the thanks Congress and the American people get is higher prices for toys.

Emptywheel and Firedoglake have covered the groundbreaking marriage equality civil rights litigation in Perry v. Schwarzenegger from the outset. today is the critical appeal in the 9th Circuit and it is being televised on CSPAN live. In a separate dedicated post, Marcy Wheeler will be liveblogging and I will be assisting with color commentary both through her and in comments.

The case was filed by plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo in response to the passage of an amendment to California’s constitution by Proposition 8 providing “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

There was a three week long evidentiary trial in the Northern District of California last January in front of Judge Vaughn Walker with closing arguments made on June 16 (summary of EW live coverage here) and Judge Walker’s opinion finding such marriage discrimination unconstitutional was issued on August 4th. The appeal being argued today is from that decision by Judge Walker.

The oral argument is being televised live by CSPAN, will be carried by live feed on numerous internet sites, and will likely be on several other television networks as well. Here is a page with links and viewing information.

Here is Firedoglake’s dedicated Proposition 8 Resource Page containing just about everything you could possibly want to know about the case from start to finish including links to all of our coverage of the trial, closings, and judgment process, as well as the lead up to today’s argument, and nearly every important document, filing and brief in the case.

An article yesterday by Maure Dolan in the Los Angeles Times hit the nail on the head as to where to focus watching the oral argument:

When a federal appeals court meets in San Francisco on Monday for arguments on Proposition 8, legal analysts will be closely watching Judge Michael Hawkins, a moderate Democratic appointee whose vote is expected to be critical in the same-sex marriage case.

The randomly chosen three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a California liberal appointed by President Carter, and Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative from Idaho appointed by President George W. Bush.

“It’s a very favorable panel for the challengers to Proposition 8,” said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and expert on the 9th Circuit.

Hawkins, an Arizonan appointed by President Clinton, “is the one to watch most closely,” Hellman said. He has sided with liberals in some key cases and will probably cast the decisive vote in the case if there is a split decision, Hellman and other analysts said.

Having spent my legal career practicing in the 9th Circuit, I can tell you Dolan is spot on here. Reinhardt is simply a fantastic judge and a true liberal lion on the bench; Smith I do not know, but is clearly very conservative. Mike Hawkins I know from working with him on a case or two during his time in Phoenix as a private practitioner, as well as his time here as the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, all prior to being appointed by Clinton to the 9th Circuit. He is a good and fair man, extremely bright and likes to bore straight to the gist of issues. Ideologically, he leans to the left, but in a pretty moderate manner. However, Hawkins has a track record and personal belief system that is very much against discrimination and inequality. On the merits, he is a likely vote with Reinhardt to uphold Judge Walker’s opinion.

The bigger issue, and the first one argued, however, is whether the court should even address the merits of the appeal. Specifically, Plaintiffs Perry et. al are arguing that the Appellant Proposition 8 supporters (Defendant-Intervenors below in trial court) do not have standing to appeal without being officially joined by the State of California. California, by and through Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown has refused to participate in the appeal.

Today’s oral argument will be two hours long, divided into two distinct segments, each an hour in length. The first segment and issue will be the standing issue. David Boies will argue on behalf of Plaintiffs Perry et. al that the Appellant opponents of marriage equality lack the requisite Article III standing to appeal. Washington-based lawyer Charles Cooper, representing Appellant ProtectMarriage.com, the sponsors of Proposition 8, will argue there is sufficient standing. Also appearing and arging as an Appellant in favor of standing will be an attorney representing Imperial County of California who has filed a separate appeal in order to attempt to give governmental cover to the Appellant Proponents of Proposition 8. That appeal was consolidated for purpose of today’s argument.

For the second hour, on the merits portion of the oral argument, famed attorney and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson will handle the constitutional issues of equal protection, due process and fundamental fairness on behalf of Perry et. al and Charles Cooper will again argue on behalf of Appellant sponsors of Proposition 8.

This is history being made right in front of your eyes, enjoy the festivities!

[The absolutely incredible graphic, perfect for the significance and emotion of the Perry Prop 8 case, and the decision to grant marriage equality to all citizens without bias or discrimination, is by Mirko Ilić. Please visit Mirko and check out his stock of work.]

Like Mark Bittman, I have rather obsessively been playing with this interactive map, showing where all the factory farms are in this country, broken out by county. In my case, the interest is personal. I moved from the hippie-Ag area around Ann Arbor, MI, to west MI, where much of the bigger Ag is located (the biggest skyscraper in the area is a soy processing plant). I’ve driven a lot in the backroads around here and seen lots of blueberry plantations, some diverse crop farms, and the long sheds housing some kind of unhappy  industrially raised animals. This map provides a census of those unhappy animals.

I learned, for example, that there are 2.6 million egg-laying hens in the county, second only in the state to Allegan County, just south of here, which has 3.6 million layers.

It’s overcast today. Which means when I walked the dog in the beautiful snowy day, the smell of chickenshit (from the farms some distance to the east) hung in the air. It’s the first I noticed it so close to town, though there’s one gorgeous park where the adjoining chickenshit farm (which is upriver of town) makes the park pretty unusable.

Anyway, have “fun” with the map (and related factoids). Let us know in comments what kind of shit farm you’re living downriver from!

As you know from my report Monday when the three member appellate panel in the 9th Circuit was announce for the Prop 8 case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, one of the judges assigned was Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Steve Reinhardt is one of the finest judges you will find anywhere, and he is an old school principled and unabashed liberal whose veins carry the lifeblood of social justice, fundamental fairness and equal protection for all citizens.

So, of course the hating bigots that comprise the pro-Proposition 8 Defendant-Intervenors filed a motion last night to disqualify Reinhardt. Here is the full motion to disqualify brief, it is only 18 pages (10 of text) long and gives a very good glimpse of just how the haters tried to attack Reinhardt here because – gasp! – his wife has spent her career at the ACLU who -gasp! – actually is in favor of marriage equality. In a nutshell, D-Is argue:

Judge Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, the long-time Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California (hereinafter, “ACLU/SC”). As Executive Director, Ms. Ripston is “responsible for all phases of the organization’s programs, including litigation, lobbying and education.” Under Ms. Ripston’s leadership, “ACLU/SC has taken a lead role” in what it calls “the fight to end marriage discrimination” in California.
…
The facts of this case would plainly lead a reasonable person to conclude that Judge Reinhardt’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. His wife and the organization she leads have not only been active in seeking to redefine marriage in California and active in opposition to Proposition 8, but they have been active participants in this very lawsuit…
…
It is thus plain that Ms. Ripston has an avowed interest in seeing Proposition 8 invalidated, an interest that unquestionably will be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding.

The D-I argument is, of course, ginned up baloney. Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, was never an attorney of record in the case, has no pecuniary interest in the outcome, and the ACLU is not part of the appeal. But H8ters are gonna hate, and that is what these folks do best.

Steve Reinhardt wasted no time telling them where to place their hate. The D-I motion was filed early last night, and Reinhardt has already issued his order tersely denying the motion:

Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED.

Well, that will take care of that. That is what the entire raison de etre of the D-I is though, if you are not like them and believe as they do, you are not equal, not worthy and biased; be it being gay, atheistic/agnostic or liberal you are just simply not fit. Judge Reinhardt told them where to go with that rubbish. It is interesting to note that although there are some very substantial questions that could be asked about the staunch conservative judge appointed to the Perry panel, N. Randy Smith, the appellees have not thrown up unsupported and scurrilous motions to disqualify Smith because, without substantial factual support to do so it would be wrong. That is the qualitative difference in the attorneys and people on the two respective sides.

Now here is where it gets interesting and we move away from silly hate and back to the merits of the appeal. When you hear stories about how the Supreme Court frowns on the liberal Ninth Circuit and takes glee in reversing decisions from the 9th, Steve Reinhardt is the poster child for that meme. An appeal to the Supremes on a decision authored by Reinhardt is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, you are going to get their attention.

And to double the fun here, the threshold question, and really a huge issue that many people discussing the Perry appeal still do not grant enough weight, is the issue of standing on the part of the appellants. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has a post from back in August giving a very thorough and easy to understand discussion of the standing issue in Perry. The entire post is worth the read if you are not familiar with the standing issue, but the gist is this:

In both the Ninth Circuit and, if the case goes further, in the Supreme Court, it is now apparent that the resolution of the issue of standing to appeal will turn on how those courts interpret the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Arizona for Official English v. Arizona, casting doubt on whether initiative sponsors may appeal to defend a ballot measure when state officials refuse to do so, and the Court’s 1985 ruling in Karcher v. May, suggesting that state legislators may sometimes do so when other state officials refuse, provided state law allows for that. The proponents of the ban on gay marriage, in direct conflict with Judge Walker’s interpretation of California law, argue that state law does give them the right to be in court. California law, they said, makes their case different from the Arizona English initiative case.

And here is where the fun really starts. As I previously indicated, on the merits, you would expect a 2-1 decision upholding Walkers decision in favor og marriage equality and striking down the appeal of the Prop 8Haters. But, before you get to the merits, there is the problem of the standing issue and, as Denniston pointed out, the critical case for that determination will be the Supreme Court decision Arizona for Official English v. Arizona. Know who wrote the circuit court opinion in Arizona for Official English v. Arizona that the Supreme Court slapped down and reversed? Yep, Steve Reinhardt.

So, we have a Circuit Court judge predisposed to find standing in such cases, a Supreme Court predisposed to not care much for said judge’s opinion and a case that may, or may not, be able to be distinguished. Whatever the ruling is in the 9th, the opinion will almost certainly be written by either Reinhardt or Mike Hawkins. Reinhardt has the seniority over Hawkins and the lifetime of work on social justice opinions, if he wants to author the opinion, I think Hawkins will defer to him. The question is, might they decide to have Hawkins author the opinion to pull back on the red flag in front of the SCOTUS bull?

Get your popcorn, and remember that Emptywheel will be covering the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Monday morning December 6th at 10:00 am PST/FDL time and the proceedings will be carried live by CSPAN and other networks.

[The absolutely incredible graphic, perfect for the significance and emotion of the Perry Prop 8 case, and the decision to grant marriage equality to all citizens without bias or discrimination, is by Mirko Ilić. Mirko is an artist par ecellence in New York who also teaches illustration and design. Please visit Mirko and check out his stock of work, it is really superb.]