Texas progressives talk Paxton, special session, races

Many Texas Senate Rethuglicans are reportedly worried about being primaried over the Paxton impeachment.

Mike Miles is going to can 500 people at Houston ISD. (I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually rises.) Piece is originally from Houston Landing; interesting or "interesting" that the Trib is doing republishing now.

The Lege actually did a bit of good: HOAs can no longer discriminate against Section 8 tenants.

Speaking of, as state House and Senate tussle over property tax issues, and Danny Goeb and will renters get any help? The story notes that some more enlightened states, unlike Tex-ass, give direct pass-through relief to tenants; it also notes that no Rethuglican bill proposes that.

Speaking of that, Chris Hooks once again excoriates Strangeabbott. This is an overview of his eight-plus years as Gov and his relationship with the Lege, starting with how he burned that in his first year, and going on from there to the mule-headed stubbornness that he refuses to relinquish, most notably on vouchers. From there, it's his petulance in calling the first special session for the day after the regular ended.

 

State Sen. Roland Guitierrez has officially thrown his hat in the ring, challenging Colin Allred for the right to run against Havana Ted Cruz. Allred had a big money haul recently, and may have somewhat more name recognition, but I don't see this as that big of an uphill battle.

Strangeabbott is going through interim AGs like he goes through Secretaries of State.

Off the Kuff looked at Houston's lawsuit against the Death Star bill, the first of what will surely be many lawsuits filed against far-right legislation.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project says Mayoral candidate Gilbert Garcia's platform is silent on issues of protecting and expanding democracy in Houston.

SocraticGadfly dips into international affairs, with a multi-part look at Russia-Ukraine issues, tied in part to the Prigozhin mutiny. First is his take on the announcement of backdoor US-Russia peace talks, with a sidebar on what such talks might involve, and some Yevgeny Prigozhin issues. Second, he discusses the US mainstream media's problematic analysis of the Prigozhin mutiny. Third, he notes that, per a phrase from Counterpunch's Jeff St. Clair, that "more credulous precincts of the left" still cut Putin blank checks over how he handled that.

A good overview here of the current status of global oil issues and the background geopolitical maneuvers. (The story has one fail: Not mentioning that Iran is now an official member of the Shanghai Cooperative.)

Richard D. Wolff can complain with a straight face about US' China-bashing without once mentioning Uyghurs. "Shock me," unsurprisingly.

Props to Charles Barkley.

Vladeck is unequivocal about the SCOTUS hard right turn. 

 

Speaking of, Sonia Sotomayor just told Clarence Thomas to "Hold my beer (and read about it my my next book)."

Chris Geidner manages to find some reasons to be optimistic despite it all. 

Juanita never has any fun.

 

LA City Council (and city administration staff): hypocrites on homelessness.

TX primary gets pushed back to April 3 - cui bono?

Ron "Who Am I?" Paul

OK, who all benefits, or loses, from Texas' primary being pushed back from March 6 to April 3?

1. Pre-April 3, let's hope "we the people" benefit in that the Supreme Court doesn't give carte blanche to the old GOP maps, especially with Republicans no longer able to argue we're under a time crunch. That said, I'm wondering how vocal the first Latino/a justice, Sonia Sotomayor, will be in this case.

2. The state benefits from not doing split primary dates, thereby wasting more voter money.

3. The biggie, of course, to the larger American political world is GOP presidential fallout. The AP story says this could hurt Rick Perry's campaign. Of course, that's predicated on the unstated assertion that Gov. "Strong" would still be around in even March, to be hurt by a pushback. Frankly, I would have given you more than even odds he'd be withdrawn by March 6 were the primary date still there; I"m sure he will be now.

The real question the GOP should be asking is, "Will this help or hurt Ron Paul?" And, if Perry's out and Paul's still in, does this help or hurt state GOP leadership vis-a-vis the tea party wing of voters within the state GOP?

The thought of the likes of David Dewhurst having to at least pretend to kiss Paul's butt even the smallest bit is a bit heart-warming.

4. Theoretically, the Texas Democratic Party could benefit, but, this is a party that still is lost in a somewhat self-created wilderness, a party that hasn't had a decent gubernatorial candidate since Ann Richards ran for re-election in 1994 against W. More proof of that: The list to date of Dems filed to run in statewide races, now that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez has (good, in my opinion) pulled out of the Senate race.

Sotomayor – a wise Latina in 2028?

Mashing Sonia Sotomayor and Sandra Day O’Connor, Russ Douthat wonders about race relations and affirmative action in 2028.

Douthat puts his nut graf near the bottom:

Affirmative action has always been understandable, but never ideal. It congratulates its practitioners on their virtue, condescends to its beneficiaries, and corrodes the racial attitudes of its victims.

I agree that affirmative action, of today, though not originally, is less than ideal. The best corrective, and I’m not alone on this, would be making it class-based, not just race or ethnicity focuses. But Douthat ignores that idea entirely.

As for O’Connor, my biggest problem with her statement is that by putting a hard deadline on when she wants affirmative action to end, that makes it tempting, and easy if the temptation is indulged, to try to “run out the clock.”

And, perhaps Douthat should read about the Henry Louis Gates arrest at Harvard.

Cornyn to vote for Sotomayor?

With a quote like this:

“Your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making”

As a early-bird GOP senators start announcing their vote intentions, it’s going to be hard for him to come out and say no later on.

The kabuki of Sotomayor hearings

Senators adopt postures behind their No masks, Sotomayor, like any other SCOTUS nominee, adjusts her mask in turn, and the play’s the thing, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” and informing nobody.

But, we don’t have to put up with this crap, legally; China has never signed relevant WTO side protocols on government procurement, contra a promise way back in 2001.

However, we do have to, in a sense, since our debt is hostage to China. Europe, on the other hand, has more room to play; will we see a call for sanctions against China?

NYT Sotomayor editorial chock full of legal idiots

Dear Gail Collins: Who within the New York Times op-ed staff had the dim-bulb idea of including Michael Chertoff and Alberto Gonzales in a mock questionnaire for Sonia Sotomayor?

Rather than this being a sign of Holder’s independence, you have to wonder if this was discussed in detail with the Obama White House.

Sotomayor – strong insights but ‘anal’

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is definitely up to Supreme Court snuff on constitutional law issues, according to the Brennan Center, but a Washington Post review of the “granular” level of her appellate decision-making finds here a bit anal, for doing and reduplicating trial-court level details. Even that, though, was not found to be necessariliy “bad” by every legal expert interviewed in the Post story.

Brooks is down with Sotomayor

Opining from the hinterlands of Boboworld, David Brooks officially asserts that Sonia Sotomayor needs to be confirmed as President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

That may soften up a couple of Senate votes. Even more, the whole tenor of Brooks’ column will make astroturfing campaigns against her more difficult to gain traction.

Did Shelby Steele oppose Clarence Thomas?

He was certainly less qualified than Sonia Sotomayor, yet Poppy Bush picked him solely on his skin color. Steele doesn’t even mention that while eviscerating Obama for tapping Sotomayor. Rather, Steele sounds like he actually is riffing on Thomas:

I have called Mr. Obama a bound man because he cannot win white support without bargaining and he cannot maintain minority support without playing the very identity politics that injure him with whites. The latter form of politics is grounded in being what I call a challenger -- i.e., someone who presumes that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by granting preferences of some kind to minorities.

With insight like that, who needs reality, eh?

(Of course, this is the same Steele who wrote a political handicapping book in 2007 predicting Obama couldn’t win.)

Parallel lives – Thomas and Sotomayor

There’s not much new to learn about either Clarence Thomas or Sonia Sotomayor from the New York Times’ mini-Plutarchian parallel lives, although it does set Clarence Thomas in starker relief.

To me, it confirms what I’ve already held — much of Thomas’ anger and bitterness is partially self-inflicted. That, in turn, was partially from reacting to new situations and problems with old, stereotypical behavior patterns.

It’s like he took his Ayn Rand reading and ran it through the sausage grinder of aggrieved minority, fully recognizing the two didn’t mesh while determining to pretend he could create some Hegelian synthesis out of that.

Rush may support Sotomayor

Why? With no paper trail on abortion, and being Catholic, Rush hopes she might be David Souter in reverse. I still think Obama lied when he said he didn’t ask her about her stance on abortion, but, what if he IS telling the truth?

GOP dumbness hits new low on Sotomayor race-bait

Hispanic Republicans are flipping their collective gourds at the race-based attacks of people like Newt Gingrich, not just wigged-out blogs, at President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.

Expecting the possibity of something like this is why I blogged earlier this week about how the Sotomayor choice could well help Obama in 2012.

Team Obama backs off Sotomayor as ‘wise Latina’

Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called her comments “poorly chosen.” Obama himself said, “I’m sure she would have restated it,” given an opportunity.

If The One thinks a bit of Kumbaya cum mea culpa will satisfy conservative attack dog groups …

Conservative BS on Sotomayor reversal rate

Contra the Washington Times bullshit, three of five cases isn’t statistically significant.

Beyond that, though, there is more.

Having only five of her cases granted cert by SCOTUS is actually much more significant. And in just the opposite direction of the conservative bloviosphere the Times represents.

And, if the Times does NOT understand what is statistically significant, well, that's why conservatives resist so much scientific information — they can't understand that, either.

Obama lies about Sotomayor vetting

He gives a big abortion speech at Notre Dame just after vetting Sotomayor and other SCOTUS candidates on his short list, and now claims he never asked Sotomayor her position on abortion? Puhleeze.

Even for Just.Another.Politician.™, this is a Clintonesque whopper. And, it does the confirmation process no good. Next, we’ll get lies about gay rights. Or First Amendment issues.

Time vs Time on Sotomayor

Does Time magazine not have a managing editor anymore? Or has the Internet basically castrated the powers of such a person at what is theoretically a weekly newsmagazine?

At Time, Karen Tumulty says Sotomayor WILL get a tough Senate fight: “Indeed, a fight is a political inevitability.”

(Sidebar nutbarrery: Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network calling the current SCOTUS “liberal activist.”)

Anyway, in contradistinction to Tumulty, Time’s Mark Halperin predicts smooth sailing for Sotomayor.

So, which is it?

And, in a broader, more philosophical question, are more magazines of news and opinion going to become more like this – little more than quasi-freelancers under one roof?

The politically potent Sotomayor choice

Earlier, I blogged about how Obama may have boosted his Hispanic vote percentage for 2012 by as much as 5 percent over 2008 with his Sonia Sotomayor choice.

Let’s just say its 3 percent.

What’s that mean, electoral-vote-wise?

Well, California is totally in the bag. But, it’s not expected to gain any electoral votes. Nevada, up 1 after the 2010 Census, in estimates, will go more strongly for Obama.

But, overall?

Texas should gain three House seats after the 2010 Census, according to Election Data Services. Arizona, Utah, Nevada and Florida will be among other gainers, with one seat each. Great Lakes-bordering New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are each expected to lose one seat, among various states, with Ohio possibly losing two and Illinois maybe losing one.

And, the possible electoral effect?

If these changes had been in place in 2008, Barack Obama's margin over John McCain in the Electoral College would have been 10 votes smaller.

But, that’s if nothing changes on vote percentages.

On my theory, Arizona becomes very competitive. (Remember, no McCain on the GOP ticket, either.) A safer Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico let Obama move more of his Southwest focus in 2012 to the Grand Canyon State, perhaps enough to take it. Arizona, with 11 EVs after the new Census, wipes out those 10 electoral votes plus 1. And Nevada gives him one more. So, he actually could easily gain 2 EVs.

Texas becomes perhaps as close as 5-percentage-point difference competitive. That's close enough to force a GOP candidate to sweat it out there, and perhaps enough to force Rick Perry into the national picture, as either Prez or Veep candidate for the GOP.

That said, there are Hispanics and there are Hispanics. Republican-leaning Cuban-Americans are unlikely to identify with Sotomayor anyway, so Obama gets no help in Florida. And, non-Cuban Caribbean Hispanics may be more favorable to her than Mexican or Central American ones, meaning the “bump” in Nevada or Arizona for Obama may not be too big.

At the same time, if Obama’s choice boosts Hispanic turnout, since that leaned 2-1 for him a year ago, he doesn’t need 5 extra percentage points of Hispanic support to benefit.

So, two electoral votes; three easier states. GOP has to break at least a little more sweat on Texas while trying to regain Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana.

And, swing-state Missouri, though it does not have a large Hispanic population, has just enough, and was just close enough in 2008, that it would be leaning slightly Obama.

A definite gain.

And, with more Democrats than Republicans defending Senate seats in 2012, a gain with down-race coattails, too.

Sotomayor as Obama's 'unsafe' SCOTUS choice?

It's clear that, strongly conservative bomb-throwing aside, Sonia Sotomayor is actually about as liberal as ... well, as the man who nominated her.

And, if you truly believe President Barack Obama is that much of a liberal, I've got some Arizona swampland to sell you.

First, from a SCOTUSblog review on civil cases, she's fairly thin on First Amendment issues

I quote:

First Amendment - Speech: Sotomayor has considered First Amendment issues relatively infrequently.

And:

Abortion Rights: Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights...

And, she's not that good, at least vis-a-vis the executive, on civil liberties/privacy:

In two cases involving requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that declined to order the release of the requested information, explaining that she did not want to “unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making.”

That said, the cases that ARE on her relatively thin resume aren't very encouraging.

Interesting that SCOTUSblog doesn’t even mention the Niehoff case (PDF), yet another of those cases where judges chip away at free-speech rights of minors at school.

And, it gets worse.

At least some religious conservatives are playing her up on issues such as churches’ freedom from some labor law issues, which the White House itself is trumpeting.

For those reasons, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is concerned.

Even without a serious political battle, it's clear Obama could have done better.

And, speaking of politics, this pick is probably, to be blunt, worth 5 percentage points among Hispanic voters in the 2012 presidential election.

It's also clear that, despite anything he may say to the contrary in days ahead, this was a "demographics" nomination.

More on Sotomayor as 'safe' SCOTUS choice

Contrary to my plea to go for real diversity to replace David Souter, President Barack Obama went with the clearly ‘safe’ choice of Sonia Sotomayor.

That said, I would put Sotomayor at B/B-minus range for what she brings to the court, on an early reading.

Why, you may ask?

First, re a SCOTUSblog review on civil cases, there's not much on her on some of the "burning issues," such as "presidentialism," politely called "executive privilege."

I quote:

First Amendment - Speech: Sotomayor has considered First Amendment issues relatively infrequently.

And:

Abortion Rights: Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights...

Also, beyond Riverkeeper, she's not had much on environmental law.

And, she's not that good, at least vis-a-vis the executive, on civil liberties/privacy:

In two cases involving requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that declined to order the release of the requested information, explaining that she did not want to “unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making.”

And, that's not all.

Interesting that SCOTUSblog doesn’t even mention the Niehoff case (PDF), yet another of those cases where judges chip away at free-speech rights of minors at school.

And, it gets worse.

At least some religious conservatives are playing her up on issues such as churches’ freedom from some labor law issues, which the White House itself is trumpeting.

For those reasons, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is concerned.

She's not as much a stealth candidate as Souter, but I stand by the idea that she's relatively thin in her rulings.

She's OK, but, we all know Obama could have done better. (If he didn't mind a bit more of a fight, but not THAT much more.)

Obama makes the ‘safe’ SCOTUS choice

Contrary to my plea to go for real diversity to replace David Souter, President Barack Obama went with the clearly ‘safe’ choice of Sonia Sotomayor.

The Senate GOP, unless it’s reaching for new heights of stupidity, cannot mount any more than “token” opposition (pun intended) to a person both female and Hispanic unless it really wants to drive in the ditch. And, contra Jeff Sessions, it can’t realistically stall confirmation past its August recess.

And, yes, this does/did steal the news thunder, at least a bit, from the California Supreme Court.

That said, I would put Sotomayor at B/B-minus range for what she brings to the court, on an early reading.

Someone who actually would have TOTALLY fit my request? Glenn Greenwald.

Specifically on Sotomayor, re a SCOTUSblog review on civil cases, there's not much on her on some of the "burning issues," such as "presidentialism," politely called "executive privilege."

I quote:

First Amendment - Speech: Sotomayor has considered First Amendment issues relatively infrequently.

And:

Abortion Rights: Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights...

Also, beyond Riverkeeper, she's not had much on environmental law.

And, she's not that good, at least vis-a-vis the executive, on civil liberties/privacy:

In two cases involving requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that declined to order the release of the requested information, explaining that she did not want to “unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making.”

And, that's not all.

Interesting that SCOTUSblog doesn’t even mention the Niehoff case (PDF), yet another of those cases where judges chip away at free-speech rights of minors at school.

She's not as much a stealth candidate as Souter, but I stand by the idea that she's relatively thin in her rulings.

She's OK, but, we all know Obama could have done better. (If he didn't mind a bit more of a fight, but not THAT much more.)