Robes for Rob??

With today's (somewhat expected) resignation of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, there have been literally thousands of news stories and blog posts suggesting possible nominees.

So let me be the first to add a practicing attorney in Jackson, Mississippi to the list.



Robert B. McDuff would be the first attorney since Lewis Powell to ascend directly from the advocate's role to the High Court. A recent program at Harvard Law School (where McDuff graduated in 1980) describes his impressive resume as follows:

[McDuff] is a civil rights and criminal defense attorney practicing in Jackson, Mississippi. His practice includes trial and appellate work in cases throughout the country, including four cases that he has argued in the United States Supreme Court. He has represented black voters in several cases in the south seeking to increase the number of black-majority election districts for public officials, including members of congress, state legislators, and state court judges. He has handled cases involving voting rights, police misconduct, free speech, indigent defense funding, access to the courts, abortion rights, school prayer, and discrimination in employment and housing.

McDuff’s criminal practice is comprised of both retained and appointed cases, including several death penalty cases. He presently is representing one of the “Jena 6" defendants in Jena, Louisiana. He is a recipient of the Pro Bono Service Award of the International Human Rights Law Group of Washington, D.C.; the NAACP Legal Award of the Mississippi Conference NAACP; the Ernst Borinski Civil Libertarian Award presented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi; and the 2006 Trial Lawyer of the Year award of the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association. He is vice-chair of the Board of Directors of the Mississippi Center for Justice and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Prior to opening his practice in Jackson in 1992, McDuff was an attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, DC and, before that, a member of the faculty of the University of Mississippi Law School, where he taught and also directed a federal court public defender program. He was a law clerk for U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice of the Eastern District of Texas.

So WTF Not, Mr. President? Let's put a real lawyer on the Supreme Court!!

Glenn Beck Admits: "We're An Entertainment Company"

I have long wondered why conservatives take media-moguls like Rush Limbough, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck seriously. It seems obvious to me that they make their extreme claims primarily to drive sales and advertising revenue their way.

Now Glenn Beck has admitted this, and in a favorable forum -- Forbes magazine (Forbes, in fact, has its own show, Forbes on Fox, on Beck's home network). In an article titled "Glenn Beck Inc.", posted online today, Forbes quotes Beck as follows:

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. He gets $13 million a year from print (books plus the ten-issue-a-year magazine Fusion). Radio brings in $10 million. Digital (including a newsletter, the ad-supported Glennbeck.com and merchandise) pulls in $4 million. Speaking and events are good for $3 million and television for $2 million.

So who can believe this guy?

Trial Lawyer and Republican State Senator File Class Action Against Health Care Reform

On Friday, Hattiesburg plaintiff's lawyer and blogger K. Douglas Lee and Mississippi State Senator (and host of the Ride Side Radio Show) Chris McDaniel (R-Ellisville), filed a Federal class action lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Complaint makes an interesting argument that the Health Care Reform Legislation violates the privacy rights of Americans. As Mr. Lee explains in his post about the lawsuit (which includes a copy of the complaint):

We believe that the PPACA is DOA for several equally important reasons, but only one of which has received much attention. Most folks know by now that Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause to justify this massive expansion of governmental power. Our “Good Friday” Complaint spends many pages discussing how Congress has clearly exceeded the limits of its power under the Commerce Clause. I strongly urge you to read the entire Complaint. What I really want to point out, though, are some things you probably don’t know, and definitely will not like — even if you consider yourself a “Liberal.”

Consider for a moment that you have now been commanded to enter into a contract with an insurance corporation, whether you want to or not, whether you need to or not. Yes, there are many who actually choose to be uninsured. For most, it is simply an economic decision that often works out to the uninsured’s economic advantage. Not always, of course, but that’s the beauty of liberty — you get to make the decisions, and live with the good or bad that comes of them.

Now that you realize that a dictate has been handed down, compelling you to contract with an insurance corporation or else, consider what you have to do. It’s not like you can go to a vending machine, swipe your debit card and pull out a policy. You still have to apply. True, they cannot turn you down, but so what? You still have to give a big, scary, mean corporation a lot of private medical and psychological information about yourself and your family. Then, forever after, the insurance corporation’s bureaucrats will gather this private information without even bothering to let you know.

I have to admit, that's pretty unique "out of the box" thinking, and I kinda admire it. But it seems to me that the whole conservative/Fox News argument that the "mandate" is some kind of imperial command is misplaced. The Act provides for a penalty or tax to be paid by persons who don't obtain health insurance. And as Mr. Lee points out, the tax is unlike most other Federal taxes, in that there can be no levy or criminal prosecution of persons who fail to pay the tax:

If the feds cannot levy or lien you, then what can they do to get your money? Write scary letters to you? Just what happens to the authority of the federal government when people laugh at these scary letters?

* * * *

If the government admits, or the federal judiciary declares, that there is no enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate, millions will be free to ignore it.

Setting aside whether the IRS could file a lawsuit against non-payors, or take it out of tax refunds, and also setting aside the idea that the point of this lawsuit seems to be to encourage non-compliance of the law (an oddly un-conservative notion) . . . .

It's interesting that the authors of this lawsuit think:

The alternative, of course, is for the feds to admit that there is no enforcement mechanism. Consider what that means for a minute: the pièce de résistance of the PPACA is the individual mandate. Without an enforcement mechanism, the individual mandate fails; without the mandate, the entire legislative act fails utterly.

Well, no, it doesn't. Without the individual mandate, the Act still requires insurance companies to cover applicants, with or without pre-existing conditions. If the insurance carriers can't have the pool of healthy persons to collect premiums from, then the folks who have pre-existing conditions (but who in the past did not buy health insurance) will bankrupt the insurance companies? The ultimate result? A single-payer national health insurance plan.

So you want "socialized medicine?" Then sue to have the individual mandate struck out of the health care act, or encourage folks not to comply with it.

If you're interested, some good analyses of the constitutionality of the Act are here, here, and here.

An Open Letter to My Neighbor, Gov. Haley Barbour

Dear Governor Barbour,

As I sit here at home during this noon hour, gazing out over the manicured lawn of your ceremonial home, I can't help but ponder the monumental strides we as a nation made last month with the passage of health care insurance reform, and your subsequent response.  It deeply troubles me, and I'll explain why.

Growing up, I was fortunate enough to have parents who could protect me with health insurance coverage.  That insurance coverage gave me access to health care that, on two separate occasions, saved my very life.

This morning, I spent some time at Callaway High School here in Jackson. As I spoke to the children assembled there about making responsible choices in life, I could not help but think of the high likelihood that most of them would benefit greatly from the passage of health care insurance reform.  Afterwards, driving back through Jackson towards my office, I considered how some of the children I laughed with this morning would no doubt face medical problems that would now be addressed adequately only because of the legislation Congress passed last month.  And I was grateful.

Shortly after I returned to the office, I received word of a T.E.A. Party rally in Tupelo, at which a reported 1,500 people gathered to complain about taxes and the loss of their "freedom."  This growing movement of people dissatisfied with what they perceive to be unnecessary taxes fueled by wasteful government spending is no doubt appealing to you as an aspiring 2012 GOP presidential nominee.  I do not begrudge you that.  I do, however, take issue with you fighting the health care insurance reform that will forever improve the lives of the children I met with this morning.

As leader of one of our nation's most impoverished states, it must be troubling to you to be forced between taking positions that are best for Mississippi, and those that are popular within your party.  Health care insurance reform is undoubtedly a blessing for our fellow Mississippians.  It is equally certain that supporting it would damage any hopes you have for national office.  I truly empathize with you, and wish that you were not forced to choose between your personal aspirations and the good of your people.  However, my empathy, and almost certainly the compassion of history, fades when you choose poorly.

Governor, I ask that you not make the poor of Mississippi blood sacrifices on the altar of your presidential campaign.  End your threat to join the Florida lawsuit, and support the program that ensures our fellow Mississippians will have access to the medical care that will save their lives.

The Daily Journal runs a story on the Itawamba prom "bait-and-switch"

NMC was first to report on this last night, and the internet media jumped all over it.  Now it's going mainstream.  Chris Keiffer over at NEMS360.com has his story on the saga online now, and gives us the location of the "secret" prom: the Evergreen Community Center in Evergreen, MS.  He also confirms that there were only 7 people at the Fulton Country Club prom when Constance McMillen attended.

Here's a map for those of us unfamiliar with Itawamba County geography.  Constance was led to believe the prom was at "A" when it was actually being held at "B":

NMissCommentor.com crashes under weight of visitors to McMillen story ***UPDATED*** NMC BACK ONLINE

Last night, NMC over at NMissCommentor.com posted an account of what happened this weekend regarding Constance McMillen's ongoing prom saga. In short, all indications are that the prom at the Fulton Country Club was a ruse, and that the "real" prom was held at a secret location, unbeknownst to Constance, her date, and 7 other students.

I copied a portion of his post in a brief post of my own, and I'm glad I did. Perez Hilton, Democratic Underground, and Gawker all linked NMC's story, leading to north of 4,000 hits by 11:30 a.m. today. As a result of the influx of visitors, nmisscommentor.com went down, and to my knowledge, is still down. I imagine it'll be back up in the next few hours. I also imagine that this issue will garner fairly substantial media attention in the next couple of days.

Stay tuned for updates on the status of NMC's blog.

***UPDATE***

As of 3:07 p.m. today, www.nmisscommentor.com is back online.

Christ in Heaven, I hope this is not true

Last night was prom night in Itawamba County, Mississippi.  Most of you who follow this blog are well aware of the saga of Constance McMillen, an openly-gay student at Itawamba Agricultural High School.  Tom Freeland over at NMissCommentor.com is reporting the following about last night's events:

Here’s the news, from a source I view as extremely reliable.  The prom the school district promised at the country club in Fulton was a ruse.  Only seven kids, Constance, and her date showed, and at the same time, everyone else held a “real” prom at a secret location out in the county.
This is all after the school district had represented to Judge Davidson that Constance was invited to a parent-sponsored prom to be held at Tupelo Furniture Market.  The school represented that Constance was invited in court filings, testimony, and representations by the school district and its lawyers.  In reality, Constance had not been invited, but, based on the representations by the district and its counsel, Judge Davidson denied Constance’s request for a preliminary injunction that she could go to the prom.
The school reneged, or possibly didn’t ever intend to follow through on its representations to the court.  The parents didn’t want Constance at the prom and didn’t want to be sued (as they told the Clarion Ledger), and so on Tuesday announced the cancellation of the prom.
But what they’d done was secretly relocated it.

These reported actions, if true, are an affront to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, and a great shame to us all.  My hope is that the information Tom is receiving is somehow erroneous.  My fear is that it is not.