In two related cases, a federal district court in Massachusetts has ruled that critical portions of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violate the federal Constitution. In striking down the section of the statute that bars federal legal protections to legally married same-sex couples, Judge Joseph Tauro found that the law violates states’ rights to define marriage and violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause by treating married same-sex couples differently from married different-sex couples. Prior to the passage of DOMA, the federal government always recognized the states’ right to define marriage. The cases were brought by the Massachusetts attorney general and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

A bill is currently pending in the House of Representatives that would repeal DOMA and respect state marriages by providing federal protections for married same-sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that, once the federal government recognizes the marriage of a same-sex couple, it would continue to recognize that marriage even if the couple moved to another state that would not have allowed the couple to marry in the first place.

The following can be attributed to James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project:

"Today’s decision is an important step forward for marriage for same-sex couples. There are thousands of same-sex couples lawfully married in the five states and Washington, DC that currently allow them the freedom to marry. Today’s ruling recognizes that the federal government has literally no justification for refusing to respect those marriages.

"To finish the job, Congress should pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which is pending in Congress and would completely repeal DOMA. We applaud this decision and congratulate GLAD and the Massachusetts attorney general for their work in bringing the cases."

This is good news for all of us who hope for true equality in this country. We are very happy for all of our GLBT friends.

One day, this will all seem oh-so-silly.

DOMA has got to go.

• Myth: Kagan is "anti-military"
• Myth: Kagan is "radical"
• Myth: Kagan’s praise for an Israeli Supreme Court justice shows she’s a radical (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan’s thesis shows she’s a socialist
• Myth: Conservatives can credibly argue that Kagan’s personal and political views are relevant to confirmation process
• Myth: "Kagan Standard" means Kagan must answer questions about issues that will come before the Supreme Court
• Myth: Kagan’s Goldman Sachs role taints her nomination
• Myth: Conservative opposition is based on the substance of Kagan’s nomination
• Myth: Obama used "empathy" standard rather than fealty to law in choosing Kagan
• Myth: Kagan is unqualified because she hasn’t been a judge (UPDATED)
• Myth: Kagan has said judicial experience is an "apparent necessity"
• Myth: Republicans would be justified in opposing Kagan because she lacks a judicial paper trail
• Myth: Kagan is "Obama’s Harriet Miers"
• Myth: Kagan’s record shows that she will rubber-stamp war-on-terror policies
• Myth: Kagan’s 23-year-old statements about the Establishment Clause suggest she’s hostile to religion
• Myth: Kagan’s recusal obligations would be "extraordinary"
• Myth: Kagan "can become" too "emotionally involved on issues she deeply cares about"
• Myth: Kagan not "fair-minded, impartial" and doesn’t have "proper temperament to be a judge"
• Myth: Kagan is anti-free speech
• Myth: Kagan supports banning books
• Myth: Kagan wanted to "ban pamphlets" by individuals (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan is anti-Second Amendment
• Myth: Kagan compared the NRA to the Klan (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan banned ROTC from campus
• Myth: Kagan "cover[ed] up" plagiarism at Harvard Law
• Myth: Kagan’s citation of Marshall’s statement that the original Constitution was "defective" is controversial
• Myth: Kagan’s memos to Justice Thurgood Marshall prove she’s outside mainstream (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan’s campaign donations are unusual
• Myth: Kagan supported Saudi sponsors of terrorism
• Myth: Kagan accepted a gift by Saudi prince that brought Shariah at Harvard (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan acted improperly in Warner Creek case
• Myth: As SG, Kagan indulged her own views rather than defending the law
• Myth: Kagan is avoiding "traditional interviews" with the press
• Myth: Kagan supports holding terror suspects "without due process" (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan believes that foreign law trumps constitutional law (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan wants to protect sex offenders in the Catholic Church (NEW)
• Myth: Kagan supports cloning human beings (NEW)

Read the entire article here.

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s lips. He’s sitting on the far left (no pun intended) behind Cheif Justice John Roberts. Justice Alito says, "Not true," when President Obama shares his reservations about the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate spending in elections.

Watch the video closely.

Declaring “I don’t quit,”‘ an embattled President Barack Obama vowed in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night to make job growth his topmost priority and urged a divided Congress to boost the still-ailing economy with fresh stimulus spending. Defiant despite stinging setbacks, he said he would not abandon ambitious plans for longer-term fixes to health care, energy, education and more.

“Change has not come fast enough,” Obama said before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions. “As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.”

Obama looked to change the conversation from how his presidency is stalling — over the messy health care debate, a limping economy and the missteps that led to Christmas Day’s barely averted terrorist disaster — to how he is seizing the reins.

A chief demand was for lawmakers to press forward with his prized health care overhaul, which is in severe danger in Congress, and to resist the temptation to substitute a smaller-bore solution for the far-reaching changes he wants.

“Do not walk away from reform,” he implored. “Not now. Not when we are so close.”

Republicans applauded the president when he entered the chamber, and even craned their necks and welcomed Michelle Obama when she took her seat. But the warm feelings of bipartisanship disappeared early.

I don’t know how “embattled” President Obama is right now. Every president is “embattled.” I found the tone of the SOTU remarkable. But Congress needs to remember how to be a parliament, and they’re not there yet. Republicans say, “NO!” Democrats let the tail wag the dog and give up the fight. The intelligence factor in Congress is rather low right now, I fear, on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are too dumb to realize that there is more to life than cheap politics, and Democrats are too dumb to know how to make Congress work.

Too bad.

I’m glad this president does not “give up.” We still have work to do.

Washington, D.C.–January 23, 2010.

One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.

The Times is right. If Congress does not act, your vote will be meaningless. You are a person. A corporation is not. Corporations will now be able to give as much money as they want to any and all politicians.

This is incredibly insane.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government.

I was flabbergasted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions, the New York Times said today.

The ramifications of this are incredible. Everything Keith Olbermann says in the video above is true. Sometimes Keith overreacts. Not this time.

I didn’t get a chance to listen to Thom Hartmann today, but I’m sure he was beside himself. Hartmann has been arguing for a long, long time that corporations are not people. He’s right. A corporation is a legal entity which exists on paper only. The First Amendment should not apply at all, but it was the First Amendment which persuaded five of nine justices otherwise.

This is incredibly unnerving. The New York Times editorial board is correct: "Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy."

(PHOTO: ENEWSPF)

The news of President Barack Obama has circulated and percolated throughout the world for just over three hours now. I’m not even taking a look at what anyone on the far right is saying at this point. No doubt the right wingnuts now have to figure out how to turn this into a political liability for Obama. That should be interesting to watch.

Here’s the fact: President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why?

Many on the right and the left and those more moderate are asking themselves this question. No doubt President Obama is asking himself the same questions right now. As a friend on Facebook commented, "Here’s hoping Obama’s real reaction upon hearing the news this morning was, like everyone else’s, ‘WTF?’ "

I have not yet begun to survey opinion from around the world. I can only offer my own assessment. Yes, it’s true that Obama did not succeed in locking the Olympic bid for Chicago, but, in all honesty, is Chicago ready to join the Federation? (Yes, that’s the Trekker in me.) The Olympic bid was more about Rio de Janeiro. After Chicago lost in the first round of voting, the votes went overwhelmingly for Rio.

Chicago 2016 was not about Obama. It was about a young man beaten to death in the streets of Chicago just a week before the vote. It was about the many, many doubts regarding the ability of Chicago politicians to do the Olympics honestly.

To begin, I don’t think we as Americans have the least understanding how world opinion about the United States has shifted since the November 2008 election. No, we’re not out of the woods yet. But consider this from Reuters:

The United States is the most admired country globally thanks largely to the star power of President Barack Obama and his administration, according to a new poll.

It climbed from seventh place last year, ahead of France, Germany, theUnited Kingdom and Japan which completed the top five nations in the Nation Brand Index (NBI).

"What’s really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States for 2009," saidSimon Anholt, the founder of NBI, which measured the global image of 50 countries each year.

He believes that during the previous administration of George W. Bush the United States suffered in the world ranking with its unpopularforeign policies but since Obama was elected, and despite the recent economic turmoil, the country’s status has risen globally.

"There is no other explanation," Anholt said in an interview, referring to the impact of Obama.

The Obama Administration means the return of diplomacy to the world stage. From the New York Times:

The Nobel Committee announced in Oslo that it has awarded the annual peace prize to Barack Obama, just nine months into his presidency, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal. “He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.

The announcement shocked people from Norway to the White House. “There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, in a brief telephone interview.

Mr. Emanuel said that he had not yet spoken directly to the president. A senior administration official said in an e-mail message that his press secretary, Robert Gibbs Mr. Gibbs called the White House shortly before 6 a.m. and woke the president with the news.

“The president was humbled to be selected by the committee,” the official said, without adding anything further.

The White House has made no official comment.

I don’t think we as Americans realize how far we had fallen in the eyes of the world during the Bush Administration. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize is about America regaining honor and respect throughout the world. At least to a point. This prize is as much about the future as it is the past. My students asked, "What has he done? He just got elected!" But the committee is not simply recognizing Obama’s accomplishments as president. Obama has spent his adult life in service to others. As a United States Senator, Obama was campaigning for a return to diplomacy, for a radical shift in United States foreign policy. He has begun to implement the siesmic shift in policy we need in this country and throughout the world: a return to diplomacy.

Have we arrived? No. The United States is still mired in two wars. Iran — the government, not all Iranians — is still a threat.

The last president labeled himself a "war president." May this award be a constant reminder to President Obama that it is possible to strive, every day, to be a "peace president."

French President Nicolas French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize marks "America’s return to the hearts of the people of the world."

Are Obama’s — and America’s — greatest days ahead?

The world hopes so. This award is about that hope.

Okay, so why is today any different from any other day?

From Andrew LaVallee at the Wall Street Journal:

A recent amendment to the federal shield bill being considered in the Senate will exclude non-”salaried” journalists and bloggers from the proposed law’s protections.

The law, called the Free Flow of Information Act, is intended to prevent journalists from being forced to divulge confidential sources, except in cases such as witnessing crimes or acts of terrorism. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) last week, limits the definition of a journalist to one who “obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity–

a. that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and

b. that—

1. publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

2. operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

3. operates a programming service; or

4. operates a news agency or wire service.”

As an unpaid blogger — according to this definition — let me say this: government should not have the right to define what is and is not “the press.”  If a resident of any town wants to sit down with a word processing program and print the news on 8.5″ x 11″ and become the next town crier, how can Washington say this journalistic neophyte is not legit?

The government cannot do this.  The government must not take this step.  Schumer is wrong. If this amendment does pass, the Supremes would be well advised to declare it unconstitutional.

Why?  Consider this…

What would Chuck Schumer have done with Thomas Paine? Would Schumer first have to consider if Paine was paid for Common Sense?  Would he conclude that Paine was just an independent blogger, you know, throwing his opinion around?

Would Chuck Schumer be the guy turning Thomas Paine over to the British?

You gotta wonder.

Breaking news from The New York Times:

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.’s inspector general but have never been released.

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general’s findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder’s associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

With the release of the details on Monday and the formal advice that at least some cases be reopened, it now seems all but certain that the appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the C.I.A. It is politically awkward, too, for Mr. Holder because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda.

The advice from the Office of Professional Responsibility strengthens Mr. Holder’s hand.

The recommendation to review the closed cases, in effect renewing the inquiries, centers mainly on allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Justice Department report is to be made public after classified information is deleted from it.

President Obama, it’s time to lead and let justice be served.

Tuesday, he finally got his chance.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Some in the audience wiped away tears as State’s Atty. Joseph Birkett solemnly described the fingernail scratches 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico left on the wall that showed how she tried to fight off a would-be burglar.

How Brian Dugan promised to take the girl home but instead killed her.

The murder “went as perfectly as the others, but something was wrong,” Brian Dugan told an Illinois State Police psychologist, Birkett recounted. “I felt like I was going to get caught.”

And he did. Dugan, already serving life sentences for two other murders, formally admitted in court Tuesday that he and he alone kidnapped, raped and killed the girl on Feb. 25, 1983. 

His admission, first made in 1985, had long been rejected by DuPage officials. But on Tuesday Birkett said Dugan has been telling the truth.

Birkett’s 55-minute recitation of the facts was a dramatic turn in a case with 26 years’ worth of twists, including the false convictions and Death Row sentences of two other men and the acquittals of seven DuPage County law-enforcement officials on malfeasance charges. The drama will kick into high gear again in September, when Birkett pursues his long-stated goal of having Dugan sentenced to death.

The details:

Birkett’s description of Nicarico’s final hours were brutal and difficult to listen to, as were his descriptions of the autopsy results. Some in the audience wiped away tears as they heard how Dugan brutalized the girl on a sleeping bag in the woods, leaving her bloody and disoriented, then promised to wash her up and take her home, but instead crushed her skull with either a baseball bat or a tire iron.

Birkett also described in detail the 1985 rape and murder of 7-year-old Melissa Ackerman of Somonauk, one of two murders for which Dugan already is serving concurrent life sentences. Bakalis has previously approved allowing the details of the Ackerman case at a trial, ruling that the similarities with the Nicarico murder showed a legal pattern of behavior.

Dugan sat quietly during Birkett’s grim reading of a 14-page statement. Melissa’s father stonily stared off into space.

When it was over, the judge denied Dugan’s request to read aloud a letter that he carried with him, a letter his attorneys contended was an apology.

This was not the only child this monster murdered.  We should be grateful the judge did not permit him to read his letter, address the families.  They don’t need that.

Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death for the same crime.  Birkett said Dugan’s confession completely exonerates them.

Two on Death Row for a crime they didn’t commit.  Some would argue that the system worked, eventually.  Except these two lost years of their lives because of Dugan’s crime.  The two were set free in 1995, twelve years after Jeanine’s death, when DNA tests and recanted testimony damaged the prosecution, the Tribune says.

The temptation is great for us to kill this man.  If anyone deserves to die…

Dolling out death takes us down a slippery slope, though.  We don’t do that well.  We make mistakes.  We can be incredibly stupid animals, Vonnegut said.  We suffer under the illusion that “The System” is somehow divine, that there is this separate entity apart from humanity called “The System,” and that “The System” will protect us in spite of ourselves.

Except it won’t.  The system is us.  We are the system. That system is us at our best and our absolute worst.

Put this monster away forever.  And mourn Jeanine Nicarico and Melissa Ackerman once more.

Any Republicans reading this?  I’d love to know your “approval rating” of the stupid white men you sent to the United States Senate.  How can they dance for days without asking one substantive question?

From Salon.com:

By the sixth hour of the hearing, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham had dispensed with the formalities altogether. “If I may interject, Judge, [lawyers] find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues,” Graham blurted, without irony. “Do you think you have a temperament problem?” A minute later, he had turned, weirdly, to personal advice: “Maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection.” Graham also cautioned Sotomayor to “appreciate the world we live in,” in which she could say something about a “wise Latina” and still expect to win a seat on the Supreme Court — since white men wouldn’t be able to get away with similar remarks. And he led her through a ritualized denunciation of al-Qaida, asking how women would be treated if the jihadists had their way.

What made his performance even stranger, though, was that Graham is likely to vote for Sotomayor’s confirmation. “Now, let’s talk about you,” he told her, just before haranguing her about her temperament. “I like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. Since I may vote for you that ought to matter to you.”

Honestly, Lindsey Graham showed his idiotic side this week.  At times, he appeared juvenile in his attempts to bait the judge into an inappropriate remark.  Too bad for him.

I found one media report amusing this week: before television, there were no lengthy Supreme Court hearings.  Without a pulpit, these things just happened, and took little time.

Imagine that.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed and sworn in as a Supreme Court justice.  She seems firm but fair.  And she really knows the law.

That’s all we can ask.

Bucke up your boot straps, you betcha.

Incensed by the reaction to her resignation as governor of Alaska, Palin is on a  war path with the media, and her lawyer has already targeted a liberal Alaskan blogger, the New York Times, MSNBC, and anyone else who gets in her way.

The soon-to-be former governor is doing everything she can to stay in the headlines, lashing out at every last person who dares to disagree with her.  Can you imagine her as president?

Let’s start with a tip of the hat to GOP 12 for alerting us to a note to supporters that appeared on Palin’s Facebook page today as well as the response from one of her lawyers. In her Facebook post, she bashes the media:

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make.

The legal offense emerges:

The abruptness of her announcement and the mystery surrounding her plans has fed widespread speculation. But Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

“To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as ‘fact’ that Governor Palin resigned because she is ‘under federal investigation’ for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation,” Van Flein said in a statement. “This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law.”

Has Sarah Palin or her legal team never read the 1964 Supreme Court decision The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan?  Anyone considering a run for public office of any kind should read it before circulating peititions.  Here’s the basic issue, directly from the decision, written by Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner’s newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department.

L. B. Sullivan was one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama.  He brought civil action against four black Alabama clergymen and the New York Times. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded him damages of $500,000, the full amount claimed, against all the petitioners, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed.  Sullivan claimed that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the New York Times on March 29, 1960.  Entitled “Heed Their Rising Voices,” the advertisment stated the following:

“As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students are engaged in widespread nonviolent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

It went on to charge that,

“in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom. . . .”

Succeeding paragraphs purported to illustrate the “wave of terror” by describing certain alleged events. The text concluded with an appeal for funds for three purposes: support of the student movement, “the struggle for the right to vote,” and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Montgomery.

The third and sixth paragraphs of the ad were Sullivan’s libel complaint:

Third paragraph:

“In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang ‘My Country, ‘Tis of Thee’ on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to reregister, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.”

Sixth paragraph:

“Again and again, the Southern violators have answered Dr. King’s peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home, almost killing his wife and child. They have assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times — for ‘speeding,’ ‘loitering’ and similar ‘offenses.’ And now they have charged him with ‘perjury’ — a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. . . .”

You could argue that Sullivan was already on thin ice with this suit.  His name never appears in the advertisement.  Sullivan disagreed:

Although neither of these statements mentions respondent by name, he contended that the word “police” in the third paragraph referred to him as the Montgomery Commissioner who supervised the Police Department, so that he was being accused of “ringing” the campus with police. He further claimed that the paragraph would be read as imputing to the police, and hence to him, the padlocking of the dining hall in order to starve the students into submission.  As to the sixth paragraph, he contended that, since arrests are ordinarily made by the police, the statement “They have arrested [Dr. King] seven times” would be read as referring to him; he further contended that the “They” who did the arresting would be equated with the “They” who committed the other described acts and with the “Southern violators.” Thus, he argued, the paragraph would be read as accusing the Montgomery police, and hence him, of answering Dr. King’s protests with “intimidation and violence,” bombing his home, assaulting his person, and charging him with perjury. Respondent and six other Montgomery residents testified that they read some or all of the statements as referring to him in his capacity as Commissioner.

The Supreme Court rejected Sullivan’s arguments, holding “A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves ‘actual malice’ — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. “

The key here is “actual malice.”   Was there actual malice involved?  SCOTUS said no, and this decision has been the standard-bearer for all cases that followed.

In short, to paraphrase a colleague of mine, you would have to falsely accuse a public official of something absolutely horrible, like infanticide, say that you know it is true, that you have seen proof — all the while knowing that what you are saying is a damn lie.  Like it or not, public officials are considered “public property,” and the public can say almost anything at all about them, true or false, and face no consequence for doing so.

From SCOTUS again:

In Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, the Court sustained an Illinois criminal libel statute as applied to a publication held to be both defamatory of a racial group and “liable to cause violence and disorder.” But the Court was careful to note that it “retains and exercises authority to nullify action which encroaches on freedom of utterance under the guise of punishing libel”; for “public men are, as it were, public property,” and “discussion cannot be denied, and the right, as well as the duty, of criticism must not be stifled.”

In essence, you’re main limitation on what you can and cannot say about a public official is your conscience.  The law will let you say a lot.

Did you ever wonder why some politicians running for office say the most awful things about their opponents and get away with it?  Despicable and lowly as this behavior is, it’s because they can.  If you don’t like their behavior — and you shouldn’t — then campaign against them.

Palin may not like what New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has to say, but her threats are baseless.   Does this mean that she can’t file a lawsuit, force a blogger to retain an attorney?  Does this mean that no judge will take the case?  Absolutely not.  Our courts are full of baseless lawsuits, and we watch the most ridiculous lawsuits for entertainment on television.  Ask Judge Judy.

Again, from SCOTUS:

We reverse the judgment. We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.

Is it right to trash Sarah Palin without mercy?  No.  It’s not right to do that to anyone.  Is speculation on why she might have resigned committing libel?  Absolutely not.  She gave very few clues as to why she quit.

Look, Palin can sue anyone she wishes, making life absolute hell for them in the meantime.  Perhaps that’s all she really wants to do.

She can face  every liberal blogger in America on The People’s Court if she likes.  It would be a wonderful venue for her, giving her all the TV time she yearns for and more.

But she will lose.

Right now, whether she likes it or not, she’s public property, just like every other public official in the United States of America.

You betcha.

But Dr. George Tiller as shot dead in church on Sunday, and everything is different now. We must accept that Dr. Tiller was shot by a Christian extremist.  The suspect, Scott Roeder, was an anti-abortion activist who claimed to be a Christian.

But he was no Christian. This was not the act of a Christian. This was an act of terrorism, pure and simple.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Reporting from Wichita, Kan. – The 51-year-old man held on suspicion of killing prominent abortion provider Dr. George Tiller had attended the physician’s trial earlier this year and was outraged at his speedy acquittal, an anti-abortion activist said Monday.

Scott Roeder attended a demonstration outside a Kansas City clinic two weeks ago and spoke of traveling to Wichita for the trial of Tiller, who was charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly failing to comply with Kansas abortion laws, said Eugene Frye, who has helped organize vigils in the area for 25 years. A jury found Tiller not guilty in 45 minutes.

Authorities say Roeder was a member of anti-government militia groups and was a regular at pickets outside clinics. Frye said Roeder was a soft-spoken man who normally spent his time chatting about the federal income tax, which he called illegal, or esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament. But, Frye said, he had noticed a difference this time.

“He said he’d been down to Wichita for George Tiller’s trial and he said it was an absolute sham,” Frye said. “He seemed agitated — but agitation for Scott, for a lot of people would be normal.”

Roeder’s ex-wife described her husband:

Roeder’s ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder, said her husband became obsessed with anti-government theories and abortion in the early 1990s and that it poisoned their marriage.

“The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion,” she told the Associated Press. “That’s all he cared about is anti-abortion. ‘The church is this. God is this. Yada, yada.’ “

Violent words are the seed of violence.  They pave the path to hate.  The overwhelming vast majority of Christians are horrified by this murder.  As a Christian, I am horrified.  And, yet, we must accept that there are those who are pleased.

Rachel Maddow ran a segment tonight called “Incitement to Terrorism.”  She blasts Bill O’Reilly for praising the murder of Dr. Tiller.  O’Reilly says Tiller is responsible for the destruction of “60,000 fetuses.”  Interesting choice of words.

Maddow interviews Frank Schaeffer, who wrote Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.  Schaeffer apologizes for the death of Dr. Tiller, claiming some responsibility for this act of violence because of his anti-abortion efforts in the past.

The interview is very much worth watching.  I leave you with this segment from the Rachel Maddow show for your reflection:

From the Sun-Times:

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama’s decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years. A formal announcement was expected at midmorning. Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Turning Left will carry the president’s full statement when he announces Sotomayor’s appointment.