Carville And Frist Do Super Bowl Sunday

If you missed them first time around, the 2008 Super Bowl commercials are now online.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

President Bush Commutes Scooter Libby's Jail Sentence

An explanation from TPM:

I havent seen this noted but I think the reason for the commutation is that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege. As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which insulates him (and Bush and Cheney) from having to answer questions before Congress.

Editorial boards at leading newspapers across America weigh in.

An eventual, full pardon is apparently still on the table (but only if Libby asks for it). Bush spokesman Tony Snow:

"The reason I will say I'm not going to close a door on a pardon is simply this: that Scooter Libby may petition for one," Snow said. "But the president has done what he thinks is appropriate to resolve this case."

"There is always a possibility - or there's an avenue open - for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon," he added.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Website: http://www.wiselaw.net/

The Cheney Chronicles

The Washington Post's much commented-upon four-part series on Vice President Dick Cheney is here.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Website: http://www.wiselaw.net/

Mildred Loving - 40 Years Later

I will begin this post with a brief backgrounder from Wikipedia:

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

And, now 40 years later, Mildred Loving's recent statement, in full:

Loving for All
By Mildred Loving*

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

(h/t - Positive Liberty via Andrew Sullivan)

Quite a remarkable story, and a perspective well worth listening to, as our current era's same-sex marriage debate draws toward its own similarly overdue, and well-deserved sunset.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Website: www.wiselaw.net/family.html

US Attorney Purge Scandal Heats up

So now it appears President George W. Bush and Karl Rove were both directly involved in the firing of a New Mexico US Attorney, David Iglesias.

Friom TPMmuckraker:

The firing of U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias continues to smoke....

So we have two different streams of complaints from the White House -- the first in October about voter fraud and then another in November, stemming from Domenici's concern at Iglesias' failure to move certain cases. Of course, both of them at their base were about Iglesias' failure to prosecute enough Democrats. [Emphasis added]

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Website: www.wiselaw.net

U.S. Attorney Purge - Congressional Hearings Begin

Andrew Sullivan has this hard-hitting commentary from an observer of the Congressional hearings that began today into the dismissals of eight US Attorneys in December, 2006:

On another explosive front, a lawyer writes:

I have spent much of today watching the webcast of the Judiciary Committee hearings with the dismissed US Attorneys - from California, New Mexico and Arkansas. The testimony has been the most riveting I can remember in many years, and what's coming out is shocking.

Remember, all of these US attorneys are highly qualified, smart, professional REPUBLICANS. People who expect to have a career in elective politics, usually picked, among other things, for their long-term potential as political candidates. No problem with that after all. And that's what makes their testimony so compelling. Because they're portraying Alberto Gonzales and his deputy Paul J McNulty like figures out of a play by Bertolt Brecht.

The key is crude political direction of the prosecutorial service - go get Democrats, and do it in a way to get maximum electoral benefit; lay off the corrupt Republicans; use your prosecutorial authority for voter suppression projects targeting minorities. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the system is constructed to make impossible. For three years now I've heard a steady flow of whispers from DOJ professionals that this sort of stuff is going on, and even I (certainly no friend of the Administration) kept thinking: no, it can't be. But it is. This will call for very stringent action: the appointment of a special prosecutor, an independent investigation, and certainly the dismissal of Gonzales and McNulty.

Ultimately perhaps their prosecution.

-Garry J Wise, Toronto

Visit our Website: http://www.wiselaw.net/

Stéphane Dion: "Under my leadership, Canada will not fail the world"

Stéphane Dion has been elected the 11th leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

He outdistanced Michael Ignatieff at this weekend's federal leadership convention in Montreal, with a fourth and final ballot win. Dion drew 2,521 votes (54 %), ahead of Ignatieff's 2,084 votes (45%).

Considered a "dark horse" candidate by some, Dion rose to victory from a fourth place finish on Friday's first ballot. The first ballot had been won by Ignatieff, widely regarded as the early frontrunner.

Dion, a 55 year old native of Quebec City, was first elected to Parliament in 1996. He previously served in the Cabinets of Prime Ministers Jean Crétien and Paul Martin.

He is perhaps best known to Canadians for his previous role as Unity Minister, in which he initiated the 2000 Clarity Act, establishing firm federal protocols for dealing with Quebec sovereignists' aspitations within a Constituitional framework.

His leadership campaign adopted a "three-pillar approach," focusing on social justice, economic prosperity, and environmental sustainability.

In his speech to the Leadership Convention on Friday, Dion had rallied the party for an imminent election, and directly challenged the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Eleven years ago, Jean Chrétien invited me to join his government to help keep Canada united, to bring clarity about the unity of our country. I stood up for Canada. And I delivered for my Prime Minister, my party and my country.

Two years ago, Paul Martin invited me to stand up for Canada’s environment – the most important challenge of our generation and the next. And I delivered for my Prime Minister, my party and my country.

Today, I humbly stand to serve you once again.

...Today we face a very right-wing Government, much more like the current US Republican Party than the old Tories, the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Canada has a Prime Minister who thinks that the United States is not only our ally, but also our model.

A Prime Minister who would have immersed us in the Iraq nightmare.

A Prime Minister who, last Spring, blackmailed Parliament with the threat of an election, in order to impose on Canada, blindly, two more years in Afghanistan with no clear mandate.

A Prime Minister who is mirroring the style of his hero to the point that President Bush should be getting royalties from Mr. Harper’s speeches.

A Prime Minister who imposes ideological cuts to women, aboriginal people, official language communities, literacy, arts and culture.

...A Prime Minister who – make no mistake -- is undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sending a chilling signal for what he intends to do if he gets a majority government.

... A Prime Minister who tore up our Climate Change Plan, Project Green, which would have allowed us to honour our international Kyoto Commitments. Instead, he’s put forward an inept Clean Air Act, which is nothing more than an excuse not to act, a smokescreen.

A Prime Minister who is virtually pulling us out of Kyoto.

Remember that a year ago, here in the Montreal Convention Center, in the name of Canada, I presided over a United Nations conference which brought the world together, 182 nations, for a joint action plan against the greatest ecological threat facing humanity: climate change.

And this year, at the same Conference in Nairobi, this Conservative government has shamefully failed the world and tarnished Canada’s international reputation.

What a disgraceful way to govern.

I helped bring the world together to fight Climate Change. Since then, Stephen Harper has wedged the world apart.

Well, my fellow liberals, the world needs Canada. Under my leadership, Canada will not fail the world.

For more background, extensive biographies of Dion are here, here and here.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Website: www.wiselaw.net