CODE PINK

http://www.codepinkalert.org

MEDIA ALERT: Sept. 11, 2003



BEFORE ARNOLD GOES ON OPRAH TO HELP CLOSE HIS ‘GENDER GAP’ CODEPINK WILL JOIN OTHERS WITH A PROTEST OUTSIDE THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY CONVENTION WHILE HE SPEAKS

(SEE CODEPINK STATEMENT ON ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER’S UPCOMMING APEARANCE ON OPRAH BELOW)

WHEN: NOON - 2 PM SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13TH

WHERE: Outside the LAX Marriott - 5855 W. Century Blvd.

(at Airport Blvd) LA, CA at the California Republican Convention

WHAT: Schwarzenegger is the special guest speaker at the California Republican Party Convention Luncheon Celebration of Republican Women's Leadership. Outside, CODEPINK and other women’s groups will join forces with immigrant-rights advocates to protest the candidate.

WHY: Schwarzenegger has a documented history from the 1970s to the present of making degrading comments publicly about women and reported acts of sexual harassment.

Immigrant-rights groups decry Schwarzenegger’s campaign co-chairman former Governor Pete Wilson and their support for proposition 187, the actor’s 16-year-long relationship to an English only organization called US ENGLISH which has ties to right-wing nationalist groups, and his promise to revoke the bill that would grant undocumented immigrants driver's licenses.

Schwarzenegger with his wife Maria Shriver are scheduled to appear on the season premiere of the Oprah show next Monday. According to USA Today Sept 12th, in California, the syndicated show reaches 1 million viewers, 86% of them women. CODEPINK is inviting women across the county to participate in a letter-writing campaign to urge Oprah to ask Arnold tough questions about his degrading comments and actions towards women. Read the CODEPINK statement below.

ENDORSERS: CODEPINK, the Feminist Majority, Rainbow Sisters Project, Women's Network, Mothers for an Aware America (MAA), CISPES-LA, and the Los Angeles Greens.

***********************************

http://www.codepinkalert.org/CodePink_Vigil_Information_Arnold_Protest.shtml.

CODEPINK STATEMENT ON ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER’S UPCOMMING APEARANCE ON OPRAH:

CODEPINK calls on Oprah Winfrey to use the opportunity of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appearance on her show to ask him to apologize for his outrageous, rude, degrading and disempowering statements and acts towards women. His wife Maria Shriver defends him as a wonderful husband, generous and supportive to many women he works with, while it seems he has no difficultly descending into disrespectful public comments and unacceptable treatment of other women. His excuse has been that his words were to achieve another aim, such as to increase the awareness of bodybuilding or to sell a movie.

"Does he really believe any woman should be verbally abused to achieve his goals?" said Jodie Evans, co-founder of CODEPINK. "When asked about his statements, he continues to defend himself with answers that make matters worse. When is he going to apologize to the women of this country for degrading them for his own gratification?”

This is an opportunity for OPRAH to "use television to transform people's lives, to make viewers see themselves differently and to bring happiness and a sense of fulfillment into every home," as her

mission statement expresses.

We call on OPRAH not to exhibit special preference by having only Arnold Schwarzenegger and not the other leading California gubernatorial candidates on her show – either don’t have him on or have all of the frontrunners.

###

My jaw dropped when I saw Oprah Winfrey's pandering, propagandistic, pseudo-interview, puff piece with Maria and Arnold. She basically went out of her way to avoid any real questions about his politics, and even her so-called probing inquiry into his past was asked in a very leading way & then answered for him with statements that were set up to imply that he didn't really say what he said, and if he did, he didn't really mean it. Do we really want a man in office who openly admits he will say anything to the press that he thinks will advance his egotistical agenda? And who refuses to debate, citing the excuse that he only goes to "important" debates? Does this sound like a man of the people, or an elitist snob who despises the voters and their need for real answers? And why the rush to a recall, unless Arnold is planning on spending as little time in front of the public as possible? So many questions, and Oprah asked not a one of them.

By completely ignoring any of Arnold's questionable past hypocrisies, and pandering to his engorged ego by ignoring all the issues her women viewers wanted to see addressed, and by interfering in a very obvious way with California politics she knows nothing about, she has earned my vote as the person most in need of a boycott, and I am asking all concerned women voters out there to go to BoycottOprah@hotmail.com, and register your displeasure so that we can compile a base of outraged women viewers to address this outrageous and biased interview. We are currently putting together a website, BoycottOprah.com, that will include a bullettin board, and our ultimate goal is to demand equal time for all the other candidates to appear on her show, so as to reveal her obvious bias for what it is. Let her stick to entertainment, which she does better than anyone, and let us get back to the business of stopping the hostile, anti-human-rights takeover of our beleaguered, but still fighting, state. We welcome all comments, just ask that they not include profanity if possible. Thanks

Oprah's about as communist as they get, but she's not a political interviewer and she's not going to ask tough questions while Kennedy heir Maria Shriver is sitting right there. She got word from the liberal communist elite media not to be pushy towards a Kennedy, even through marriage. But I agree in that she needs to keep here damn liberal political views to herself.

"Oprah's about as communist as they get,..."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more on logic at YOUR level, try reading "Logic for Idiotic Rightwing Cyberterrorists (pardon the redundancies)."

"Logical Fallacy" would be applicable if one were debating. Saying that Oprah is a communist is an opinion. If I am debating, I'll let you know I am debating. If I don't say I'm debating, then it's just an opinion.

Oprah is a communist. All liberals are communists/socialist/fascists/marxists.

"Oprah is a communist. All liberals are communists/socialist/fascists/marxists."

Unsubstantiated Allegations

For more on logic at YOUR level, try reading "Logic for Idiotic Rightwing Cyberterrorists (pardon the redundancies)."

My first reaction to yesterday's ruling in Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley (link in PDF form), in which the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of next month's California election, was a sort of grudging admiration for the cleverness with which the three ultraliberal judges on the panel (one Carter and two Clinton appointees) seemed to be poking the eye of the Supreme Court.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24CB44D4ABF7AFD088256DA2005DA6D6/$file/0356498.pdf

The judges extensively cited Bush v. Gore in ruling that California may not hold an election so long as six counties use punch-card ballots, which according to both the antirecall plaintiffs and the state of California have a higher error rate than other forms of voting (though USA Today notes that "many election officials" dispute the anti-punch-card premise). If the ruling stands, voting on the recall of Gov. Gray Davis, as well as on two ballot initiatives, will take place March 2, the day of the Democratic presidential primary.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030916/5502678s.htm

The ruling was baldly partisan, with the judges even mocking the liberation of Iraq:

"We would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation's history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight."

By relying so heavily on Bush v. Gore as precedent, the Ninth Circuit judges seem to be daring the Supreme Court to overturn their decision. "If I were the U.S. Supreme Court," writes Mickey Kaus, "I would be very reluctant to reverse the Ninth Circuit and thus cement a reputation as an unprincipled partisan court that upholds obscure Equal Protection arguments when they throw an election to Republicans (as in Bush v. Gore) but strikes them down when they would throw the election to the Democrats. This suggests that the pro-recall forces' best hope is a rehearing by the entire Ninth Circuit sitting en banc, not an appeal to SCOTUS."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088021/

Indeed, as the Associated Press reports, the Ninth Circuit this morning asked the parties if they want the court to reconsider the case en banc. (The Ninth Circuit usually uses a "limited en banc" procedure in which 11 judges, rather than the entire court, rehears a case.) If the en banc panel overturns yesterday's ruling, that should be the end of it. But what if it affirms that the election must be canceled?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/16/state1503EDT0115.DTL

It's quite possible that the Supreme Court would take the case and reverse the Ninth Circuit, for the three clever judges may have outsmarted themselves. Legal scholar Robert Alt points out in National Review Online that Bush v. Gore does not apply. He quotes from the Supreme Court's decision:

"The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-alt091603.asp

"Southwest Project" and "Bush" are distinguishable on practical as well as legal grounds. In 2000 the Supreme Court resolved a national crisis with a modest remedy, ordering the existing vote count to stand. Yesterday the Ninth Circuit ordered a drastic remedy--the cancellation of an election--to resolve a merely hypothetical problem. It is as if someone went to court in October 2000 and demanded that the election be put off until April 2001 just in case something went wrong with the ballots.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling is too much even for the Los Angeles Times, which opposes the recall. "The U.S. Supreme Court should . . . overturn the federal appeals court's ruling," the paper editorializes. "This endless political one-upmanship really amounts to political murder-suicide."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-recall16sept16,1,6709989.story

The New York Times, however, disagrees: "If the recall proceeds as planned, 40,000 Californians may not have their legal votes counted," it editorializes. "This sort of mass disenfranchisement is unacceptable." But in the bizarro world of the Times, disfranchising the entire electorate is a victory for democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/opinion/16TUE2.html

It's possible that the Ninth Circuit's efforts on behalf of California Democrats will backfire. In a survey of 500 "likely voters" in California, Rasmussen Reports finds that 58%--including 85% of Republicans and 62% of independents--disagree with the Ninth Circuit ruling. If the election does go on in three weeks as planned, irritation over the ruling may provide an additional impetus to get anti-Davis voters to the polls.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/California_Recall_Sept%2015.htm

What if the ruling does stand, and the recall doesn't take place until March? It seems clear that this would enhance Davis's chances of defeating the recall, if only because his chances are so close to zero now. The Democratic presidential primary would draw Dems to the polls, giving a boost to both Davis and replacement candidate Cruz Bustamante. At the same time, it's possible that anti-Davis Californians will be even more eager to vote after their anger has festered for an additional five months.

In any case, wouldn't the national Democrats rather have this matter settled quickly? If the recall election is March 2, that means once primary season is really under way the presidential contenders will be competing for attention with the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And if the Democrats are trying to argue that President Bush has governed the nation badly, do they really want to be choosing their nominee just as the national spotlight is on how atrociously a fellow Democrat has been governing California?

By ordering the cancellation of next month's California election, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has gone too far even for some members of the Angry Left. Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School has an op-ed in today's New York Times that distinguishes the case from Bush v. Gore, which the Ninth Circuiters mischievously cited as their chief precedent.

"The present decision attacks states' rights at their very core," Ackerman writes. "The short election period is central to California's political integrity. Its constitution places a limit of six months on this extraordinary process. By extending the election beyond this period, the court condemns the state to an extended period of political paralysis." Ackerman even argues that the ruling is an infringement on political speech:

[It] disrupts the core First Amendment freedom to present a coherent political message to voters. Worse yet, the decision disrupts the First Amendment interests of the millions of Californians who have participated in the recall effort. State law promised them a quick election if they completed their petitions by an August deadline. Now their effort will have to compete in March with the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. A campaign focused on California issues may be swamped by national politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/opinion/17ACKE.html

What makes this extraordinary is that Ackerman is one of academia's shrillest critics of Bush v. Gore; he went so far as to liken that ruling to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His willingness to rise above partisanship stands in stark contrast with the New York Times editorial page, which cheered the Ninth Circuit panel for canceling the election, on the ground that "if the recall proceeds as planned, 40,000 Californians may not have their legal votes counted."

I neglected to read the editorial that appeared directly below the one on the Ninth Circuit decision (hey, I can only stand so much of this stuff):

"Californians aren't the only ones with cause to complain about their voting machines. New York City uses the Shoup 3.2, a bulky gunmetal-gray beast that came into use shortly after John F. Kennedy was elected president. . . . In the 2000 presidential election alone, more than 60,000 votes in the city--most from low-income and immigrant communities--were not recorded. People sometimes flick back levers they have depressed, erasing their votes, or are confused by the red handle and pull it before registering their choices. They leave the booth not knowing they have been disenfranchised."

These numbers are all bogus, since there's no way to tell whether someone whose vote was "not recorded" meant to vote for the office in question or not. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend the Times is right. Not only are more voters "disenfranchised" in New York City than in California, but because the city's population (eight million in the 2000 census) is much smaller than the Golden State's (34.5 million), the likelihood of a New York City vote being "not recorded" is roughly 6.5 times as great as in California.

The Times notes that plans are under way to replace the city's voting machines, but laments that "the Shoup will probably stay on the job until 2006, and in the meantime hundreds of thousands of votes may die within the confines of the antique booths." If the paper's agreement with the Ninth Circuit were based on principle rather than partisanship, it would urge the cancellation of the 2004 election as well.

A friend, historian John Steele Gordon, e-mailed me with this observation:

"I have been trying to think of a constitutionally mandated election (California Constitution in this case, of course) that was canceled a priori by a court. There have been a few that were overturned ex post facto for permeation of fraud--the Miami mayor's race a few years ago, for instance. But the only election that I can think of off the top of my head that was canceled (and in this case by the election authorities) was the primary being held on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City.

Indeed, in 1864 this country held an election for president and Congress in the middle of the greatest war of the 19th century. How many voters were potentially disenfranchised by military action that day? By the way, that is the only instance in all history of a country holding an election in the midst of a civil war. But a few potentially hanging chads is justification for canceling the California election? Disgraceful does not begin to cover this decision."

As I noted yesterday, it's not even clear that holding the recall vote in March instead of October serves the Democrats' partisan interests. Here are some more reasons why:

-- On October 1, the tripling of vehicle registration fees, already among the highest in the nation and raised by executive fiat, will kick in. Come March of 2004, a large number of Californians will have felt the pain of this extraconstitutional maneuver by Gov. Gray Davis, which even before taking effect caused a surge in pro-recall support.

-- A petition is now being circulated to put a proposition on the March ballot which would overturn the recently enacted law extending drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Anger is widespread over this clear case of pandering to the pro-illegal-immigrant faction at the expense of national and state security. Identity theft, already one of the fastest-growing crimes, will mushroom as a result of this new law. Recent polls show that even 60% of Latinos would vote to repeal the legislation.

-- Convinced that they were facing a recall election in October, the Democrat-controlled state Legislature finally passed a new state budget, which again failed to deal with the major fiscal crisis facing the state. Another billion in borrowing has temporarily balanced the budget while reducing our credit rating to near junk bond status, but solutions to an additional billion in deficits that will accrue after the October recall were deferred. By March 2004, it will no longer be possible to hide the true extent of our fiscal crisis.

-- A significant portion of the recently passed "balanced" budget is based upon fee increases in virtually every area of state government. While these fees have not been widely published in the California press, by March of next year a significant percentage of Californians will have felt their sting.



Come to think of it, maybe Ackerman is being partisan--just not as stupidly partisan as the editorial writers of the Times.

When I see his big muscles and huge cock, I just go crazy.

An 11-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today takes up the case of Southwest Voter Registration Project v. Shelley, in which an ultraliberal three-judge panel ordered the cancellation of next month's California election for governor. Oral arguments are scheduled for 1 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (4 p.m. EDT). In what we're told is the circuit's "first significant experiment with live broadcasting," the proceedings will air live on C-Span, as well as on some local broadcast stations in California.

Although the 11-judge panel includes eight Democratic appointees (one Carter, seven Clinton), The Weekly Standard's Bill Whalen notes that its composition "has the left whining." None of the three judges from the original panel is among the 11, and three other "notoriously liberal judges" recused themselves, including Stephen Reinhardt, whose wife is an executive of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/151uwvia.asp

One man who thinks the panel is likely to reinstate the election is Judge Harry Pregerson, the most senior of the three judges who ordered the election nixed. "You know who's on the panel, right? Do you think it's going to have much of a chance of surviving? I wouldn't bet on it," he tells the Los Angeles Times in an interview. He also defends the ruling:

"Judge Paez, Judge Thomas and I--we did the right thing," Pregerson said. "We're there to protect people's rights under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, no matter who's involved, and a lot of people don't like it. That's their problem, not mine."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-me-legal20sep20,1,3940413.story

Well, since when do judges go around giving interviews about cases pending before their courts? Actually, they're not supposed to; as blogger Howard Bashman understatedly notes, Pregerson's chatty Cathy act is "extroardinarily unusual." In fact, it's a violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which provides in Canon 3, Section A(6):

A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action, requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This proscription does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge's official duties, to the explanation of court procedures, or to a scholarly presentation made for purposes of legal education.

http://appellateblog.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_appellateblog_archive.html#106406426359422461

http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html#3

The Ninth Circuit has even issued a fact sheet (link in PDF format) on "media decorum" for covering the recall case; it says: "Due to codes of ethics restrictions, judges are unable to discuss the merits of the case." If only Pregerson had received a copy.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/Documents.nsf/54dbe3fb372dcb6c88256ce50065fcb8/f55087e19f94c84688256da70002cd30/$FILE/media_cr_decorum.PDF

In his rulings as well, Pregerson has often cited his "conscience" as a reason for ignoring the law. As Hugh Hewitt notes in a piece for The Weekly Standard, Pregerson promised as much in his confirmation hearing back in 1979. Hewitt unearths this exchange between the nominee and then-senator Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican:

Simpson: If a decision in a particular case was required by case law or statute, as interpreted according to the intent that you would perceive as legislative intent, and yet that offended your own conscience, what might you do in that situation?

Pregerson: Well, of course it's a hypothetical question and life does not present situations that are clear cut, but I think all of us, judges and lawyers, would be very pleased if congressional intent was clearly discernible. I have to be honest with you. If I was faced with a situation like that and it ran against my conscience, I would follow my conscience.

Simpson: I didn't hear, sir.

Pregerson: I said, if I were faced with a situation like that, that ran against my conscience, disturbed my conscience, I would try and find a way to follow my conscience and do what I perceived to be right and just. Not that, I would hope not, it would mean I would act arbitrarily. I was born and raised in this country, and I am steeped in its traditions, its mores, its beliefs, and its philosophies; and if I felt strongly in a situation like that, I feel it would be the product of my very being and upbringing. I would follow my conscience.

http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/130tript.asp

His "conscience," it seems, has ways of making him talk.

An 11-judge en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated California's election for governor, to be held two weeks from today. The unanimous per curiam (not signed by any judge) ruling overturns an ultraliberal three-judge panel on narrow legal grounds: that the lower court "did not abuse its discretion" when it refused to issue an injunction against the election after weighing the strength of the plaintiffs' legal argument and the costs of holding the election vs. those of not holding it.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4114002.html

The en banc panel, whose ruling is below in PDF form, emphasized the latter set of costs:

If the recall election . . . is enjoined, it is certain that the state of California and its citizens will suffer material hardship by virtue of the enormous resources already invested in reliance on the election's proceeding on the announced date. Time and money have been spent to prepare voter information pamphlets and sample ballots, mail absentee ballots, and hire and train poll workers. Public officials have been forced to divert their attention from their official duties in order to campaign. Candidates have crafted their message to the voters in light of the originally-announced schedule and calibrated their message to the political and social environment of the time. They have raised funds under current campaign contribution laws and expended them in reliance on the election's taking place on October 7.

Potential voters have given their attention to the candidates' messages and prepared themselves to vote. Hundreds of thousands of absentee voters have already cast their votes in similar reliance upon the election going forward on the timetable announced by the state. These investments of time, money, and the exercise of citizenship rights cannot be returned. If the election is postponed, citizens who have already cast a vote will effectively be told that the vote does not count and that they must vote again. In short, the status quo that existed at the time the election was set cannot be restored because this election has already begun.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE5FACF826D7E79788256DAA00565FD7/$file/0356498eb.pdf

The Ninth Circuit panel also declined to enjoin voting on two ballot initiatives, including Proposition 54, Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative, which would bar the state from collecting most data about citizens' race or ethnicity. The initiative is more likely to pass than it would have been been in March, since Democrats--who five months hence will be going to the polls to choose a presidential nominee--tend to oppose the initiative because they favor racial discrimination. On the other hand, if there's a big minority turnout next month to vote against 54, that may enhance Gray Davis's chances of beating the recall, or Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's odds of replacing him if he doesn't.

Meanwhile, the Davis campaign may have received an unlikely boost from Rep. Darrell Issa, the San Diego County Republican who financed the recall campaign. The San Jose Mercury News reports Issa "is urging people to vote against the recall if fellow Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock are still in the race when the election is held."

"If there are two Republicans in this race when people cast their votes, there is an absolute guarantee that Cruz Bustamante will be the governor,'' Issa said yesterday." Better to leave the widely disliked Davis, who can't run for re-election anyway, in office, or so the argument goes. The paper notes, however, that "it wasn't clear how serious Issa was."

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6840760.htm