Do You Think Obama Has What It Takes To Save The World From Global Warming?

In an OpEd about executive action regarding immigration reform for USAToday, Bush former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, urged Obama to act. And Gonzales makes the case that Obama has American constitutional precedent on his side.

Determining the limits of the president's inherent power to act in the absence of either an express constitutional or congressional grant of authority is one of the most difficult challenges in constitutional law. In part, this is because our courts have been inconsistent in defining the scope of the President's inherent authority.

Some constitutional scholars argue that the president has no inherent power since this would be inconsistent with the concept of a Constitution intended to create a federal government of limited power. Others believe in an expansive inherent power that allows the president to act as the public needs demand provided there are no express constitutional prohibitions. Still others believe, as I do, the scope of the president's inherent power lies somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes.

What is clear, however, is that the courts have generally been inclined to defer to the executive's discretion in executing the law based upon competing priorities and budgetary constraints. Furthermore, often the courts refuse to even hear cases that present a political question. Thus, disputes over allocation of power between the elected branches are frequently resolved in the public arena, not the courts.

I don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities here but there's another issue, even more urgent, crying out for Obama's executive authority… and I suspect Alberto Gonzales wouldn't be as likely to write an OpEd on that one: Global Warming. It's the single most important issue facing the U.S.-- and mankind-- and Congress won't do a think.

Wait, wait. I was wrong. Congress did do a thing; on July 10, by a vote of 229-188 they officially denied the Global Warming exists. Mainstream conservative Chris Gibson was the only Republican to vote against the lunatic fringe amendment by coal industry whore David McKinley (R-WV); 5 right-wing Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Republicans burying their collective head in the sand… as the rising tide nips at their heals. Even Florida Republicans with the districts most likely to be uninhabitable within our lifetimes-- like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, David Jolly, Curt Clawson, Vern Buchanan, Dennis Ross and Mario Diaz-Balart-- voted against dealing with climate change reality. Something tells me none of them would change their mind even if they read the alarming piece about the rapid rise in Arctic temperatures and weather patterns. Scientists are warning about heat waves in the U.S. and flooding in Europe.

Temperatures in the Arctic have risen twice as fast as the rest of the world since 2000, and this could have triggered changes to global wind patterns, which have brought extreme weather to lower latitudes, the researchers said.

A study has found that the number of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, floods and droughts, has almost doubled over the same period and that this increase can be linked with unusual wind patterns in the upper atmosphere, influenced by warmer Arctic temperatures.

The researchers believe that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic may be contributing to the appearance of wide north-south swings in the high-altitude winds flowing globally west to east around the polar region, which can become stuck and amplified in a quasi-stationary pattern known as a "standing wave."

When this high-altitude westerly airstream swings north it sweeps warm air from the tropics over Europe, Russia or North America, and when it swings south it sucks in frigid air from the Arctic. Each weather pattern can last for several weeks, causing extreme heat, cold, drought or flood.

This week, in his defense of climate scientist Michael Mann by an array of right-wing nuts, Paul Krugman reminds his readers that "if climate change doesn’t scare you, and our failure to act doesn’t inspire despair, you’re not paying attention. And the great sin of the climate deniers is their role in delaying action, quite possibly until it’s too late." Yesterday, writing for Mother Jones Chris Mooney asserts that since "roughly 1991" Republicans have basically been hating the environment-- and not passively. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

So what happened to the GOP, from the time of Nixon to the present, to turn an environmental leader into an environmental retrograde? According to a new study in the journal Social Science Research, the key change actually began around the year 1991-- when the Soviet Union fell. "The conservative movement replaced the 'Red Scare' with a new 'Green Scare' and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time," argues sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University and two colleagues.

…There has been a great deal of research on why American politics have become so polarized (on all issues, not just environmental ones), and theories to explain the trend abound. For instance, one major factor is clearly "party sorting"-- the idea that conservatives have moved more into the GOP over time, even as liberals have, at least to some extent, coalesced in the Democratic Party. So, the Republicans answering a General Social Survey question about the environment in 1996 or so simply were not the same bunch of people who were answering it in 1974.

One intriguing related hypothesis posits that the right wing has become more unwilling to compromise in general because it has become more psychologically authoritarian-- closed-minded, prone to black-and-white thinking. That's not a pattern that would uniquely affect environmental issues, though. If anything, it would be felt most strongly on the topics that authoritarians most care about: crime, national defense, religion in public life, and matters of that ilk.

Whatever the cause, the consequence is clear: We can't get anything done in a bipartisan way on the environment any longer. "The situation," conclude the authors, "does not bode well for our nation's ability to deal effectively with the wide range of environmental problems-- from local toxics to global climate change-- we currently face."

And that's why we need a strong president who's willing to put the nation's well-being front and center, rather than political calculations. Is Obama that kind of president? I still want to believe it but so far, I'd put my money on electing strong Climate Change activist-types like Shenna Bellows and Brain Schatz to the Senate and Paul Clements and Ted Lieu to the House in November. I would expect every candidate to expected my vote or my support to be able to say what Ted Lieu posted on his website when he launched his campaign for Congress: "Climate change is the single greatest threat to California, our nation's future and our environment. As a member of Congress, I will champion legislation to reduce carbon pollution in the U.S." Lieu wrote co-authored AB 32 which created a statewide greenhouse gas limit that would reduce emission by 25% by 2020. He also wrote AB 236 which prioritized the purchase of fuel-efficient state fleet cars and required alternative fuel capable vehicles to actually use alternative fuels.

Jane Harman-- Israeli Agent? Bush Shill?

Americans need to know where Harman's loyalties lie

Don't be surprised. There are many reasons we've been opposing slimy Blue Dog Jane Harman since 2006. Jeff Stein at CQPolitics broke the story early this morning. If you haven't spent your day watching a gaggle of Fox propaganda agents talking about Obama's handshakes and fascism, you've probably heard about it. Harman "was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington." The Bush Regime agreed to cover-up the result of their eavesdropping in return for Harman's steadfast support of... illegal eavesdropping and other unconstitutional Bush Regime policies. Now the hackish Harman professes to be shocked that she would be wiretapped. I guess she wasn't paying attention to what she was helping Bush perpetrate on the American people. Why hasn't she resigned yet?

[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being "no evidence" to support the FBI probe, a source with firsthand knowledge of the wiretaps called that "bullshit."

"I read those transcripts," said the source, who like other former national security officials familiar with the transcript discussed it only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of domestic NSA eavesdropping.

TPM has put together a very detailed and revealing timeline of everything that happened in this scandal that could send Rep. Harman to prison. And the video of Stein on Countdown this evening certainly makes it all crystal clear:



And now we see why Pelosi refused to let Harman become chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman should retire from politics. I hope Marcy Winograd has kept in touch with her supporters.

A lot of lawyers played a key role in the Bush regime's law-breaking. Shouldn't they pay a price?

John "Mr. Torture" Yoo

We've been talking about what can be done to hold the law-breakers of the Bush regime to account for what they've done. Last night I passed on the suggestion by Georgetown law professor David Cole in a current NYRB article:

The next administration or the next Congress should at a minimum appoint an independent, bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to investigate and assess responsibility for the United States' adoption of coercive interrogation policies. If it is to be effective, it must have subpoena power, sufficient funding, security clearances, access to all the relevant evidence, and, most importantly, a charge to assess responsibility, not just to look forward. We may know many of the facts already, but absent a reckoning for those responsible for torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment -- our own federal government -- the healing cannot begin.

As Professor Cole points out, with regard to possible prosecution, John "Mr. Torture" Yoo's infamous "torture memo," drafted in the bowels of the Justice Dept., "would be a legal defense for any but the lawyers who wrote it." Well, what about the lawyers?

I've taken the liberty of yanking this comment by reader drinkof out of our comments section to make sure everyone sees it. -- Ken

"Surely Yoo, Gonzales or Addington's offenses are worth a couple of Clinton units of suspension time?"

by drinkof

For various unfortunate reasons, criminal prosecutions are unlikely.

On the other hand, there is a mechanism which can make a substantial statement as to our dedication to the rule of law, and for which there is ample (and, for critics, inconvenient) precedent. Lawyers involved at various points of approving, and covering up, torture and related practices in their official capacity should face disbarment.

Yoo, Gonzales, Addington, for that matter, Jack Goldsmith (sorry, but the half-ass mea culpa doesn't cut it) and dozens more should answer for their actions.

Complaints as to criminalizing policy differences simply don't apply. Law practice is a privilege, not a right, and it's time the legal profession begin to purge its ranks of these practices.

And recall, Bill Clinton got his license to practice suspended for 5 years for whatever it was that he did. Surely Yoo, Gonzales or Addington's offenses are worth a couple of Clinton units (e.g., 10 years) of suspension time?

#

Would Arlen Specter's hypocritical bloviating be less obnoxious if he had any real principles besides self-adulation?

A photo not from the senator's website -- where none of
the pictures seem to have been taken in the last 20 years

by Ken

Do you wonder sometimes what some of our pols see when they look in the mirror?

I'm thinking just now of the ever-inscrutable Republican senior senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter.

Okay, I suppose Senator Specter isn't that inscrutable. He used to be what was known in those quaint times as a "moderate Republican." In those bygone days he was kind of hard to predict, because you never knew where he would choose to take a stand on his famous principles -- because in those days, sometimes he did actually take a stand and, you know, follow through.

Then his party went galloping off into the dark sunset of the Oh So Far Right (No, Righter, Righer!), and the senator came to his senses. Oh, he often talked about principles, but there was rarely any question any longer where his real priorities lay: perpetuating his own prestige and, especially, power.

I imagine I'm not the only one for whom the turning point came when he assumed the role of ringleader of the gang rape of Anita Hill during the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination. It was perhaps the first time I appreciated the stark contrast between the goals, and not just their strategies, of Ds and Rs on the Judiciary Committee.

Faced with Professor Hill's reluctantly proffered accusation of sexual harassment during her association with the nominee, the Ds -- led by then-Chairman Joe Biden -- obsessed over trying to determine the truth of the matter. Pathetic wretches! As if the truth mattered! The Rs, by contrast, focused on the only thing that mattered to them: winning.

I assume that, like the rest of us, the Rs had a pretty good idea that Hill was telling the truth, which gave them all the more reason not to be suckered into the fool's game of truth-seeking. No, they went straight for character assassination, and nobody did it better than our Arlen, who deployed his full prosecutor's bag of tricks in what was, as of then, the vilest public performance I had witnessed in the U.S. Congress. (I'm not counting the film of Sen. Joe McCarthy in action. But if that's where Specter enthusiasts have to reach to surpass their guy's vileness, I think their case is lost.)

Of course, those were more innocent times. Modern-day Republicans have made that sort of gutter-wallowing their model, and built on it (cf. the 2008 presidential campaign of Young Johnny McCranky, and for that matter most every Republican race across the country).

Of course I respect Senator Specter for his heroic struggles against cancer. But when you look at the use he has made of the additional leases on life he has won, well, "respect" isn't a word that pops to mind.

It was hardly surprising that when it came to the real crunch, which is to say the long darkness for truth, justice, and the American way that was the Bush regime, there aren't many pols who behaved more abominably than our Arlen. Most of the Bush rubber-stampers were at least open about their degraded values. Our Arlen, however, often continued to profess loyalty to the Constitution and legal system that the regime was so ruthlessly dismantling. Every now and then he would make noises that were made to sound like actual acts of defiance of the regime, as in the matter of the blatantly illegal Bush military tribunals. But in the end he always caved. Always, without exception. He racked up what in baseball parlance is known as an ohfer -- 0 for the Bush regime. It's hard to believe that any of the regime malefactors lost as much as a moment's rest over his theatrical posturing.

As the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he can said to have presided over the systematic destruction of the Justice Dept. and the perversion of the federal justice system by people who whose every waking effort was devoted to destroying the country's legal fabric, transforming it all into the enforcement arm of Karl Rove's White House political operation. The confirmation of John Ashcroft as attorney general was bad enough. Who knew that the regime would find him too principled, and come up with a replacement, Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales, whose incompetent and corrupt tenure will be studied by historians and legal scholars for decades if not centuries to come?

While the Justice Dept. was being run by America-hating sociopaths and staffed at all levels -- up to the highest -- by thugs, dilettantes, and idiot children whose legal skills wouldn't have qualified them to take orders at Burger King, Arlen Specter sat on his fat, lazy, self-important, corrupt ass and let the good times roll. Remember that for the majority of the Bush regime's existence, he wasn't ranking minority member but chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Every depradation, every breach of justice and trust perpetrated by the Bush Gang had either the active blessing or the passive I-don't-give-a-fuck sign-off of master hypocrite Specter. Just as everyone involved in the running of the Justice Dept. at least under the Gonzales Reign of Legal Horror should now be under indictment, so should their master overseer and enabler, Arlen Specter.

Now the Senate's Lion of Injustice has announced his intention to throw a monkey wrench into the confirmation proceedings of Eric Holder to be attorney general, if not actually jeopardizing the nomination then at least significantly delaying the start of a task so monumental that there's no time to lose: rebuilding the Justice Dept. from the wreckage left behind by the marauders of the Bush regime.

The goniff Specter has announced that his exalted principles require him to look into Holder's role in the pardon of Marc Rich. Now the Rich pardon was far from the Clinton administration's finest hour, but it wasn't Holder's idea, and if President Clinton and his advisers were determined to do it, it's doubtful that Holder could have stopped them. Moreover, the Obama transition team is said to have sounded out the appropriate officials, presumably including Senator Specter, about the appointment.

What it comes down to, I guess, is our Arlen living up to the Grandstander's Pledge: to always do everything possible to draw attention to himself while solemnly promising never to attempt to accomplish anything of substance. The man who sat by and watched the Justice Dept. be dismantled by thugs and goons has gall beyond imagining to say "boo" to Eric Holder. Instead, he ought to take a good look in the mirror and try to figure out what to do with a man who did as much as anyone on the planet to destroy justice in the United States.

#