I'll be honest. I don't like John Roberts. I don't know him personally, but since he's been on CNN in the mornings, I've noticed a definite slant to the coverage and on more than one occasion, he has used Republican talking points as questions. He has an obvious disdain in his questions when interviewing Democrats, and an obvious admiration for most Republicans I've seen him interview. He has also bragged about riding motorcycles with White House aides.  I used to regularly watch CNN in the morning since I am admittedly a political junkie, and the fluff on the network shows after about 7:15 am just doesn't cut it. Lately it's been mostly C-Span for me since CNN has been so bad.

This morning, I was clicking around getting ready for work and came across an interview with Richard Holbrooke and John Roberts.

I have just read one of the best pieces of medico-political journalism I have ever encountered, and I urge you all to read it as well. Not only does it provide more evidence (as if it were needed) of John McCain's hypocrisy and political cowardice, it contains vital information about the dangers of melanoma and how to prevent it, the incredible increase in incidence, and how the FDA caved into the cosmetics industry on the issue of sunscreens after lobbying by John Roberts (remember him -- head of the SCOTUS).

Please read Brian McKenna's McCain's Melanoma Cover-Up piece immediately, especially if you have children. I lost a dear friend to melanoma about one year ago (he was 40 years old with a child). Learn the basics of protection, and learn how McCain is acting, as usual, as an ass. Some excerpts after the jump.

Note: McKenna is a 16-year survivor of melanoma. He writes brilliantly, and knows what he's talking about.

South Carolina the last bastion of rugged pedantry is waiting for the signature of its governor Mark Sandford allowing drivers to profess their Christian faith through faith based license plates.

If Sen Clinton wants to do some spectacularly unexpected work for her country, her concession speech would read somewhat as follows:

My Fellow Americans, today I bring to an honorable conclusion the campaign for the Presidency that I began with such a serene sense of entitlement so long ago. In delegates, popular vote, number of individual contributors and number of states won, Sen Obama's lead is indisputable. I am happy to see him as our nominee and will vigorously support him as he goes forth to defeat the Third Bush Term under the dubious and superannuated patronage of Sen John McCain.

When I began, I could not have known that the best campaign of the 20th century would not prove adequate to the 21st; that the consultant-driven swing-state-only calculus of the last two Democratic presidential defeats would be overthrown; or that the American people's disgust at a dishonest, tragic, savage, pointless and mismanaged war would require a stronger peace policy than I was initially prepared to follow.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter in his dissent on the Bowles v. Russell decision by the court.

I'm riffing off Anthony Lewis' review of Jeffrey Toobin's book, The Nine Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court in the December 20, 1007 issue of The New York Review of Books.
http://www.nybooks.com/...

As George Orwell might put it, all Supreme Court decisions are important, but some are more important than others.  And in the history of our country, there can be little doubt that one of the Court’s most important decisions was its unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, decided 54 years ago this May 17th.  Overturning the shameful "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson and striking down school segregation laws, the ruling in Brown gave substance to the Constitution’s promise of equality for all.  Without question, May 17, 1954 saw the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, at its very best.

Flash forward 53 years, to June 28, 2007.  On that date, a bitterly divided 5-4 Supreme Court, now headed by Bush-nominee John Roberts, invalidated the school-assignment plans adopted by two public school districts to promote racial diversity in their schools.  Joining Chief Justice Roberts in striking down those plans were Justices Samuel Alito (the Court’s other Bush-nominee), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy.

John McCain promises to nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts. He also bitterly criticizes Barack Obama for voting against Roberts’ confirmation. Here’s what’s worth remembering about John Roberts, as summarized by Georgetown Law Professor Peter Rubin in Salonback in ‘05.  Then Judge Roberts ruled that the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority was perfectly correct in seizing, handcuffing, booking, and briefly incarcerating a crying twelve year old girl.  Her crime:  eating a single French fry in the Washington metro.  Freedom fries had not yet been invented, though even they would not have saved young Ms. Hedgepeth from the fury of the law.

Read what the Republicans Wish You Wouldn’t

Today's Daily Flipper - McCain Corruption Edition you will read:
McCain Pushed Key Land Deal For Fundraiser
McCain Misses The Mark In Michigan
McCain Doesn’t Know Much About The Judiciary Either
McCain Gets Support From EU Trade Minister
Cindy On Release Of Tax Returns
As The Money Woes Continue
McCain Wants His FEC
Ron Paul Supporters Plan Takeover of GOP Convention

Read all the detail and take action on the flip. Flip it good.

In addition to the onerous government ID requirement for voting in Indiana, Georgia is set to execute a man by lethal injection tonight.  I will explain how these two events are related, the reasons for them, and the ramifications after the jump.

It is done now.  Sonny Perdue succeeded in killing a man.  Kentucky is up soon, and Texas would have done it first but the courts put it off until the 21st of the month.  This is sad.

I am not defending what these people were convicted of doing (although sometimes convictions are incorrect), but do state for the record for my ideas that it is never correct to kill anyone unless there is immediate threat to life and limb of oneself or one's family, or even a stranger, if such stranger is being attacked.

That is a far cry from the government killing people after "due process".  As despicable as the majority of them are, recent history has shown us that not all with a death sentence were even remotely related to the crime for which they were accused.

Well - never say never! CNN's John Roberts finally said it on their show "American Morning" today.  

During this morning's broadcast Roberts said that CNN has declared a "Rev. Wright free-zone... Our viewers want us to move on."

UPDATE x3:  Transcript is now up via CNN - follow the jump for details and link.

CBS must ask two very different questions. The obvious: who should replace her? The more difficult: should we even bother?

As much as anything else, presidential campaigns are won and lost by the media narratives that rightly or wrongly come to define a candidate.  In the case of Repubican nominee John McCain, the seemingly unshakable narrative of the political "maverick" could not be further off the mark. At almost every turn, McCain in his eternal quest for the White House has reversed long-held positions, compromised core principles and swallowed his pride in order to curry favor with both the leading lights of the conservative movement and right-wing Republican primary voters.  The untold story of campaign 2008 is simply that of John McCain's transformation from maverick to prostitute.

For 150 years or so the United States Supreme Court has been increasing the powers of corporations in our county, giving them free speech rights and slapping the crap out of consumers and workers in many cases.  Occasionally the worm turns, but over time corporations get expanded powers and people get the shaft.

With the current court, that's a given.  For the conservative world, companies have more rights than people and always deserve the benefit of the doubt.  With the Bush appointees it's just getting worse, another reason to back no matter which Democrat wins the nomination for President.

But last week we got to see the court get it's comeuppance in a single, short response from a lawyer for the Alaskan people whose lives were drastically damaged by the incompetence and idiocy of the Exxon corporation.

I am not familiar with the Roman Catholic version of the bible but it must be rife with references by Jesus about how one must always and constantly come to the aid and sustenance of the corporation.

The proof is in the unanimous rule by the Roman Catholic justices on the court that corporations need legal protection from those terrible, awful patients who might sue them if they are injured by a medical device:

No Recourse for the Injured

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Provided of course democrats take the white house and expand their majorities in the House and Senate. Due to a corrupt Republican administration and cowardly caving Democrats we have two justices, Roberts and Alito, neither of whom should have even made it out of commitee let alone be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Hillary has won another primary. This means that the world is coming to an end. The general election is already lost. The stars are about to fall out of the sky. Our drinking water will turn to blood any minute now.

Hillary-hating is at an all-time fever pitch in progressive circles. Why, because Hillary is too friendly with the corporations. Hillary will sell us out to the Republicans. Hillary is no different from McCain (or Romney).

So what’s the answer proposed?

With John McCain's return to the front of the Republican pack, the conservative Weekly Standard is reexamining the Arizona's vices and virtues.  But while Dean Barnett bemoans McCain's "uncanny ability to drive virtually all conservatives nuts," Adam White and Kevin White praise McCain's record on the confirmation of right-wing judges.  Not because McCain's position on the so-called "nuclear option" was right in principle. No, the Standard lauded McCain's success with the "Gang of 14" because it preserved the ability of a Republican minority to block future Democratic judicial nominations.

(From the diaries ~ smintheus)

As the Washington Post detailed on Tuesday, the Supreme Court this term will decide a set of voter identification cases which could well determine the outcome of the 2008 election.  In a narrow legal sense, the cases will address the constitutionality of new voter ID laws in Indiana and other states.  But more important, the Roberts Court will decide whether to rubber stamp an essential tactic in the all-out Republican war to suppress the votes of minority - and likely Democratic - Americans.

The combined cases to be argued on January 9th, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, have their genesis in the wave of draconian new voter identification laws passed by Republican majority statehouses around the nation.  As the Post noted, Indiana joined Georgia, Missouri and Arizona in enacting stringent new photo ID requirements for voters, despite a complete absence of polling place fraud in these or any other state:

The state's Republican-led legislature passed the law in 2005 requiring voters to have ID, even though the state had never prosecuted a case of voter impersonation...

...Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R) said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

The state law he and the legislature came up with requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID that has an expiration date, such as a driver's license or a passport. Nondrivers can receive an identification card from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

To date, the courts have agreed with Rokita.  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Indiana law by a 2-1 margin.  Unsurprisingly, the Court's two Republican appointees blessed the Indiana Republican tactic.  Reagan appointee Judge Richard Posner proclaimed, "It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID."  But Clinton appointee Terence Evans in his dissent stated the obvious motivation and desired outcome of the Hoosier State GOP gambit:

"Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."

Which is exactly right.  As I detailed just before the 2006 mid-terms, the Indiana, Georgia and other similar laws are an essential ingredient of the Republican strategy of "Divide, Suppress and Conquer" which aims to drive down the participation of potential Democratic and independent voters through unprecented redistricting, curbs on registration, onerous new ID requirements, and polling place eligibility challenges:

Not content to prevent the enfranchisement of new voters, the GOP is committed to blocking their exercise of the right to vote. At the both the state and federal level, the GOP in the name of battling fraud has put up a raft of new roadblocks and barriers to voting with burdensome voter identification requirements.

The fact that voter fraud in the United States is virtually non-existent doesn't derail Republicans in their quest to block access to the ballot box. Just this year, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission issued a report refuting the myth of fraud at polling places. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement," the report concluded, "that there is little polling place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, "dead" voters, noncitizen voting and felon voters."

The result is a host of new state laws advanced by Republicans with the transparent aim of suppressing the potential Democratic - and especially black - vote. As Perrspectives reported previously, Georgia's onerous new voter ID card program requiring voters to visit one of the state's limited number of offices, would have trimmed up to 150,000 people (primarily African-Americans and the elderly) from the rolls. (The bill's sponsor, Augusta Republican Sue Burmeister explained that when black voters in her black precincts "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls.") Versions of the Georgia law have been ruled unconstitutional twice by federal judge Harold Murphy. And while Indiana's new voter ID law and the milder version in Arizona have to date withstood judicial scrutiny, another measure in Missouri similar to that in Georgia has been blocked during the 2006 elections. In his rebuke to the state of Missouri, Judge Richard Callahan deemed the right to vote "a right and not a license."

Voter suppression has been a centerpiece of the Karl Rove Republican electoral strategy in both the states and within the Bush administration.  (While supporting the new voter ID laws, the Bush administration's only prosecution for violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was against the African-American head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, Mississippi for using coercion and intimidation to prevent the white voters from going to the polls.)  Voter suppression, after all, was the primary objective of Alberto Gonzales' purge of United States attorneys.  As I wrote in March:

Simply put, the Bush White House planned to systematically drive down the turnout of Democrats and independents at the ballot box through an unaccountable campaign against "voter fraud"...

...While former White House counsel Harriet Miers first raised the specter of replacing all of the prosecutors in early 2005, it was President Bush himself who emphasized the importance of supposed voter fraud to Attorney General Gonzales:

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

The case of Seattle prosecutor John McKay illustrates the Republicans' preoccupation with voter fraud. Washington State Republicans, including Congressman Doc Hastings, were furious at McKay over what they claimed was his inaction on vote fraud in the wake of Democrat Christine Gregoire's 129 vote margin of victory (out of almost 3,000,000 votes cast) in the twice recounted 2004 gubernatorial campaign. On July 5, 2005, Tom McCabe of the Building Industry Association of Washington wrote to Hastings, blunting demanding, "please ask the White House to replace Mr. McKay. If you decide not to do this, let me know why."

In 2008, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not the Republican Party will succeed in its fraudulent campaign against mythical vote fraud.  (It does not require a crystal ball to predict where John Roberts and Sam Alito will come down on the issue))  With the Republican Party in danger of losing the White House and yielding even larger Democratic majorities in Congress, the stakes for the GOP are high indeed.  The stakes for the American people and the future of American democracy, of course, are much higher.

** Crossposted at Perrspectives **