AZ Supreme Court rules in favor of early childhood education

...and against legislative greed and arrogance.

From AZCentral.com -

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. Jan Brewer and state officials violated the state Constitution earlier this year when they took money from an early childhood-education fund to help balance the state budget.

That fund, known as First Things First, was created by state voters in 2006 with their passage of a ballot proposal that increased tobacco taxes to fund a variety of education and health programs for children.

In January, the governor and the Republicans in the lege took one look at the state's deepening deficit and immediately thought of Arizona's children -

Thought of them while looking for a source of revenue to tap.

In addition to protecting AZ's kids from some of the schemes of the lege and governor, today's ruling also buttresses the Voter Protection Act.

Look for further attempts by the Republicans in the lege to weaken it, both in the ongoing (but not actually going anywhere) special session, and next year's regular session, starting in January.

During the legislative session, the fun part, in a very sarcastic sense, was watching wingers like Russell Pearce and John Kavanagh (the chairs of the Appropriations committees in the Senate and House, respectively) pontificate gravely on the need for cuts in all parts of state government (including children's health and education) due to the state's shrinking revenues, yet constantly pimp huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

Today's decision was a small step in the right direction for the state; next year's elections and the change they can bring could be a huge step.

Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit has a copy of the Court's decision here.

David Safier at Blog for Arizona has his take on the ruling here.

Congressman Harry Mitchell on Health Care Reform

Courtesy an email sent today -

Dear [cpmaz],

As you may be aware, Congress has begun to debate health insurance reform and may have a vote on a reform bill as early as the end of July. Currently, there is a bill being processed in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, and there are two bills making their way through the U.S. Senate. While I continue to review these proposals, you, too, can read these bills in their current forms here.

As I meet with people throughout the district, it seems that everyone has a personal story about health care. Like most Americans, I believe that rising costs and the threat of losing coverage is cause for great concern. There are too many examples of folks being denied the care their doctor prescribes because their insurance company says no, or of businesses being unable to create more jobs because the cost of health insurance will bust their budget, or of parents who cannot afford to pay for routine medical treatment to keep themselves and their children healthy.

Those conversations, along with recommendations received from doctors, nurses, patients, and health care providers in Arizona have convinced me that our system needs reform. In fact, since 2000, health care premiums have more than doubled and small businesses have faced a 129 percent increase in health care costs.

Let me be clear, I believe reform needs to protect what works and fix what doesn't. Reform should not only improve access to affordable and quality care for all Americans, but it also needs to preserve individual choice and protect competition in the marketplace. Reform should not leave individuals with fewer options, should not add to the national deficit, and should not leave doctors with inconsistent and low reimbursement rates as is often the case with Medicare.

While content of H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Choices Act, continues to be amended in committee, I will be reviewing and monitoring changes before I decide whether I will support this legislation. However, there are important benchmarks that should be met in order to gain my support:

• Choice: Reform must preserve patient choice. You should be able to choose your own coverage and doctors. If you like them you should be able to keep them, even if you change or lose your job or move to a new state. And you should be free to change coverage as you see fit.

• Competition: Reform should encourage competition and should not leave individuals with fewer options. In its current form, H.R. 3200 contains a public alternative that is funded at the same rate of Medicare which is troubling for patients, doctors, and hospitals alike. For example, in 2008, Scottsdale Healthcare lost $56 million in Medicare underpayments. While a public alternative, if designed carefully and properly, may help increase competition, one that reimburses according to Medicare rates could undercut private plans, weaken the financial stability of local hospitals and potentially leave individuals with fewer options.

• Small business: Reform must not overburden small businesses that create jobs that are essential in jump starting Arizona’s economy. According to The Arizona Republic, while small businesses make up 73 percent of Arizona businesses, only 32 percent of Arizona small businesses provided health coverage benefits in 2006, down from 50 percent in 2000. Health care reform should not exacerbate the problems small businesses are currently facing.

• Affordability, wellness, technology and best practices: Reform should ensure that our health care system is affordable and covers pre-existing conditions. To ensure the highest quality of care for all Americans, reform should reward healthy lifestyles and personal responsibility, and take full advantage of technological advances and best practices that will help reduce costs for doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Finally, I also believe that in the long term reform should not add to the national deficit. I believe that much of the cost of instituting reform should come from savings within the current system, by eliminating waste and inefficiencies, yet there may likely be the need find additional revenue sources to pay for it. As a member of Congress with a strong record of opposing tax increases, I will closely watch the debate on paying for reform.

As the debate in Congress continues, I value your input and ideas. I encourage you to visit my healthcare resource page on my website to receive more information about the health care reform process and invite you to contact my office to share your story and opinion.

Sincerely,

Harry

Let me translate this into English -

Those of you reading this who support health care reform should contact Harry and let him know (politely) that you support a public option in any health care reform package, and urge him to support it too.


And for those of you who live in other CDs -

CD1 - Ann Kirkpatrick's contact page is here; she can use the encouragement too.

CD2 - Trent Franks' page is here; I don't expect it to help, but why not let him know that there are more than Kool Aid drinkers in his district?

CD3 - John Shadegg's page is here; ditto.

CD4 - Ed Pastor's contact page is here; I expect him to support a decent bill if one makes it to the floor, but I'm sure a "Thank You, Congressman Pastor" would be appreciated.

CD6 - Jeff Flake's contact page is here; Franks or Shadegg are more likely to vote for health care reform than Flake (and there isn't a snowball's chance in Phoenix of either of them voting for it), but whatthehell...

CD7 - Raul Grijalva's contact page is here; like Pastor, he is probably going to vote for it when it reaches the House floor, but a word of thanks would be appreciated.

CD8 - Gabrielle Giffords' contact page is here; as with Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell, she can probably use a little encouragement.

Later...

Palin development: Interesting, but it's probably not "the other shoe dropping"

When Sarah Palin abruptly resigned at governor of Alaska a couple of weeks ago, many observers speculated that some pending scandal was behind her decision.

Today, the Associated Press is reporting that "[a]n independent investigator has found that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by accepting private donations to pay her legal debts."

The ironic part is that Palin's legal debts were mostly incurred defending her against ethics charges, so her way of dealing with the fallout from (alleged) ethics violations is to commit an (alleged) ethics violation.

And to think one of the knocks against her during last year's presidential campaign was that she wasn't ready for the big leagues, aka "The Beltway."

This latest report? Well, it shows that she's got the "shameless" part of being a Beltway Insider down pat.

Of course, as much fun as it is to poke a little fun at her over this, the stuff that has come out so far isn't enough to force *any* politician from office, much less one with the aspirations/delusions of grandeur that afflict the Palins of the political sphere.

Stay tuned to this one...

The Democratic front-runner for Governor

Of course, right now he's the *only* Democrat who's formed a committee for a run at the gubernortorial nomination next year, but let's not quibble over details.

This is breaking news here. :))

According to the AZ Secretary of State's website, Benjamin Jankowski of Phoenix has formed a committee (traditional financing, filer ID 201000160) to pursue the job on the 9th floor of the Executive Tower.

Don't know much about him (never heard of him, and he wasn't elected as a Democratic PC last year) but he ran write-in campaigns in 1998 for Congress (old CD3) and an abortive run at John McCain in 2004 (Stuart Starky ended up as the Democratic nominee that year).

In spite of that {ahem} daunting resume, I expect that Mr. Jankowski will face a primary challenge next year.

And for my next prediction, I'll predict a sunny day in Arizona.

However, until another candidate declares, Jankowski *is* the Democratic front-runner.

One small step...

pics courtesy Life Magazine via Google

(pic is of Buzz Aldrin; close examination of the reflection on his faceplate reveals the image of Neil Armstrong taking the pic)

40 years ago today, a phrase that will be written (or typed! :) ) so many times today that it will become nothing more than a cliche, America and the world experienced one of the few near-universally shared generational "where were you when?" moments.

On July 20, 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. Michael Collins remained in control of the orbiter above the moon.

Even now, four decades later, people remember exactly where they were and what they felt when they saw/found out about Armstrong and Aldrin walking on the moon.

An informal and unscientific survey of the folks that I work with determined that most were located in front of the nearest TV (probably listening to the late Walter Cronkite), riveted there by the images transmitted back from the moon, and most were feeling "WOW!"

NASA's Apollo 11 page is here.

Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins

My only question is when and why did America quit striving forward, creating a bright future for the U.S. and the world, and become nothing more than another generic corporate profit center?

Perhaps illustrating the generational difference, the Apollo 11 crew is calling for a push to Mars; Republican Senators U.S. are pushing for a return to Jim Crow-era attitudes (apparently because only rich old white guys are qualified to be Supreme Court justices) and Rep Senators AZ are pushing for unregulated Uranium mining because the Earth is 6000 years old and doing fine.

For today, let's enjoy the moment; tomorrow we can wonder how we've regressed so far so quickly.

Note: Tedski's pithy rebuttal to Senator Allen (R-Mining Lobbyist) is here.

More 2010 candidate committees

A visit to the Secretary of State's website shows that a number of committees have been formed for next year's elections.

- Bob Thomas, Republican, has formed a committee to explore a run at the LD15 State Senate seat, filer ID 201000141.

- Sue Dolphin, Democrat, has formed a committee in her pursuit of the LD4 State Senate seat, filer ID 201000142.

- Diane Douglas, Republican, has formed a committee for an LD9 State Representative spot, filer ID 201000152.

- Adam Driggs, Republican, has formed a committee to explore a run at an office unlisted, filer ID 201000155. Driggs is currently a State Representative from LD11. I don't really have any info on what he could be "exploring," but his background is in law (former prosecutor in Maricopa County), so I suppose he could be yet another Rep mulling a run at AG next year.

- An independent expenditure committee, Leading Arizona Forward IE, filer ID 201000143, was formed with Troy Hyde as the chair and Michelle Marini as the treasurer. "Independent" is a bit of a misnomer here, as both Hyde and Marini are Republican political operatives.

They've also formed another similarly-named committee, Leading Arizona Forward - S/O, filer ID 201000153.

Note: "S/O" = "Support/Oppose"; they can use funds from that committee to directly support or oppose specific candidates.

Later...

The coming week...

...The technical issues have been addressed, for now at least...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevant political bodies/agencies, and subject to change without notice.


...In the AZ legislature, nothing is posted yet in terms of floor and committee schedules; this may be another pro forma, "prayer and the pledge" sort of week in the special session that has been called to balance the state's budget.

Stay tuned for updates...


...The U.S. House will see an agenda that has many of the usual memorials, post office namings, and such. There are a few items of more interest though.

---There is an as-yet-unnumbered motion for the House to ask the Senate to not proceed with the impeachment of federal Judge Sam Kent. Kent lied to federal investigators about sexually assualting two women, and is currently serving a sentence in federal prison. After the House impeached him, he offered his resignation, making a Senate trial on the articles of impeachment moot.

--- H.R. 2873, Enhanced S.E.C. Enforcement Authority Act.

--- H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. It will be fun watching the Republican caucus twist themselves into knots trying to find ways to call this one "fiscally irresponsible."

--- Two as-yet-unnumbered appropriations bills - the "Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act" and the "Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, 2010."


...Over in the Senate, on Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.


And in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, health care reform could come to the floor any time that the leadership thinks that they have a package with the votes to pass. That probably won't happen this week, but it's worth keeping an eye out for developments in that area.

...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will hold two regularly scheduled meetings this week.

--- On Monday, they'll meet in "informal" session at 10 a.m. That agenda includes an economic forecast, a "green" update, some liquor license stuff, and (stop me if you've heard this one before), an executive session.

--- On Wednesday, they'll meet in "formal" session at 9 a.m. That agenda is much longer (63 pages vs. the informal session's 3) and that agenda includes spending on the county's Constables (2 laptops, 3 bullet-proof vests, 5 sets of "safety lights" for vehicles, and 8 tasers) and a number of rather mundane items like grant acceptances and IGAs (intergovernmental agreements).

On this one, I admit to not having the attention span necessary for a full evaluation. I did skim most of the agenda, however, and nothing stood out as being particularly bad. It seemed mostly to be housekeeping kind of stuff.


...The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System will hold special meetings on Monday and Wednesday at 1 p.m. No agendas posted as yet.


Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Corporation Commission, Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project, the Board of Governors of the Maricopa County Community College District, the City Councils of Tempe and Scottsdale.

The Citizens Clean Election Commission had been scheduled to meet this week, but that meeting has been postponed until next Wednesday.

More later...

Technical issues

Due to some technical issues (aka - I need a new home PC), posting will be light to nonexistent into early next week...Kind of like rain in central Arizona. :)

Have a great weekend!

Is Arpaio engaging in jury retaliation now?

Everyday he seems less like a law enforcement professional and more like some tinhorn would-be jerkwater despot...

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was interviewed this spring by a writer from The New Yorker magazine. During part of that interview, Arpaio received a rather interesting phone call.

From AZCentral.com -

...[Writer William] Finnegan visited the Valley this spring to research the article. While riding along with the sheriff one day, he writes, "someone named Jim, who sounded like a deputy, called from the courthouse."

Arpaio put the call on speaker phone, Finnegan writes, and Jim "said he was observing jury selection in a case there."

After one prospective juror told the judge that Arpaio was her hero, the caller reportedly said, "So the next lady says, 'Joe is not my hero.' Then she says she's the wife of the mayor of Mesa."

According to the article, Arpaio responded, "I knew it! I never trusted that mayor. He's pro-immigrant. He's never going to fire that chief. We gotta raid Mesa again."

Note: An abstract of the New Yorker article is here; a subscription is required to view the article in its entirety.

The courthouse in question is the federal courthouse in Phoenix. The wife of Mesa's mayor had been called for federal jury duty.

Ignoring, for the moment, the part about retaliating against a juror from Mesa for saying something vaguely critical of Arpaio, I have to ask -

What was an MCSO deputy doing in federal court?

The county sheriff's office provides security in *county* courts, not federal courts.

Was the deputy there spying for Arpaio, and if so, was it on the County dime?

If he was there as part of the case at hand (a human smuggling case, so it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that one of Arpaio's deputies was there as part of his professional duties), did he violate any rules concerning the dissemination of a juror's personal info to someone who wasn't in the courtroom, especially since the unauthorized recipient threatened retaliation against the juror?


As for the part about jury tampering/intimidation/retaliation, Title 18, Chapter 73, Section 1503 of U.S. Code lists the penalties for such as starting at 10 years in prison. However, a problem with that section of code (for that matter, the problem with most such statutes) is that the language seems to assume that only the alleged "bad guys" (such as defendants) would engage in jury tampering/etc., not the alleged "good guys" (such as sworn law enforcement officers and elected officials).

Still, it would be rather ironic if Arpaio skated on the federal investigations into the way he runs the county's jails only to be brought down by a wiseass comment made to a writer, a comment on an unrelated matter.

Later...

Renzi and his lawyers object...

...to a federal judge ruling that the Constitution doesn't protect criminal conspiracies...

From AP via KTAR.com -

Lawyers for former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi are objecting to a federal magistrate's denial of their motion to dismiss the public corruption case against him on constitutional grounds.

Renzi's lawyers contend that the government violated the U.S. Constitution's speech and debate clause in wiretapping his conversations with aides concerning a failed land swap deal in which he's been accused of conspiracy.

Yup - Renzi and his lawyers want to exclude recordings of conversations concerning legislation by claiming that those conversations are protected under the "speech and debate" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

That clause is in Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution (emphasis mine) -

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

The most obvious problems with Renzi's arguement?


The "speech" wasn't in the House, and it concerned legislation that was the "quo" in a "quid pro quo" conspiracy that involved Renzi using his office for the personal financial benefit of himself and a business associate.


I *really* wish Renzi's trial was going to be held here in the Valley. It's going to be in Tucson, and that is too far for me to travel for what is certain to be a long (as in more than one day) trial.

Guess I'll just have to settle for John Huppenthal's assault trial (two weeks! July 29, San Tan Justice Court in Chandler...unless they put it off again due to the special session).

Later...

Maybe Visa executives need the money for this year's bonuses?

From AP via AZCentral.com -

MANCHESTER, N.H. - A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.

Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number - a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).

You know, I poke fun, but this scheme would balance the federal budget ($1 trillion deficit), California's ($26 billion deficit), Arizona's ($2.6 billion deficit remaining), the rest of the state government budgets (as well as county and municipal budgets) and have enough left over to fund health care reform *and* permanently fund the Republicans' Forever Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And make Social Security solvent.

And maybe even allow us to establish a "rainy day" fund of a measly trillion or two.

Hmmmm...something to think about here...

Time for a new tobacco tax? Make it big enough and we'd only have to sell one or two packs to balance *everything.*

Hmmm....

:))

Open Letter To Congressman Harry Mitchell Regarding Health Care Reform

On Tuesday, the Democrats in the U.S. House introduced a health care reform package. It will be considered and marked up by three committee (Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means) before reaching the House floor.

That floor vote is expected to occur before the House's summer break.

The Senate is expected to vote on its package by the summer break also, allowing the two chambers to reconcile their packages and handle final passage sometime early in the fall.

As such, this is an opportune time to contact my representative, Congressman Harry Mitchell.

The letter I wrote, submitted via his contact page -

Dear Congressman Mitchell.

Thank you for the great work you have been doing to represent the people of Scottsdale and Tempe. You may not hear it about it as much as you should, but your constituents appreciate your committment to them.

Tonight I am writing to urge you to support the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

Lobbyists are spending millions of dollars everyday to convince you and your colleagues that a "public option" should not be part of any health care reform package.

National polls show that more than 2/3 of Americans have a different opinion (http://tcf.org/publications/healthcare/wtprw.healthcare.pdf)

The individual people in your district (and your colleagues' districts) don't have the resources to fund and conduct national TV and print ad campaigns or to flood Representatives' offices with mass-produced post cards and letters.

More importantly, too many of your constituents also don't have the resources to pay for adequate medical care under the current system.


What they do have is you, their elected representative.


To be sure, any bill produced by the legislative process will have aspects you (and I) will be less than enthusiastic about.

Unless one or more of those aspects is *utterly* unacceptable, it would be good to keep in mind something first said by Voltaire and used by Secretary of State (then Senator) Clinton at last year's Democratic Convention in Denver when discussing health care reform -

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Again, thank you for everything you have done for the people of the Fifth District.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has a good resource page on the proposal here.

CQPolitics' summary is here.

Later...

Brewer's bill dispositions: mostly bad

Updated on 7/14 with dispositions of certain bills, courtesy this AZCentral.com piece

Her dispositions of the last group of bills sent her by the lege consisted mostly of signing bad bills, but there were a few nuggets of good work among the pile of road apples sent to her.

The summary of all of her dispositions (signing, vetoing, transmitting w/o signature) can be found here. It's updated as of 3:30 p.m on Monday.

Among the highlights of the vetoes:

HB2258, relating to consumer fireworks; vetoed for safety reasons

SB1017, relating to the creation of specialty license plates supporting MS research, the Masons, hunger relief and children's cancer research; vetoed because of "flawed" wording

HB2369, which would have allowed the legislature to seize and reappropriate "non-custodial" federal monies (such as block grants)


Among the lowlights (aka - the bad bills) that she signed into law:

HB2101, a bill to force Pinal County to change the size of its Board of Supervisors from three to five members. It was going to happen soon anyway because of Pinal's growth, but there is a Republican former legislator who wants back in an elected office of one sort or another, so the Rep caucus in the lege accelerated the process.

HB2396, compelling ADOT to establish and enter into "public-private partnerships" for the construction of toll roads and other "eligible facilities"

HB2564, adding all sorts of restrictions to abortion access; AZCentral.com coverage here

HB2400, redefining "partial birth abortions" and increasing the criminal penalties for the performance of a partial birth abortion...something that is already illegal under federal law

SB1113, the guns in bars and restaurants bill; AZCentral.com coverage here


Status unclear as of this writing:

HB2103, to allow the state treasurer to bypass the state attorney general and hire outside counsel for legal advice. Also known (by me, anyway :) ) as the "Dean Martin doesn't like Terry Goddard" bill

HB2288, creates a larger tax credit (for insurers) who make donations to school tuition organization and eliminates the sunset date for the existing corporate tax credit for STO contributions

SB1022, usurping local ordinances regarding "tampering" with political signs - Vetoed

SB1123, forcing Tucson to hold non-partisan elections, aka Jonathan Paton's scheme to see more Republicans win office in Tucson's municipal elections

SB1168, the NRA's bill to allow guns in cars on other people's private property

SB1175, prohibiting someone who is not "an osteopathic or allopathic physician" from performing an abortion

SB1243, the NRA's "defensive display" of guns bill


My expectation for the "no info yet" category of bills is that most were signed into law, especially given that most are bad bills. I just haven't found any reports on those yet.

More tomorrow, especially details on the other bills...

Senator Al Franken's statement at today's confirmation hearing

Al Franken, the long-elected but only recently-sworn junior U.S. Senator from Minnesota, has immediately stepped into the center of the fray in D.C. as a member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

Today, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court opened.

Here is the opening statement, as written, by Senator Franken -

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is an incredible honor to be here. Less than a week into my term as a United States Senator, my first major responsibility is here, at this historic confirmation hearing.

I am truly humbled to join the Judiciary Committee, which has played, and will continue to play, such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice. Chairman Leahy, for several years now I have admired your strength and integrity in leading this Committee. I'm grateful for the warm welcome and consideration you have given me, and I am honored to serve alongside you.

Ranking Member Sessions, I want you to know that I plan to follow the example of my good friend and predecessor, Paul Wellstone, who was willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work of the American people. I look forward to working over the years with you and my other Republican colleagues in the Senate to improve the lives of all Americans.

To all the members of this committee, I know that I have a lot to learn from each of you. Like so many private citizens, I have watched at least part of each and every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since they have been televised. And I would note that this is the first confirmation hearing that Senator Kennedy has not attended since 1965. We miss his presence.

These televised hearings have taught Americans a lot about our Constitution – and the role that the courts play in upholding and defending it. I look forward to listening to your questions and to the issues that you and your constituents care about.

To Judge Sotomayor, welcome. For the next few days, I expert to learn from you as well. You are the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years. And after meeting with you in my office last week, I know that aside from being a fine jurist, you are also an exceptional individual. Your story is inspiring and one in which all Americans should take pride.

As most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. That may mean that I am the most junior Senator, but it also means that I am the Senator who has most recently taken the oath of office. Last Tuesday, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to it. I take this oath very seriously as we consider Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

I may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of Americans. Yet all of us, regardless of our backgrounds or professions, have a huge stake in who sits on the Supreme Court and are profoundly affected by its decisions.

I hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern people in Minnesota and around the country. This hearing will help folks sitting in living rooms and offices in Winona or Duluth or the Twin Cities to get a better idea of what the court is, what it does and what it is supposed to do, and most importantly, how its actions affect the everyday lives of all Americans.

Justice Souter, whom you will replace if you're confirmed, once said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right." I believe he had it right.

In the past months, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of Americans and reading and consulting with some of Minnesota's top legal minds. And I believe that the rights of Americans, as citizens and voters, are facing challenges on two separate fronts.

First, I believe the position of Congress with respect to the Courts and the Executive is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believed that the Framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.

I am wary of judicial activism and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to Congress and not make policy by itself.

Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years – and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.

I agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse that we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians talk about what kind of judge they want in the Supreme Court. But it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. Because during the Rhenquist Court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined.

Second, I am concerned that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong:

• It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age, gender, or color.

• It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.

• It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from securities fraud.

• It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet. • It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote.

• It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.

Yet from what I see, on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend themselves.

As I said before, Judge, I'm here to learn from you. I want to learn what you think is the proper relationship between Congress and the Courts, between Congress and the Executive. I want to learn how you go about weighing the rights of the individual, the small consumer or business-owner, and more powerful interests. And I want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of important issues like voting rights, open access to the Internet, and campaign finance reform.

We're going to have a lot of time together, so I'm going to start listening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, he's not a Senator from AZ, but since the two "official" representatives of Arizona in the U.S. Senate don't actually expend much time or effort representing Arizona, I'm sort of adopting Senator Franken as one of my honorary AZ senators, the other being Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator Sanders is officially an Independent, but he still the best Democrat in the Senate.

All of the written statements submitted by the members of the Committee and Judge Sotomayor are available here.

Later....

Diamondbacks release Tony Clark

I understand the "why" here, and how "baseball is a business" and all of that, but it still sucks...

From AZCentral.com -

In another move made in part with an eye on 2010, the Diamondbacks on Sunday released veteran first baseman Tony Clark.

Clark, 37 and in his 15th season in the majors, was hitting just .182 with four home runs in 66 at-bats.

I don't use the word often because so often, it is overused or just used cheaply, but he is truly one of the class acts in all of professional sports. He is well-liked by those who know him, and more importantly, well-respected by his colleagues and the fans.

In addition to his playing skills (this season's struggles notwithstanding, one doesn't have a 15-year career in the majors without some serious skills), he has been heavily involved in community affairs wherever he has played and in the MLB Players Association.

I first met him in 1996 or 1997 before an Arizona Fall League game in Scottsdale. He wasn't there as a player as he was already an established major leaguer by that time. He was visiting AZ in the offseason (he played college basketball at U of A) and spent some time in the Valley, catching up with some of his friends who were playing that year.

Clark handled the steady stream of fans seeking an autograph or a simple 'hello' with a ready signature and a smile.

All the while maintaining a steady conversation with the players warming up on the field.

All of this sounds sort of like a eulogy, and it shouldn't.

Clark's time with the Diamondbacks may be over, but his time in baseball isn't.

He may/should catch on with a team in need of an accomplished 1B/DH/PH with a steady, professional influence in the clubhouse. And after his playing career is over, he will be a great coach or executive in any organization or with the MLBPA. Or in any field he chooses.

Back to politics later...