CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
You've Got to be Pretty Quick to See the Fleeting PenisThe Parents Television Council (PTC) is once again trying to be every American's parent by raising a so-called "indecency" claim against CBS's show Survivor. The PTC complaint is the result of a millisecond view of a contestant's penis, which flopped — fleetingly, unintentionally, and entirely un-sexually — from his running shorts while he sprinted to the finish in an Immunity Challenge. Kudos to the eagle-eyed monitors at the PTC: We were watching his shorts pretty closely too, and we didn't see a thing! But the PTC is right, because when you slow down the tape, and cue up the right millisecond, there it is! (Judge for yourself here. But remember that this is the slowed-down version of the tape. You can barely see it in real time). Sure, they can make the case that the contestant should have been wearing a jock strap (as most men, as a matter of comfort, would prefer). But surprise, surprise, he didn't have one on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean, hundreds of miles from the nearest Target. The scene of the penis that fleetingly flopped came complete with a seemingly adorable grandmother in the background, apparently uncorrupted by the spectacle. The PTC hasn't had a conniption like this since Janet Jackson's breast fleetingly graced international television. They said Janet Jackson's breast could be construed as obscene and corrupting, but I didn't think so, the ACLU didn't think so, and a federal court didn't think so either. Fleeting, clearly unintentional, and un-sexual: I leave it to the folks at PTC to explain how this Survivor slip corrupts anyone. Until then, the government, and the PTC, should stay out of our living rooms.
Congress-ese: On Conference Committees and What Grade School Failed to Mention
In grade school, we are taught that a bill becomes a law after passage by both houses of Congress and once signed by the president. Straightforward, right? Not quite. If the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill, the differences must be reconciled into one that the president then either signs or vetoes. This process plays itself out in conference committees appointed by the leadership of both houses to iron out differences between their respective pieces of legislation. When bills share policy goals, use the same actors, or envision similar budgets, coming to a consensus can sometimes be quite easy. However, when two pieces of legislation do not share these characteristics, this process becomes more complicated and, almost always, contentious. The leadership on both parties in both houses of Congress appoint members to conference committees on a case-by-case basis. They're often chaired and dominated by members from the committee that originally considered the bill, and the final legislative product reflects their priorities. But this isn't a requirement — party leadership can help to tank a bill it disagrees with by specifically appointing members that do not reflect the will of the committee majority if it disagrees with their position. This "smoky backroom" appointment process lends itself to a personality-driven style of legislating in which a variety of competing interests jockey for a place in the final legislative product. Behind the doors of a conference committee dramatic changes in proposed legislation can take place — provisions can be amended, added, or stripped altogether. All of these things have the capacity to alter the legislative intent and budgetary impact of the final bill. Yet, the work of the conference committee, on even the most contentious matters, is rarely second-guessed by other members of Congress. When faced with the possibility of having to start over — with a new bill, hearing, mark-up, floor debate, AND conference committee — members oftentimes vote to accept the revisions and compromises from the conference committee. This process can hardly be reduced to a grade school flow chart, but in a system in which two bills must become one to become law, the conference committee has come to play an integral governmental role. A good example of conference committee work was last year's brouhaha over the inclusion of hate crimes legislation in the defense authorization bill. It was added by the Senate. It wasn't in the House bill. When they conferenced it, certain Republican members threatened to blow the whole thing up if wasn't taken out of the conference report. So guess what happened? See ya, hate crimes legislation! (By the way, if you're interested to see where your Congress members stood on hate crimes, see our Congressional scorecards for the House and Senate.) CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post suggested that the ACLU scored the conference report. That was incorrect. The ACLU scorecards report on how members voted on hate crimes in the Senate on the Kennedy-Smith Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, and in the House on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Congress-ese: House Rules CommitteeThe unassuming House Committee on Rules, with the innocuous sounding charge to "arrange the order of business and decide how and in what way certain measures shall be considered," holds almost unassailable control of what legislation passes and what, more aptly, does not. Partisanship, debate, and colorful characters — sound and fury — hold our attention, but are not where the real work of Congress is done. It is the work of the House Committee on Rules that determines legislative outcomes. Almost no bill can be considered, amended, passed, recommitted or sent to conference committee with the Senate without the Committee on Rules' permission. In fact, the committee determines which members can speak on what issue, how much time they control, who can offer amendments and precisely when a vote will occur on those bills, resolutions, conference reports and amendments it deems "great and important." But make no mistake — this body is not independent. It is dominated by the speaker of the House. Its membership is highly partisan (9-to-4 in favor of the majority) and appointed by the speaker. It exists to facilitate the prompt and successful consideration of the speaker's — i.e. not necessarily the majority party's — priorities. Some speakers have ruled with firmer hands than others. Speaker Newt Gingrich took the practice to new heights—or depths, depending on your viewpoint—by using the rules committee to make wholesale changes in bills if he didn't like how they came out of the committees of jurisdiction.
Mukasey Must Cooperate with Congress: Charisma and Hubris Not Enough to Fix Justice DepartmentOn Tuesday, speaking before the American Bar Association, Attorney General Michael Mukasey attempted to sweep the legacy of Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, and Monica Goodling under the rug. To suggest that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) tattered claim to legitimacy and competency can be mended on his say so — with memos and speeches — is a stunning show of self-congratulatory hubris. In his mind, the problem can be reduced to the following: The active wrong-doing...was not systemic in that only a few people were directly implicated in it. But the failure was systemic in that the system — the institution — failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong.He believes the solution is to reform the institution by sheer force of charisma. He believes updated hiring policies, supervisory practices, and the continuing education of DOJ employees will solve the problems. And perhaps they will — while he is the attorney general. But what happens when he is gone - when his successor looks more like his predecessor? How do his reforms endure if someone in turn tries to sweep his legacy under the rug? They won’t, and that’s the problem with internal reform — in the end reform is just a wink and a nod or a cross of the fingers that it won’t happen again. In fact, the problem isn’t that DOJ didn’t have rules on the books or laws passed by Congress to enforce. No, they had them; the problem was that they were all blithely disregarded (PDF) — by the attorney general and his staff. It is in this vacuum of oversight and leadership that the lawlessness of the Gonzales Troika bloomed. The department is broken, and the attorney general cannot fix it. He must recognize the stark reality, and work with Congress to bring the wrongdoing of his predecessor to light, effectively oversee the department in the future, and create real criminal and civil repercussions for those who violate Department of Justice regulations and civil service laws. Only Congress can — with oversight and legislation — fix the problems with DOJ. If Mukasey is truly a reformer bent on fixing his department then he must cooperate with Congress and create a pro-active climate for change, accountability, and taking responsibility. His speech suggests something else, that he is more interested in patting himself on the back and sweeping Goodling, Sampson, and Gonzales under the rug. Tags: Civil Liberties News |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
