Blogs

Public Option Lives

NULL

The Washington Post is reporting that Harry Reid plans to include a public option in the Senate’s version of the health care reform bill:

Under pressure from liberals in his caucus, Reid has carefully canvassed Senate Democrats in search of 60 votes needed to bring health-care reform to the floor with a public option provision included. So far, he has not locked down commitments from every Democrat, Senate sources said.Some of the public-option approaches on the table include an “opt out” clause that would allow states to decide not to participate in a government plan; an “opt in” provision for states that many Democratic moderates prefer; and a “trigger” that would create a government plan if private insurers do not offer policies at affordable prices.

Reid reportedly plans to make an announcement about the public option this afternoon.

It’s still not clear that a public option can garner the 60 votes needed to clear a filibuster in the Senate.

But the prospect of a government-run plan seems more likely today than it did even last week.

It’s amazing how some Democrats suddenly decided to fight for a public option after seeing this poll.

WILLIAM WAYNE JUSTICE1920 – 2009

See also:

Justice for the Dispossessed: William Wayne Justice 1920-2009

One of his clerks remembers Judge Justice »

Dave Richards on Wayne Justice »

It is again time for those of us in the middle of the mystery of life to confront the mystery of death.  As with every funeral, there is a sense of loss.  But never before have I felt not just a sense of loss, but such a sense of loneliness.  He was the ever-burning fire at the base of our camp.  It was to his flame that we were all drawn for warmth.  It was to his light that we looked for inspiration.  Now, the fire has gone out.  We are left in the cold, in the dark, and all alone.

Those who knew him best will miss him most.  But, our country will miss him most of all, especially now.  No one else cared as much, no one else did as much, no one else mattered as much as William Wayne Justice.   We are left with no one like him.  I fear we will not soon see anyone who even puts us in mind of him.  Wayne strapped to his slender back all that was best in our system of laws and in ourselves, and pushed upwards, through sunshine and shadow, towards a higher and finer concept of justice, justice that had for too long eluded our society.   Shakespeare anticipated Wayne when he wrote, what “can [I] say more/ Than this rich praise – that you alone [were] you.”

Wayne knew in every cell and membrane that, to show compassion for an individual or a people, without concern for the legal structures that make them an object of sympathy, is just watery sentimentality.  It is not a responsible understanding of the law.  He knew also that those who prefer injustice to disorder generally produce more of both. And, he likewise knew that those who are bold enough to advance before the age must learn to expect censure.  In enforcing constitutional mandates, he learned that there would be a horrific price to pay.  But, he always reached for the check, and he paid it to the very last penny.

All of us have often heard of the crucibles in which Wayne was torched and burned, how the ingot was stamped with the hallmark, and the ashes blown away.  But, with some crucibles and some hallmarks, we must always tell the story.   Because we send him to the immortality of history, we tell the story.  Because we must remind ourselves of, and remain scared of,  what humanity can do to itself, we tell the story.

Wayne took the bench in 1968, two months after Dr. King’s murder.  Fourteen years had passed since Brown v. Board of Education.  Nonetheless, African-Americans were still being denied a desk in the school room, a place at the lunch counter, a moment in the voting booth, a seat at the front of the bus, a job at the factory, and a home in the neighborhood.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man.  Many people contributed to the long, vexed, and continuing struggle to change all that.  But, within Texas, no individual, and no group of individuals, did remotely as much as Wayne.  He stands alone among all the others.  Whoever is in second place is not even close.

The case of United States v. Texas, for example, resulted in Wayne’s imposing a desegregation order on all public schools at all levels throughout the State of Texas.  This was an order on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of black children in Texas who, although not even grown up, were already being ground down.  Wayne’s ruling was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, but the State sought a stay from Circuit Justice Hugo Black.  Justice Black wrote: “The District Court’s opinion and order are comprehensive and well reasoned.  In my judgment the facts found by the District Court, which do not appear materially disputed by the applicants, fully justify the order.”

Wayne’s contribution to the rights of the incarcerated was similarly profound.  In the wake of Iraq and Abu Gharib we have all been made sickeningly familiar with prisoner abuse and even torture.  I quote from a national magazine: “The footage is not easy to watch.  In one clip, a prisoner screams as an attack dog mauls his leg; in another, a prisoner with a broken ankle gets zapped in the buttocks with a stun gun because he’s not crawling along the floor quickly enough.  These aren’t the infamous videos from . . . Abu Ghraib.  They were taken in 1996″ at a detention facility outside of Houston.

The case of Ruiz v. Estelle became Wayne’s most famous and his most long-running.  It began in 1972 with a handwritten fifteen-page petition from an inmate in a Texas prison within Wayne’s district.  The prisoner, David Ruiz, alleged that he was being confined under unconstitutional conditions and specified incidents of harassment by prison officials, inadequate medical care, and unlawful solitary confinement.  Eventually, Mr. Ruiz became the lead plaintiff in a class action involving all the prisoners in the Texas system.  Wayne presided over the case for thirty years and, despite enormous governmental obstinacy, forced thoroughgoing reform all over the state.

In a totally different arena, Wayne vindicated the rights of children of illegal immigrants to attend public schools.  The local school district had reasoned that, because their parents were here unlawfully and were paying no tax, the children should be required to pay tuition – a requirement that effectively and forever shut the schoolhouse doors to them.  Wayne quickly outlawed this practice.  His decision was upheld unanimously by the Fifth Circuit, and by the Supreme Court on a five to four vote.

Think back on these decisions for a moment.  Wayne held that African-Americans should enjoy the same rights as whites, that those whom we had imprisoned should be treated humanely, that children are entitled to public education irrespective of the financial or citizenship status of their parents.  What, in the name of all that we hold good and true is controversial about any of those holdings?  How could any system of justice have reached different conclusions?

But, this is now, and that was then.  The vitriol directed at Wayne and his family was brutal, copious, and unrelenting.  If Wayne had not been so robust, so high-hearted, and so unafraid, our state’s history would have been vastly different and vastly poorer.  One-sixth of the 65,000 residents of Tyler, where Wayne sat, signed a petition calling for his impeachment.  Hate mail and obscene phone calls poured in at both home and office.  A fleet of school buses was bombed.  Wayne received death threats and two different plans to kill him were documented.  The minister of the First Baptist Church, which was located across the street from the federal courthouse, called Wayne a socialist intent on tearing down the fabric of local society.  A neighbor who was an influential member of the Episcopal Church made it clear, when Wayne sought to attend services there, that he was not welcome.  Repair men would not come to his home.  When Wayne walked into a restaurant, others would often walk out.

Wayne endured all this with stoicism, but was deeply anguished over what it meant for his beloved wife Sue.  At least within the federal courthouse, Wayne was surrounded by sympathetic colleagues.  As Sue went about her daily life, however, she had no comparable source of solace.  Wayne well realized that, as life kept calling with its insistent and often hateful voice, it was so often Sue who had to answer.

Wayne and Sue persevered.  They stood with those who had nothing, absolutely nothing, and were not even allowed to enjoy in peace the nothing that they had.  They stood with those for whom life consisted of darkness being added to darkness in a night sky that was already devoid of stars.  They stood with those of broken, broken lives, lives that – if they were to be mended at all — would be mended only imperfectly.

What Wayne and Sue did, and all that they had to bear, “will continue to be commemorated as long as fortitude under fire continues to be admired.” And, as we ask blessings on the life that has ended, and upon the lives that go on, we cannot but be reminded of the smallness of our own vision in the face of these deepest truths.

For other judges, Wayne’s career is both an aspiration and a silent rebuke – we follow so very far behind him.  Fortunately for all of us, a well-lived life is eternal.  Wayne’s example will always be with us.

For now, at this quiet hour and in this sacred place we say, as Thucydides said two-and-a-half millennia ago:  We offer his body to our common earth.  We offer to his memory praise that will never end.*

*My primary source for the Judge’s career was Dr. Frank Kemerer’s William Wayne Justice: A Judicial Biography. Other sources and attributions can be provided upon request.

For the past few months I’ve been following the plight of Gustavo de la Rosa Hickerson, a lawyer and human rights advocate in Juarez. I was astounded to read of his detention on October 15 after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers forced political asylum on him as he was attempting to cross into El Paso.

I’ve heard of people requesting political asylum at an international port of entry but I’ve never heard of ICE forcing political asylum on to someone and then taking him into detention. What kind of signal does it send to imprison a 63-year old man who is very visibly trying to root out military corruption in Juarez? In recent weeks he’s had death threats. One of his bodyguards was beaten and another had his house burned down.

Hickerson has been the chief investigator for the Chihuahua State Commission on Human Rights looking into military abuses and corruption in Juarez. He has documented  numerous cases of abuse, according to news reports. On October 1, Hickerson held a press conference in Juarez announcing that Jose Luis Armendariz, president of the Chihuahua State Commission of Human Rights, had removed him as investigator. Hickerson said that he and his family had received death threats. Armendariz wanted him to reveal who was threatening him. This is basically a death sentence for Hickerson.

So Hickerson is staying in El Paso for his own protection and trying to negotiate with his former boss to receive better security and more bodyguards for his family. “My mistake is that I took my job seriously,” he told the media.

I spoke with Sandra Spector, wife of Carlos Spector who is de la Rosa’s lawyer in El Paso. She said Hickerson was released from detention yesterday after being held for 6 days. After being released he crossed into Juarez then turned around and came back into El Paso as any normal visitor would which is what should have happened in the first place. Hickerson has a border crossing card which allows him to cross back and forth freely.

Spector said Hickerson has received an outpouring of support from around the world. Amnesty International has also been rallying for his cause. The hope is that Mexican officials will give him the security he needs to do such a dangerous job. He doesn’t want to leave his home. His courage to stand up for justice is a bright spot among the bleak and sad news coming out of Juarez these days.

If Hickerson’s negotiations with Mexican officials fail, he will undoubtedly think twice about seeking political asylum in the United States.

 

 

This Saturday, Oct. 24, is International Day of Climate Action, a world-wide effort to get governments to take action on climate change. The day is being organized by 350.org, which takes its name from NASA scientist James Hansen’s contention that the earth’s systems will go haywire above an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 parts per million.

Check out the map below for climate action events in towns and cities across Texas, including Marfa, Brenham, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, The Woodlands, Denton, Fort Worth, Dallas, and other locales.

View Actions at 350.org

Political Death

In the 1980s heyday of Gov. Mark White, the Democrat played the hang-’em-high card as enthusiastically as any Texas pol. He’d represented the state as attorney general on the first execution after the death penalty came back in 1982, then presided over 19 executions as governor from 1983-1987. Running unsuccessfully for another term in 1990, he aired a commercial featuring pictures of executed men, declaring, “As governor, I made sure they received the ultimate punishment – death.” This week, White told reporters that he’d changed his tune, telling the Dallas Morning News that “as tough as old Mark was on crime and for the death penalty, when I review it today, I have very, very serious reservations about trusting our system of government making the right decision every time and not executing an innocent person.”White’s “ultimate punishment” spot did not air during a general election campaign, when you might have expected a Democrat to be on the defensive, running against a swaggering law-and-order Republican. It aired during a wild three-way Democratic fight between then-Attorney Gen. Jim Maddox, White and Ann Richards, who was elected governor that year. The Democrats engaged in a tussle over who was the hang-’em-highest that year, with Maddox accusing Richards of being the choice of death-row inmates (burn!) and touting his own record of representing the state during many an execution. Nineteen years later, the current Democratic field, hardly the heavyweights of 1990, are singing a slightly different tune on the death penalty in the wake of the scandal over Gov. Rick Perry’s handling of the Cameron Todd Willingham execution. But so far, none of them has taken the logical step and called for a moratorium on executions in Texas while the state studies and attempts the fix the manifold flaws in its criminal-justice system. The three leading Democratic contenders have expressed concern over the governor’s stifling of the investigation into Willingham’s execution. But “concern” is about as passionate as it gets. Kinky Friedman made his opinion known during the 2006 campaign, saying he’s “not anti-death penalty,” but is “anti-the-wrong-guy-getting-executed.” Hank Gilbert, the East Texas rancher backed by many grassroots progressives, told the Miami Herald that he favors the death penalty, but that “with today’s advanced technology, we must ensure that those accused of capital crimes are afforded access to the best forensic tools available to ensure no innocent person is unfairly convicted.” Tom Schieffer, the Fort Worth businessman and former U.S. ambassador, is also pro-death penalty. His campaign put out a statement reading in part: “Opponents and supporters of the death penalty are united in their belief that only the guilty should be executed. If a mistake was made in this case, we need to know it. By the same token, if Mr. Willingham was guilty, we need to know that too.” The solution? “The commission needs to reschedule the hearing as soon as possible.” Don’t expect to hear anything stronger from former Travis County D.A. Ronnie Earle, another death-penalty supporter, if he gets into the race as expected. “Texans believe in law and order,” he told the News, “but mostly Texans are fair. They believe in the death penalty, but the guy had better be guilty.”As reactions go to the fact that the state likely executed an innocent man – and that the Republican governor is actively meddling in an investigation that might establish that fact and force the state to admit its deadly error – this is mighty weak tea. Even Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s campaign had something ever-so-slightly tougher to say, accusing Perry of trying to “cover up a critical investigation.” The tepidness of the Democratic candidates’ responses is a vivid illustration of why none of them has gained any serious traction among the party faithful. You could glom together the collective political guts of these characters and not fill a thimble. Even if the Democrats all support the death penalty, there are grave issues to raise about Perry’s interference in the process – and his apparent lack of careful consideration before he allowed Willingham’s execution to go forward. There are broader problems with arson investigations, and broader problems with the state’s administration of the death penalty. There could hardly be a fatter political target right now – or a better opportunity for a Democrat to stake out some higher ground, clearly and insistently. But the only gubernatorial candidate who’s said anything worth saying is longshot libertarian Republican Debra Medina, who wrote on Facebook: “While I will agree that there are some crimes so heinous the death penalty is the only just punishment, we must protect innocent human life. That means suspending the sentence where evidence indicates that there is a shadow of doubt. Governor Perry apparently had the opportunity to do that in this case. He chose not to.”And now five years later just as evidence is to be presented to the Texas Forensic Science Commission the governor has gutted the panel. If the governor cared about justice, he’d work hard to insure that the panel’s work is completed in all due haste, that all the evidence is considered. And if that evidence reveals we have a problem in our criminal justice system, he’d work swiftly to remedy it so as not to ever execute an innocent person. It takes some maturity, some serious maturity to face reality. Texas deserves that in our leader. This constant changing of the guard when he doesn’t like the findings is more evidence that the governor behaves more and more like a tyrant, ‘off with their heads’ when people don’t agree with him. Texas deserves better.” Would that be too much for a Democrat to say? And is a moratorium truly too radical an idea, under the circumstances, for a single Democratic candidate to call for? While the vast (but gradually shrinking) majority of Texans still support the death penalty, the notion that the state should make sure that no more innocent citizens are killed would surely not repel huge numbers of voters. And it would give Democratic voters, at long last, the choice of at least one candidate with some semblance of courage.