Bush Budget to Seek Job Training Cut Even though unemployment has increased sharply in recent months, President Bush's budget will seek cuts in several job-training programs for laid- off workers and young adults most affected by the rise in unemployment, budget documents and federal officials say. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/31/politics/31BUDG.html

Voting Rights in Peril America has tried leaving election decisions to each state. We have no minimum federal voting rights standards for voting machines. The result: In the 2000 presidential election, 1.5 million ballots were discarded due to defective voting equipment. We have no minimum federal standards guaranteeing the right of a voter with a disability to cast a private and independent vote. The result: In 2000, 47 percent of voters with disabilities encountered physical barriers or had trouble getting to the polling place. State and local officials say they will eventually make necessary changes on their own. History teaches us, however, that states have been slow in outlawing discrimination. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was adopted, guaranteeing black citizens the rights and privileges of citizenship. In the name of states' rights, implementation was left to local control. This model failed, and federal legislation became necessary: Without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination in public establishments and in hiring might still be legal in some parts of the country. Without the Voting Rights Act of 1965, poll taxes might still be prevalent. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/opinion/30CONY.html

The United States of Enron Wasn't that the best?" said a laughing Ann Richards this week, when I asked her reaction to President Bush's effort to hide behind her skirt when questioned about Enron. "It was so silly. Why didn't he just say Ken Lay was a strong supporter and gave him a half-million dollars and is a good friend, and he's really sorry Ken's in these terrible circumstances?" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/19/opinion/19RICH.html

News: E-snoop bill runs aground A bill that would give California law-enforcement officials unprecedented power to monitor the e-mail and phone conversations of suspected criminals has hit a roadblock. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5101818,00.html

Mr. T., Mr. G. and Mr. H. Senators Helms, Gramm and Thurmond have in common the fact that they harnessed their collective century of seniority to the Taliban wing of the American right. Point to an act of cultural division, bullying unilateralism or anti-government populism committed in the Senate during their decades there and you will usually find these three men among the sponsors. But there are others in the Senate who have voted for egregious causes, right and left, and still others who have never stood for much of anything. What sets these three apart is that each has made his own special contribution to the cynicism of our public life. It is tempting to excuse them, in their twilight, for at least having made the place more colorful. Mr. Helms affected a theatrically courtly demeanor, sirring and ma'aming witnesses he regarded as infidels. (His manners were selective; it was the courtly Mr. Helms who once remarked that if President Clinton visited North Carolina he'd "better have a bodyguard.") Mr. Gramm pokes witty fun at his own orneriness. "People say I don't have a heart," he once joked. "I do. I keep it in a quart jar on my desk." As David Plotz wrote in Slate, Senator Gramm is a mean, bitter pessimist, but "he has benefited from one of the strangest prejudices of politics: that meanness is a synonym for integrity." Mr. Thurmond benefits from another prejudice, our instinctive American admiration for those who correct themselves. He abandoned his ardent segregationist views when the demographics of his state made that expedient, and even hired actual black people to work on his Senate staff, a fact sometimes reported with such awe that you'd think he'd marched with Dr. King in Selma. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/opinion/12KELL.html

The Quiet Man � The Bush administration operates on the principle of "no enemies on the right"; it also operates on the principle that Mr. Bush is infallible. Whatever policies he may have proposed in the past, his aides always insist that they are perfectly suited to the present � indeed, were devised with the present situation in mind. It's actually quite funny, though nobody dares say so. Last month, for example, Karl Rove explained that the tax cut, although originally proposed amid an economic boom, was designed to cope with the current recession. "All the signs were there in the second, if not the second, the third quarter of 2000," Mr. Rove said. When a questioner gently pointed out that Mr. Bush had laid out his tax plan way back in 1999, Mr. Rove brushed him aside. And since Mr. Bush is infallible, why should he ever reconsider his decisions? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/08/opinion/08KRUG.html

Executive Privilege Again Six years ago the Rifleman claimed that the F.B.I. had promised him immunity from prosecution for his killings � allegedly including a couple of his girlfriends � but Federal Judge Mark Wolf, in a landmark decision, ruled that nobody in law enforcement had the power to sanction murder. The New England F.B.I.'s long-running abuse of power is "the greatest failing in federal law enforcement history," according to James Wilson, chief counsel to the House Government Reform Committee. Evidence of this sustained miscarriage of justice was the 30-year imprisonment of Joe Salvati, whom F.B.I. officials are said to have known to be innocent of the crime for which he was convicted � but they remained silent to protect Mafia sources. John Ashcroft's Department of Justice does not want Congress to air out this long, shameful story. At the time J. Edgar Hoover belatedly began his war on the Mafia, civil liberty was set aside to meet the perceived emergency � abuses that lasted through three decades. The current F.B.I. chief, Robert Mueller, was U.S. attorney in Boston during the mid-80's and presumably did not have an inkling about the unlawful law enforcement going on around him. Accordingly, the Bush Justice Department induced the president to sign an order asserting executive privilege over its "deliberative documents" that would inform the public of answers to questions like: Why did Justice decline to indict an F.B.I. supervisor who admitted taking money from Flemmi's gang? Why did Justice help defend a hit man in California who killed a man while in the witness protection program? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/03/opinion/03SAFI.html

AN INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL JOHN DEAN Today the entire federal judiciary has become politicized. Both parties want to place judges on the courts that reflect their political views. This is a serious problem, for Americans are fast losing faith in the impartiality of the Judicial Branch � and not without good reason. The primary function of our federal courts is to resolve disputes between citizens and the political branches of government. But partisans on both sides of the political divide want to use the courts � from the Supreme Court on down � as another political branch, a means to impose a political solution while resolving the dispute. If anyone doubts this is the case, I suggest they look at Bush v. Gore. A few more cases like that and the Courts will lose all credibility. The reason the Senate should look at a nominee's philosophy is that it is time to reject nominees who are political ideologues, men or women who hold such fixed views that their votes on the high Court are predictable, whether they lean left or right. It is time to get all courts out of politics. Let the political branches make the political decisions. Given the rules of the Senate, if a few members of the Senate insisted that all judicial nominees be non-political or else vowed to block the nomination with a filibuster, thus requiring a super-majority to place any political nominee on the Court, it would end the practice of selecting Justices for their ideology rather than their legal acumen and wisdom. But this not likely to happen. There are not a lot of profiles in political courage in the Senate today. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20011101.html

The Rehnquist Choice

FindLaw's Writ - Lazarus:2 Dean's indictment of the Chief Justice focuses on his confirmation testimony about a memo that Rehnquist had written while a law clerk to Justice Jackson during the Court's consideration of Brown v. Board of Education. In the memo, entitled "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases," Rehnquist wrote, in part: "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson [establishing the doctrine of "separate but equal"] was right and should be affirmed." For obvious reasons, this memo's opposition to the result reached in Brown presented Rehnquist with a confirmation problem. But he came up with a fairly ingenious solution. Rehnquist claimed that the memo did not embody his own views. Instead, Rehnquist claimed to have prepared the memo at Jackson's request "as a rough draft of a statement of his [Jackson's] views." As Dean parses with great care, this explanation does not hold water. The Rehnquist memo's reference to having "been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues" makes no sense in the context of a statement of Jackson's views to be delivered to his colleagues. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense in the context of an expression of Rehnquist's views � as Rehnquist, by his own admission, saw himself as a lonely conservative clerk isolated in a sea of liberals. In light of Dean's analysis of Rehnquist's veracity, one is led in "The Rehnquist Choice" to a devastating conclusion. In the end, Rehnquist embodies Nixon's legacy in at least two respects. Strict constructionist as he himself defined it, Rehnquist alone among Nixon's four appointees stayed true to Nixon's politically conservative hopes for the Court. And, like the man who appointed him, Rehnquist's conduct has tragically advanced the steady erosion of the integrity of our institutions of government. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20011102_lazarus.html

Taking on Republicans, but Not Their Leader When he arrived in Texas for a respite at his ranch last week, Mr. Bush proclaimed 2002 as "a war year." (Translation: Democrats better not attack me because I'm staying above politics for as long as I can.) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/weekinreview/30BERK.html

Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts in last fall's presidential race in Florida, a disparity that persists even after accounting for the effects of income, education and bad ballot design, The New York Times found in a new statistical analysis of the Florida vote. The analysis of 6,000 precincts uses far more definitive data than previous studies and shows a strong pattern of ballot rejection in black precincts that is not explained by socioeconomic differences or voting technology. Similar patterns were found in Hispanic precincts and places with large elderly populations. It did not matter whether the precinct used punch cards or paper ballots, whether the neighborhoods were rich or poor or the ballot was straight or butterflied. Precincts with more black, Hispanic and elderly voters had substantially more spoiled ballots, The Times found. The analysis did not suggest why blacks' ballots were more likely to have been rejected, but critics of Florida's voting system have suggested that black precincts were more likely to have older, unreliable voting machines and poorly trained poll workers. Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers

Cheney, Shrinking From View, Still Looms Large Did he spend his Thanksgiving in his "secure and undisclosed location" or in the sleekly redecorated Naval Observatory, the vice president's official residence that has taken on the characteristics of an armed camp? His staff did not want to say. But one thing is certain: In a nation where vice presidents have always complained about being invisible, Mr. Cheney really is. And yet, he has turned his disappearing act on its head. The more invisible he becomes, the more powerful he seems. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/26/politics/26LETT.html

The Vanishing Act Seldom in the last half-century has the U.S. been so poorly prepared to assist individuals and families struggling with the effects of a recession. Example: the unemployment insurance system, which was established to ease the pain of temporary joblessness, covers less than 40 percent of the people who are out of work. Example: the food stamp program, which was supposed to slam the door on hunger in the world's greatest nation (and which once served 90 percent of eligible families), now serves just 60 percent of the poverty- stricken folks who qualify for help. And then there's welfare. In the summer of 1996 Bill Clinton signed the so-called reform bill ending "welfare as we know it." Among other things, it imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance to needy families. The potentially tragic consequences of that legislation were concealed for a while by the extraordinary economic boom in the last half of the decade. But Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others had warned all along of the dire implications of ending the guarantee of federal help to the nation's poorest families. Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund noted that supporters of the welfare bill assumed there would be "no recession in the next decade, which is unprecedented." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/opinion/19HERB.html?todaysheadlines

Small Vote for Universal Care Is Seen as Carrying a Lot of Weight The state's primary health insurer spent hundreds of thousands of dollars � more than some Congressional candidates here spend � to try to defeat the referendum, even though it was purely advisory. Opponents of the measure broadcast a battery of television commercials contending that government-run health care would mean long waits, rationed medical care, prohibitively high taxes and bureaucratic nightmares. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/16/national/16MAIN.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

Ideology As Usual George W. Bush has focused effectively on the need for an international alliance against terrorism. But he has not yet understood what a wartime president has to do at home: Put aside ideological politics so he can be president of all the people. With his evident approval, the ideologues in his administration are riding their conservative hobbyhorses as if the country did not have a higher purpose now. They, and the president, seem oblivious to the way those actions threaten national unity. A striking example is the decision by Attorney General John Ashcroft this week to try to overrule the voters of Oregon and undo that state's assisted-suicide law. He said he would move to revoke the drug prescription license of any Oregon doctor who used drugs to help someone who wanted to die. In another strange example of his priorities, Mr. Ashcroft last month sent federal agents to raid a Los Angeles center that supplied marijuana to desperately ill people under a state law allowing medical use. Does a wartime Justice Department really have nothing better to do than deprive cancer and AIDS patients of relief from their pain? Two weeks ago the British government decided to stop arresting marijuana users, adopting the policy now followed by most European governments. The U.S. law against users has not changed, but Mr. Ashcroft has discretion to use Justice Department resources where they are most urgently needed � especially in a war situation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/10/opinion/10LEWI.html?todaysheadlines

Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11 The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/national/04INTE.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

G.O.P. Moderates See Dangers in Bush's Stance on Aviation Security "I simply do not understand it," said Representative Marge Roukema, a moderate New Jersey Republican who did not vote the president's way. "I just have to shake my head. The Democrats will beat us up and down on it, no question about that. But besides the politics, we'll be inviting more airline disasters and putting more lives at risk." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/national/03BUSH.html

Stalemate in Congress Irks Security Experts Meanwhile, some improvements that experts consider fundamental remain uncertain. The airlines oppose universal matching of checked bags with the passengers who actually board flights, arguing it would be costly but provide no protection against suicide bombers. Congress wants all checked bags screened for explosives but has not appropriated the $2 billion that officials say bomb- detection machines will cost. And though the House and Senate plans are in agreement on measures that experts say would bolster security � adding armed marshals to more flights, transferring oversight of airport workers from the airlines to the federal government and fortifying cockpit doors � action on those fronts has been held up by thetug of war in Congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/business/03AIR.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

Opponents' and Supporters' Portrayals of Detentions Prove Inaccurate "Public access to information is crucial," said Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil rights group in Washington. "If the attorney general says there's been more than a thousand people arrested or detained, they need to then say what that means." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/national/03DETA.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

Court Rejects 3-Strikes Term for Shoplifter In a 2-to-1 ruling, the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the sentence of the shoplifter, Leonardo Andrade, violated the Bill of Rights' prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Andrade was sentenced to 50 years in prison for stealing nine videotapes, valued at $153, from a Kmart store. The court noted that kidnappers and murderers could receive less time than Mr. Andrade, who had a record of nonviolent, petty crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/national/03STRI.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all