Monthly Archives: February 2016

local news

Police academy training can open one’s eyes

DSC_0419

Calling all cadets!

Randall County is looking for some good men and women who want to get a taste — and that’s all it’ll be — of police work.

Take it from me: It’s an investment in time well worth making.

The sheriff’s department is looking for participants in its next Citizen’s  Academy. Read about it here.

I went through an Amarillo Police Department Citizen’s Academy some years ago. I did so on something of a challenge from a senior officer at the PD, who had read a column I wrote for the Amarillo Globe-News that was mildly critical of something I  witnessed involving an APD officer.

My friend called me and said, in effect, “OK, buster, if you think you know so much about police work, apply for a spot in the citizen’s academy and we’ll show you how it really works.”

I accepted his challenge.

The academy lasted about 11 weeks, if memory serves. It was an eye-opener, to say the very least.

My classmates and I learned about dispatching calls, aerial surveillance, drug-sniffing dogs, the use of a Taser, simulations of the kinds of calls officers have to answer, firing pistols and other firearms. We all had a chance to be stung with a Taser; I chose not to do that.

We all got to ride along with officers and we received essentially a lifetime pass if we want to ride along in the future. All we have to do is request and the PD will make it happen.

I told my friend who challenged me to attend the academy that he would find no greater supporter of those in law enforcement than yours truly.

My support only grew as I attended the police academy.

Yes, it’s good PR for law enforcement agencies to ask constituents to take part in these sessions. I get that part of it.

It’s also good education for constituents to get a small — but important — taste of what these men and women do every day they go to work.

It’s sometimes dangerous. It’s damn sure never “routine.”

 

political news, State news

State ed board: Now there’s a rancorous bunch

texas_board_of_education_messes_with_history-460x307

You want rancor? Anger? Tumult? Turmoil?

Here’s a place where it shouldn’t exist, but it does. It’s contained among the members of the Texas Board of Education.

The Texas Tribune reports that this year’s election cycle could reintroduce some of the bad feelings that erupted on the board in recent years.

The state education board is empowered to set public education policy for Texas’ 6 million students. But here’s the deal: It comprises politicians who run for the 15 seats on the board. The SBOE comprises essentially three wings: social conservatives, mainstream conservatives and, well, others who are neither of the first two stripes.

They have fought many times over curriculum. Social conservatives have sought to approve textbooks that place greater emphasis on issues that are friendlier to their beliefs. Some years ago, the SBOE sought to downplay the historical significance of certain individuals whose agendas didn’t comport with certain board members’ political leanings.

There has been plenty of debate over whether to teach the Biblical account of the creation of the universe alongside evolutionary theory.

Well, the election this year could bring a return of some of the acrimony that at times has taken center stage at SBOE meetings.

There once was a time — and it was a fairly brief time — when the SBOE was an appointed body. Texans decided to return to an elected board, which returned policymaking to politicians who run for the office.

I prefer to put public education policy decisions in the hands of academicians. Today, the board comprises a whole array of laypeople with varying political leanings and interests.

The Panhandle’s representative on the SBOE is Marty Rowley, an Amarillo lawyer and a former clergyman. He is among the social conservatives serving on the state board; Rowley doesn’t have any opposition this election year, according to the Texas Tribune.

This is a contentious election cycle, starting with all the insults and vivid name-calling we hear from the candidates for president of the United States.

So, I guess the Texas State Board of Education’s election cycle just might fit in nicely with what’s happening all around us.

Let’s hope the state’s public school students don’t suffer as a result.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Obama, GOP both spoiling for a fight to the finish

3 Comments

founders

Here’s where we appear to be standing with regard to that vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Obama said today he intends to select an “indisputably qualified” person to fill the seat vacated by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

U.S. Senate Republicans say they intend to block anyone the president nominates.

Who’s on the right side? In my view, it’s not even close.

The president is right. GOP senators are wrong.

Indeed, it’s looking now as though that no matter who gets the call from the president that he or she is going to face a serious fight.

My hunch now is that Barack Obama welcomes the fight. Why? He will wage it from a position of strength.

He’s got the Constitution on his side.

This appointment could change the makeup of the court, which has a slim conservative majority among its members.

Right there is the crux of Republican obstructionism.

Justice Scalia was the shining light among the conservatives serving on the court. He led what’s been called a “conservative renaissance.” His brilliance was beyond question. So was his commitment to conservative principles.

President Obama has another year left in his term. Some have suggested that if Republicans were to get their way, they effectively would eliminate the fourth year of the president’s term. They oppose — on some made-up principle — the idea of a lame-duck president making an appointment to the Supreme Court. They want the next president to make the call.

Well, as Obama said today, those who claim to adhere to strict constitutional principles are creating them out of thin air. The Constitution says the president should nominate people to the federal bench and that the Senate should vote up or down on those nominations.

Both sides are spoiling for a fight. So, let’s have at it.

Barack Obama is set to throw the first punch when he nominates someone to the highest court in the land.

Go for it, Mr. President.

 

environmental news, local news, State news

Biking gets a big boost

52966

Let’s get real. Texans love their cars, trucks and just about any vehicle that burns fossil fuels.

We pull a lot of fossil fuel out of the ground here. The Spindletop oil gusher in 1901 brought us the Texas oil boom and it has continued ever since, with all of its ups and downs.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Heck, our 21-plus years in West Texas have given us a keen appreciation of how much distance one must travel . . . to get anywhere. It almost always involves a motor vehicle.

So it is with that I noticed this story — yes, it’s a bit dated, having been reported initially in the fall of 2014 — about a proposal to build a 64-mile bicycle trail between Dallas and Fort Worth.

KERA-TV reported more than a year ago that a study of Dallas residents reveals a significant portion of folks would support greater emphasis on bicycle trails in their city.

It’s being called a “superhighway.” It marks a remarkable departure from the love affair Metroplex residents have had with their motor vehicles.

So now comes the question from me, a resident of another community in the midst of some serious urban living change.

Is such an emphasis possible here, in Amarillo?

It’s a creative notion to connect two cities the size of Dallas and Fort Worth with a bicycle trail network.

It prompted this thought: Is such a network possible that would connect Amarillo with Canyon?

Amarillo’s downtown district revival already has begun. They’ve busted up plenty of pavement and begun erecting some structures in the central business district. More construction is on the way.

I am wondering, though, about the city’s effort to connect neighborhoods with bike trails. That project began about a decade ago. Then it stopped. Indeed, we have bike lanes marked off in my neighborhood, which is great. Except that they don’t go anywhere.

I have been told that the city Parks and Recreation Department plans to finish the bike trail network — eventually.

The reality is that the weather here is conducive to that kind of activity. The unseasonably warm winter we’re having is an aberration. Spring can be a bit dicey; summer isn’t oppressively hot; autumn is the most pleasant season of all.

The Metroplex bicycle “superhighway” is still a couple of years away, according to KERA. I do applaud the innovation that’s gone into planning for it.

Might there be a potential for something like that here, way up yonder?

 

legal news, national news, political news

It’s wrong now … and was wrong then

1 Comment

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expresses his dismay at Russian Vladimir Putin leader granting asylum to American secrets leaker Edward Snowden, at a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013. Defying the United States, Russia granted Edward Snowden temporary asylum on Thursday, allowing the National Security Agency leaker to slip out of the Moscow airport where he has been holed up for weeks in hopes of evading espionage charges back home. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

I believe it was that great fictional Native American sidekick — Tonto — who said to the Lone Ranger, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Thus, it amuses me when I hear critics of this blog and others take note of Democratic U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s declaration in 2007 that the Senate shouldn’t approve any of President Bush’s Supreme Court appointments.

They bring that up to — more or less — justify a statement by Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell to do the same thing regarding the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Schumer can make a wrongheaded declaration then it’s OK for our guy to do it, they seem to suggest.

Schumer was wrong then and McConnell is wrong now.

Neither man has distinguished himself on this matter of constitutional authority and presidential prerogative.

So, Schumer’s assertion in 2007 got past me. He absolutely was wrong to say what he said. The U.S. Constitution gives presidents the authority to make appointments to the federal bench and I’ve long given deference to the presidents’ prerogative on these issues. If the president nominates a qualified individual to these posts, then the Senate should grant the appointee a fair hearing — and then vote.

George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004 with voters knowing he would appoint conservative judges to the federal courts. His final Supreme Court appointment came in 2006 when he selected Samuel Alito. Thus, Schumer’s ill-advised admonition a year later became a moot point.

It doesn’t give Senate Majority Leader McConnell any license to erect barriers to the current president doing what he was re-elected to do.

 

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Mitch McConnell: chief obstructionist

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

Mitch McConnell declared out loud and in public shortly after Barack Obama became president that his top priority would be to make Obama a “one-term president.”

His wish went unfulfilled when the president won re-election in November 2012.

Now that McConnell is the Senate majority leader, he’s made another pledge. He is going to oppose the president’s next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Does he know who the president will nominate? No. Does he have any inside information on Obama’s short list? Again, no.

But without the faintest idea who the president will select, the Senate’s leading Republican is going to obstruct the president. He vows to prevent the president from doing what the Constitution empowers him to do. For that matter, he and other Republicans are going to prevent the Senate from doing what the Constitution requires of that body.

Obama is going to nominate someone to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s entitled to put someone forward. The Senate also has the power to consent to the nomination.

There’s much that boggles the mind about the eruption that has occurred since Scalia’s untimely death. I cannot quite rank them in order, but McConnell’s declaration that he intends to block any nomination to be considered must rank near the top.

Yes, the stakes are huge. The president is a liberal/progressive politician who likely will select someone who is a good bit to the left of the man who led the Supreme Court’s conservative movement. Thus, Senate conservatives are vowing to protect their court majority — as best they can — by seeking to hold up this confirmation until after the November election. Their hope is that a Republican will win the presidency.

We have a president with one year left in his term. As they say, elections have consequences. A majority of Americans re-elected President Obama understanding full well how he would fill a vacancy on the highest court in the land if he was given the chance to do so.

He now has that chance.

Meanwhile, the nine-member high court has been reduced to eight members. The even split among the justices could produce some tie votes on key cases yet to be argued before the court.

This is not good governance.

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Election-year vacancies . . . all the rage

ap_mitch-mcconnell_ap-photo9-wi-640x427

As long as we’re talking about filling a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year . . .

Republican senators don’t want to consider a potential nominee who’ll be offered by President Obama. They want the next president to send someone for their consideration. Barack Obama is a “lame duck,” they say.

The last lame-duck president to send a nominee to the Senate was Ronald Reagan. The Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1988.

So, you might be asking: Is it a common occurrence for the president to send a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate during an election year, lame-duck status or not?

I looked it up. Here’s what I found.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy, who was confirmed in 1940.

Dwight Eisenhower recommended William Brennan; the Senate confirmed him in 1956.

Richard Nixon sent two nominees to the Senate during an election cycle: Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist; the Senate confirmed them in 1972.

Let’s go back a bit farther. William Howard Taft nominated Mahlon Pitney, who was confirmed in 1912. Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis and John Clarke, both of whom were confirmed in 1916.

This election-year moratorium nonsense being promoted by the likes of Senate Mitch McConnell and other Republicans should be revealed for what it is: a cheap political ploy to deny a Democratic president the opportunity to fulfill his constitutional duty.

Granted, all the examples I cited here — except for President Reagan’s nomination of Justice Kennedy — do not involve “lame duck” presidents.

The phoniness of McConnell’s desire to block any attempt by Obama to fill a vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s tragic death is transparent and obvious, given what has transpired in the past 100 years.

How about allowing President Obama to do the job to which he was elected twice to perform?

 

national news, political news

Who’s ‘lawless’ now?

donald

Donald J. Trump went on one of his stream-of-consciousness riffs today at a press conference in South Carolina.

In the midst of his 45-minute press conference, the Republican presidential primary frontrunner answered a hypothetical question about what he would do as a governor regarding immigrants.

He wouldn’t let them into his state, Trump said, ignoring the concern from many experts who say that immigration is a federal issue and that governors don’t have the authority to deny someone from entering their state.

Then he said, “I don’t care what the rules and regulations say.”

He would work around them as a governor to make it so difficult for immigrants seeking to enter his state that they would want to go somewhere else.

There you have it.

He doesn’t care about the law. He’ll do what he wants.

I believe that’s the definition of “lawlessness.”

 

medical news, national news, political news

Take a bow, Sen. Marzian

marzian-800x430

Mary Lou Marzian is my newest political hero.

She is a Kentucky state senator who’s seeking to make a point about male legislators getting into women’s private lives.

Marzian, a Louisville Democrat, has introduced legislation in Frankfort that would require men seeking to have notes from their wives if they want to obtain prescriptions for medication to correct erectile dysfunction.

Can there be a stronger statement than that?

Marzian’s legislation likely won’t ever see the light of day. I do admire her guts, though, in making a statement on behalf of women who believe the government should not dictate to them on one of the most deeply personal issues possible: whether to take a pregnancy to full term.

In so many cases we have men making these decisions. Sen. Marzian’s bill makes a significant statement on behalf of women who have grown weary of men deciding how women should control their bodies.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Sen. McConnell then . . . and now

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

A colleague and acquaintance of mine has shared an item on social media that I’d like to share here.

It comes from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who in 2005 made a fascinating point about defending the right of presidents to make appointments to the federal judiciary.

It states:

“The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”
“[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.'”

Interesting, yes?

Well, 11 years later, the majority leader himself is proposing to “advise and obstruct” by seeking to delay a presidential appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the November general election that, McConnell hopes, will produce a Republican president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, has Article II Section 2 of the Constitution changed?