Stalemate

This will be a battle if the state Legislature sticks to its gun and refuses to hold nomination hearings. Christie wants pro-corporate, anti-worker, anti-minority conservatives on the bench and sooner or later, he’ll get them:

All seven members of an advisory panel charged with reviewing nominations to New Jersey’s Superior Court resigned Wednesday, with six saying they objected to Gov. Christie’s decision not to renominate Justice John Wallace Jr. to the state Supreme Court.

The members, all appointed by former Gov. Jon S. Corzine, had letters hand-delivered to Christie’s office.

“The panel has understood a judge serving honorably and effectively, with competence and integrity, will achieve tenure in judicial office,” states one letter signed by six of the members. “This understanding is supported by the intent of the framers of our constitution and is firmly grounded in our traditions and history, and has been followed consistently for over 60 years by all governors of both political parties.”

“You have expressed publicly a profoundly different view of the governor’s appointive responsibilities,” the letter continues. “This was exemplified by your actions and remarks in refusing to reappoint Justice John Wallace to the Supreme Court, a jurist who indisputably exemplified all the qualifications for honorable judicial services. It is a view that is inconsistent with an independent judiciary.

“Because of our abiding commitment to the independence of the judiciary, we cannot in good conscience continue to serve on the Judiciary Advisory Panel.”

The six members were retired state Supreme Court justices James H. Coleman and Stewart Pollock, the cochairmen, and Alan B. Handler and Deborah T. Poritz; a lawyer in private practice, Carlos G. Ortiz; and a university professor, Susan Lederman.

The seventh, retired Appellate Division judge Harold B. Wells III, a Republican, sent a brief, separate letter saying he had resigned for “personal reasons.”

Coleman declined to comment beyond the letter, saying, “We were striving mightily to put enough information in the letter to make everyone understand.”

Michael Drewniak, Christie’s spokesman, said, “The governor thanks the advisory panel members for their service, and we expect to be making appointments to fill those vacancies in short order. The members who resigned are entitled to their opinions, but not everyone shares their views, including others in the judiciary and legal community who recognize the governor’s constitutional prerogative and authority in this regard.”

Christie, a former U.S. attorney, set off a firestorm when he announced in May that he did not plan to renominate Wallace. Critics said the move jeopardized the independence of the judiciary, while supporters praised the Republican governor for beginning to reclaim the Supreme Court. Christie should have the chance to replace at least three other justices in the next 31/2 years.

Wallace, 68, of Sewell, was the only African American and one of only two South Jerseyans on the court. Before his appointment in 2003, the Harvard Law School graduate served as an appellate judge, a Superior Court judge, and a municipal judge in Washington Township.

He became the first justice seeking reappointment under the current state constitution to fail to receive tenure.

High Risk Pool

Obviously still not affordable for the unemployed, but it will help at least some people:

Pennsylvania’s Insurance Department announced Wednesday that it had submitted a plan to achieve one of the provisions of the new national health-overhaul legislation: creation of a special insurance program for people who can’t buy insurance because they’re already sick.

People with preexisting conditions such as heart disease, cancer, or major mental illness would be able to buy into the proposed high-risk insurance pool for about what healthy people would pay, up to $5,616 a year.

The problem is that those payments, plus $160 million in federal funding through 2013, can provide insurance for only about 5,100 people in a state where 800,000 are uninsured. State officials do not know how many people can’t buy insurance because of health problems.

“The unfortunate reality is that there are more folks that need the program than what the state can afford to cover,” said Melissa Fox, a spokeswoman for the state Insurance Department.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has said it would decide by July 1 whether to approve the plan, said Shelley Bain, policy director for the department. Bain said the program likely would not begin accepting applications until the fall, although the plan calls for the state to begin taking applications as early as August. Members of the pool will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis.

States had the option of letting the federal government administer their high-risk pools or creating their own programs. Thirty-five states already had high-risk pools.

“We believe that we know more about what the people of Pennsylvania need than the federal government does,” Bain said.

New Jersey submitted a proposal last week. It already requires insurers to offer plans to people with health problems, but said cost was a problem. It suggested modifying its current insurance system to make use of the federal funding. It didn’t specify a proposed cost for people to participate in the program.

Pennsylvania’s proposal calls for charging individuals with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level $168 a month. People who make more would pay $468 a month.

A Death In The Neighborhood

This was really sad. And it was a little eerie to realize that shortly before she died, she was frequenting places where I often go with friends.

Most of my friends are younger, and I sometimes I think some of them think I’m silly because I ask people to walk me to my car, and then insist on dropping them off at their cars. I’ve lived in the city for most of my life, that kind of caution is second nature to me.

I’d rather be overly cautious than dead.

Glenn on Gaza

Heather at Crooks and Liars has this:

Glenn Greenwald took on Dylan Ratigan fill-in Eliot Spitzer on MSNBC over Israel’s raid on the flotilla and the Gaza blockade and frankly it was refreshing to see this sort of debate that is not all pro-Israel all the time on one of the cable news shows. Glenn has a bit more on this at Salon.

Talking about Israel with Eliot Spitzer on MSNBC:

I was just on MSNBC talking about Israel, the Gaza blockade and the flotilla attack with Eliot Spitzer, who was guest-hosting for Dylan Ratigan. It was a rather contentious discussion, though quite illustrative of how Israel is (and is not) typically discussed on American television, so I’m posting the whole 8-minute segment below. Two points: (1) before I was on, Spitzer had on an Israel-defending law professor, followed by Netanyahu’s former Chief of Staff, and both of them (along with Spitzer) were spewing pure Israeli propaganda in uninterrupted and unchallenged fashion; at the end of Spitzer’s discussions with them, he asked them to “stick around just in case,” and once I was left, he brought at least one of them back on to respond to what I said without challenge; (2) literally 90 seconds before my segment was about to begin, the new cam and sound system I just acquired stopped working, forcing me to unplug everything and use only my laptop cam and mic, which caused the technical aspects to be less than ideal (though still perfectly workable).

Most of the interviews I’ve seen with him are worse than this one with that awful web cam of his, so I hope he’s got something better if he’s going to keep coming on television. It’s hard to make your points if the viewers can’t hear what the hell you’re saying, but anyway, back to the subject at hand.

sluggahjells at Daily KOS made a few points about the interview that I agree with.

What makes this interview so important to watch is that it features a perspective that isn’t common place on Israel in American television.

The ugly nature of the Netanyahu’s Administration preference to keep the Gaza blockade going on and claim that the blockade is “To make the people of Gaza go on a diet” is really disturbing. And you’ll never here what Greenwald said in a regular discussion about Israel here on our sad cable television news stations. Instead, you’ll get the usual cautious dribble of support that preceded no matter how heinous the crimes that transpired under Israel’s watch are.

Because sometimes the truth, especially in regards to international news in the Middle East, can be too much for the networks to bare. And that was certainly the case with TV’s potential next network man in Spitzer, when he had to deal with a completely honest broker like Greenwald is.

The other thing Glenn pointed out is that Israel and the United States do not have the rest of the world with us on this one. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is untenable and when you’ve got this coming out in reports the problem is not going away any time soon.

Restraint

Imagine what they would have done if the administration hadn’t warned Israel to use “caution and restraint”!

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had warned Israel’s government repeatedly to use “caution and restraint” with half a dozen aid boats bound for the Gaza Strip before Israeli commandos raided the flotilla this week in an operation that killed nine people.

“We communicated with Israel through multiple channels many times regarding the flotilla,” P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement issued in response to a question from The Washington Post. “We emphasized caution and restraint given the anticipated presence of civilians, including American citizens.”

The acknowledgment shed new light on the administration’s contact with the Israeli government before the Monday morning raid, which has inflamed international opinion against Israel and complicated President Obama’s efforts to improve U.S. relations with the Islamic world. White House officials said Wednesday that there is a growing consensus within the administration that U.S. and Israeli policy toward Gaza must change, even as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flatly rejected calls for his country to lift its blockade of the Palestinian territory.

Netanyahu, addressing his nation Wednesday for the first time since the raid, angrily defended Israel from mounting international criticism over its use of force against the flotilla, which was carrying construction materials, medicine, school paper and other aid to Gaza when Israeli commandos set upon it in international waters.

Netanyahu called the criticism “hypocrisy” and described Gaza, where 1.5 million people live in a narrow slice of dunes and refugee camps between southern Israel and the sea, as “a terror state funded by the Iranians.”

“The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow,” he said, just a day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Israel’s policy toward Gaza “unsustainable.” “It’s for this and for many other reasons we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza,” Netanyahu added.

The flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement and a Turkish charity that Israeli officials say has connections to radical groups.

In an interview with Charlie Rose broadcast Wednesday night, Vice President Biden agreed that Israel had a right to inspect the cargo. “You can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not . . . but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know — they’re at war with Hamas — has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in,” he said.

At the same time, Biden acknowledged that the administration is trying to sway the Israeli government on the issue of Gaza, which has been under some form of an Israeli blockade for five years.

“We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them to get building materials” and other designated humanitarian aid into Gaza, he said.

Kittens

Free to good home! Mom is a feral cat, humans are handling the babies every day to get them ready for inside life.

Pre-Deposition Prep

I spent some time in my lawyer’s office yesterday, preparing for next Friday’s deposition hearing re: my ankle lawsuit. It’s been almost three years since I got hurt. Apparently the towing company was (until yesterday) denying they’d ever provided towing services – which I didn’t know. Whee!

After asking me if the injury changed my life in any way, I said, “Are you serious? Do you have an hour?” I then proceeded to rattle off several dozen things.

“That’s fine, I think you’ll make a great witness,” he said. “Most people freeze up, they can’t remember what to say.”

I looked at him like “Uh, DUH.”

“Is there any reason why I can’t take notes during the hearing?” I asked him.

He hastened to assure me that he was a competent attorney, he was doing a good job representing me…

“No, this has nothing to do with you,” I said. “I’m a blogger. I write about my life all the time. I just want to know if I can take notes.”

He said yes. So I will be taking notes, in case anything really silly happens you might enjoy. Plus, I will probably be in full ADD glory, since I won’t have a keyboard or phone to play with. I’ll need something to fidget with.