Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Blog

Why Sarah Palin’s Unorthodox Road Will NOT Lead Her to the White House

By Nichola D. Gutgold

When Sarah Palin surprised the press and public by stepping down as Alaska’s governor, she said, “I’m not a quitter, I’m a fighter.” Though the timing of her announcement caused some observers to question if there was another motive, the stigma of quitting is more damaging to her than the unorthodox risk-taking she is describing as her choice. If she “never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to HELP people” then why did she seek the office in the first place?

In my study of women and the American presidency two factors that significantly increase the chance of a woman president are perseverance and being governor.

Perseverance is one of the reasons that Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is so important to the trajectory of women and the American presidency. She was not a symbolic candidate and she persevered in the face of horrible ridicule and terrible odds. That she didn’t drop out of the race when the going got tough won her respect from even the staunchest Hillary Clinton detractors. When she spoke at the Democratic National Convention she quoted Harriet Tubman, the anti-slavery activist who risked her own life to save others. She said, “If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they’re shouting after you, keep going. Don’t ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.” No doubt it was at least partly due to her tenacity that made President Obama believe she would excel as Secretary of State.

Secondly, the governorship is an important title, especially for an aspiring politician who is a woman. Though her circuitous and folksy style of speaking belied her title as governor, it was that very title, that distinguished her as a vice presidential candidate. It was a position that none of the three men in the top ticket positions (Obama, Biden and McCain) could claim. And it is governors who are most likely to become presidents—especially true for women because they need more credentials, not less to break through the glass ceiling. Barbara Lee, president of the Barbara Lee Foundation even created a guide, Keys to the Governor’s Office to help women running for governor. At first her interest was focused on women and the presidency, but she noted that “as I understood more about the paths to power, it was clear that electing a woman president would become a reality only after we unraveled voters’ complex reactions to a woman seeking full executive authority. Brenda DeVore Marshall and Molly A. Mayhead, editors of Navigating the Boundaries: The Rhetoric of Women Governors, note, “the increasing importance of the state governor throughout the history of the country, coupled with women’s steadily expanding the role in that office, demonstrates that the face of the governorship has changed. Research on women political leaders has revealed that examining women who are governors in America is a good place to start when identifying women most likely to make successful bids for the presidency. By quitting the most viable launching pad she had, Sarah Palin has taken herself off the path to the United States presidency.

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President (2006), Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (2008), and the forthcoming Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008 (July 2009). She specializes in examining the communication skills of women in male dominated fields.

Part III: The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’

PART THREE

By Anthony George Ravlich

The ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, whose core minimum obligations, non-retrogression and empowerment rights are considered by the global elites at the UN as incompatible with political globalization, promises instead an ‘ethical globalization’.

It’s a world in trouble – according to the United Nations ‘the global recession has pushed up to 90 million more people into extreme poverty’ (Reuters, July 6, 2009). Because of its massive denials of liberal rights I consider that neo liberalism has lost legitimacy.

The ‘bottom-up’ approach includes the rights excluded by the Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (as well as past human rights instruments). It is not a matter of if these rights will be included but rather it is a matter of when.

The OP is open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009.The ‘bottom-up’ approach forms the basis of my book, ‘Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (Lexington Books).

While the ‘bottom-up’ approach, driven by NGOs and perhaps some States, promotes the inclusion of the excluded rights in domestic and international law it can also act as an ethical counterbalance to neo liberalism and, particularly, inform the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged who are those most affected by the excluded rights.

Ethical globalization requires the core obligations etc. to be included in domestic and international law. Where other States require assistance it would be by way of right not charity because the desperate state of the poor is a consequence of neo liberalism.

In terms of the empowerment rights to development and human rights education micro credit, televised human rights debates as well as a ‘voice for the poor’ indicates these rights are attainable while other core minimum obligations can be fulfilled by the State and small business development with the increased employment giving people better access to their rights.

If ethical globalization is implemented the liberal elite could refocus its promotion of ‘freedom and democracy’ at the international level by ensuring liberal rights at the domestic level and thereby regain lost legitimacy. Although, in my opinion, people are not yet aware of the true extent of the denials of liberal rights which now could be said, to a large degree, only to constitute the privileges of elites.

The ‘bottom-up’ approach is inclusive as it requires that the most serious violations to be immediately addressed while the lesser violations usually at higher levels are dealt with progressively. Consequently the ‘bottom-up’ approach is far more ethical approach than neo liberalism which excludes core minimum obligations and economic, social and cultural rights at the domestic level.

Western liberal elites, in particular, are preoccupied with ‘safety’ and establishment unity. Also the narrow liberal perspective is very likely to prove inadequate in dealing with the complex problems of a troubled world. Consequently it is left to NGOs to ‘speak out’ on behalf of the oppressed and exploited and also to promote the more ethical, ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, with its much wider perspective of human rights, with a view to their inclusion in domestic and international human rights law.


Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Part II: The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’.

PART TWO

By Anthony George Ravlich

The Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009, excludes such core minimum obligations as the right to food and also the right to development so the world’s hungry will be reliant on the insecurity of charity and the vagaries of the market.

World hunger is projected to reach an historic high in 2009 with 1.02 billion people going hungry every day, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (June 22, 2009). The inclusion of core minimum obligations in the above OP would have ensured that the hungry could have their rights to food and development as the State is ultimately responsible for human rights. Without the right to development there is no assurance the poor will be permitted to help themselves. Kanayo Nwanze, President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development states: "For most developing countries there is little doubt that investing in smallholder agriculture is the most sustainable safety net, particularly during a time of global economic crisis”.

The excluded rights are included in the ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights which can be struggled for by NGOs to have included in domestic and international law. Part Three argues that the ‘bottom-up’ approach is ethically far superior to neo liberalism. The ‘bottom-up’ approach is discussed in my book, Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Lexington Books).

The recent ideological shift at the UN was from right wing (Bush administration) to left wing neo liberalism (adopted by Obama). What both approaches have in common is the exclusion of the above rights. However, while the right wing curbed civil liberties as a means of social control the left wing is ensuring social control (e.g. silence in return for ‘safety’) by adopting a ‘we are all in this together’ approach with a consensus between the liberal and trade union elites.

The establishment will oversee the growing unemployed who may get health insurance and infrastructure jobs but without the right to development they will have little chance of making use of their talents and gifts. For instance, the American Small Business League state: “This year small businesses have lost about $48 billion dollars in federal small business contracts to large corporations. To date, President Obama has not honored his campaign promise to stop the diversion of small business contracts to corporate giants”. In addition, without core minimum obligations in place, for small entrepreneurs failure can not be an option.

However, I consider the main purpose of the ‘we are all in this together’ approach is internationally where the elite consensus further supports the West’s promotion of democracy to empower liberal forces within autocratic regimes. In addition, the West’s social model which involves the subjugation of the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged may also meet foreign elite approval.

Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’.

PART ONE

By Anthony George Ravlich

The Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009, shows the neo liberal dominated global elites at the UN are prepared to deny a number of human rights to further neo liberalism and globalization.

The rights excluded by the OP are the core minimum obligations of the State, the empowerment rights and non-retrogression. However in the exclusion of these rights the global elites have provided a more ethical ‘bottom-up human rights approach’ for the discontented to struggle for and have included in domestic and international law.
Those groups most affected by the exclusion of these rights are the most disadvantaged and the independent peoples. The exclusion of these rights indicates that social control and old ideas represented by the Corporations are much more preferred to new ideas, independence and going forward.

In addition, the exclusion of these rights allows States to ignore the most disadvantaged and focus on the usually lesser violations of human rights suffered by elites. This has also been the case with previous human rights instruments.
The ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights also includes core minimum obligations with respect to civil and political rights as their exclusion in previous human rights instruments have left the poor voiceless and discriminated against. The ‘bottom-up’ approach, based on my work in the community, anticipated the exclusions of the OP and is described in full in my book, Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Lexington Books).

For sixty years economic, social and cultural rights have been held out often by the liberal elites at the international level as a hope for the poor but the present OP now disinherits them. For example, the core minimum obligations of the State includes the right to food, water, shelter, basic health and education and are defined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states that without these core minimums the covenant loses its ‘raison d’etre’ (General Comment No.3) i.e. if the most serious violations are ignored then human rights become irrelevant.

Also excluded is the empowerment right to development which means that neo liberal States can disregard small business which means people will be less able to help themselves through developing their talents, gifts and new ideas. It also means much higher unemployment. The other empowerment right excluded is human rights education. If educated in both sets of rights the people would be able to hold the domestic and global elites to account at election time. In addition, non retrogression was also excluded enabling the State to curb or reduce human rights at its discretion.

Independent NGOs and even States dissatisfied with neo liberalism can struggle to have the ‘bottom-up’ approach included in domestic and international law.

Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Renewed Optimism on Same-Sex Marriage

By Jason Pierceson

Events in 2009 have reshaped the national conversation on same-sex marriage. While the year started with continued consternation by progressives about Prop. 8 in California, most everyone in the country was taken by surprise of the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage. This was followed almost immediately by a series of state legislative enactments of same-sex marriage in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, as well as intense political activity on the issue in New York and other states. The Iowa decision also energized activist in California to continue with their grassroots efforts to overturn Prop. 8 in 2010. People on the liberal coasts asked themselves, if Iowa can do it, why can't we?

After these developments, it is unlikely that supporters of same-sex marriage will ever again be on the defensive, as they largely have been since the Hawaii decision started this national conversation in 1993. Indeed, we appear to be light years from the narrative of 2004 that same-sex marriage would help to keep Democrats in the political wilderness as long as litigation and activism continued. But, slowly, the moral landscape has changed.

Part of this shift stems from the continued framing of the issue by courts as one of constitutional and civic, not theological, morality. As the Iowa court stated, "This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all." This has further emboldened activist and elected officials to argue for and enact relationship equality policies, including calls from prominent conservatives and Republicans such as Steve Schmidt and Ted Olson. Indeed, Olson has framed his support of same-sex marriage in moral constitutional terms. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized," he stated to the Associated Press.

To be sure, the fight for same-sex marriage is not over. The Defense of Marriage Act and the multitude of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and other forms of relationship equality represent a substantial hurdle for same-sex marriage advocates, but this hurdle is significantly less formidable given the new and powerful frame of constitutional and civic morality. In other words, the moral argument is veering towards the side of same-sex marriage supporters, and away from traditionalist opponents.

Before the events of this year, I predicted a modest expansion of relationship equality policies alongside entrenched opposition. Now, however, I am much more optimistic that the power of constitutional and moral arguments is on the side of same-sex marriage advocates, resulting in much more rapid change, that and opposition will become less entrenched and monolithic as more and more people recognize this issue for what is truly is: an issue of civil equality for sexual minorities that demands that the nation and its citizens live up to its fundamental principles.

Jason Pierceson is associate professor of political science and legal studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield and co-editor, along with Gordon Babst and Emily Gill, of the forthcoming Lexington book Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-Sex Marriage: Advancing the Public Good.

The Pitfalls of Historical Amnesia in the Middle East

By Paul J. Rich

In 1914 the British, largely with Indian troops, landed at Basra at the head of the Persian Gulf and began a disastrous march to Baghdad. They were surrounded by the Turks at Kut and there suffered a defeat that was compared to that of Yorktown. The casualties were enormous.

It is amazing that so little attention has been paid to this invasion and to the subsequent unhappy British occupation of what then were the Turkish provinces of Mesopotamia. The region was of course to become Iraq and the British would struggle with trying to impose their agenda well into the 1930s.

So little is said about this that one would think it was a secret, but there is no lack of information on the subject. There are some classic volumes such A.J. Barker’s The Neglected War: Mesopotamia 1914-18, and Briton Cooper Busch’s Britain and the Persian Gulf and his Britain, India, and the Arabs. In fact, scholars have done such notable work on the period and region that it is frustrating to see how untutored American policy towards the peoples of Iraq has been.

Reading about the attempted consolidation of Middle Eastern straps along Western lines in the past might have prevented some of the mistakes that have been made by the United States in its recent interventions. And there remains a great wealth of original source material to explore should anyone be inclined. One valuable archive is the records of the Mesopotamian Commission after the war, a highly controversial fact-finding tribunal investigating the British blunders during the campaign. Charges that it whitewashed the conduct of high British officials have never been resolved.

In retrospect, the British decision to land at Basra and create Iraq had much to do with the desire of those in charge of the Empire to extend Imperial rule into the Middle East. The Gulf shaikhdoms were already part of that Empire and taking the head of the Gulf and then going on to Baghdad seemed a logical extension. Figures such as Sir Percy Cox and Sir Arnold Wilson were the Colin Powells and Donald Rumsfelds of the period.

Occam’s razor is well applied to the Middle East situation. It is not atomic science to ask that American foreign policy display more sophistication. One simply must know something bout the nuances, the cultures, the ancient animosities, before plunging willy-nilly into marching to Baghdad. We didn’t.

Paul J. Rich is president of the Policy Studies Organization in Washington, D.C., visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the editor of Iraq and Gertrude Bell's The Arab of Mesopotamia, Iraq and Rupert Hay's Two Years in Kurdistan, Iraq and Eleanor Egan's The War in the Cradle of the World, and the author of the forthcoming Creating the Arabian Gulf: The British Raj and the Invasions of the Gulf.

Sotomayor Pick Historic, but Still a Roll of the Dice

By Jeffrey L. Chidester

Judging from the Beltway tea leaves, President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor will almost certainly yield the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. While this historic first is something all Americans should celebrate, how Judge Sotomayor would deliberate on the bench is still an open question. And administration officials are surely keeping their fingers crossed.

In the case of judicial nominations, the gulf between expectation and reality is often very wide. Eisenhower’s selections of Earl Warren and William Brennan remain the model for picks gone awry, as the two joined together to lead perhaps the most actively liberal court of the 20th century. Eisenhower later called the Warren selection “the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made.” Retiring Justice David Souter, who was nominated by George H.W. Bush, has been a thorn in conservatives’ sides for years due to his decisions on abortion, workers’ rights, and the death penalty. Even greater venom is reserved for Justice John Paul Stevens, another ill-fated Republican selection. A 2003 study by the National Academy of Sciences found Stevens, nominated to the Court in 1970 by President Nixon, to be the most liberal member of the Court.

On the other hand, the outcome is sometimes better. Antonin Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate (interestingly, the two absent senators, Barry Goldwater and Jake Garn, were both Republicans). Many Democrats from the 99th Congress are still grieving over that one.

Stuart Spencer, who ran Ronald Reagan’s two gubernatorial campaigns as well as his 1980 and 1984 presidential bids, said judicial nominations are, by and large, a gamble. In an interview for the Ronald Reagan Oral History Project at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, Spencer recalled a similar case of unmet expectations: “When Reagan was Governor of California, he appointed a Chief Justice who looked like a safe bet. I was involved with that somewhat. He totally turned on him before he left in terms of rulings. . . . They’re lawyers. They’re judges. They’re going to do what the hell they want to do. You don’t know what you’re getting. I just don’t think any President really knows what he’s getting until he gets there and he serves.”

Spencer mentioned another historic nomination that occurred early in a new administration: the July 1981 choice of Sandra Day O’Connor. According to Spencer, while O’Connor “stayed the course” for Reagan, Supreme Court selections are still “a roll of the dice for a President. If they want to perpetuate their philosophy, they really have to do some vetting.”

Chances are good that liberal thinkers will be satisfied with the selection – a survey of Sotomayor’s opinions suggests a legal philosophy similar to Obama’s. But some of her rulings have rankled liberals in the past. For example, in 2002, she upheld the government’s “Mexico City Policy” to prevent the funding of international organizations that perform or support abortions. She wrote that the government is “free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position.” Pro-choice groups are among the early outspoken opponents of Sotomayor’s nomination.

Before the activists on both sides bring the rhetoric to a fever pitch, we should remember that predicting future judicial reasoning is guesswork at best. Obama may get his Scalia, but he also may get his own Souter. Liberals and conservatives can only sit back and hope it breaks their way.

Jeffrey L. Chidester is Chair of the National Discussion and Debate Series at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. He is formerly research director for the Miller Center’s Ronald Reagan Oral History Project. He is the co-author, with Stephen F. Knott, of At Reagan’s Side: Insiders' Recollections from Sacramento to the White House.

Justice Kennedy’s Date With “Dignity”? (Part I: Race and Human Dignity)

By Helen J. Knowles

Watchers of the work of the U.S. Supreme Court eagerly anticipate June, when that institution frequently announces several blockbuster outcomes in the cases that remain to be decided. As the Court brings its term to a close at the end of that month, anticipation mounts as commentators speculate about possible votes and the likely identity of the justices who will pen opinions (for the majority, and separately in concurrences and dissents). June 2009 promises to be no different.

It is perilous to try and predict the direction of the twists and turns that justice will take at the Court during what remains of this year of its work. To be sure, we know that the Term’s end will bring the retirement of Justice Souter, and the inevitable feeding frenzy that will accompany the confirmation hearings of his nominated successor, Judge Sotomayor. Before that happens, however, several major cases remain to be decided. While the results will not be known until the justices choose to make them public, there is one thing about which most commentators agree, regardless of ideology. Articles in the both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reach the same conclusion: In Ricci v. DeStefano and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, the man at the jurisprudential center of the Court will be the deciding vote; the key to these cases will be Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. What commentators ignore, however, is what might actually be the key to these cases as Justice Kennedy sees them. That key is the concept of “dignity.” During his two decades on the Court, this concept has been just as significant to Kennedy’s jurisprudence as has been the “man in the middle” role he has played on a bench frequently split between four more conservative and four more moderate men and women.

In this, the first of two blog entries, I look at the potential “dignity” reading that a Kennedy-authored opinion might give to the issues involved in Ricci v. DeStefano (a case which has taken on added significance since President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor – who was part of the lower appeals court panel of judges whose decision was appealed to the Supreme Court (her participation in the case is discussed over at Scotusblog)). Next time, I will offer a similar discussion of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

Ricci v. DeStefano

Two years ago, when the Court struck down two school districts’ plans that used race as a factor in assigning students to schools, Kennedy refused to agree with Chief Justice John Roberts’s now-famous postulate about solving racial tensions in America. Kennedy said it was shortsighted of his colleague to proclaim: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” This difference of opinion separates these two justices who otherwise share a commitment to a color-blind Constitution, and it is probable that it will play an important role in Ricci. For Kennedy, dignity is likely to be key to the case because it is this concept that resides at the heart of his modestly libertarian reading of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It is this constitutional provision that Frank Ricci and a group of his firefighting colleagues say that the City of New Haven, Connecticut violated when it denied them the promotions they were due. After creating and administering a race-neutral exam explicitly intended to achieve merit-based selection of individuals to fill leadership positions in the fire department, the City decided it did not like the results. The original emphasis on merit needed reevaluation when no African American firefighter did well enough to be considered for promotion. The race-neutral test (and its results – which placed Ricci (who is white) sixth in a class of seventy-seven individuals) was thrown out. If this is New Haven’s effort at race-conscious hiring in order to achieve diversity amongst its first responders, what happens to those who succeed on merit, but fail because of their race, rather than vice versa?

Over at his legal blog last year, Michael Dorf, Cornell University law professor and former Kennedy clerk, observed that “dignity” is susceptible to labeling as a mere “weasel word” because its ambiguity invites judges to use it when it suits their particular policy needs. Nevertheless, Dorf encourages us to resist this characterization. In terms of the current composition of the Court, this resistance has been voiced most strongly by Kennedy, who makes no secret of his belief that “dignity” is important to constitutional interpretation. Whatever one’s view of using an unenumerated concept (in this respect, “dignity” resembles “privacy”) for understanding the Constitution, the fact remains that Kennedy is the de facto ideological leader of the current Court. When he takes dignity seriously, so do his colleagues.

Two of the briefs filed in Ricci by groups with an interest in the case (interestingly, filed in support of New Haven) seemed to realize this, even though their discussions of “dignity” were fleeting. During oral argument, although Justice Kennedy did not invoke it, the concept of “dignity” played an important role. Mr. Ricci’s attorney made an effort to persuade at least a majority of the Court that New Haven violated “that singular principle of individual dignity” by discriminating on the basis of race.

Justice Kennedy objects to judicial opinions that portray the intractable issue of race as something that can be easily solved by judicial imposition of absolutist readings of the Constitution. In Kennedy’s mind, engaging the country in an honest dialogue about the human “dignity” that attaches to all, regardless of their race, is more profitable than vowing to end discrimination by judicial fiat. In a 2007 Newsweek interview, Kennedy responded to Roberts’s call for greater unanimity on the Court by saying: “My initial reaction was going to be, ‘Just let me write all the opinions.’’” If he does not receive the majority opinion assignment in Ricci, Kennedy is unlikely to be pleased if the chosen author is not sensitive to his dignity-based understanding of individualized equality. Should Justice Kennedy decide to write separately, his past writings strongly suggest he will speak in the language of dignity.

Helen J. Knowles is assistant professor of political science at SUNY, Oswego. She is the author of The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty.

A Red Card to Racism: The Incident at Juventus

By Christos Kassimeris

On April 18, 2009, Juventus hosted Inter Milan in what was a football match that determined, essentially, the league’s winning side. The match ended a draw and, therefore, Inter Milan maintained their healthy lead in Serie A, but the game attracted much attention for reasons not pertinent to football. Born in Italian city Palermo, Mario Balotelli was adopted at the age of three by an Italian family, yet his Italianess was brutally questioned when fans of Juventus sung ‘there is no black Italian’ during the decisive Serie A match. There is little doubt that Balotelli’s opening goal must have devastated the Juventus supporters, yet there is no good enough a reason for the kind of racist abuse that the striker of Ghanaian descent had to endure. The Italian media condemned the incident and so did Giovanni Coboli Gigli, president of Juventus, who criticized that section of fans that derided the talented player. Sadly, the prospect of playing their next home game behind closed doors clearly proved far more critical than the menace that is racial discrimination for Juventus appealed against the ban so as to preserve the club’s interests in the league. Justice was, ultimately, not served when the penalty imposed by the Italian football authorities was never overturned, but when Juventus was made to suffer further humiliation as the club’s decision to appeal invited criticism from the media for failing to acknowledge the gravity of the incident.

Showing no sympathy for the club he once played for, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) president Michel Platini condemned on April 21 the racist incident a few days later and stated that referees would be granted the necessary powers to stop football matches for ten minutes and even to suspend games should racist chanting persist. Along similar lines, Giancarlo Abete, president of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC), emphasized that Italian referees already had the authority to suspend matches when banners inciting racism are displayed inside stadiums. Interestingly, the exact same day that Platini voiced his concerns about the future of the game the United Nations’ Conference Against Racism took place whereby a relevant declaration was issued that made particular reference to the game of football, thus calling Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to implement suitable measures so as to tackle racial discrimination with effect at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa—the country that gave rise to the apartheid regime.

Most certainly, racism in European football has reached unparalleled heights over the past few years and has nowadays become a serious enough matter to compel UEFA to consider conceding to referees sufficient powers for halting, suspending and even abandoning a game when fans engage in racist chanting, as decided on May 12 by Europe’s football governing body. The matter will dominate anew the agenda of UEFA’s forthcoming Executive Committee meeting in Vilnius on July; however, it is worthy to note that such measures will be limited, perhaps, to only those football matches held under the auspices of UEFA at both club and international level.

Christos Kassimeris is assistant professor in political science at European University Cyprus in Nicosia and author of European Football in Black and White: Tackling Racism in Football and and the editor of the forthcoming Anti-Racism in European Football: Fair Play for All.

Could a Deadlock on Judicial Nominations Be Imminent?

By Scott E. Graves

President Obama has made three nominations to the federal courts of appeals: David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit (his first), Gerald E. Lynch for the Second Circuit, and Andre M. Davis for the Fourth Circuit. Initial signs suggest that bipartisanship will be hard for the President to achieve with his judicial appointments.

Court watchers are anxious to see whether the level of partisan rancor reached in the last eight years continues as the parties switch places. Democratic Senators filibustered ten Bush circuit nominees during the 108th Congress, leading to the so-called Gang of 14 agreement. The Democrats now hold a substantial Senate majority, but are currently two votes short of filibuster-proof.

Early signs of post-partisan confirmations are in short supply. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing for Judge Hamilton on April 1st attended only by Democrats; GOP members boycotted after a request for delay was denied. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy even moved the hearing to a room with insufficient chairs at the table for the full committee. This followed a letter sent to President Obama on March 2nd signed by every member of the Senate Republican caucus indicating that if senatorial courtesy were not observed “even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation”, they would object to “moving forward” with nominations. Judge Hamilton is endorsed by both of his Indiana Senators, his home state, including Republican Richard Lugar, although this did not avert the GOP boycott or an exchange of recriminations between Leahy and ranking minority member Arlen Specter.

Republicans could filibuster judicial nominations, since the Democrats lack the 60 votes necessary for cloture. Also, committee rules allow Republican members of Judiciary to prevent votes through their absence or by raising an objection that requires a supermajority, including a minority vote, to overcome.

In the event that Republicans delay Obama’s judicial nominations, what can we expect? Three of the seven Republicans of the Gang of 14 have been replaced by Democrats, thinning the population of moderate GOP Senators with whom the president might work. A fourth, John McCain, may or may not be inclined to extend a hand to his former rival.

Of course, that compromise followed Bush’s decision to recess appoint two of his contested judges, Charles Pickering and William Pryor. Will Obama follow suit? Based on research conducted by myself and Robert M. Howard, conditions might soon favor such a choice. We find that presidents are more inclined to make recess appointments when the Senate is ideologically and politically aligned with the president, rather than opposed. Similarly, we discovered that recess appointments have been used more frequently to fill new seats created by a friendly Congress. In fact, in an act passed early last year, the new Democratic Congress created its first new appeals court seat (in the Ninth Circuit) in nearly 20 years, although the statute specified that the seat would not come into being until January 21st of this year. We also found that caseload pressures factor into a president’s decision, and circuit caseloads increased last year by nearly 5% over 2007.

On the other hand, our research revealed that active, lawmaking presidents are less likely to make recess appointments. In addition to his substantial legislative agenda, President Obama issued 18 executive orders in his first two months in office, while President Bush produced only 8 in the same period. With such an ambitious program, the president may be reluctant to antagonize elements of the Senate whose support he will need to accomplish his goals.

Scott E. Graves is assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University and the co-author of Justice Takes a Recess: Judicial Recess Appointments from George Washington to George W. Bush.