Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on a controversial California law that requires non-ambulatory livestock at slaughterhouses to be immediately euthanized and removed from the food supply and, based on their questions, it appears the justices are leaning toward a ruling in favor of the meat industry and the Obama administration.

The 2008 law, which was set aside by a federal judge pending this further legal action, was prompted by whistleblower video at a slaughterhouse that showed non-ambulatory, or “downer” cattle being shocked, kicked and hit with heavy equipment at one California facility. As The Iowa Independent earlier reported, state lawmakers sought to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from such animals, and mandated under its penal code that any “downer” livestock be immediately euthanized.

Federal law, however, requires that “downer” livestock be moved away from other animals and inspected. If inspectors find no disease or “adulteration” of the animal, it is allowed to continue through the slaughter process as a part of the food supply.

The National Meat Association, which sued on behalf of the pork industry, has asked SCOTUS to strike down California’s edict on grounds that it over-stepped the federal rule. California’s attorney argued mostly on the grounds of scope and semantics. The latter appeared to be an argument that did not resonate with the Court.

“In other words, you’re saying, ‘Well, just because the federal law says you can, doesn’t mean the state can’t say you can’t,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during the testimony of California Asst. Attorney General Susan K. Smith.

When Smith affirmed her argument, Roberts added, “Isn’t the exact flip side of saying … you can’t sell it, is that you can? So when federal law says you can, that preempts the rule from the states that says you can’t.”

Smith was arguing that because California was immediately removing “downer” livestock from the food supply, and the scope of federal law had to do with slaughterhouse operations leading to the food supply, that the state’s requirements remained outside of the scope of what federal authorities had already mapped out as their own territory. In other words, California needed to prove that it’s new law was attempting to “preempt,” or cancel out, existing federal law, which the Constitution holds as the winner in all conflicts.

The meat industry argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act over-rules any state law that addresses cruelty or humane treatment of livestock slated for slaughter.

The state believes it has the right to explicitly decide what types of livestock can be slaughtered for human consumption, and that its decision in such matters is outside of the federal regulations regarding slaughterhouse operations because it is making its requirement in advance of the federal law. So, if the state decided that no purple hogs or white cows could be slaughtered for human consumption, the state believes the requirement would automatically remove such livestock from jurisdiction by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

“The federal law doesn’t say you must,” argued Smith. “It does not say that you must sell the meat or you must…”

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, saying, “We are not talking about conflict preemption. If it said you must and the state says you can’t, then there would be conflict preemption. But we are talking about express preemption, which says in so many words no additional requirements. And I don’t know how you can get around the fact that this an additional requirement.”

The audio file embedded below provides a portion of the oral arguments in which the justices question Smith:

Michele Bachmann’s weekend trip to the Golden State to gather support and funds for her presidential bid drew protests and sharp questions from Tonight Show host Jay Leno over her stances and statements on rights for LGBT people.

At a campaign rally in Costa Mesa, Bachmann was asked by a rally-attendee what she plans to do about bullying in her district. The Anoka-Hennepin School District is largely within the district represented by Bachmann and has seen many high-profile events surrounding the bullying of LGBT students. Six of those students are suing the district.

“That’s not a federal issue,” she said, dodging the question.

Two days earlier, Tammy Aaberg, a mother in the district who lost her son to suicide in 2010, presented Bachmann’s district office with a petition signed by more than 100,000 people asking her to take a stand on bullying in schools. Her office said Bachmann might eventually respond to the petition.

Bachmann has spoken about bullying in school before. At a Minnesota Senate committee hearing on bullying in 2005, Bachmann said, “I think for all us our experience in public schools is there have always been bullies, always have been, always will be. I just don’t know how we’re ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?”

“One question would be what would be our definition of bullying? Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression? Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be, will we be expecting boys to be girls?” Bachmann asked. ”I just don’t know how we can realistically expect a zero tolerance of bullying behavior.”

Bachmann was in town to speak at the California Republican Convention in Los Angeles and found herself the target of a flash mob. About 100 people protested her stances on LGBT issues to the tune of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer.”

Then it was Bachmann’s time for an appearance on Jay Leno, where she would once again be questioned on her LGBT record.

Leno asked her, “That whole ‘pray the gay away’ thing, I don’t get that.”

Bachmann tried to deflect with a joke: “When I heard that I thought it was a mid-life crisis thing, ‘pray the gray away.’”

Leno pressed her, “To me, when I was a kid, they used to try and teach me to write right-handed … to me that’s the same thing if you’re gay. I’ve been married 31 years, first wife, very happy. Two gay guys get married, how does that affect my marriage?”

Bachmann responded: “The whole thing is, with clinics, whatever issue anyone has, we don’t discriminate, we don’t discriminate with people’s issues.”

Leno wanted to know why the gay thing was even an issue, and Bachmann responded, “The family is foundational and marriage between a man and a woman is what the law has been for years.”

Despite the backlash GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann has received this week for blasting fellow contender Texas Gov. Rick Perry for his (failed) attempt to mandate human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations for pre-teen girls in 2007 during Monday’s tea party debate, the Minnesota congresswoman’s refusal to turn the page could have lasting effects for states trying to enact HPV-vaccine-related legislation.

One such example is California, where bill that would allow minors 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) awaits Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

If Brown signs Assembly Bill 499 (PDF), minors 12 and over will be able to access hepatitis B vaccine and post-exposure prophylactic HIV medication without parental consent. Christian and “pro-life” groups throughout the state have protested this bill since the state Legislature passed it, calling it “anti-parent.” Yet Bachmann’s recent attack on the vaccine (linking it to mental retardation, based on unsubstantiated claims) and suggesting Perry’s interest in vaccinating girls was financially motivated has fueled groups with more arguments to encourage the governor to veto the bill.

On Friday, the San Francisco-based group Catholics for Common Good (CCG) released a media advisory appealing for the veto of AB 499 and listing among the reasons against the law, “Parallels with the issue hounding Texas Governor Rick Perry.” In fact, the group focused mostly on the connections Bachmann drew between Perry and Merck, the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, to criticize the California bill, which has been dubbed the “Gardasil bill” by opponents, despite the fact that the bill relates to all STDs, not just HPV.

Some of CCG’s arguments:

• “Creation of the broadest 12-17 year old market possible for Merck by including inoculation of boys, although Gardasil is only on the CDC immunization schedule for girls (1.usa.gov/dnUYnR).”
• “The bill could mean up to $30 million in sales for Merck at federal expense.”
• “Why must Merck pursue legal mandates or laws to go around parents to sell their vaccine?”

The bill authors predicted that if between 5 and 10 percent of the 923,000 Californians ages 12 through 17 that qualify for the vaccinations take the shots, administrative costs could be between $1.2 million and $2.5 million, 50 percent of which would be paid out of the state’s general fund.

In the long run, however, the Legislature predicts money will be saved if even costlier treatment for STDs can be minimized. From the bill’s fiscal analysis:

According to the Department of Health Care Services, Medi-Cal expenditures of $379 million were incurred in 2009-10 for the Minor Consent Program, which serves on average 130,600 individuals between the ages of 12 and 19, and provides over 128,000 minors with family planning and/or sexually transmitted disease diagnosis and treatment services. Due to the authorization of preventive services to minors provided for in this bill, there could be substantial future cost savings to the Medi-Cal and HFP programs in the millions of dollars to the extent that immunizations and other medical care lead to decreased incidences of disease, diagnosis, and treatment costs.

Taitz, who’s running for Secretary of State in California with the backing of Tea Party activists, is no stranger to controversial statements. Last fall, she told Esquire magazine, “I believe [Obama] is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?”

Hat tip: Dump Bachmann.

On May 14, Bachmann will head to Irvine, Calif., for a luncheon at McCormicks & Schmicks Restaurant and then to San Diego for a reception at Town and Country Resort and Convention Center.

“Restoring America: Bringing America Back to its Constitutional Principles” will take place at the residence of Dr. and Mrs. Scott and Delane Levy in Rancho Mirage, Calif., on May 15 and will cost attendees between $125 and $225.

Organizers for the events added this description of the visit:

Ms. Bachmann a leading conservative from Minnesota and a regular featured guest on Fox News, will be addressing several venues in California to talk about restoring America to it’s core principles and values. She has been a leader in the fight to Constitutional principles, smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, state sovereignty and national security. If you are concerned for this country and the direction it is taking and want to do something about it, don’t miss this opportunity to help restore the principles of the Founding Fathers.

“Talk about Big Brother,” Kent Lenhard told The Californian. “I read it over twice and thought, ‘Wow, I can’t believe this.’”

Lenhard says he won’t fill out the American Community Survey, a long survey sent to a random sampling of households by the Census Bureau each yeah. The paper speculates that Bachmann’s campaign against the census is Lenhard’s motivation.

In Ohio, advocates for low income and homeless residents are worried that Bachmann’s opposition to the census will have a negative impact on the homeless. If enough people follow Bachmann’s example, they say, Ohio would get less federal funding for housing, since the Census is used to allocate such resources.

“With all the cuts we’ve had in Ohio, this has become more important,” Cathy Johnston, advocacy director for the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio told the Dispatch.

Johnston said that a massive Bachmann-style Census boycott could jeopardize funding for crime prevention, winter heating assistance and health care funding.

Despite the ruling, marriage-equality advocates vowed to press on, possibly taking the issue to the voters again in the next few years.

“Today’s ruling is a huge blow to Americans everywhere who care about equality. The court has allowed a bare majority of voters to write same-sex couples out of basic constitutional protections,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This ruling couldn’t be more out of step with what’s happening across the country. We have no choice but to return this basic question of fairness for the estimated 1 million LGBT Californians back to the voters.”

The Log Cabin Republicans also vowed to continue working with California’s Republican elected officials to ensure marriage equality in that state.

“While we were defeated in this ballot initiative, our cause is right and just,” said Leonard M. Lanzi, president of California Log Cabin Republicans “We will continue to work with our allies in the Republican Party and across the political spectrum in California to educate voters that marriage equality is truly a conservative value, along the lines of strengthening individual freedoms, limiting the role of government in our daily lives and preserving personal responsibility.”

The Mormon Church, which spent millions of out-of-state funds to pass Prop 8, released a statement today, as well:

“Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society.”

SurveyUSA is conducting a series of polls in 17 states to test the popularity of various Republican and Democratic presidential tickets. It’s a dubious endeavor to the extent that many of the VP hopefuls bruited about have little national name recognition at this point, but the top-line results pitting Barack Obama versus John McCain are interesting, particularly where the perennial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are concerned.

Those top-line numbers from the five states surveyed thus far:

• Ohio: Obama +9 over McCain
• Virginia: Obama +7 over McCain
• California: Obama +8 over McCain
• Pennsylvania: Obama +8 over McCain
• New Mexico: Obama tied with McCain

The VP matchup results share one common characteristic, and it comports with what Paul Demko noted last week about the Pennsylvania matchup: McCain/Pawlenty pairings consistently fare worse in the surveys than matchups that place Mike Huckabee, Joe Lieberman, or Mitt Romney on the GOP ticket.

This looks to be purely a matter of name recognition for Pawlenty. But it may be less easy for the McCain camp to ignore the relative boost it gets in all the states polled so far when the party’s best-known evangelical, Mike Huckabee, is on the ticket.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has removed his mentor in acting and politics, Clint Eastwood, and his brother-in-law, Bob Shriver, from the state’s parks commission. Eastwood, a Republican who served as mayor in his hometown of Carmel, Calif., and Shriver, son of 1972 Democratic vice presidential candidate Sargeant Shriver, saw the terminations from the Republican governator as payback for their opposition to a proposed six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach. A Sierra Club official lauded Eastman’s “reverence for open space and public property,” which you can see for yourself in a public service announcement Eastwood made against the toll road.

Continued: Click “Read more”