THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 4/19/12

TWO BIG STORIES (FROM LAST WEEK): Last week, I got a little over-excited about under-the-radar news, and realized with horror that I forgot to include the two biggest stories of the political week! First, obviously, Rick Santorum dropped out of the GOP race, making Mitt the official nominee. (Dave Weigel has been running a series highlighting the hilariously unenthusiastic endorsements that Mitt’s been racking up, now that it doesn’t mean anything.) Thanks to the Supreme Court, there are predictions that $1 billion (that’s billion) will be spent to defeat President Obama, $500,000 million of which Romney’s team hopes to raise from “high-dollar donations.” Second -- and I really can’t believe I left this one out last week -- the Sanford, Florida prosecutor announced last week that she would file second-degree murder charges against George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin, the case that garnered such enormous attention over the last few weeks. It’s hard to say that this is necessarily justice. What those of us who were outraged over the killing wanted was for the investigators and the prosecution to take the killing seriously; that said, there are reasons to be skeptical that the state even has a chance of proving second-degree murder. Radley Balko sums it the concern:

The anger and outrage about how black people are treated in the criminal justice system is well-founded, well-supported, and consistent with my own experience reporting on these issues (although I think the common denominator is increasingly more poor than black). And there appears to be some of that history in Sanford as well, particularly in the way police investigate crimes—including this one. I’ve read in several places the proposition that if the races had been reversed that night in Sanford, Trayvon Martin would have spent the last month awaiting his murder trial from a jail cell. I think there’s plenty of history to support that sentiment. But we can’t hang all of the inequities of the criminal justice system on George Zimmerman. He deserves to be tried only on the facts specific to his case. Even gung-ho, wannabe cops deserve due process, and a fair crack at justice.

Ta-Nehisi Coates laments that what began as genuine outrage over the cops’ seeming indifference to the killing and the reality of Stand Your Ground laws has morphed into a political, meaningless argument about making Zimmerman pay. Read more of his essential writing on the subject here and here.

MAJORITY OF SENATE SUPPORTS BUFFETT RULE, IT FAILS ANYWAY: This week, the Senate Democrats held a vote on the so-called Buffett Rule (primer here). A majority of senators voted for it! But because of the absurd, a-historical, and deeply anti-democratic new “rule” in the Senate requiring 60 votes for any piece of legislation ever, the policy failed, on an almost purely party-line vote (Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted for it, while Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted against it). Of course, if you were reading the headlines, you’d be hard-pressed to figure out that the bill got a majority of votes in the Senate, and would have passed by any historical method of congressional voting. (It’s particularly rage-inducing to hear Romney claim that the rule’s proponents “couldn’t get it through their own Democratic Senate.”) Various critics have argued that the Buffett Rule is a stunt, a political ploy that won’t actually reform the tax system, produce greater equality, or solve the deficit. That’s all true! But why does that mean the vote shouldn’t have happened? As Jon Chait points out, the point is to expose GOP intransigence over any tax hike on the rich -- even the ones that they themselves insist are too small to make any sort of difference on the deficit, ones that an insanely large majority of the American people supports. It’s an election year, and one party is calling for tax hikes on the rich while signaling an openness to some spending cuts; the other party is insisting on ever-larger tax cuts for the wealthiest while simultaneously slashing the social safety net and raising taxes on the poor. It’s vital that we have this debate in the open. Holding a vote to highlight the issue of tax fairness is a completely legitimate -- and essential -- part of the Democrats’ electoral and political strategy.

MILITARY PUNISHING SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS: CNN is set to air a special report this weekend on the military’s abysmal treatment of rape victims in its ranks: namely, labeling sexual assault victims as mentally ill and discharging them. CNN cited findings by the Yale Law School Veterans Clinic showing that personality disorder discharges are disproportionately falling on women. For example, in the Navy, women make up 17% of sailors but 26% of personality disorder; in the Marines, women are 7% of the Corps and 14% of personality disorder discharges. These discharges are not only profoundly humiliating and unjust, but can wreak substantial financial havoc: “In the military's eyes, a personality disorder diagnosis is a pre-existing condition and does not constitute a service-related disability. That means sexual assault victims with personality disorder discharges don't receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs to help with their trauma. They can still apply for benefits, but it's considered an uphill battle.” GI Bill educational benefits are stripped as well. Perhaps trying to preempt CNN’s full report, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced this week some new initiatives to address the problem -- which is not just about the violence occurring but also about the military justice system’s terribly inadequate response to that violence. Perhaps the best one is the creation of “special victims’ units” within each unit that are specifically trained in sexual assault and forensic investigation. The root of the problem, however, lies in commanders’ complete and unfettered discretion to stop criminal investigations in their tracks, at any stage and for whatever reason -- and without even having to explain why. This allows a commander to simply refuse to take action against a subordinate to who has been accused of a crime, even if there is clear evidence against him. In such cases and where the victim is in the same unit, it is common for the victim to be forced to move to a different unit, since she’s the one who’s uncomfortable being in the same unit as her attacker. Earlier this year, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced a bill that would create an autonomous oversight office in the military, which would remove commanders’ participating in the decision whether to bring sexual assault charges against a servicemember. You can watch her speak about the bill here.

I will take this opportunity to endorse a documentary about sexual assault in the military that I saw recently. Called “The Invisible War,” it was a deeply moving, poignant, enraging film, and I really can’t recommend it highly enough. You can watch the trailer here, and check if its screening anywhere near you here. It won some awards at Sundance, so presumably it will be out on DVD soon; when it is, I really hope you’ll watch it.

Personal Note: Apologies for the brief (and early) update this week. I’m off to my sister’s wedding and am too excited to read the blogs!

Must Read of the Week: Emily Bazelon on the lawlessness in the accountability-free New Orleans District Attorney’s office.
Fun Video of the Week: Actress Ashley Judd, who has been particularly awesome recently, tells Santorum that, unfortunately, he has to wait 72 hours before he can terminate his candidacy.
Bonus Fun Video of the Week: Jon Stewart on right-wing faux outrage over the Buffett Rule.