...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservatives will probably lose the legal fight for small government. Here’s why.
By Robert Gebelhoff, July 8, 2016
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: The 2016 election matters because the next president might be nominating two or three justices to the Supreme Court.
It’s one of those statements you hear all the time because, well, it’s true. The next Supreme Court appointment may throw the liberal vs. conservative balance of the court into disarray, which is why pundits have been issuing foreboding proclamations like “we’re only one vote away from losing (insert constitutional right here).”
One of the legal issues that’s less often discussed is the role that the next Supreme Court justice will play in conservatives’ long-running legal fight to limit the size of the federal government. For decades, conservatives on the bench have been losing that war, giving way to a system of administrative law that is written, for the most part, by bureaucratic agencies. Without putting a justice on the bench who can build consensus on how to rework the rules on agencies’ regulations, it’s likely conservatives will lose this fight in the long run.
Administrative law — the area of the law governing the rules and regulations created by federal agencies — is, especially in oral arguments, incredibly arcane. But philosophically speaking, it’s a really big deal. Over the past half century, agencies have exploded in size and power, so this debate really is about how much power the federal government should have.
The question of how they interpret federal statutes touches on some of the most high-profile cases in federal courts in recent years: the case on the president’s climate-change regulations (Massachusetts v. EPA), the Affordable Care Act ruling from 2015 (King v. Burwell), this year’s immigration case (United States v. Texas) and the transgender student case (G.G. v. Gloucester County School District), just to name a few.
It all rests on a relatively obscure law called the Administrative Procedure Act, passed by Congress in 1946. The APA, despite its terribly boring title, was probably one of the most important laws ever enacted, spelling out how federal bureaucrats are supposed to write the rules through which they enforce the law. In addition to requiring notice-and-comment periods for the public to review any formal rules (to preserve at least some semblance of democracy), the APA also gives guidelines to courts on how best to review these regulations.
For the most part, the courts have developed a system that grants a lot of leeway to federal agencies. Among legal pundits, the topic is referred to as “agency deference” (or “Chevron deference,” taken from a 1984 Supreme Court case, if you want to get even wonkier). The logic is pretty simple: Let the experts and regulators decide the tough questions, not judges. So long as Congress is silent or ambiguous on an issue and the relevant agency’s regulation is “reasonable,” then it will probably be able to pass muster in court.
This is how, for example, the EPA was able to classify carbon dioxide as an “air pollutant” that it can regulate under the Clean Air Act. Lawmakers gave the federal government the power to regulate air pollutants but remained fairly vague about which pollutants or how it should be done.
Conservatives, fearful that bureaucracies are becoming an unchecked “fourth branch of government,” have decried agency deference. Just last month, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the doctrine “has metastasized,” as if it were a cancer. And back in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts warned of the “danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state,” labeling Chevron deference as “a powerful weapon in an agency’s regulatory arsenal.”
Both Roberts and Thomas frame the issue as a threat to the separation of powers: We’re letting agencies in the executive branch dip into the powers reserved for the judicial and legislative branches. By letting agencies fill in the ambiguous holes left in laws by Congress, we give the executive branch authority to write new laws. And by allowing bureaucrats the ability to define the scope of their own jurisdiction, we let them answer questions meant to be left up to the courts. This, they argue, is at odds with the Constitution.
At the same time, though, the late Justice Antonin Scalia — an architect of Chevron deference — had long defended the framework that granted agencies power to interpret the law. Scalia used administrative law to help shape his vision for the role of the Supreme Court: an institution where its members did not project their personal beliefs onto the laws, limiting its scope to preserving constitutional rights. If an agency’s regulations are inadequate or incorrect, he would likely argue, Congress should put it to a vote.
It’s a fundamental philosophical conflict about how courts should review the law. And certainly over the past few decades, this friction between conservatives has allowed a number of cases to advance through the Supreme Court that gave greater power to federal regulators (although Scalia notably became uncomfortable in recent years with how far the court was willing to go). Without a consensus opinion to hold back the advance of agency deference, bureaucrats have become even more emboldened to formulate new rules and procedures. Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School recently showed just how pervasive agency discretion has become in administrative law.
Now that the court is evenly split between conservatives and liberals, it’s unclear what the future of administrative law will look like. But at the moment, those who care about the topic have been disheartened by Merrick Garland, Obama’s pick to fill Scalia’s vacancy, who has a history of deferring to agency interpretations.
Yet even if Republicans somehow get their preferred judges onto the bench in the next few years, rolling back agency deference still isn’t a slam-dunk. The Chevron decision is 32 years old, and since it was delivered, a host of decisions have reaffirmed agency deference, expanded upon it and used it as a cornerstone to propel administrative law. It would likely take multiple rulings and a solid conservative consensus over a number of years to reverse the direction in which the court has been heading.
And ironically, if Republicans won the election but somehow ended up with divided government, they might even push back against the effort. Faced with a bitterly divided government, the Obama administration has been grasping for unitary control of policy through administrative law. What would keep Republicans under a President Trump from doing the same?
Conservatives fearing a powerful bureaucratic state have few legal weapons to fight it. The future of a small-government Supreme Court is bleak, and the march toward greater agency control of the law will probably continue forward.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Sarah, YOU are the farce!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin: Black Lives Matter is a 'farce'
By Eugene Scott, July 8, 2016
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the Black Lives Matter movement is a "farce" and said Americans who hyphenate their racial backgrounds -- such as African-Americans and Asian-Americans -- "further divide our nation."
"# BlackLivesMatter is a farce and hyphenating America destroys us," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee wrote on her Facebook page. "Shame on our culture's influencers who would stir contention and division that could lead to evil such as that in Dallas."
"Shame on politicians and pundits giving credence to thugs rioting against police officers and the rule of law in the name of "'peaceful protests.' It is a farce. #BlackLivesMatter is a farce."
The former vice presidential candidate said black lives matter more than activists "can grasp."
"Black Lives Matter? Yes - more than BLM "protestors" can grasp, as evidenced by their self-destructive provocateurism," she wrote. "Doesn't it go without saying that Native lives matter, too? And Asian; and Eskimo; and Hispanic; and Indian... and every other race comprised of people who see clearly the agenda at play to weaken America through disunity."
She continued, "Self-descriptions that put any race in front of being an American are now used to further divide our nation. It's time to acknowledge you're either an American under our system of equality, law and order - and traditional patriotic spirit - or you're not. nock off the hyphenation of who we are. And knock off the shoulder chip if you've let 'leaders' burden you with it through their example that sadly capitalizes on division for untoward purposes. That chip is crushing the people's hope."
Palin's comments come after a week in which five Dallas officers were shot and killed amid protests over the back-to-back police shooting deaths of two African-American men by police earlier in the week. The Donald Trump supporter said she sides with police in these situations.
"So if we're to take sides, I side with the Thin Blue Line. To side with our public servants trying to keep law and order amidst political agendas that clearly oppose that virtue is how the good guys win again," she wrote. "It's the only way to ensure our best days will be ahead of us. Join me."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin: Black Lives Matter is a 'farce'
By Eugene Scott, July 8, 2016
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the Black Lives Matter movement is a "farce" and said Americans who hyphenate their racial backgrounds -- such as African-Americans and Asian-Americans -- "further divide our nation."
"# BlackLivesMatter is a farce and hyphenating America destroys us," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee wrote on her Facebook page. "Shame on our culture's influencers who would stir contention and division that could lead to evil such as that in Dallas."
"Shame on politicians and pundits giving credence to thugs rioting against police officers and the rule of law in the name of "'peaceful protests.' It is a farce. #BlackLivesMatter is a farce."
The former vice presidential candidate said black lives matter more than activists "can grasp."
"Black Lives Matter? Yes - more than BLM "protestors" can grasp, as evidenced by their self-destructive provocateurism," she wrote. "Doesn't it go without saying that Native lives matter, too? And Asian; and Eskimo; and Hispanic; and Indian... and every other race comprised of people who see clearly the agenda at play to weaken America through disunity."
She continued, "Self-descriptions that put any race in front of being an American are now used to further divide our nation. It's time to acknowledge you're either an American under our system of equality, law and order - and traditional patriotic spirit - or you're not. nock off the hyphenation of who we are. And knock off the shoulder chip if you've let 'leaders' burden you with it through their example that sadly capitalizes on division for untoward purposes. That chip is crushing the people's hope."
Palin's comments come after a week in which five Dallas officers were shot and killed amid protests over the back-to-back police shooting deaths of two African-American men by police earlier in the week. The Donald Trump supporter said she sides with police in these situations.
"So if we're to take sides, I side with the Thin Blue Line. To side with our public servants trying to keep law and order amidst political agendas that clearly oppose that virtue is how the good guys win again," she wrote. "It's the only way to ensure our best days will be ahead of us. Join me."
...................................................................................................................................................................
#Lyin'Donald lied about the number of articles in the Constitution, and he lied about Jack Nicklaus attending the RNC Convention. What's next, #TruthlessTrump?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Says He'll Protect Constitution's 'Article XII'
By Benjamin Siegel, July 8, 2016
For Donald Trump the Constitution is yuge...and a lot bigger than it actually is.
Trump told House Republicans Thursday he will make sure to protect the Constitution if he becomes president -- including a non-existent Article XII.
The presumptive GOP nominee, who was on Capitol Hill Thursday to charm rank-and-file Republicans and build party unity, told members he would be the "best constitutional president ever," according to Rep. Reid Ribble, R-Wisconsin, a Trump skeptic.
Rep. Mark Sanford, R-South Carolina, said Trump promised to protect several articles of the Constitution -- including "Article XII," even though the Constitution has seven articles.
"It was the normal stream of consciousness that's long on hyperbole and short on facts," Sanford told reporters after the meeting.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said the meeting was productive.
“Our members really enjoyed it,” Ryan said. “It’s very clear that he’s working on putting together a strong general election campaign.”
Trump also reportedly told members of Congress golf legend Jack Nicklaus would be attending the Republican National Convention, but Nicklaus' spokesman said that was not accurate.
"Mr. Nicklaus is traveling internationally the next couple weeks, touching down in no fewer than six countries. So I can confidently confirm that the reports are inaccurate and Mr. Nicklaus will not be attending any portion of the RNC," spokesman Scott Tolley said in an email. "[Trump and his campaign staff] have known for quite some time of his travels and prior commitments."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Says He'll Protect Constitution's 'Article XII'
By Benjamin Siegel, July 8, 2016
For Donald Trump the Constitution is yuge...and a lot bigger than it actually is.
Trump told House Republicans Thursday he will make sure to protect the Constitution if he becomes president -- including a non-existent Article XII.
The presumptive GOP nominee, who was on Capitol Hill Thursday to charm rank-and-file Republicans and build party unity, told members he would be the "best constitutional president ever," according to Rep. Reid Ribble, R-Wisconsin, a Trump skeptic.
Rep. Mark Sanford, R-South Carolina, said Trump promised to protect several articles of the Constitution -- including "Article XII," even though the Constitution has seven articles.
"It was the normal stream of consciousness that's long on hyperbole and short on facts," Sanford told reporters after the meeting.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said the meeting was productive.
“Our members really enjoyed it,” Ryan said. “It’s very clear that he’s working on putting together a strong general election campaign.”
Trump also reportedly told members of Congress golf legend Jack Nicklaus would be attending the Republican National Convention, but Nicklaus' spokesman said that was not accurate.
"Mr. Nicklaus is traveling internationally the next couple weeks, touching down in no fewer than six countries. So I can confidently confirm that the reports are inaccurate and Mr. Nicklaus will not be attending any portion of the RNC," spokesman Scott Tolley said in an email. "[Trump and his campaign staff] have known for quite some time of his travels and prior commitments."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, July 8, 2016
Maybe, maybe not. Like so much of what #Lyin'Donald says, it's likely to be fake.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Are Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Even 'Made in the USA'?
By Associated Press, July 8, 2016
The fabric in Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats tells a complicated tale.
Employees of Cali-Fame, which makes the Trump campaign hats, told The Associated Press that the hats were stitched together in the United States but made from imported materials. That practice would violate their Made in USA labeling. But the company’s owner contradicted those statements with certificates showing he had purchased domestic fabric.
In an attempt to resolve the differing statements, the AP sought the help of a forensic textile analyst.
To do the microscopic analysis, the AP obtained samples directly from the fabric supplier that the factory owner said the factory always uses, Carr Textile. The samples were of the same red polyester-cotton blended fabric that the factory owner said was in the hats: one fabric type imported and one U.S.-made. The AP asked Deborah Young, a professor of textiles and clothing at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles, to compare two Trump hats that the AP had purchased from the campaign website with the fabric samples. The AP did not identify the fabric samples to prevent bias.
Her conclusion: The material in one Trump hat was inconsistent with either Carr sample. The pattern of the weave was noticeably different, later confirmed by the AP using a school-grade microscope: All Carr-made Saxtwill fabric is a 2/1 weave; the other Trump hat was a 3/1 pattern weave.
“There’s no way this hat was made out of either (Carr) sample,” Young said.
The analysis was not able to determine where the fabric in that hat actually came from, whether U.S.-made or foreign-made, and by whom.
Young said the other “Make America Great Again” hat that the AP had also purchased from Trump’s campaign could have come from either the U.S.-made Carr fabric, from Carr’s cheaper imported fabric, or from an entirely different source.
After receiving Young’s opinion, the AP bought an additional three hats from the Trump campaign for review. Those were also compatible with both Carr’s Saxtwill and the cheaper fabric that Carr imports.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Are Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Even 'Made in the USA'?
By Associated Press, July 8, 2016
The fabric in Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats tells a complicated tale.
Employees of Cali-Fame, which makes the Trump campaign hats, told The Associated Press that the hats were stitched together in the United States but made from imported materials. That practice would violate their Made in USA labeling. But the company’s owner contradicted those statements with certificates showing he had purchased domestic fabric.
In an attempt to resolve the differing statements, the AP sought the help of a forensic textile analyst.
To do the microscopic analysis, the AP obtained samples directly from the fabric supplier that the factory owner said the factory always uses, Carr Textile. The samples were of the same red polyester-cotton blended fabric that the factory owner said was in the hats: one fabric type imported and one U.S.-made. The AP asked Deborah Young, a professor of textiles and clothing at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles, to compare two Trump hats that the AP had purchased from the campaign website with the fabric samples. The AP did not identify the fabric samples to prevent bias.
Her conclusion: The material in one Trump hat was inconsistent with either Carr sample. The pattern of the weave was noticeably different, later confirmed by the AP using a school-grade microscope: All Carr-made Saxtwill fabric is a 2/1 weave; the other Trump hat was a 3/1 pattern weave.
“There’s no way this hat was made out of either (Carr) sample,” Young said.
The analysis was not able to determine where the fabric in that hat actually came from, whether U.S.-made or foreign-made, and by whom.
Young said the other “Make America Great Again” hat that the AP had also purchased from Trump’s campaign could have come from either the U.S.-made Carr fabric, from Carr’s cheaper imported fabric, or from an entirely different source.
After receiving Young’s opinion, the AP bought an additional three hats from the Trump campaign for review. Those were also compatible with both Carr’s Saxtwill and the cheaper fabric that Carr imports.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"They believe they are speaking for God, which makes them especially dangerous." Yeah, particularly since we're dealing only with a sky fairy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Christian-Political Machine Is Undermining Democracy
By Tim Rymel, July 8, 2016
Many people may be surprised to learn how easy it is for religious groups to lobby politicians. In 1970, there were roughly 40 groups in Washington D.C., now there are over 200. As of 2011, according to Pew Research, these groups employ at least 1,000 people annually who live in the D.C. area and spend more than $350 million a year.
The report goes on to say, “More than eight-in-ten of the 216 religious advocacy groups in the study (82%) operate as nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This means they are not allowed to devote a substantial part of their activities to lobbying as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.” Since they have no oversight, however, these activities slide under the radar, and there is no working definition of “substantial” by the IRS.
Many of the larger organizations, such as Focus on the Family, create sister organizations under the 501(c)(4) status, which they can legally fund. Citizenlink is Focus on the Family’s sister organization. 501(c)(4)’s were established around a century ago as “social welfare” non-profits. Kim Barker says, “The IRS later opened the door to some forms of political activity by interpreting the statute to mean groups had to be ‘primarily’ engaged in enhancing social welfare.” Like 501(c)(3)’s, how “primarily” is measured is vague. Barker notes, when Citizenlink granted $120,000 to another 501(c)(4), the Susan B. Anthony List, to criticize Democrats in a television ad, they didn’t count it as political spending on their tax return, though they are credited in the ad for part of the funding.
Much of the lobbying that goes on from these church organizations is undisclosed. For example the National Association of Evangelicals represents “40 denominations and thousands of churches, schools, nonprofits, businesses and individuals.” Pew Research found that “lobbyists tend to employ at least one of eight advocacy methods. These methods include informing constituents (41 percent of groups say this is their most frequently used strategy), meeting with officials (15 percent) and letter campaigns (10 percent).”
Religious organizations are powerful political machines, and well funded. In 2012, Focus on the Family reported nearly $91 million in income with nearly $52 million in net assets. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network reported over $533 million in total ministry support and revenues. Robertson’s other organizations include Regent University, the American Center for Law and Justice and Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism. Those organizations, as of 2010, were operating on budgets of a collective $117 million. In 2015, Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice reported income of almost $17 million. Jerry Falwell’s, Liberty Counsel, is now exempt from reporting their income at all.
The Liberty Counsel famously made Rowan, Kentucky, County Clerk, Kim Davis, into a household name. Davis was advised to violate the law and refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. She was thrown into jail while Liberty Counsel moved into the spotlight, rallying both moral and financial support. It wasn’t the first time they used a defendant to advance their anti-government agenda. Liberty Counsel is famously seen as a hate group. “Liberty Counsel ‘regularly portrays gay people as perverse, diseased pedophiles putting Western civilization at risk,’ and in doing so it is ‘way, way over the line,’ Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the [Southern Poverty Law] center, told the AP.”
The problem is that these groups don’t simply have a difference of opinion. They wrap bigotry in religious freedom bills designed to discriminate against certain segments of society. Their arguments are devoid of scientific evidence and facts. They believe they are speaking for God, which makes them especially dangerous.
Certainly all people should have a voice in a democracy. Demonizing and oppressing other groups with whom we disagree to get what we want, however, is not godly; it’s certainly not Christian. These groups have learned to manipulate their constituency, and to play on their fears to raise money and support. The Christian-political machine is undermining the system and using suspect means to do it, while standing on the backs of people who need a voice the most.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Christian-Political Machine Is Undermining Democracy
By Tim Rymel, July 8, 2016
Many people may be surprised to learn how easy it is for religious groups to lobby politicians. In 1970, there were roughly 40 groups in Washington D.C., now there are over 200. As of 2011, according to Pew Research, these groups employ at least 1,000 people annually who live in the D.C. area and spend more than $350 million a year.
The report goes on to say, “More than eight-in-ten of the 216 religious advocacy groups in the study (82%) operate as nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This means they are not allowed to devote a substantial part of their activities to lobbying as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.” Since they have no oversight, however, these activities slide under the radar, and there is no working definition of “substantial” by the IRS.
Many of the larger organizations, such as Focus on the Family, create sister organizations under the 501(c)(4) status, which they can legally fund. Citizenlink is Focus on the Family’s sister organization. 501(c)(4)’s were established around a century ago as “social welfare” non-profits. Kim Barker says, “The IRS later opened the door to some forms of political activity by interpreting the statute to mean groups had to be ‘primarily’ engaged in enhancing social welfare.” Like 501(c)(3)’s, how “primarily” is measured is vague. Barker notes, when Citizenlink granted $120,000 to another 501(c)(4), the Susan B. Anthony List, to criticize Democrats in a television ad, they didn’t count it as political spending on their tax return, though they are credited in the ad for part of the funding.
Much of the lobbying that goes on from these church organizations is undisclosed. For example the National Association of Evangelicals represents “40 denominations and thousands of churches, schools, nonprofits, businesses and individuals.” Pew Research found that “lobbyists tend to employ at least one of eight advocacy methods. These methods include informing constituents (41 percent of groups say this is their most frequently used strategy), meeting with officials (15 percent) and letter campaigns (10 percent).”
Religious organizations are powerful political machines, and well funded. In 2012, Focus on the Family reported nearly $91 million in income with nearly $52 million in net assets. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network reported over $533 million in total ministry support and revenues. Robertson’s other organizations include Regent University, the American Center for Law and Justice and Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism. Those organizations, as of 2010, were operating on budgets of a collective $117 million. In 2015, Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice reported income of almost $17 million. Jerry Falwell’s, Liberty Counsel, is now exempt from reporting their income at all.
The Liberty Counsel famously made Rowan, Kentucky, County Clerk, Kim Davis, into a household name. Davis was advised to violate the law and refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. She was thrown into jail while Liberty Counsel moved into the spotlight, rallying both moral and financial support. It wasn’t the first time they used a defendant to advance their anti-government agenda. Liberty Counsel is famously seen as a hate group. “Liberty Counsel ‘regularly portrays gay people as perverse, diseased pedophiles putting Western civilization at risk,’ and in doing so it is ‘way, way over the line,’ Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the [Southern Poverty Law] center, told the AP.”
The problem is that these groups don’t simply have a difference of opinion. They wrap bigotry in religious freedom bills designed to discriminate against certain segments of society. Their arguments are devoid of scientific evidence and facts. They believe they are speaking for God, which makes them especially dangerous.
Certainly all people should have a voice in a democracy. Demonizing and oppressing other groups with whom we disagree to get what we want, however, is not godly; it’s certainly not Christian. These groups have learned to manipulate their constituency, and to play on their fears to raise money and support. The Christian-political machine is undermining the system and using suspect means to do it, while standing on the backs of people who need a voice the most.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... I have concluded I will not be voting for Trump, either. It is his character — and many of his dangerous ideas — that disqualifies him from the presidency as well."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans cannot vote for Trump as ‘lesser of the evils’
As we approach the Republican National Convention, I have concluded I will not be voting for Donald Trump, writes Op-Ed columnist Mike McKay. It is his character that disqualifies him.
By Mike McKay. July 8, 2016
I have been involved in presidential campaigns since 1964, when, at the age of 13, I sold enough tickets to a Barry Goldwater fundraiser to be invited to meet the candidate at the Olympic Hotel in downtown Seattle.
My views have evolved a bit since then, but I eventually served as Washington state vice chair of the Bush campaigns in 1988, 2000 and 2004. In 2000, one of then-Gov. George W. Bush’s important messages to America was that “character matters.” So, if character mattered to many of us in 2000, it certainly should be an important consideration in this year’s presidential campaign.
Too many of my friends who worked with us in 1988, 2000 and 2004 tell me that they will vote for Donald Trump because he is the lesser of the evils. Believe me, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton. Her ideas for America are bad — and got worse as she moved to the left after feeling “the Bern.” It is her dishonesty — from the Rose Law Firm billing records in 1996 to her email server in Chappaqua, N.Y., today — that truly disqualifies her from being president. A candidate who consistently and flagrantly refuses to abide by the rules applicable to all in public life, whatever her political affiliation, is not worthy of the office she seeks.
But as we approach the Republican National Convention, I have concluded I will not be voting for Trump, either. It is his character — and many of his dangerous ideas — that disqualifies him from the presidency as well.
I have often wondered how it was that the German people would allow a man like Adolf Hitler to assume power in 1933. He did not campaign on promises of world domination or moving Jews from their homes to concentration camps. Hitler did, however, say enough things that should have given the people of that country reason to pause and reflect before they supported him and his party. While no two historical periods are perfect parallels, it is my hope that the people of America, particularly my fellow Republicans, will employ better judgment in 2016 than the Germans did 80 years ago. We have much to ponder, but permit me to point to just a few disturbing warning signs:
• Trump has encouraged violence at his rallies: “Knock the crap out of them, would you? … I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” The only thing missing is young thugs in brown shirts.
• He said that a U.S. District Court judge in San Diego, a former assistant U.S. attorney born in Indiana who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, has “an absolute conflict” in that case because he is “of Mexican heritage” and Trump wants to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. For those of us who practice in federal court, an attack of this nature on a federal judge is particularly troubling. Our legal system and the fundamental rights cherished by us all rest in large part upon our voluntary respect for our courts, the guardians of our Constitution and laws. And most of us can agree that judging one’s abilities based on the color of his or her skin is, as House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “textbook racism.”
• Trump has called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Who’s next? The Irish? Jews?
And Trump can’t tell the truth. From claiming he watched “thousands and thousands of people” in Jersey City, N.J., cheer as the buildings went down on 9/11 to promising that he would release his tax returns, he has made hundreds of false statements that he never corrected. After a recent Trump speech, The Associated Press needed 12 reporters to identify and report on all of his misrepresentations. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking organization, determined that 78 percent of Trump’s statements they investigated were false or mostly false, more than all of the other presidential candidates combined. Throughout the life of our republic, American politicians have, at times, cut corners on the truth. But when it comes to truth-telling, Trump does not cut corners, he clear cuts forests.
So Donald Trump’s lies and dangerous ideas will keep me from voting for him. I’m not staying home on Nov. 8, though. A vote is too precious to waste. Besides, there are too many important local and state races.
Unless there emerges a serious third-party candidate with an allegiance to our core principles of governance and an appeal across the political spectrum, I will write in the name of one of the last qualified presidential candidates we had a chance to vote for: Mitt Romney. Just as he warned us in 2012 of the dangers of a re-emerging Russia as our largest geopolitical threat, a warning which I’m sure the citizens of Crimea and Ukraine wish President Obama had taken more seriously, Romney was one of the first Republican leaders to warn us about Trump.
So I’m with Mitt: Trump is too dangerous to warrant a vote as “the lesser of the evils.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans cannot vote for Trump as ‘lesser of the evils’
As we approach the Republican National Convention, I have concluded I will not be voting for Donald Trump, writes Op-Ed columnist Mike McKay. It is his character that disqualifies him.
By Mike McKay. July 8, 2016
I have been involved in presidential campaigns since 1964, when, at the age of 13, I sold enough tickets to a Barry Goldwater fundraiser to be invited to meet the candidate at the Olympic Hotel in downtown Seattle.
My views have evolved a bit since then, but I eventually served as Washington state vice chair of the Bush campaigns in 1988, 2000 and 2004. In 2000, one of then-Gov. George W. Bush’s important messages to America was that “character matters.” So, if character mattered to many of us in 2000, it certainly should be an important consideration in this year’s presidential campaign.
Too many of my friends who worked with us in 1988, 2000 and 2004 tell me that they will vote for Donald Trump because he is the lesser of the evils. Believe me, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton. Her ideas for America are bad — and got worse as she moved to the left after feeling “the Bern.” It is her dishonesty — from the Rose Law Firm billing records in 1996 to her email server in Chappaqua, N.Y., today — that truly disqualifies her from being president. A candidate who consistently and flagrantly refuses to abide by the rules applicable to all in public life, whatever her political affiliation, is not worthy of the office she seeks.
But as we approach the Republican National Convention, I have concluded I will not be voting for Trump, either. It is his character — and many of his dangerous ideas — that disqualifies him from the presidency as well.
I have often wondered how it was that the German people would allow a man like Adolf Hitler to assume power in 1933. He did not campaign on promises of world domination or moving Jews from their homes to concentration camps. Hitler did, however, say enough things that should have given the people of that country reason to pause and reflect before they supported him and his party. While no two historical periods are perfect parallels, it is my hope that the people of America, particularly my fellow Republicans, will employ better judgment in 2016 than the Germans did 80 years ago. We have much to ponder, but permit me to point to just a few disturbing warning signs:
• Trump has encouraged violence at his rallies: “Knock the crap out of them, would you? … I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” The only thing missing is young thugs in brown shirts.
• He said that a U.S. District Court judge in San Diego, a former assistant U.S. attorney born in Indiana who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, has “an absolute conflict” in that case because he is “of Mexican heritage” and Trump wants to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. For those of us who practice in federal court, an attack of this nature on a federal judge is particularly troubling. Our legal system and the fundamental rights cherished by us all rest in large part upon our voluntary respect for our courts, the guardians of our Constitution and laws. And most of us can agree that judging one’s abilities based on the color of his or her skin is, as House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “textbook racism.”
• Trump has called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Who’s next? The Irish? Jews?
And Trump can’t tell the truth. From claiming he watched “thousands and thousands of people” in Jersey City, N.J., cheer as the buildings went down on 9/11 to promising that he would release his tax returns, he has made hundreds of false statements that he never corrected. After a recent Trump speech, The Associated Press needed 12 reporters to identify and report on all of his misrepresentations. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking organization, determined that 78 percent of Trump’s statements they investigated were false or mostly false, more than all of the other presidential candidates combined. Throughout the life of our republic, American politicians have, at times, cut corners on the truth. But when it comes to truth-telling, Trump does not cut corners, he clear cuts forests.
So Donald Trump’s lies and dangerous ideas will keep me from voting for him. I’m not staying home on Nov. 8, though. A vote is too precious to waste. Besides, there are too many important local and state races.
Unless there emerges a serious third-party candidate with an allegiance to our core principles of governance and an appeal across the political spectrum, I will write in the name of one of the last qualified presidential candidates we had a chance to vote for: Mitt Romney. Just as he warned us in 2012 of the dangers of a re-emerging Russia as our largest geopolitical threat, a warning which I’m sure the citizens of Crimea and Ukraine wish President Obama had taken more seriously, Romney was one of the first Republican leaders to warn us about Trump.
So I’m with Mitt: Trump is too dangerous to warrant a vote as “the lesser of the evils.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wonder no more, Sanford-- of course, #Lyin'Donald doesn't understand the Constitution!
..................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Rep. Mark Sanford expertly burns Donald Trump for flubbing the Constitution in front of Congress
By Becca Stanek, July 7, 2016
Here's a good gauge for just how well Donald Trump's meeting Thursday with congressional Republicans went: Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) walked out wondering if his party's presumptive nominee had even a basic understanding of the Constitution.
"I wasn't particularly impressed," Sanford told reporters at a lunch following the meeting, which was aimed at increasing party unity. "It was the normal stream of consciousness that's long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, 'I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,' going down the list. There is no Article XII."
Still, the Republican congressman didn't lose a good chance to publicly needle Hillary Clinton over her email scandal. "He may be loose on some facts, reckless on some," Sanford said, "but there's not malicious intent there."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Rep. Mark Sanford expertly burns Donald Trump for flubbing the Constitution in front of Congress
By Becca Stanek, July 7, 2016
Here's a good gauge for just how well Donald Trump's meeting Thursday with congressional Republicans went: Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) walked out wondering if his party's presumptive nominee had even a basic understanding of the Constitution.
"I wasn't particularly impressed," Sanford told reporters at a lunch following the meeting, which was aimed at increasing party unity. "It was the normal stream of consciousness that's long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, 'I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,' going down the list. There is no Article XII."
Still, the Republican congressman didn't lose a good chance to publicly needle Hillary Clinton over her email scandal. "He may be loose on some facts, reckless on some," Sanford said, "but there's not malicious intent there."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Can't even dig up one, huh, #Lyin'Donald?
......................................................................................
"... Trump predicted that Flake would lose his reelection, at which point Flake informed Trump that he was not on the ballot this year ..." Geez, #StupidDonald, you can't even properly threaten someone!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans Had Another Banner Day of Stupid
What a 24 hours it was in our nation's capital.
By Charles P. Pierce, July 7, 2016
As the sun sets on Thursday, and the kangaroo suits are sent to the cleaners to get them ready for the next 93 futile hearings into whatever's left of the e-mail thing besides the furrowed brows of the country's green rooms, we bid farewell to a very interesting day in Our Nation's Capital.
First of all, He, Trump came to town and met with those Republican legislators who weren't imaginative enough to come up with a decent excuse to be hiding under the couch. Things apparently did not go well with the senators. He, Trump threatened Jeff Flake's career, which is roughly akin to pulling an RPG launcher on an angry, but plucky, Pomerarian. Luckily for us all, He, Trump remains a dolt, which Flake politely pointed out.
Bring us into the octagon, Washington Post!
But the main event took place over in the House of Representatives, where Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Republican from Utah, brought in FBI director James Comey because Chaffetz was "mystified" as to why Comey had come to the conclusions he did regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's e-mails.
For four hours plus, Comey stood the committee on its collective ear. Yes, there was some real dumbassery involved in how HRC handled her home server. Yes, he would use the word reckless. Yes, he would even use the word dangerous. No, he would not be indicting her because dumbassery in an official capacity is not a criminal offense—which is a good thing, otherwise there would have been very few members of the House majority able to attend Thursday's hearings.
For their part, the Democrats played the whole thing for what it was: an exercise in political kabuki. They were fulsome in their praise of Comey, and they were unequivocal in their support. Some of them spent their allotted time arguing that the committee should have had better things to do, and others had a lot of fun comparing what the Republicans had said about Comey during his investigation to what they said about him after his press conference earlier this week.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were equally complimentary of Comey's service, but their praise usually ended with one of them intimating that Comey was a man of great integrity so they were puzzled as to how he could have gotten involved in a conspiracy involving both Clintons, Loretta Lynch, Vince Foster, Jim Guy Tucker and, as near as could be determined, George deMohrenschildt and John Wilkes Booth.
John Mica, Republican of Florida, was particularly batty on the subject—somehow, Mica worked Hamilton into his questioning—to the point where Comey got genuinely angry. From TBOTP:
There will be more hearings: Next week, Lynch is due for her chance to help another House committee look foolish. Elsewhere, Speaker Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny-starver from the state of Wisconsin, is proposing that He, Trump, the dolt, be the only one of the major candidates for president to get national security briefings. Chaffetz ended the hearings by quizzing Comey about what he knew about The Clinton Foundation, so you know that's coming down the Idiot Trail fairly soon.
Come back with me to the cool darkness of the cocktail lounge of the Mena Airport. It's going to be a rockin' happy hour.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans Had Another Banner Day of Stupid
What a 24 hours it was in our nation's capital.
By Charles P. Pierce, July 7, 2016
As the sun sets on Thursday, and the kangaroo suits are sent to the cleaners to get them ready for the next 93 futile hearings into whatever's left of the e-mail thing besides the furrowed brows of the country's green rooms, we bid farewell to a very interesting day in Our Nation's Capital.
First of all, He, Trump came to town and met with those Republican legislators who weren't imaginative enough to come up with a decent excuse to be hiding under the couch. Things apparently did not go well with the senators. He, Trump threatened Jeff Flake's career, which is roughly akin to pulling an RPG launcher on an angry, but plucky, Pomerarian. Luckily for us all, He, Trump remains a dolt, which Flake politely pointed out.
Bring us into the octagon, Washington Post!
Trump said at the meeting that he has yet to attack Flake hard but threatened to begin doing so. Flake stood up to Trump by urging him to stop attacking Mexicans. Trump predicted that Flake would lose his reelection, at which point Flake informed Trump that he was not on the ballot this year, the sources said.Get the freaking net. I'm not kidding.
But the main event took place over in the House of Representatives, where Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Republican from Utah, brought in FBI director James Comey because Chaffetz was "mystified" as to why Comey had come to the conclusions he did regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's e-mails.
For four hours plus, Comey stood the committee on its collective ear. Yes, there was some real dumbassery involved in how HRC handled her home server. Yes, he would use the word reckless. Yes, he would even use the word dangerous. No, he would not be indicting her because dumbassery in an official capacity is not a criminal offense—which is a good thing, otherwise there would have been very few members of the House majority able to attend Thursday's hearings.
For their part, the Democrats played the whole thing for what it was: an exercise in political kabuki. They were fulsome in their praise of Comey, and they were unequivocal in their support. Some of them spent their allotted time arguing that the committee should have had better things to do, and others had a lot of fun comparing what the Republicans had said about Comey during his investigation to what they said about him after his press conference earlier this week.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were equally complimentary of Comey's service, but their praise usually ended with one of them intimating that Comey was a man of great integrity so they were puzzled as to how he could have gotten involved in a conspiracy involving both Clintons, Loretta Lynch, Vince Foster, Jim Guy Tucker and, as near as could be determined, George deMohrenschildt and John Wilkes Booth.
John Mica, Republican of Florida, was particularly batty on the subject—somehow, Mica worked Hamilton into his questioning—to the point where Comey got genuinely angry. From TBOTP:
"I hope what you'll tell the folks in the cafes is, look me in the eye, and listen to what I'm about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that."Why in the name of god they couldn't have just accepted the gift that Comey gave them on Tuesday is the best proof yet that modern conservatism has driven the GOP barking mad with no hope of recall.
There will be more hearings: Next week, Lynch is due for her chance to help another House committee look foolish. Elsewhere, Speaker Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny-starver from the state of Wisconsin, is proposing that He, Trump, the dolt, be the only one of the major candidates for president to get national security briefings. Chaffetz ended the hearings by quizzing Comey about what he knew about The Clinton Foundation, so you know that's coming down the Idiot Trail fairly soon.
Come back with me to the cool darkness of the cocktail lounge of the Mena Airport. It's going to be a rockin' happy hour.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... this latest behavior is such an egregious example of Congressional dysfunction that Senator McConnell and his colleagues must be held accountable."
...................................................................................................................................................................
LinkedIn co-founder: I'm appalled by what's happening in the Senate right now
By Reid Hoffman, July 5, 2016
As an entrepreneur and investor, I prioritize construction and collaboration. Whether it's a five-person start-up or a global giant, the companies that are most productive are the ones whose employees operate with a shared sense of purpose and a clear set of policies for responding to changing conditions and new opportunities.
That's why I'm so appalled by what's happening in the Senate this year, and how starkly it illustrates the differences between Silicon Valley and Washington, DC.
Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died in February, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the American people not to expect a replacement any time soon. The vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing, McConnell insisted, "should not be filled until we have a new president."
Since then, Leader McConnell's position has remained unchanged — he won't even meet with any nominee until January 2017. Effectively, he and his allies are in the midst of a year-long strike.
Imagine if entire departments at Fortune 500 companies announced they were going to stop performing key functions of their job for a year or more, with no possibility of moving forward until a new CEO took over. Investors would start dumping their stock. Customers would seek out alternatives. Competitors would make these companies pay for such dysfunctional gridlock. Eventually executives and employees would be fired.
In Silicon Valley, such behavior would be corporate suicide. In Washington, DC, it's business as usual.
So Mitch McConnell's strike goes on and on — he refuses to even meet with any nominee until a new president takes office. Other senators like Richard Burr (R - NC), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Rob Portman (R - OH) have followed McConnell's lead, either refusing to even informally meet with Judge Garland, or meeting but still reflexively insisting that a formal Senate hearing is not an option.
But the Constitution does not give the job of nominating and appointing Supreme Court Justices to the next President — it gives it to the current one.
Respecting the Constitution's authority and the obligations of his job, President Obama nominated a potential replacement for Justice Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, on March 16.
To date, only two Republican senators — Senator Mark Kirk (R - IL) and Susan Collins (R - ME) — have resisted peer pressure and publicly stated that Judge Garland should be given a formal hearing. The rest are joining McConnell in his strike.
In a 2013 op-ed, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman explored the difference between Silicon Valley's conception of collaboration and Washington, DC's. In the nation's capital, Friedman observed, collaboration "is an act of treason — something you do when you cross over and vote with the other party." In Silicon Valley, companies that are "trying to kill each other in one market [are] working together in another — to better serve customers."
As Friedman went on to explain, Silicon Valley's version of collaboration doesn't mean groupthink or lockstep consensus. Vital organizations and industries cultivate diverse and competitive viewpoints, because it's this very "clash of ideas" that tends to produce innovation and adaptation.
But Silicon Valley situates its clash of ideas within a larger framework of cooperation and compromise, under the premise that what's good for the ecosystem as a whole will also benefit individual players, even if they sometimes have competing interests.
What's striking about McConnell's stance is how vividly it illustrates DC's preference for reflexive obstruction over the kind of collaboration and consensus-building that characterizes healthy and productive organizations.
It's not as if the Constitution doesn't give senators like McConnell broad room in which to operate in dissenting fashion. Specifically, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution invests the president with the power to make appointments "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
This language clearly gives the Senate a confirming but open-ended role. It doesn't instruct the Senate to hold hearing within a specific number of days, for example. It doesn't even explicitly mandate that the Senate must hold formal hearings or meet with a nominee.
The Constitution simply directs the Senate to advise the president in his effort to nominate and appoint nominees. But how can the Senate credibly and effectively fulfill this obligation without making any effort to gather information about nominees and deliberate on their qualifications?
In keeping the language so broad in this instance, the Constitution effectively places the Senate in far more than a rubber-stamping role. As Barack Obama himself suggested in 2006, when he was still a senator, the Senate arguably has the authority to examine a nominee's "philosophy, ideology, and record," not just his general character.
What Article II, Section 2 ultimately does, in other words, is set the stage for clashes of ideas, albeit within a larger framework of collaboration and consensus. Importantly, the Constitution advises the Senate to work "with" the president, not "against" him or in opposition to him.
And it presumes that the Senate will indeed be working.
Still, instead of holding hearings in which to assess Judge Garland's suitability for the Supreme Court, McConnell and his colleagues are doing nothing.
If their obstructionism goes unchecked, it will continue harming American citizens in very tangible ways. Having only eight Justices on the bench increases the possibility of a deadlock.
When cases end in deadlock, nothing gets decided. Resources are expended, and the American public is left hanging until the Supreme Court can hear the case again or consider another case with similar issues.
This has happened twice already — last week when the Supreme Court deadlocked on an immigration-reform case, and in March, in a case regarding whether individuals should be required to guarantee their spouses' loans. Traditionally, laws regarding this practice have differed in various parts of the country, creating confusion for small business owners and their spouses about what their obligations are. Unfortunately, this confusion and lack of clarity will persist indefinitely because of the Supreme Court's deadlock.
What would happen if President Obama told Congress not to bother passing any more bills this year, because he had decided he would automatically veto any of them that made it to his desk? How many private sector organizations would tolerate personnel who refuse to perform key job responsibilities until the current boss is replaced by someone new?
According to Gallup, 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Or perhaps more accurately, not doing its job.
Indeed, from 1900 through 1980, it took the Senate a median of 17 days after nomination to confirm or reject a Supreme Court nominee.
Like today's senators, those senators took an oath to support the Constitution and "faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office."
Now, however, scorched-earth partisanship has thoroughly compromised Congress's ability to operate functionally. More than 100 days have passed since President Obama nominated Judge Garland — and there aren't even any plans to begin hearings yet.
No wonder so many Americans believe our government is severely broken.
If we truly want to make Congress a collaborative enterprise that efficiently works in the interests of the American people, the American people must apply pressure directly to senators like McConnell, Burr, and Portman.
While some people might insist that these senators are simply fighting partisanship with partisanship, blocking a nominee that a Democrat president is trying to force upon American voters without their say, that's a false equivalency.
President Obama is a democratically elected official, faithfully discharging the duties of his office. In democracies, we aren't always governed by the people or the parties that we voted for. But when officials are elected, we must respect their authority, as long as they're exercising that authority within the bounds of whatever regulatory frameworks are in place to guide them. (In this case, it's the Constitution.)
Every American citizen should understand this. And our elected officials shouldn't just understand this — they should be setting an example that all Americans can follow.
Instead, McConnell and his colleagues are doing the opposite.
Ultimately, they're not telling President Obama that they don't think his nominee is a good one. They're saying that they refuse to acknowledge President Obama's legitimacy as an elected official.
This kind of partisanship is endemic in Washington, DC now. But this latest behavior is such an egregious example of Congressional dysfunction that Senator McConnell and his colleagues must be held accountable.
That's why I have signed a Change.org petition urging McConnell to give Judge Garland a hearing, and why I strongly encourage others to join me.
Our elected officials must understand that we, the American people, expect them to perform the duties of their office, even when that means working with other elected officials from different parties.
They must understand that we're fed up with business as usual in Washington, DC. They must understand that we want leaders who look for opportunities to collaborate and work together productively, instead of pursuing obstructionism that serves political parties rather than citizens.
So let Mitch McConnell know that it's time to quit abdicating around. Tell him to do his job and schedule a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland now.
...................................................................................................................................................................
LinkedIn co-founder: I'm appalled by what's happening in the Senate right now
By Reid Hoffman, July 5, 2016
As an entrepreneur and investor, I prioritize construction and collaboration. Whether it's a five-person start-up or a global giant, the companies that are most productive are the ones whose employees operate with a shared sense of purpose and a clear set of policies for responding to changing conditions and new opportunities.
That's why I'm so appalled by what's happening in the Senate this year, and how starkly it illustrates the differences between Silicon Valley and Washington, DC.
Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died in February, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the American people not to expect a replacement any time soon. The vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing, McConnell insisted, "should not be filled until we have a new president."
Since then, Leader McConnell's position has remained unchanged — he won't even meet with any nominee until January 2017. Effectively, he and his allies are in the midst of a year-long strike.
Imagine if entire departments at Fortune 500 companies announced they were going to stop performing key functions of their job for a year or more, with no possibility of moving forward until a new CEO took over. Investors would start dumping their stock. Customers would seek out alternatives. Competitors would make these companies pay for such dysfunctional gridlock. Eventually executives and employees would be fired.
In Silicon Valley, such behavior would be corporate suicide. In Washington, DC, it's business as usual.
So Mitch McConnell's strike goes on and on — he refuses to even meet with any nominee until a new president takes office. Other senators like Richard Burr (R - NC), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Rob Portman (R - OH) have followed McConnell's lead, either refusing to even informally meet with Judge Garland, or meeting but still reflexively insisting that a formal Senate hearing is not an option.
But the Constitution does not give the job of nominating and appointing Supreme Court Justices to the next President — it gives it to the current one.
Respecting the Constitution's authority and the obligations of his job, President Obama nominated a potential replacement for Justice Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, on March 16.
To date, only two Republican senators — Senator Mark Kirk (R - IL) and Susan Collins (R - ME) — have resisted peer pressure and publicly stated that Judge Garland should be given a formal hearing. The rest are joining McConnell in his strike.
In a 2013 op-ed, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman explored the difference between Silicon Valley's conception of collaboration and Washington, DC's. In the nation's capital, Friedman observed, collaboration "is an act of treason — something you do when you cross over and vote with the other party." In Silicon Valley, companies that are "trying to kill each other in one market [are] working together in another — to better serve customers."
As Friedman went on to explain, Silicon Valley's version of collaboration doesn't mean groupthink or lockstep consensus. Vital organizations and industries cultivate diverse and competitive viewpoints, because it's this very "clash of ideas" that tends to produce innovation and adaptation.
But Silicon Valley situates its clash of ideas within a larger framework of cooperation and compromise, under the premise that what's good for the ecosystem as a whole will also benefit individual players, even if they sometimes have competing interests.
What's striking about McConnell's stance is how vividly it illustrates DC's preference for reflexive obstruction over the kind of collaboration and consensus-building that characterizes healthy and productive organizations.
It's not as if the Constitution doesn't give senators like McConnell broad room in which to operate in dissenting fashion. Specifically, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution invests the president with the power to make appointments "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
This language clearly gives the Senate a confirming but open-ended role. It doesn't instruct the Senate to hold hearing within a specific number of days, for example. It doesn't even explicitly mandate that the Senate must hold formal hearings or meet with a nominee.
The Constitution simply directs the Senate to advise the president in his effort to nominate and appoint nominees. But how can the Senate credibly and effectively fulfill this obligation without making any effort to gather information about nominees and deliberate on their qualifications?
In keeping the language so broad in this instance, the Constitution effectively places the Senate in far more than a rubber-stamping role. As Barack Obama himself suggested in 2006, when he was still a senator, the Senate arguably has the authority to examine a nominee's "philosophy, ideology, and record," not just his general character.
What Article II, Section 2 ultimately does, in other words, is set the stage for clashes of ideas, albeit within a larger framework of collaboration and consensus. Importantly, the Constitution advises the Senate to work "with" the president, not "against" him or in opposition to him.
And it presumes that the Senate will indeed be working.
Still, instead of holding hearings in which to assess Judge Garland's suitability for the Supreme Court, McConnell and his colleagues are doing nothing.
If their obstructionism goes unchecked, it will continue harming American citizens in very tangible ways. Having only eight Justices on the bench increases the possibility of a deadlock.
When cases end in deadlock, nothing gets decided. Resources are expended, and the American public is left hanging until the Supreme Court can hear the case again or consider another case with similar issues.
This has happened twice already — last week when the Supreme Court deadlocked on an immigration-reform case, and in March, in a case regarding whether individuals should be required to guarantee their spouses' loans. Traditionally, laws regarding this practice have differed in various parts of the country, creating confusion for small business owners and their spouses about what their obligations are. Unfortunately, this confusion and lack of clarity will persist indefinitely because of the Supreme Court's deadlock.
What would happen if President Obama told Congress not to bother passing any more bills this year, because he had decided he would automatically veto any of them that made it to his desk? How many private sector organizations would tolerate personnel who refuse to perform key job responsibilities until the current boss is replaced by someone new?
According to Gallup, 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Or perhaps more accurately, not doing its job.
Indeed, from 1900 through 1980, it took the Senate a median of 17 days after nomination to confirm or reject a Supreme Court nominee.
Like today's senators, those senators took an oath to support the Constitution and "faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office."
Now, however, scorched-earth partisanship has thoroughly compromised Congress's ability to operate functionally. More than 100 days have passed since President Obama nominated Judge Garland — and there aren't even any plans to begin hearings yet.
No wonder so many Americans believe our government is severely broken.
If we truly want to make Congress a collaborative enterprise that efficiently works in the interests of the American people, the American people must apply pressure directly to senators like McConnell, Burr, and Portman.
While some people might insist that these senators are simply fighting partisanship with partisanship, blocking a nominee that a Democrat president is trying to force upon American voters without their say, that's a false equivalency.
President Obama is a democratically elected official, faithfully discharging the duties of his office. In democracies, we aren't always governed by the people or the parties that we voted for. But when officials are elected, we must respect their authority, as long as they're exercising that authority within the bounds of whatever regulatory frameworks are in place to guide them. (In this case, it's the Constitution.)
Every American citizen should understand this. And our elected officials shouldn't just understand this — they should be setting an example that all Americans can follow.
Instead, McConnell and his colleagues are doing the opposite.
Ultimately, they're not telling President Obama that they don't think his nominee is a good one. They're saying that they refuse to acknowledge President Obama's legitimacy as an elected official.
This kind of partisanship is endemic in Washington, DC now. But this latest behavior is such an egregious example of Congressional dysfunction that Senator McConnell and his colleagues must be held accountable.
That's why I have signed a Change.org petition urging McConnell to give Judge Garland a hearing, and why I strongly encourage others to join me.
Our elected officials must understand that we, the American people, expect them to perform the duties of their office, even when that means working with other elected officials from different parties.
They must understand that we're fed up with business as usual in Washington, DC. They must understand that we want leaders who look for opportunities to collaborate and work together productively, instead of pursuing obstructionism that serves political parties rather than citizens.
So let Mitch McConnell know that it's time to quit abdicating around. Tell him to do his job and schedule a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland now.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The man is literally bughouse. He shouldn't be nominated. ... Nuclear codes? I wouldn't let this guy know my zip code."
...................................................................................................................................................................
This Man Should Not Be Nominated
Donald Trump has totally lost it.
By Charles P. Pierce, July 7, 2016
Nobody who watched He, Trump throw a public nutty in Cincinnati on Wednesday night can conclude anything beyond the fact that the Republican Party is preparing to nominate for president someone who has left the rails so far behind that he couldn't look back and see them anymore than the umpires could use the Juno spacecraft out by Jupiter to judge a close play at first base in tonight's game between the Brewers and the Nationals. The ship, in the immortal words of Micheal Ray Richardson, be sinking.
This isn't even a close call any more. Even The New York Times can't wave the Great Wand of Objectivity and make the obvious derangement of the presumptive Republican nominee disappear any more.
He should be comfortably lodged in some nice nervous hospital somewhere at least until they can get the voices in his head singing in some approximation of harmony. Some speakers go off on tangents. He's nothing but a tangent. Defending himself by slandering a Disney movie? Taking swipes at my man Chuck Todd's sleepy eyes?
...................................................................................................................................................................
This Man Should Not Be Nominated
Donald Trump has totally lost it.
By Charles P. Pierce, July 7, 2016
Nobody who watched He, Trump throw a public nutty in Cincinnati on Wednesday night can conclude anything beyond the fact that the Republican Party is preparing to nominate for president someone who has left the rails so far behind that he couldn't look back and see them anymore than the umpires could use the Juno spacecraft out by Jupiter to judge a close play at first base in tonight's game between the Brewers and the Nationals. The ship, in the immortal words of Micheal Ray Richardson, be sinking.
This isn't even a close call any more. Even The New York Times can't wave the Great Wand of Objectivity and make the obvious derangement of the presumptive Republican nominee disappear any more.
In the span of 30 minutes, an often-shouting Mr. Trump breathed new life into a controversy that was sparked on Saturday by his posting of an image on his Twitter account of a six-pointed star next to a picture of Hillary Clinton, with money seeming to rain down in the background. The image was quickly, and broadly, criticized for invoking stereotypes of Jews. Mr. Trump deleted it two hours later, and replaced the star image with a circle. " 'You shouldn't have taken it down,' " Mr. Trump recalled telling one of his campaign workers. "I said, 'Too bad, you should have left it up.' I would have rather defended it." "That's just a star," Mr. Trump said repeatedly. It was a striking display of self-sabotage from a presumptive presidential nominee and underscored the limitations of Mr. Trump's scattershot approach during the Republican primaries—not to mention how difficult he often makes it for his campaign team to control him.The controversy over the anti-Semitic tweet? That was other people "racially profiling" him.
At one point, Mr. Trump lamented that his youngest child, Barron, "draws stars all over the place." He continued, "I never said, 'That's the Star of David, Barron, don't!' " At another, he swatted at a mosquito that landed on his lectern and said he never liked the insects, before adding, "Speaking of mosquitoes, hello, Hillary. How are you doing?"Bughouse. The man is literally bughouse. He shouldn't be nominated.
He should be comfortably lodged in some nice nervous hospital somewhere at least until they can get the voices in his head singing in some approximation of harmony. Some speakers go off on tangents. He's nothing but a tangent. Defending himself by slandering a Disney movie? Taking swipes at my man Chuck Todd's sleepy eyes?
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpNuclear codes? I wouldn't let this guy know my zip code. This is a man in need of careful watching. He's one small step from a milk crate in Washington Square.
Where is the outrage for this Disney book? Is this the 'Star of David' also?
Dishonest media! #Frozen
6:34 PM - 6 Jul 2016
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
"He doesn’t respect the Court’s precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law."
...................................................................................................................................................................
CLARENCE THOMAS HAS HIS OWN CONSTITUTION
By Jeffrey Toobin, June 30, 2016
This year’s Supreme Court term abounded in so much drama—the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the tie votes among the remaining Justices, the liberal victories in the final days—that it was possible to miss a curious subplot: the full flowering of Justice Clarence Thomas’s judicial eccentricity.
Since his stormy confirmation, in 1991, Thomas has been the target of much unfair criticism. Some have argued, for example, that his years of silence during oral arguments meant he was not doing much work at all. In fact, Thomas is the most prolific opinion writer on the Court—and that is especially true this year. According to statistics compiled by Professor Steve Vladeck, of the University of Texas Law School, Thomas wrote opinions in thirty-eight of the sixty-two cases the Justices decided in the 2015-16 term. That’s twice as many as Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, like Thomas, and the next-most active writer on the court. Likewise, Thomas’s critics have made the condescending charge that he was just a blind follower of Scalia, an idea that the results this year also rebut.
The truth is that Thomas’s view of the Constitution is highly idiosyncratic. Indeed, one reason he wrote so many opinions (often solo dissents and concurrences) was that no other Justice, including Scalia, shared his views. Thomas is a great deal more conservative than his colleagues, and arguably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Supreme Court since the nineteen-thirties.
While some Justices are famous for seeking consensus with their colleagues, Thomas seems to go out of his way to find reasons to disagree—often in the most provocative ways. Take, for example, his solo dissent this year in Foster v. Chatman, in which all the other Justices joined Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,’s opinion setting aside a death-penalty verdict in Georgia. Roberts said that records preserved by the prosecutors in that case showed egregious racial discrimination in jury selection. Prosecutors said one juror “represents Black,” another note said “No Black church,” and other notes identified black jurors as “B#1,” “B#2,” and “B#3,” as well as notes with “N” (for “no”) appearing next to the names of all black prospective jurors. “The contents of the prosecution’s file plainly belie the State’s claim that it exercised its strikes in a ‘color-blind’ manner,” Roberts wrote for the Court, adding, “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” Thomas, alone, was unpersuaded. The prosecutors’ notes, he wrote, provided “no excuse for the Court’s reversal of the state court’s credibility determinations.” (The case reflects a long pattern at the court of Thomas, the only black justice, voting against programs designed to assist African-Americans, and rejecting findings of discrimination against African-Americans.)
The Foster case turned primarily on the facts, but it’s on constitutional law that Thomas is most isolated. Far more than even Scalia did, Thomas endorses originalism—the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as its words were understood at the time it was written. By a vote of 5–3, the Court struck down Texas’s restrictions on abortion clinics in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, but neither of the other dissenters (Roberts and Samuel Alito) joined Thomas’s opinion. What’s most extraordinary about Thomas’s dissenting opinion in the abortion case is not that he objects to the ruling; as he noted, “I remain fundamentally opposed to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence.” But Thomas also took the opportunity to reject more than a century of the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. He said that, since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution has become an “unworkable morass of special exceptions and arbitrary applications.”
The abortion dissent explains why Thomas is so cut off on the Court, even from his fellow-conservatives. He doesn’t respect the Court’s precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law. It’s an act of startling self-confidence, but a deeply isolating one as well. Even his ideological allies, who mostly come out the same way on cases, recognize that they must dwell within the world that their colleagues and predecessors created. Thomas, in contrast, has his own constitutional law, which he alone honors and applies.
Thomas just turned sixty-eight years old, and reports of his impending retirement briefly surfaced before his wife shot them down as “bogus.” Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Thomas would allow any Democrat to choose his successor. Shortly after Scalia died, Thomas asked his first question in oral argument in more than a decade, but it’s highly unlikely that he will take on Scalia’s role as the pugnacious conservative in the Court’s public sessions. Rather, Thomas will continue his own way, increasingly alone, as the Court, for the first time in two generations, moves to the left. As for Thomas’s place on the Court, it’s difficult to improve on Scalia’s analysis, which I heard him give at a synagogue a decade ago. Scalia was asked about how his judicial philosophy differed from Thomas’s. “I’m an originalist,” Scalia said, “but I’m not a nut.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
CLARENCE THOMAS HAS HIS OWN CONSTITUTION
By Jeffrey Toobin, June 30, 2016
This year’s Supreme Court term abounded in so much drama—the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the tie votes among the remaining Justices, the liberal victories in the final days—that it was possible to miss a curious subplot: the full flowering of Justice Clarence Thomas’s judicial eccentricity.
Since his stormy confirmation, in 1991, Thomas has been the target of much unfair criticism. Some have argued, for example, that his years of silence during oral arguments meant he was not doing much work at all. In fact, Thomas is the most prolific opinion writer on the Court—and that is especially true this year. According to statistics compiled by Professor Steve Vladeck, of the University of Texas Law School, Thomas wrote opinions in thirty-eight of the sixty-two cases the Justices decided in the 2015-16 term. That’s twice as many as Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, like Thomas, and the next-most active writer on the court. Likewise, Thomas’s critics have made the condescending charge that he was just a blind follower of Scalia, an idea that the results this year also rebut.
The truth is that Thomas’s view of the Constitution is highly idiosyncratic. Indeed, one reason he wrote so many opinions (often solo dissents and concurrences) was that no other Justice, including Scalia, shared his views. Thomas is a great deal more conservative than his colleagues, and arguably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Supreme Court since the nineteen-thirties.
While some Justices are famous for seeking consensus with their colleagues, Thomas seems to go out of his way to find reasons to disagree—often in the most provocative ways. Take, for example, his solo dissent this year in Foster v. Chatman, in which all the other Justices joined Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,’s opinion setting aside a death-penalty verdict in Georgia. Roberts said that records preserved by the prosecutors in that case showed egregious racial discrimination in jury selection. Prosecutors said one juror “represents Black,” another note said “No Black church,” and other notes identified black jurors as “B#1,” “B#2,” and “B#3,” as well as notes with “N” (for “no”) appearing next to the names of all black prospective jurors. “The contents of the prosecution’s file plainly belie the State’s claim that it exercised its strikes in a ‘color-blind’ manner,” Roberts wrote for the Court, adding, “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” Thomas, alone, was unpersuaded. The prosecutors’ notes, he wrote, provided “no excuse for the Court’s reversal of the state court’s credibility determinations.” (The case reflects a long pattern at the court of Thomas, the only black justice, voting against programs designed to assist African-Americans, and rejecting findings of discrimination against African-Americans.)
The Foster case turned primarily on the facts, but it’s on constitutional law that Thomas is most isolated. Far more than even Scalia did, Thomas endorses originalism—the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as its words were understood at the time it was written. By a vote of 5–3, the Court struck down Texas’s restrictions on abortion clinics in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, but neither of the other dissenters (Roberts and Samuel Alito) joined Thomas’s opinion. What’s most extraordinary about Thomas’s dissenting opinion in the abortion case is not that he objects to the ruling; as he noted, “I remain fundamentally opposed to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence.” But Thomas also took the opportunity to reject more than a century of the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. He said that, since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution has become an “unworkable morass of special exceptions and arbitrary applications.”
The abortion dissent explains why Thomas is so cut off on the Court, even from his fellow-conservatives. He doesn’t respect the Court’s precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law. It’s an act of startling self-confidence, but a deeply isolating one as well. Even his ideological allies, who mostly come out the same way on cases, recognize that they must dwell within the world that their colleagues and predecessors created. Thomas, in contrast, has his own constitutional law, which he alone honors and applies.
Thomas just turned sixty-eight years old, and reports of his impending retirement briefly surfaced before his wife shot them down as “bogus.” Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Thomas would allow any Democrat to choose his successor. Shortly after Scalia died, Thomas asked his first question in oral argument in more than a decade, but it’s highly unlikely that he will take on Scalia’s role as the pugnacious conservative in the Court’s public sessions. Rather, Thomas will continue his own way, increasingly alone, as the Court, for the first time in two generations, moves to the left. As for Thomas’s place on the Court, it’s difficult to improve on Scalia’s analysis, which I heard him give at a synagogue a decade ago. Scalia was asked about how his judicial philosophy differed from Thomas’s. “I’m an originalist,” Scalia said, “but I’m not a nut.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The thoroughness with which the GOP didn't make the changes it self-prescribed would almost amuse -- if voters weren't the butt of the joke."
...................................................................................................................................................................
In 2012, the GOP said it wanted to change. It didn't.
By Nancy Kaffer, July 5, 2016
The Republican National Committee's internal post-mortem of the 2012 presidential election was a come-to-Jesus moment: Republicans had lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. Unless the party made some serious changes, courting women and minorities both as voters and as candidates, this trend would continue. The electoral authority of the voters who had bolstered the GOP for decades -- white men -- had been compromised by women and people of color, and the GOP had failed to make inroads with either group. Also, the report noted, there should be fewer debates.
It was a rare moment of unflinching honesty, the kind of self-evaluation that could, and should, lead to serious thought followed by real change.
Immigration reform, done with sensitivity to the concerns of Hispanic and other voters likely to hold affinity for immigrants, should be a top priority, the 2012 report found. "Hispanic voters" -- a growing part of the electorate -- "tell us our Party's position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door," the report's authors wrote.
Here's another finding: "When it comes to social issues" -- this means gay marriage and access to birth control and abortion -- "the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues."
And basically, none of it happened.
Over the course of the 2016 campaign, the GOP's leading presidential candidates discarded almost entirely the party's reform playbook. And they had lots of debates.
The thoroughness with which the GOP didn't make the changes it self-prescribed would almost amuse -- if voters weren't the butt of the joke.
The signature of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign is a pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, at Mexico's expense. He's said the U.S. should bar immigrants from Muslim countries. His rallies draw tens of thousands, but they're notoriously wild; Trump's chosen method of communication seems, at times, to be racial and ethnic insensitivity. And the stuff he says about women is pretty gross.
That Trump didn't care much for the party line isn't surprising. He has few friends in the Republican establishment, and his positions seem chosen at random from an ideological grab-bag designed to score points with whomever he's facing. Consistency? Viability? These don't seem to be things Trump worries about.
But take Trump out of the picture, and it's hard to see any impact driven by the 2012 post-mortem on the other one-time GOP frontrunners.
Comparative moderates, like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- who don't believe that illegal immigrants should be deported en masse -- flopped. (One of the report's key findings was that Republican governors offered hopeful templates for building broad voter coalitions. Oh well.)
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the second-highest vote-getter, employed much of the same hardline rhetoric, recommending the U.S. apply a religious test to immigrants from countries with Muslim populations. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio suggested barring immigration from "that part of the world." Cruz doesn't believe in amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Re: deportation, he says, we should "enforce the law." Rubio, at least, didn't endorse mass deportation, but on social questions, neither man has what the report might call an "inclusive and welcoming" stance.
There's no question that, in some instances, Trump's roughshod campaigning pushed his competitors farther ... I don't know if you'd even call it "right." But none of the candidates who found favor with primary voters followed the more tolerant path the 2012 post-mortem marked as the way forward.
Many of the report's prescriptions represent strong ideological shifts that party rank-and-file find abhorrent. But it was a path that would keep the Republican Party relevant in a changing electorate.
Trump has built his success almost exclusively in opposition to the report's policy prescriptions, and his base on the white men the 2012 post-mortem said could not sustain future presidential wins. (From a numbers standpoint, this is still true: Trump won the primary with fewer than half of all votes cast; to win the presidency, Trump will need to win seven in 10 white male voters.)
It's bad policy, but it's also bad politics.
Politics is the way policy gets implemented. It's the process of finding sufficient commonality among coalitions with sometimes divergent interests to get policy passed. In its best iteration, that coalition-building means diverse participants get input, and a chance to ensure that policy works for different kinds of people. In its worst iteration, it's partisan squabbling and gridlock.
Whether Trump wins or loses -- or if the eleventh-hour move to choose another nominee gathering steam among some Republicans is successful -- one wonders what remedy the GOP's next post-mortem will prescribe.
...................................................................................................................................................................
In 2012, the GOP said it wanted to change. It didn't.
By Nancy Kaffer, July 5, 2016
The Republican National Committee's internal post-mortem of the 2012 presidential election was a come-to-Jesus moment: Republicans had lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. Unless the party made some serious changes, courting women and minorities both as voters and as candidates, this trend would continue. The electoral authority of the voters who had bolstered the GOP for decades -- white men -- had been compromised by women and people of color, and the GOP had failed to make inroads with either group. Also, the report noted, there should be fewer debates.
It was a rare moment of unflinching honesty, the kind of self-evaluation that could, and should, lead to serious thought followed by real change.
Immigration reform, done with sensitivity to the concerns of Hispanic and other voters likely to hold affinity for immigrants, should be a top priority, the 2012 report found. "Hispanic voters" -- a growing part of the electorate -- "tell us our Party's position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door," the report's authors wrote.
Here's another finding: "When it comes to social issues" -- this means gay marriage and access to birth control and abortion -- "the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues."
And basically, none of it happened.
Over the course of the 2016 campaign, the GOP's leading presidential candidates discarded almost entirely the party's reform playbook. And they had lots of debates.
The thoroughness with which the GOP didn't make the changes it self-prescribed would almost amuse -- if voters weren't the butt of the joke.
The signature of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign is a pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, at Mexico's expense. He's said the U.S. should bar immigrants from Muslim countries. His rallies draw tens of thousands, but they're notoriously wild; Trump's chosen method of communication seems, at times, to be racial and ethnic insensitivity. And the stuff he says about women is pretty gross.
That Trump didn't care much for the party line isn't surprising. He has few friends in the Republican establishment, and his positions seem chosen at random from an ideological grab-bag designed to score points with whomever he's facing. Consistency? Viability? These don't seem to be things Trump worries about.
But take Trump out of the picture, and it's hard to see any impact driven by the 2012 post-mortem on the other one-time GOP frontrunners.
Comparative moderates, like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- who don't believe that illegal immigrants should be deported en masse -- flopped. (One of the report's key findings was that Republican governors offered hopeful templates for building broad voter coalitions. Oh well.)
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the second-highest vote-getter, employed much of the same hardline rhetoric, recommending the U.S. apply a religious test to immigrants from countries with Muslim populations. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio suggested barring immigration from "that part of the world." Cruz doesn't believe in amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Re: deportation, he says, we should "enforce the law." Rubio, at least, didn't endorse mass deportation, but on social questions, neither man has what the report might call an "inclusive and welcoming" stance.
There's no question that, in some instances, Trump's roughshod campaigning pushed his competitors farther ... I don't know if you'd even call it "right." But none of the candidates who found favor with primary voters followed the more tolerant path the 2012 post-mortem marked as the way forward.
Many of the report's prescriptions represent strong ideological shifts that party rank-and-file find abhorrent. But it was a path that would keep the Republican Party relevant in a changing electorate.
Trump has built his success almost exclusively in opposition to the report's policy prescriptions, and his base on the white men the 2012 post-mortem said could not sustain future presidential wins. (From a numbers standpoint, this is still true: Trump won the primary with fewer than half of all votes cast; to win the presidency, Trump will need to win seven in 10 white male voters.)
It's bad policy, but it's also bad politics.
Politics is the way policy gets implemented. It's the process of finding sufficient commonality among coalitions with sometimes divergent interests to get policy passed. In its best iteration, that coalition-building means diverse participants get input, and a chance to ensure that policy works for different kinds of people. In its worst iteration, it's partisan squabbling and gridlock.
Whether Trump wins or loses -- or if the eleventh-hour move to choose another nominee gathering steam among some Republicans is successful -- one wonders what remedy the GOP's next post-mortem will prescribe.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
#Lyin'Donald, do you really think people will believe you are a steelworker?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Billionaire Trump Claims Steelworker Status
By Leo W. Gerard, July 4, 2016
Donald Trump stomped into my backyard just days before July 4 and claimed to be a steelworker.
That’s right. The billionaire, whose manicured little hands routinely slip into lambskin golf gloves but never once donned heavy-duty work mitts, actually claimed to be a steelworker.
He did it in a speech at a scrap metal processing plant in Monessen, a down-on-its-luck steel town 30 miles south of Pittsburgh, which is home to my union, the United Steelworkers.
The guy who brags, “I am really rich,” the man who describes a million-dollar loan from his daddy as “small,” wants to climb out of his private luxury sky box now and sit in the nosebleed seats with the hard-working, blue-collar rust-belters who sweat over mortgage payments. It’s a joke. It’s a British royalist claiming to be an American colonist.
Remember those colonists? They were a motley crew of farmers and fur trappers and blacksmiths of different religions, cultures, languages and states. On July 4, 1776, they declared their independence from the tyranny of royalists. They demanded freedom to govern themselves in the best interests of the majority. They refused to continue to serve at the pleasure and profit of the crown and men of inherited wealth, title and privilege.
Now the United States has its own royalists, men like Donald Trump who inherited wealth and use it to influence politics for their personal financial benefit. And since the wrong-headed Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, billionaires like Trump have gained even more power as political puppeteers because they’re free now to bathe candidates in gold.
Money is indirect – though pretty darn effective – control over politicians. If Donald Trump is elected President, though, the 1 percent will gain direct control. They’ll have their own billionaire in the White House.
Here is what Trump said about himself when he visited Monessen:
“Globalization has made the financial elite, who donate to politicians, very, very wealthy. I used to be one of them. I hate to say it, but I used to be one.”
No, Donald Trump didn’t used to be one of them. He remains one of them. He is still a billionaire. He still produces Trump Collection clothes and trinkets overseas, in places like China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Mexico, Turkey and Slovenia. Trump still takes personal financial advantage of globalization. And he still donates to politicians. This time, it’s mostly his own campaign.
But Trump can’t get elected relying on votes from only 1 percent of the population. He needs a few more than that. And that’s why he’s styling himself as a steelworker.
Get a load of this statement he made after praising the legacy of steelworkers in Monessen and condemning politicians for failing to stop foreign mills from dumping illegally subsidized steel in the American market, a persistent practice which has shuttered U.S. steel mills and killed U.S. steelworker jobs:
“For years, [politicians] watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into Depression-level unemployment.”
Our jobs vanished? Donald Trump, I serve steelworkers. I know steelworkers. Steelworkers are friends of mine. Donald Trump, you are no steelworker.
Our communities were plunged into Depression-level unemployment? No rust-belt steelworker has ever seen Donald Trump before he wanted something from them – their vote. Dog-eared rust-belt towns aren’t Donald Trump communities.
He lives a little more upscale, in West Palm Beach, where he owns an estate valued at more than $200 million and New York City, where he owns a penthouse valued at $100 million.
After Monessen, Trump went to Ohio where he gave another speech about trade, including this statement:
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country. . .That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word – it’s a rape of our country. This is done by wealthy people that want to take advantage of us and that want to sign another partnership.”
It’s done by “wealthy people” Trump said, as if he were not one of them, as if Donald Trump were not a billionaire.
It’s done to take “advantage of us,” Trump said, as if the man who brags about being a billionaire were a victim, as if he were a blue-collar worker who had lost his job when his factory was off-shored.
In fact, it is the opposite. It is Donald Trump off-shoring jobs. It is Donald Trump taking full advantage of globalization. It is Donald Trump, to this day, putting profit before patriotism.
Even as he condemns NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, Donald Trump is taking full personal financial advantage of all of those trade deals. He wants to build a wall, but he makes his suits in Mexico. He vilifies China, but that’s where he manufactures his neckties. He produces other Trump Collection products in slave-wage, high-pollution countries like Vietnam and Indonesia and Bangladesh.
He could have manufactured them in America. He could have created American jobs. It’s not impossible. Trump comforters and cologne are produced in the United States. But he chose to produce the vast majority of Trump merchandise overseas with foreign workers.
One of the men who helped Trump go overseas recalls the process. Jeff Danzer, who was vice president of a company hired by Trump a decade ago to find a manufacturer of signature clothing, told the Washington Post that Trump had qualifications, but he never specified that he wanted the clothing made in America.
Trump wasn’t concerned about blue-collar workers or rust-belt towns then. His only patriotism was to his own pocket.
And that’s where it remains. The vast majority of the factories that produce Trump merchandise, and the jobs associated with them, remain off shore.
He’s no steelworker. No steelworker would manufacture overseas after watching his brothers and neighbors and friends lose jobs because of off-shored factories and unfairly traded imports. No steelworker would betray fellow workers that way.
But Donald Trump doesn’t know what that kind of betrayal would feel like because he has never been a blue-collar worker. His soft hands have never felt the rough insides of work gloves. Donald Trump is the birthright financial elite. He is a billionaire royalist trying to take over America.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Billionaire Trump Claims Steelworker Status
By Leo W. Gerard, July 4, 2016
Donald Trump stomped into my backyard just days before July 4 and claimed to be a steelworker.
That’s right. The billionaire, whose manicured little hands routinely slip into lambskin golf gloves but never once donned heavy-duty work mitts, actually claimed to be a steelworker.
He did it in a speech at a scrap metal processing plant in Monessen, a down-on-its-luck steel town 30 miles south of Pittsburgh, which is home to my union, the United Steelworkers.
The guy who brags, “I am really rich,” the man who describes a million-dollar loan from his daddy as “small,” wants to climb out of his private luxury sky box now and sit in the nosebleed seats with the hard-working, blue-collar rust-belters who sweat over mortgage payments. It’s a joke. It’s a British royalist claiming to be an American colonist.
Remember those colonists? They were a motley crew of farmers and fur trappers and blacksmiths of different religions, cultures, languages and states. On July 4, 1776, they declared their independence from the tyranny of royalists. They demanded freedom to govern themselves in the best interests of the majority. They refused to continue to serve at the pleasure and profit of the crown and men of inherited wealth, title and privilege.
Now the United States has its own royalists, men like Donald Trump who inherited wealth and use it to influence politics for their personal financial benefit. And since the wrong-headed Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, billionaires like Trump have gained even more power as political puppeteers because they’re free now to bathe candidates in gold.
Money is indirect – though pretty darn effective – control over politicians. If Donald Trump is elected President, though, the 1 percent will gain direct control. They’ll have their own billionaire in the White House.
Here is what Trump said about himself when he visited Monessen:
“Globalization has made the financial elite, who donate to politicians, very, very wealthy. I used to be one of them. I hate to say it, but I used to be one.”
No, Donald Trump didn’t used to be one of them. He remains one of them. He is still a billionaire. He still produces Trump Collection clothes and trinkets overseas, in places like China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Mexico, Turkey and Slovenia. Trump still takes personal financial advantage of globalization. And he still donates to politicians. This time, it’s mostly his own campaign.
But Trump can’t get elected relying on votes from only 1 percent of the population. He needs a few more than that. And that’s why he’s styling himself as a steelworker.
Get a load of this statement he made after praising the legacy of steelworkers in Monessen and condemning politicians for failing to stop foreign mills from dumping illegally subsidized steel in the American market, a persistent practice which has shuttered U.S. steel mills and killed U.S. steelworker jobs:
“For years, [politicians] watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into Depression-level unemployment.”
Our jobs vanished? Donald Trump, I serve steelworkers. I know steelworkers. Steelworkers are friends of mine. Donald Trump, you are no steelworker.
Our communities were plunged into Depression-level unemployment? No rust-belt steelworker has ever seen Donald Trump before he wanted something from them – their vote. Dog-eared rust-belt towns aren’t Donald Trump communities.
He lives a little more upscale, in West Palm Beach, where he owns an estate valued at more than $200 million and New York City, where he owns a penthouse valued at $100 million.
After Monessen, Trump went to Ohio where he gave another speech about trade, including this statement:
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country. . .That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word – it’s a rape of our country. This is done by wealthy people that want to take advantage of us and that want to sign another partnership.”
It’s done by “wealthy people” Trump said, as if he were not one of them, as if Donald Trump were not a billionaire.
It’s done to take “advantage of us,” Trump said, as if the man who brags about being a billionaire were a victim, as if he were a blue-collar worker who had lost his job when his factory was off-shored.
In fact, it is the opposite. It is Donald Trump off-shoring jobs. It is Donald Trump taking full advantage of globalization. It is Donald Trump, to this day, putting profit before patriotism.
Even as he condemns NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, Donald Trump is taking full personal financial advantage of all of those trade deals. He wants to build a wall, but he makes his suits in Mexico. He vilifies China, but that’s where he manufactures his neckties. He produces other Trump Collection products in slave-wage, high-pollution countries like Vietnam and Indonesia and Bangladesh.
He could have manufactured them in America. He could have created American jobs. It’s not impossible. Trump comforters and cologne are produced in the United States. But he chose to produce the vast majority of Trump merchandise overseas with foreign workers.
One of the men who helped Trump go overseas recalls the process. Jeff Danzer, who was vice president of a company hired by Trump a decade ago to find a manufacturer of signature clothing, told the Washington Post that Trump had qualifications, but he never specified that he wanted the clothing made in America.
Trump wasn’t concerned about blue-collar workers or rust-belt towns then. His only patriotism was to his own pocket.
And that’s where it remains. The vast majority of the factories that produce Trump merchandise, and the jobs associated with them, remain off shore.
He’s no steelworker. No steelworker would manufacture overseas after watching his brothers and neighbors and friends lose jobs because of off-shored factories and unfairly traded imports. No steelworker would betray fellow workers that way.
But Donald Trump doesn’t know what that kind of betrayal would feel like because he has never been a blue-collar worker. His soft hands have never felt the rough insides of work gloves. Donald Trump is the birthright financial elite. He is a billionaire royalist trying to take over America.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... if anyone deserves the title of Sophist in Chief, it is Donald Trump." "Sophistry" is defined as "'the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Founding Fathers vs. Donald Trump
By Monica Bauer, July 4, 2016
When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was famously asked what kind of government had been proposed for the new nation. His reply, “A republic, if you can keep it,” has greater meaning this Independence Day that it has had for a long, long time. What made Franklin quip about the difficulties of “keeping” it? Franklin, like all the Founders, worried about mob rule, fueled by demagogues who could whip up the emotions of otherwise normal individuals. They worried about the extreme democracy that political philosophers of the time warned might come, should any nation take itself out of the system of Monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings. For if ordinary men could vote, they could also be swayed, and swayed by emotional appeal. The danger would not be too little democracy, but too much.
These things should give every Trump supporter pause. The Founders, who are supposedly revered most by the conservatives in the Republican Party, deliberately steered as far away from direct democracy as they could, while giving citizens both responsibilities and rights. They were students of history, and history up to that time had a lesson to teach about democracy; that it could be used by hot-headed rabble-rousers to create what is politely referred to in political philosophy as “mob rule.” Most people miss this when they study, very briefly, about democracy in their 10th grade Civics class, or their freshman class in Government. They only recall that democracy is a good thing, and that it was first used by the Greeks. But that’s only half the history.
When the Greeks experimented with full-throated direct democracy, they discovered voters were soon being manipulated by the silver-tongued orators who became expert in whipping up an emotional crowd. They were called Sophists, and to this day “sophistry” is defined by Merriam Webster as “the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.” Sophistry was not a harmless method of arguing. It led to the Athenians making dreadful mistakes that led to the fall of the first democracy. Plato described how the Sophists whipped up the crowd to vote to kill an elderly philosopher named Socrates, who was accused of not being patriotic because he asked questions. Sophists had already used the natural patriotism of the Athenians to talk them into a disastrous war that led to the ruin of their city. Sound familiar? The Founders knew all about sophistry, and so they worried about sustaining a democracy. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” said Franklin, knowing full well there are ways to “lose” it.
Donald Trump fancies himself to be acting in ways that the Founding Fathers would approve of, in his crusade to “take back the country.” To “make America great again” as if he is bringing us back to our Founding principles. But if anyone deserves the title of Sophist in Chief, it is Donald Trump. I believe the Founders are spinning in their graves at the notion that this man could even become the nominee of one of our two great political parties. The Founders, scared to death of mob rule, devoted to science and rational argument, would have signed up as Never Trump in a heartbeat.
This election season has given us plenty of examples of what mob rule actually looks like. It looks like a Trump rally. Reasoned argument and policy disagreements are replaced by emotional fervor. Once a crowd is whipped up into emotional fever, it doesn’t much matter if there are facts or evidence. The only thing of importance is gut feeling, which is celebrated by Trump supporters as being “authentic.” Now, “authentic” used to mean “without spin,” like someone who was communicating deeply held principles regardless of personal political consequences. But in the hands of Trump, “authentic” has become a synonym for allowing the worst parts of human nature to control politics. Thus, white supremacists love the Trump campaign, because they get to be “authentic,” they get to spew forth their toxic racism in public and revel in it.
Of course, it would be wrong to equate Trump’s supporters with the white supremacy movement. Some, to use Trump’s own phrase, are good people. But they are paying little attention to the best parts of themselves, the parts that are calm and deliberate and not quick to take offense, while they exult in each angry syllable that Trump shoots directly from his hip.
Every preaching populist has used, in one way or another, the idea that they, and they alone, could make their country “great” again. They all begin with a kernel of truth, a genuine grievance. But then, instead of putting forth rational policies for reform, they pivot to raw emotion, to name-calling and mud-throwing, encouraging hatred and anger because it brings raw power, the roar of the crowd. They confirm each other biases and assume that their cause is just without stopping to think much about the consequences. Brexit, anyone?
The real patriots this July are the Never Trump crowd, especially the Republicans who are willing to stand up publicly and oppose the misuse of their party by a dangerous blowhard who knows so little of history, but knows so much about marketing. This November, we can be proud of our history again, and reclaim the mantle of patriotism, all of us, by standing with Never Trump, against emotion and gut feeling, and for deliberation and science and reason. Or we can watch without taking action, while Ben Franklin and the other Founders roll in their graves.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Founding Fathers vs. Donald Trump
By Monica Bauer, July 4, 2016
When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was famously asked what kind of government had been proposed for the new nation. His reply, “A republic, if you can keep it,” has greater meaning this Independence Day that it has had for a long, long time. What made Franklin quip about the difficulties of “keeping” it? Franklin, like all the Founders, worried about mob rule, fueled by demagogues who could whip up the emotions of otherwise normal individuals. They worried about the extreme democracy that political philosophers of the time warned might come, should any nation take itself out of the system of Monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings. For if ordinary men could vote, they could also be swayed, and swayed by emotional appeal. The danger would not be too little democracy, but too much.
These things should give every Trump supporter pause. The Founders, who are supposedly revered most by the conservatives in the Republican Party, deliberately steered as far away from direct democracy as they could, while giving citizens both responsibilities and rights. They were students of history, and history up to that time had a lesson to teach about democracy; that it could be used by hot-headed rabble-rousers to create what is politely referred to in political philosophy as “mob rule.” Most people miss this when they study, very briefly, about democracy in their 10th grade Civics class, or their freshman class in Government. They only recall that democracy is a good thing, and that it was first used by the Greeks. But that’s only half the history.
When the Greeks experimented with full-throated direct democracy, they discovered voters were soon being manipulated by the silver-tongued orators who became expert in whipping up an emotional crowd. They were called Sophists, and to this day “sophistry” is defined by Merriam Webster as “the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.” Sophistry was not a harmless method of arguing. It led to the Athenians making dreadful mistakes that led to the fall of the first democracy. Plato described how the Sophists whipped up the crowd to vote to kill an elderly philosopher named Socrates, who was accused of not being patriotic because he asked questions. Sophists had already used the natural patriotism of the Athenians to talk them into a disastrous war that led to the ruin of their city. Sound familiar? The Founders knew all about sophistry, and so they worried about sustaining a democracy. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” said Franklin, knowing full well there are ways to “lose” it.
Donald Trump fancies himself to be acting in ways that the Founding Fathers would approve of, in his crusade to “take back the country.” To “make America great again” as if he is bringing us back to our Founding principles. But if anyone deserves the title of Sophist in Chief, it is Donald Trump. I believe the Founders are spinning in their graves at the notion that this man could even become the nominee of one of our two great political parties. The Founders, scared to death of mob rule, devoted to science and rational argument, would have signed up as Never Trump in a heartbeat.
This election season has given us plenty of examples of what mob rule actually looks like. It looks like a Trump rally. Reasoned argument and policy disagreements are replaced by emotional fervor. Once a crowd is whipped up into emotional fever, it doesn’t much matter if there are facts or evidence. The only thing of importance is gut feeling, which is celebrated by Trump supporters as being “authentic.” Now, “authentic” used to mean “without spin,” like someone who was communicating deeply held principles regardless of personal political consequences. But in the hands of Trump, “authentic” has become a synonym for allowing the worst parts of human nature to control politics. Thus, white supremacists love the Trump campaign, because they get to be “authentic,” they get to spew forth their toxic racism in public and revel in it.
Of course, it would be wrong to equate Trump’s supporters with the white supremacy movement. Some, to use Trump’s own phrase, are good people. But they are paying little attention to the best parts of themselves, the parts that are calm and deliberate and not quick to take offense, while they exult in each angry syllable that Trump shoots directly from his hip.
Every preaching populist has used, in one way or another, the idea that they, and they alone, could make their country “great” again. They all begin with a kernel of truth, a genuine grievance. But then, instead of putting forth rational policies for reform, they pivot to raw emotion, to name-calling and mud-throwing, encouraging hatred and anger because it brings raw power, the roar of the crowd. They confirm each other biases and assume that their cause is just without stopping to think much about the consequences. Brexit, anyone?
The real patriots this July are the Never Trump crowd, especially the Republicans who are willing to stand up publicly and oppose the misuse of their party by a dangerous blowhard who knows so little of history, but knows so much about marketing. This November, we can be proud of our history again, and reclaim the mantle of patriotism, all of us, by standing with Never Trump, against emotion and gut feeling, and for deliberation and science and reason. Or we can watch without taking action, while Ben Franklin and the other Founders roll in their graves.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Yeah, what she said!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* AH! Thank you, Heidi Seltz! Leave it to a new generation of feminists to find exactly the right words to get through to these characters who always know the "correct" answers to how other people (women) should run their lives.
* Until you have a uterus, your opinion is just that....yours. You don't get to decide for others what they can or can't do.
* as a friend suggested to me recently that if you do not believe in abortions...do not have one. have not seen many adoptions or support of the unwanted by the rich and opinionated on the subject.
* As another wise woman pointed out, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." It ain't your body, boys--it ain't your business.
* If men could get pregnant not only would abortions be legal they'd be available on demand at any clinic or hospital.
* I'm sick of old, white, reactionary men making decisions about what a woman does with her body--especially since they are also against anything but abstinence-only sex education, against readily-available birth control for women through insurance and against any kind of safety net for the results of unwanted pregnancy. They aren't pro-life, they're only pro-fetus.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Woman Tells Men To STFU About Abortion In 3 Glorious Sentences
Don’t mess with Heidi. She’s had enough of men speaking on issues that impact women’s bodies.
In what is probably the greatest letter to the editor of all time, a woman named Heidi Seltz wrote to the Minneapolis Star Tribune with a request.
After the paper published two letters from anti-abortion men regarding the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Texas’ insanely restrictive H.B. 2 abortion legislation, Seltz weighed in with a strongly-worded letter to the editor.
“Perhaps newspaper readership among young people would grow if every time we opened a paper, we didn’t have to read old men’s fusty opinions about uteri,” she wrote. (See the full letter below.)
The Supreme Court’s historic decision to strike down H.B. 2 was one of the most significant victory for abortion rights since Roe v. Wade.
Seltz’s message to editors and men alike goes hand-in-hand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pointed concurrence to the June 27 SCOTUS decision — specifically her commentary on the insanity of claiming that anti-abortion legislation “protects women.” As Ginsburg wrote:
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* AH! Thank you, Heidi Seltz! Leave it to a new generation of feminists to find exactly the right words to get through to these characters who always know the "correct" answers to how other people (women) should run their lives.
* Until you have a uterus, your opinion is just that....yours. You don't get to decide for others what they can or can't do.
* as a friend suggested to me recently that if you do not believe in abortions...do not have one. have not seen many adoptions or support of the unwanted by the rich and opinionated on the subject.
* As another wise woman pointed out, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." It ain't your body, boys--it ain't your business.
* If men could get pregnant not only would abortions be legal they'd be available on demand at any clinic or hospital.
* I'm sick of old, white, reactionary men making decisions about what a woman does with her body--especially since they are also against anything but abstinence-only sex education, against readily-available birth control for women through insurance and against any kind of safety net for the results of unwanted pregnancy. They aren't pro-life, they're only pro-fetus.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Woman Tells Men To STFU About Abortion In 3 Glorious Sentences
“Unless you have a woman’s body, I don’t want to hear your opinion.”
By Jenna Amatulli, July 1, 2016Don’t mess with Heidi. She’s had enough of men speaking on issues that impact women’s bodies.
In what is probably the greatest letter to the editor of all time, a woman named Heidi Seltz wrote to the Minneapolis Star Tribune with a request.
After the paper published two letters from anti-abortion men regarding the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Texas’ insanely restrictive H.B. 2 abortion legislation, Seltz weighed in with a strongly-worded letter to the editor.
“Perhaps newspaper readership among young people would grow if every time we opened a paper, we didn’t have to read old men’s fusty opinions about uteri,” she wrote. (See the full letter below.)
Stacey Burns @WentRogueDamn, Heidi.
Heidi is sick of your bullshit.
6:05 AM - 30 Jun 2016
The Supreme Court’s historic decision to strike down H.B. 2 was one of the most significant victory for abortion rights since Roe v. Wade.
Seltz’s message to editors and men alike goes hand-in-hand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pointed concurrence to the June 27 SCOTUS decision — specifically her commentary on the insanity of claiming that anti-abortion legislation “protects women.” As Ginsburg wrote:
Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions’. When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners ... at great risk to their health and safety.Long live Notorious RBG and Heidi Seltz.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Let's eat Grandma! vs Let's eat, Grandma! Punctuation matters. LOL
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* What difference does it make? It isn't a law. It is a declaration.
* Exactly, The Declaration pits the reason for claim to Independence, the references to government within it are to that of the limited monarchy and Parliament of Briton and to that which they do not provide for in scope of the colonials. The emphasis of equality and rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. ...
* Malarkey, the Declaration of Independence did NOT create us as a country, the Constitution did. At the end of the revolution, we were not a country, we were thirteen countries. The framers of the Constitution really did not want a central government at all. They had recently fought a bitter war to get rid of an arrogant and intrusive central government. The last thing they wanted was another, if homegrown, one. The Bill of Rights was created expressly to limit the powers of the new central government. If the framers could see us today they would be horrified.
* It is amazing how many people don't get that. Our laws would be the same without the Declaration.
* More proof we are a republic governed by laws not a democracy governed by people
* I have a major question for you. If that was a period.. what would be the point of the dash "-" . The dash means the sentences are connected. Would period then dash be a sensible sentence? No, the dash would be meaningless. Thereby this article and these experts should be tarred and feathered in the streets.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An extra period in the Declaration of Independence could change our understanding of the role of government
By Christina Sterbenz, July 4, 2016
The Declaration Of Independence made the United States an autonomous country 240 years ago this Fourth of July.
But the document's official transcript, produced by the National Archives, might contain an error — an extra period right in the middle of one of the most significant sentences, The New York Times reports.
A quick Google search for the text will show that many websites and organizations follow the National Archives' lead. Here's the full sentence, with an added period highlighted in red:
"The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights," Allen told the Times. "You lose that connection when the period gets added."
Americans tend to interpret the message in its current form: that government is subordinate to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Without the period, the importance of government could serve as part of a larger argument, instead of a separate thought.
Unfortunately, the original document has faded to near illegibility. But Allen points out that many early transcripts, some from 1776, exclude the period. Take Thomas Jefferson's so-called original rough draft, held in the Library of Congress — no period, according to the Times.
But that argument has its dissenters, especially those who feel the punctuation matters little to the meaning. Allen disagrees.
"We are having a national conversation about the value of our government, and it goes get connected to our founding documents," Allen told the Times. "We should get right what's in them."
This isn't the first time a historical text's punctuation made the national stage. Debate over a comma in the Second Amendment traveled all the way to the Supreme Court in 2008. Then, lawyers argued its interpretation changed the meaning of our right to bear arms.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* What difference does it make? It isn't a law. It is a declaration.
* Exactly, The Declaration pits the reason for claim to Independence, the references to government within it are to that of the limited monarchy and Parliament of Briton and to that which they do not provide for in scope of the colonials. The emphasis of equality and rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. ...
* Malarkey, the Declaration of Independence did NOT create us as a country, the Constitution did. At the end of the revolution, we were not a country, we were thirteen countries. The framers of the Constitution really did not want a central government at all. They had recently fought a bitter war to get rid of an arrogant and intrusive central government. The last thing they wanted was another, if homegrown, one. The Bill of Rights was created expressly to limit the powers of the new central government. If the framers could see us today they would be horrified.
* It is amazing how many people don't get that. Our laws would be the same without the Declaration.
* More proof we are a republic governed by laws not a democracy governed by people
* I have a major question for you. If that was a period.. what would be the point of the dash "-" . The dash means the sentences are connected. Would period then dash be a sensible sentence? No, the dash would be meaningless. Thereby this article and these experts should be tarred and feathered in the streets.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An extra period in the Declaration of Independence could change our understanding of the role of government
By Christina Sterbenz, July 4, 2016
The Declaration Of Independence made the United States an autonomous country 240 years ago this Fourth of July.
But the document's official transcript, produced by the National Archives, might contain an error — an extra period right in the middle of one of the most significant sentences, The New York Times reports.
A quick Google search for the text will show that many websites and organizations follow the National Archives' lead. Here's the full sentence, with an added period highlighted in red:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...."That period doesn't appear on the faded original parchment, Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, contends. And it changes the meaning of the sentence, which effectively alters Americans' interpretation of government's role in protecting their individual rights.
"The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights," Allen told the Times. "You lose that connection when the period gets added."
Americans tend to interpret the message in its current form: that government is subordinate to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Without the period, the importance of government could serve as part of a larger argument, instead of a separate thought.
Unfortunately, the original document has faded to near illegibility. But Allen points out that many early transcripts, some from 1776, exclude the period. Take Thomas Jefferson's so-called original rough draft, held in the Library of Congress — no period, according to the Times.
But that argument has its dissenters, especially those who feel the punctuation matters little to the meaning. Allen disagrees.
"We are having a national conversation about the value of our government, and it goes get connected to our founding documents," Allen told the Times. "We should get right what's in them."
This isn't the first time a historical text's punctuation made the national stage. Debate over a comma in the Second Amendment traveled all the way to the Supreme Court in 2008. Then, lawyers argued its interpretation changed the meaning of our right to bear arms.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, July 4, 2016
Tough patooties!
........................................................................................
It does make you wonder....
.................................................................................
Sunday, July 3, 2016
"Heritage’s Edwin Meese ... labeled the right to privacy 'nonconstitutional' ... now they have abandoned that principled position. Because they don’t like trans people." Hypocrites!
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Stunning, Hilarious Hypocrisy Of The Christian Right’s Top Legal Team
By Ian Millhiser, June 30, 2016
On Wednesday, the conservative Heritage Foundation announced what appeared to be an abrupt shift in position on one of the most contentious issues in American constitutional law. Heritage now supports a “constitutionally protected right to privacy.”
Our Constitutional Right to Privacy Is Missing From Bathroom Debate
Before we sacrifice this constitutionally protected right at the altar of gender identity politics, let us consider the consequences.
dailysignal.com
Although Heritage’s tweet concerns the ongoing battle over whether the state should dictate which bathroom transgender people use, it is grounded in a much older fight. The notion that the Constitution protects an unenumerated “right to privacy” forms the basis of many of the Supreme Court’s decisions protecting sexual freedom and bodily autonomy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, a decision Heritage previously criticized as “activist” because it created “a ‘right’ not found anywhere in the text of Constitution or our nation’s laws and traditions,” the Court held that a right to privacy protects married people who wish to use contraception. More recently, in Roe v. Wade, the justices clarified that this privacy right is “founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.”
In the past, Heritage also has not been especially complimentary towards Roe v. Wade.
Another organization that, in the past, has disparaged Roe and the right to privacy that it rests upon is the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the largest and most prolific legal organization advancing a conservative Christian agenda in the nation. “I hope you and your family will join me in praying for a speedy end to the horror of legalized abortion in America,” ADF president Alan Sears wrote in 2015. Earlier this month, ADF criticized the right to privacy that forms the backbone of decisions like Griswold and Roe as “invented.”
So it is a bit discombobulating that, if you click the link in Heritage’s tweet endorsing a constitutional right to privacy, you will be taken to an article hosted on a Heritage website and authored by Matt Sharp, an ADF attorney. In it, Sharp breaks with his organization’s longstanding opposition to the legal theory underlying cases like Griswold and Roe, emphasizing that the right to privacy is “most important for those” who are “most vulnerable.” It’s the sort of line that could have been written by pro choice groups opposed to laws that force poor women to drive long distances and overcome financially burdensome obstacles in order to obtain an abortion.
But, of course, Heritage and ADF are not actually reversing their position on the constitutional right to an abortion. Instead, Sharp’s piece is about a pair of lawsuits filed by ADF which attack school policies that allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with the gender identity. As one of those lawsuits explains, ADF’s new position is that permitting trans students to use such facilities violates “a fundamental right to bodily privacy” which is “grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”
It’s a legal claim that, to borrow from Heritage, is “not found anywhere in the text of Constitution or our nation’s laws and traditions” (ADF contests this point by, among other things, comparing a trans-inclusive bathroom policy to child pornography). Just as importantly, it is also a profound break from the conservative legal community’s well-established approach to arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a “right to bodily privacy.”“There is no right to privacy, no generalized right to privacy,” the late Justice Antonin Scalia announced in a 2012 interview. When interviewer Chris Wallace pointed out that the Supreme Court said otherwise in Griswold, Scalia replied “indeed it did, and that was — that was wrong.”
Similarly, Judge Robert Bork, the failed Supreme Court nominee who is still spoken of by many conservatives as if he were a martyr who died on a cross for their sins, labeled Griswold “an unprincipled decision, both in the way in which it derives a new constitutional right and in the way it defines that right.” Heritage’s Edwin Meese, who previously served as attorney general under President Reagan, labeled the right to privacy “nonconstitutional.”
This has been the position of Roe v. Wade‘s most prominent opponents for as long as most lawyers can remember — a principled position that the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution, and that it should be scrapped by the Supreme Court.
And now they have abandoned that principled position. Because they don’t like trans people.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Stunning, Hilarious Hypocrisy Of The Christian Right’s Top Legal Team
By Ian Millhiser, June 30, 2016
On Wednesday, the conservative Heritage Foundation announced what appeared to be an abrupt shift in position on one of the most contentious issues in American constitutional law. Heritage now supports a “constitutionally protected right to privacy.”
Heritage Foundation ✔ @Heritage
Before we sacrifice our constitutionally protected right to privacy at the altar of gender identity politics... http://dailysign.al/1NytAZN
9:20 AM - 29 Jun 2016
Our Constitutional Right to Privacy Is Missing From Bathroom Debate
Before we sacrifice this constitutionally protected right at the altar of gender identity politics, let us consider the consequences.
dailysignal.com
Although Heritage’s tweet concerns the ongoing battle over whether the state should dictate which bathroom transgender people use, it is grounded in a much older fight. The notion that the Constitution protects an unenumerated “right to privacy” forms the basis of many of the Supreme Court’s decisions protecting sexual freedom and bodily autonomy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, a decision Heritage previously criticized as “activist” because it created “a ‘right’ not found anywhere in the text of Constitution or our nation’s laws and traditions,” the Court held that a right to privacy protects married people who wish to use contraception. More recently, in Roe v. Wade, the justices clarified that this privacy right is “founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.”
In the past, Heritage also has not been especially complimentary towards Roe v. Wade.
Another organization that, in the past, has disparaged Roe and the right to privacy that it rests upon is the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the largest and most prolific legal organization advancing a conservative Christian agenda in the nation. “I hope you and your family will join me in praying for a speedy end to the horror of legalized abortion in America,” ADF president Alan Sears wrote in 2015. Earlier this month, ADF criticized the right to privacy that forms the backbone of decisions like Griswold and Roe as “invented.”
So it is a bit discombobulating that, if you click the link in Heritage’s tweet endorsing a constitutional right to privacy, you will be taken to an article hosted on a Heritage website and authored by Matt Sharp, an ADF attorney. In it, Sharp breaks with his organization’s longstanding opposition to the legal theory underlying cases like Griswold and Roe, emphasizing that the right to privacy is “most important for those” who are “most vulnerable.” It’s the sort of line that could have been written by pro choice groups opposed to laws that force poor women to drive long distances and overcome financially burdensome obstacles in order to obtain an abortion.
But, of course, Heritage and ADF are not actually reversing their position on the constitutional right to an abortion. Instead, Sharp’s piece is about a pair of lawsuits filed by ADF which attack school policies that allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with the gender identity. As one of those lawsuits explains, ADF’s new position is that permitting trans students to use such facilities violates “a fundamental right to bodily privacy” which is “grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”
It’s a legal claim that, to borrow from Heritage, is “not found anywhere in the text of Constitution or our nation’s laws and traditions” (ADF contests this point by, among other things, comparing a trans-inclusive bathroom policy to child pornography). Just as importantly, it is also a profound break from the conservative legal community’s well-established approach to arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a “right to bodily privacy.”“There is no right to privacy, no generalized right to privacy,” the late Justice Antonin Scalia announced in a 2012 interview. When interviewer Chris Wallace pointed out that the Supreme Court said otherwise in Griswold, Scalia replied “indeed it did, and that was — that was wrong.”
Similarly, Judge Robert Bork, the failed Supreme Court nominee who is still spoken of by many conservatives as if he were a martyr who died on a cross for their sins, labeled Griswold “an unprincipled decision, both in the way in which it derives a new constitutional right and in the way it defines that right.” Heritage’s Edwin Meese, who previously served as attorney general under President Reagan, labeled the right to privacy “nonconstitutional.”
This has been the position of Roe v. Wade‘s most prominent opponents for as long as most lawyers can remember — a principled position that the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution, and that it should be scrapped by the Supreme Court.
And now they have abandoned that principled position. Because they don’t like trans people.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, July 1, 2016
Yeah, #TruthlessTrump would be an excellent choice for that.
.....................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)