Category Archives: national news

Tie goes to the GOP with SCOTUS decision

immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s non-decision on President Obama’s executive order regarding illegal immigrants just demonstrates the need to get that ninth seat on the court filled.

OK, the president lost this one. The court came down 4 to 4 to uphold a lower court ruling that had set aside the president’s executive order that granted temporary amnesty to around 5 million undocumented immigrants.

His order would have spared millions of families from the fear of deportation, particularly those families with children who were born in the United States and, thus, were American citizens.

Now, their future is a quite a bit more uncertain.

Everyone knows that the court would have ruled 5-4 had Justice Antonin Scalia had been present to decide. He wasn’t. He’s now deceased. The president has nominated a moderate jurist to replace him. Senate Republicans won’t give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote because they want the next president to make the selection.

So, the tie vote means the Republicans win this round.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “I think the Constitution was upheld and this idea that there is a separation of powers — that no one person gets to make up law — was upheld,” Paxton said. “That’s a great thing for America.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-deadlocks-thwarting-obamas-immigration-actions-224720#ixzz4CS8xrwhm

But is it? Is it a great thing for those families that have come here to carve out a new life and for their children who were born here and who have considered themselves Americans for their entire life?

We can’t change the court’s non-decision now that it has acted — although I remain a bit dubious about how a tie vote actually settles anything. It reminds me a little bit of how court cases are decided on “technicalities.”

Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton both say the permanent answer must rest with Congress. Clinton vowed to seek congressional action if she’s elected president this fall.

Do I — as a layman — like how the court “decided” this case? Not in the least.

But you play the hand you’re dealt.

It does show quite brightly, though, why it’s important to fill that ninth seat on the Supreme Court — and why Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a vote of the Senate.

Time for congressman to go

AAdFDvS

U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah needs to resign his congressional seat.

Immediately.

The Pennsylvania Democrat, convicted of multiple counts of fraud, has violated the trust of his constituents and betrayed the trust of the nation that has to live under the laws he helps approve.

But in a curious twist in a bizarre saga, Fattah said he is waiting to determine a way to create the least possible “distraction” in the House of Representatives.

Listen up, congressman. The best way to avoid distracting your House colleagues is to hit the road. Now!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/longtime-philadelphia-congressman-convicted-of-fraud-prosecutors/ar-AAhoJbI?ocid=ansmsnnews11

He vows to fight his conviction through appeal. Fine. He’s entitled to do so. He is not entitled to maintain his presence in the people’s House.

The conviction involves allegations that Fattah sought to enrich himself personally while maintaining his political career.

Fattah has broken the trust of the body he serves. Given that he is one of 435 individuals who enacts federal laws, we all have a stake in the conduct of all its members.

Fattah’s conviction involves allegations that he sought to enrich himself personally while maintaining his political career. The conviction carries a potential decades-long prison term.

Rep. Fattah can fight all he wants to overturn the conviction. He just doesn’t deserve another dime of public money while he’s doing it.

Sit-in reminds us of the old days

untitled

Democrats are still protesting on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans, meanwhile, have recessed the chamber and have gone home for the next couple of weeks.

What happens now?

I’ve managed to take away a few thoughts from this extraordinary event.

First, we’ve never seen anything like it in Congress, so we have nothing with which to compare it. Democrats decided to put their collective feet down and demand a vote on gun legislation.

They are led by one of the more iconic figures of this country’s civil-rights movement, U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who knows a thing or three about sit-ins, civil disobedience and seeking redress of his grievances against the government.

He also knows a thing or three about getting beaten to within an inch of his life by ham-handed cops intent on putting down these protests.

It’s good that nothing like that has happened on the floor of the House. In some government chambers, such a dispute might result in fists and furniture flying. Have you ever seen how, for example, it has gone in Taipei, where the Taiwanese parliament meets?

Also, House Speaker Paul Ryan shouldn’t have shut down the House while the demonstration was occurring. He ordered the cameras turned off, creating a situation where someone on the House floor violated the rules of the body by photographing the protest through ill-gotten means.

It has prompted some in the media to wonder what might be frightening to the speaker, forcing him to seek to silence the debate. Check this out from the Boston Globe:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/06/22/paul-ryan-what-are-you-afraid/E5U98g15gZJ21ma03MfzMN/story.html

Lewis and his fellow demonstrators want a vote on whether to enact gun legislation in the wake of the Orlando, Fla., slaughter of 49 people.

They are demanding a vote! Up or down!

House Republicans — failing to follow the lead of their Senate brethren — are refusing to allow a vote.

From where I sit, the seriously outnumbered Democratic congressional minority is making a reasonable request.

Let’s get that vote — and then carry the debate over gun legislation forward!

Another key GOP thinker dumps Trump

brent

Brent Scowcroft isn’t a Republican In Name Only.

He’s been a solid GOP wise man for decades. He also served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force, earning three stars and retiring as a lieutenant general.

Scowcroft today endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next president of the United States.

If you place much value in these endorsements, this is a big deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brent-scowcroft-endorses-hillary-clinton-224677

Scowcroft served as national security adviser to two Republican presidents: Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He knows war and he understands the value of international alliances.

That’s why he’s backing Clinton over her presumptive Republican rival, Donald J. Trump.

“Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader,” Scowcroft said in a statement, touting her experience as secretary of state. “She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage, but that force must only be used as a last resort.”

Trump doesn’t get it.

He wants to build walls. He wants to remove the United States from its most important military/political alliance — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

That doesn’t make the world safe, let alone “secure and prosperous.”

I can hear some of my Republican/Trump supporter friends now. They’ll blow off Scowcroft’s endorsement as being “irrelevant.” They’ll laugh it off. Scowcroft’s a has-been, they’ll say.

No. He’s a distinguished American patriot.

 

Ginsburg: 2nd Amendment is ‘outdated’

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

This came across my radar screen this afternoon.

I offer it here without comment. The thoughts belong to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed to the court in 1993 by President Clinton.

She said: “The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia … Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”

Then she said: “When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So … the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”

She said more in an interview:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/second-amendment-outdated-justice-ginsburg-says/

I’m wondering about Justice Ginsburg’s argument on the Second Amendment.

If what she says is true, that the amendment “has become obsolete,” is she making a “strict constructionist” argument for interpreting the U.S. Constitution?

Your thoughts?

Oh, and then there’s Merrick Garland

garlandmerrick_031716hj3

Merrick Garland has kind of slipped off the media radar.

You’ll recall this fellow. He is the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who’s been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama selected him to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I’ve got an idea for the probable next president of the United States to consider: In case the U.S. Senate continues to obstruct Garland’s appointment, don’t toss his nomination over once you take the oath of office.

I’m talking to you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Garland’s nomination ran into a buzzsaw when Obama selected him. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared within hours of Scalia’s death that no Obama appointment would get confirmed. They wanted to wait for the next president to take office.

They accused the president — and this just slays me — of “playing politics” with the appointment by demanding a Senate hearing and a vote on Garland’s nomination.

Kettle, meet pot.

Garland is an eminently qualified jurist. He’s been left — to borrow a phrase — to “twist in the wind” while the Senate dawdles and blocks the president from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

I’m going to suggest that Clinton will win the presidency when the votes are tallied this fall.

If that’s the case, then the Senate GOP leadership might yell “Uncle!” and have the hearing and vote it should have had all along.

But if not, then it would seem appropriate for the president-elect to carry this nomination forward. By everyone’s reckoning, Garland is a judicial moderate, a thoughtful man who was confirmed to the lower court with overwhelming Republican support.

Sure, the next president has the chance to pick someone of her choosing.

But if the Democratic candidate for the highest office is going to talk about fair and humane treatment of people, it would seem quite fair and humane to move Merrick Garland’s nomination forward for the next Senate to consider.

Bernie’s out … but not entirely

SandersSecurity0011466195770.wdp

Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is over.

He won’t be nominated at the party convention in Philadelphia. Hillary Rodham Clinton will get the nod and will march off to campaign against Republican nominee, who at this moment appears to be Donald J. Trump.

But …

Why does Sen. Sanders still have all those Secret Service agents shadowing him as he returns to work in the U.S. Senate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/an-expensive-reminder-that-sanders-still-hasnt-dropped-out-his-secret-service-detail/2016/06/19/a3f717c6-3555-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

I get that the Secret Service protection won’t break the federal bank. It does seem a bit “lavish,” though, for him to continue to have the protection.

Sure, he’s entitled to it. President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order back in 1968 that provides this protection for presidential candidates. He acted in the wake of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy’s murder in Los Angeles on the night he won the California Democratic primary.

Sanders has sought to portray himself as a common man, someone who eschews big-money speaking fees.

But the presence of the Secret Service and all the bells and whistles the protection brings tells a bit of a different story.

According to the Washington Post: “There’s no denying that some of the accoutrements that come with campaigns can be intoxicating,” said Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic operative who is supporting Clinton.

Sanders won’t “suspend” his campaign because he still wants to have a say at the party convention this summer. I understand the reason for his staying in … even though his candidacy has been reduced to symbolism.

Does he still need the Secret Service protection? Really?

I think not.

It’s over, Sen. Sanders.

Trump crosses yet another line

No-religious-test-of-office-320x1241

I cannot let this one go with just a single post on this blog.

Here I go again. Donald J. Trump has crossed yet another in an endless array of lines one mustn’t cross as he campaigns for president of the United States.

The presumed Republican presidential nominee questioned the faith of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

How in the name of all that is holy does this man have the gall/stones/hubris/guts to question anyone’s religious faith?

This is beyond every possible example of good taste imaginable. Then again, it’s Donald Trump saying it, which makes it OK to those who have glommed on to his candidacy. They, too, question whether Hillary Clinton is an actual Methodist, which she’s been saying for years — decades, actually — was how she was raised.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284281-trump-questions-clintons-religion

How does this clown profess to know what’s in another person’s heart? How does he get away with this kind of out-and-out pandering?

He spoke today to a gathering of religious conservatives, evangelical Christians who are trying to size this guy up.

Trump took advantage of the forum to question whether Clinton’s faith is authentic.

Unbelievable.

I won’t predict this will be the latest “fatal mistake” of this man’s presidential campaign. He’s made countless other such errors already, only to emerge stronger than before he committed them.

However, so help me, this guy just keeps demonstrating how unfit he is to become president of the United States of America.

Hillary: Proud of her Christian heritage

clinton trump

Donald J. Trump said the following today to a group of evangelical Christian leaders. Pay attention. It’s a doozy.

“She’s been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there’s no, nothing out there. There’s like nothing out there. It’s going to be an extension of Obama, but it’s going to be worse, because with Obama you had to have your guard up. With Hillary you don’t and it’s going to be worse.”

“Hillary” is Hillary Rodham Clinton, Trump’s foe in this year’s presidential campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-religion_us_57697ac2e4b099a77b6e6710

I want to focus briefly on two critical points here.

One is that Hillary Clinton’s political history is well-known. Her entire life has been exposed to the public. It’s an open book. She has spoken repeatedly about her Methodist upbringing. Her husband, the 42nd president, Bill Clinton, has told us about his Baptist background.

“Nothing out there”? There most certainly is.

The second point is a constitutional one.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution spells it out: “… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office o public Trust under the United States.”

That tells me that a candidate’s religious faith is irrelevant; it has no bearing on the candidate’s qualifications to serve in a public office.

That’s not the reality, quite clearly. Voters care about these things.

Trump, though, has become the latest incarnation of how the late U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas once described Bill Clinton as they fought for the 1992 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

He’s become a “pander bear.”

Speak up, Mr. Leader, about your party’s nominee

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s tongue is tied up in knots.

Ask him a question about the Republican Party’s presumed presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and McConnell clams up.

He can’t speak. He won’t speak.

For two straight weeks, McConnell — the man who runs the upper legislative chamber on Capitol Hill, the guy who’s orchestrating the blockage of President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court — just can’t bring himself to talk about Trump.

Good grief, dude. You talk about everything else.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/mitch-mcconnell-trump-no-answers-224617#ixzz4CFUjLicQ

Trump twisted off this past week about President Obama and whether the president might be in cahoots secretly with Muslim terror groups. What do you think about that, Mr. Majority Leader?

He dummied up.

This week, the Federal Election Commission reported that Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has 40 times the amount of money that Trump has in the bank. What are your thoughts on Trump’s empty war chest, Mr. Leader?

He said he doesn’t want to “critique” the presidential campaigns.

C’mon, Mr. Leader. You’re a politician. You’re a national leader. You’re leading a Republican caucus in the Senate that might be in mortal danger of losing its majority status because your presidential candidate might cost some key GOP senators their seats this fall. Aren’t politicians, by definition, supposed to talk a lot about whatever is asked of them?

Leaders, well, lead by telling us what’s in their hearts and minds.

Surely you haven’t lost either of them, Mr. Leader.

Surely …