Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Right to Court Review: "
The decision not only preserves federal court review as a necessary check on executive powers, but it also affirms the basic principle that immigrants are entitled to fair process.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Right to Court Review
Saturday, January 30, 2010
WHAT THE HELL ABOUT THE COSTS OF OCCUPATION!
U.S. Halts Medevac Flights From Haiti: "
Military planes have been flying some wounded earthquake victims to be treated in U.S. hospitals, but that practice has stopped for now because states have raised questions about the cost of such care.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
"(Via Top Stories.)
You let who edit what?!?!
By David Swanson
No one disputes that Jay Bybee's name is at the bottom of memos that were, and to some extent still are, treated as laws which legalized aggressive war at the pleasure of a president and a variety of acts of torture. For many months the House Judiciary Committee has had two excuses for not impeaching Judge Bybee, even while proceeding with the impeachments of a judge for groping and another judge for petty corruption. The private excuse has been that impeaching Bybee would be opposed by Fox News. The public excuse has been that the Justice Department has not yet released its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report on the crimes of Bybee and his former colleagues.
"
(Via Let's Try Democracy.)
Friday, January 29, 2010
Pew: 26% know what filibuster is. Zogby: 32% want to eliminate it.
Pew: 26% know what filibuster is. Zogby: 32% want to eliminate it.: "
The filibuster rule just isn't very popular among those who know what it is. Pew found that 26% of Americans knew how many votes were needed to get around a filibuster. Zogby reports that 32% want to get rid of that anti-democratic blockage.
And these two polls were probably looking at samples of the same population, given Zogby's findings confirming vast ignorance: Only 34% knew Republicans use the filibuster more. Only 28% knew the House represented public opinion better than the Senate.
"
(Via Let's Try Democracy.)
Tony Blair Forced to Testify on War Crimes
Tony Blair Forced to Testify on War Crimes: "
By David Swanson
Former prime minister Tony Blair's testimony was streamed live at 4:30 a.m. ET at the Iraq Inquiry website and on other sites, such as the UK newspaper the Telegraph which allowed viewers to rank Blair's responses on a 'Lie Meter'. Telegraph readers' top desired questions pre-hearing were:
"
(Via Let's Try Democracy.)
Can Bosses Do That? As It Turns Out, Yes They Can
Can Bosses Do That? As It Turns Out, Yes They Can: "
Could you be fired for having a political bumper sticker on your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says its more than possible — its happened. His new book, Can They Do That? details the predicaments many workers find themselves in.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
(Via Top Stories.)
Why do you always have to come up with solutions?
10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics: "
Its not too late to limit or reverse the impact of the Supreme Courts disastrous decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Heres how.
The End of Diplomacy?
Matt Yglesias points out that increasing partisanship in Congress makes it not just hard to pass domestic legislation, but nearly impossible to pass international treaties:
The dysfunctional nature of the United States Congress means that essentially all diplomatic intercourse with the American government is worthless. If you were at a G8 meeting talking regulation, why would you take the Obama administration’s positions seriously? Or at a Major Economies Forum meeting talking about climate change? Or at a UN Security Council meeting talking about multilateral nuclear disarmament?....If the people you’re negotiating with think that anything you oppose will face unanimous opposition from a minority with the power to block bills,
while your own party isn’t even disciplined enough to provide the leadership with consistent backing on procedural issues, then what is there really to negotiate about?
It's a good point, but I think it's probably overstated. The problem with things like the filibuster and the Senate hold isn't so much that they exist, or that they're anti-majoritarian per se, but that they've become routine. That really does represent a qualitative change in the way Congress operates, and it's a change that no one, from the founders forward, ever really intended.
But for better or worse, formalizing international treaties has always been hard, and it's hard by design. So this doesn't represent any real change in how the government works. Foreign countries have always known that they're at the mercy of a very difficult ratification process if they want to conclude a formal treaty with the U.S., and it's not clear to me that minority obstruction on treaties is worse now than it's been in the past.1
What's more, it's not always as bad as it sounds. Executive agreements have become much more popular in recent years, and these can be passed with 60 votes. In that sense, passing treaties has actually become easier. Beyond that, in some cases the president can simply agree to push for harmonizing rules without a treaty in place at all. Sometimes this can be done via executive order and sometimes via riders to budget bills that are passed via reconciliation. It's not always necessary to get Congress to sign on to everything.
But an honest to God treaty? Yeah, that requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. But it always has, and treaties have been failing for a long time because of it. Just ask Woodrow Wilson's ghost.
1Data to the contrary welcome, of course
(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Grayson Introduces Bills to Dull SCOTUS Ruling
Grayson Introduces Bills to Dull SCOTUS Ruling: "
The newest installment in his 'Save Our Democracy' platform, firebreathing Congressman Alan Grayson introduced two new bills yesterday to dull the impact of last weeks Supreme Court decision, which determined that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. Grayson called the 5-4 ruling the 'worst since Dred Scott.'
The first bill, patriotically titled the 'America is for Americans Act,' bans political expenditures from any corporation with foreign owners. 'Foreigners cannot vote in our elections, so they should not be allowed to spend unlimited money to buy votes either,' Grayson said in a press release. 'If we do not limit foreign influence, we will soon have the Distinguished Member from Russia or the Esteemed Senator from Saudi Arabia.'
The second bill introduced last night demands that companies 'cannot have it both ways' when it comes to 'campaign propaganda.' The 'Pick Your Poison Act' would force corporations to choose between lobbying congress to further their political agenda and supporting candidates in election years. 'If they want to use hired guns to influence lawmakers,' Grayson said, 'they need to stay out of the election process.'
Among the six bills Team Grayson says can 'Save our Democracy' are measures to implement a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions, apply antitrust laws to PACs, and require corporations to disclose SEC filings on funds used to influence public opinion.
Graysons outspoken demeanor has earned the freshman congressman the unfortunate reputation as the liberal antidote to GOP Reps. Michele Bachmann and Steve King, both prone to exaggeration and ideological grandstanding. But these measures could strike a chord among lawmakers who think the Supreme Court went too far last week by extending the free speech rights for individuals to massive corporations.
Follow Ben on Twitter.
(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Chump Change
Chump Change: "
Craig Jennings at OMB Watch visualizes the deficit reduction we can expect to see from the plan to freeze all non-defense discretionary spending that President Obama will announce tonight:
Beyond the fact that the freeze is just a small gesture in the face of a giant, systemic problem, Jennings adds this warning:
And that Obama is merely putting a cap — and not an across-the-board freeze — on domestic discretionary spending is especially troubling, because when congressional appropriators working within this framework get down to business this summer, it will be they who decide which programs get cuts and which programs get bumps. And in Washington, those with the loudest political voice (i.e moneyed) will see their favored programs thrive, while marginalized populations who can’t afford big time lobbyists will see their programs cut."
(Via Open Congress : Blog.)
The State of the Union speech Obama would give in a more honest world
The State of the Union speech Obama would give in a more honest world: "Washington Post - By Steven Pearlstein - Jan. 26 (Opinion) - Our union has been torn asunder by a clash of ideologies and special interests and brigades of power-hungry partisans that has resulted in a paralyzing political stalemate. In response, our citizens have become angry, cynical, distrustful and dispirited.
NewsTrust Rating: 4.7 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer
"Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sen Udall: Get rid of filibuster!!!!
Or that's pretty much where he's going with a new resolution to amend by simple majority Senate rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-udall/its-time-for-the-constitu_b_436935.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-udall/its-time-for-the-constitu_b_436935.html
GRITtv: The State of the Corporate Union
GRITtv: The State of the Corporate Union: "
The State of the Union will be a little different this year. Thanks to a last-minute switch the annual address will be presented by Lloyd Blankfein, CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs, known henceforth as CEO of America.
"
(Via Truthout - Opinion.)
Resolution to Get Rid of the FILIBUSTER!!!!
H.Res.1018 Requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate's filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments.: "Requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate's filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments."
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Prop 8, The Movie
After the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly prohibited the YouTube broadcast of the first federal trial over same-sex marriage, a group of Hollywood actors decided they'd step in and film re-enactments. Using transcripts of the day-to-day proceedings, director John Ireland writes the scripts by day, and by night he films a reenactment at a mock trial courtroom on the campus of USC. The episodes will be broadcast over the Web.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
"(Via Top Stories.)
Friday, January 22, 2010
Casting Doubt on US Claims of Suicide, Attorney Scott Horton Reveals 3 Gitmo Prisoners Died After Torture at Secret Site
Casting Doubt on US Claims of Suicide, Attorney Scott Horton Reveals 3 Gitmo Prisoners Died After Torture at Secret Site: "Democracy Now - By Anjali Kamat, Scott Horton - Jan. 20 (Investigative Report) - New evidence has emerged suggesting three Guantanamo prisoners whom the U.S. claims took their own lives in June 2006 died not from suicide, but torture. A six-month investigation by Harper’s Magazine indicates the three prisoners were suffocated and tortured during questioning at a secret black site facility at Guantanamo known as 'Camp No'. The article is based in part on testimony from a former staff sergeant who says the Obama administration has refused to investigate his claims.
NewsTrust Rating: 4.6 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer
"Keeping Same-Sex Marriage in the Dark
Keeping Same-Sex Marriage in the Dark: "
On Wednesday, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned a ruling made by a federal trial judge that would have allowed limited television coverage of a trial that will decide the fate of California’s Proposition 8. The trial, which is currently proceeding in San Francisco, is one of the most significant civil rights cases of our time. The plaintiffs are seeking to overturn a ballot initiative that makes same-sex marriage illegal in California.
"
(Via Truthout - Opinion.)
Why did U.S. aid focus on securing Haiti rather than helping Haitians?
Why did U.S. aid focus on securing Haiti rather than helping Haitians?: "Slate
"The beginning of an answer can be found in what Rebecca Solnit, author of A Paradise Built in Hell, calls "elite panic"—the conviction of the powerful that their own Hobbesian corporate ethic is innate in all of us, that in the absence of centralized authority, only cannibalism can reign."
- By Ben Ehrenreich - Jan. 21 (Opinion) - Air-traffic control in the Haitian capital was outsourced to an Air Force base in Florida, which, not surprisingly, gave priority to its own pilots. While the military flew in troops and equipment, planes bearing supplies for the Red Cross, the World Food Program, and Doctors Without Borders were rerouted to Santo Domingo in neighboring Dominican Republic. Aid flights from Mexico, Russia, and France were refused permission to land. On Monday, the British Daily Telegraph reported, the French minister in charge of humanitarian aid admitted he had been involved in a 'scuffle' with a U.S. commander in the airport's control tower. According to the Telegraph, it took the intervention of the United Nations for the United States to agree to prioritize humanitarian flights over military deliveries.
NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer
"Tangle Of Detainee Rules Leads To Court Confusion
Tangle Of Detainee Rules Leads To Court Confusion: "
One year after President Obama pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, 200 detainees remain there. A new study finds judges using wildly different criteria to review the cases — the result of a lack of clear guidelines on issues such as the use of coercion — and how to define an enemy combatant.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
"(Via Top Stories.)
ACLU Sues for Torture Memos Report
ACLU Sues for Torture Memos Report: "
Remember in June, when I told you the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report on the authors of the 'torture memos' was due out soon? It was going to be released in 'a matter of weeks,' Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee. Then, in November, Holder told another Senate panel that the report would come out 'by the end of the month.' While, its January now, and the OPR report is nowhere to be found. The American Civil Liberties Union is tired of waiting, so today it filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the release of the report. Maybe that will finally get the Justice Department to keep its promises. Don't count on it, though.
No Comments | Post Comment
(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)
SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!
SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!: "
Politico's Josh Gerstein has a great story today pointing out that, in the wake of yesterdays Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, theres really nothing to stop foreign companies from supporting or opposing US candidates. It would be as easy as setting up a US subsidiary and having the subsidiary spend the money. Some of Gersteins sources argue that foreign corporations would be reluctant to interfere in US politics because it could bring bad press. But that doesnt seem like much of a deterrent to the worst corporations. Do foreign corporations like Gazprom that are largely state-owned really care what the US press writes about them? Law professor Mark Kleiman has more:
One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention: as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations. Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company: Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company. So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians. If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it: they soon will.
Nor is this a problem that can be handled by 'disclosure.' The ad on TV praising the opponent of the congressman who did something to annoy Hugo Chavez won’t say 'Paid for by Hugo Chavez.' It will say 'Paid for by Citizens for Truth, Justice, and the American Way,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from 'Americans for Niceness,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from a lobbyist for a subsidiary of Cities Service that no one has ever heard of.
This week just keeps getting better.
(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)
Guantanamo Panel Supports Indefinite Detention
Guantanamo Panel Supports Indefinite Detention: "
A presidential task force is recommending that 47 Guantanamo Bay detainees be held indefinitely without charge and that about three dozen inmates face trial or military commissions, according to two government officials. Such prosecutions would likely take place in the U.S.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
(Via Top Stories.)
[video] In The Know: Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?
[video] In The Know: Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?: "Panelists discuss the alarming trend of politicians who break their promises to the lobbyists who helped elect them.
(Via The Onion.)
Univ of Illinois Prof Files ICC Petition vs. Bush, et al.!
The moment we've all been waiting for:
http://www.ucimc.org/content/icc-complaint-filed-against-bush-cheney-et-al-uiuc-prof-francis-boyle-and-lawyers-against-wa
http://www.ucimc.org/content/icc-complaint-filed-against-bush-cheney-et-al-uiuc-prof-francis-boyle-and-lawyers-against-wa
Grassroots movement for Free Speech for People ONLY!
http://freespeechforpeople.org/
Proposed: Constitutional Amendment to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision
Proposed: Constitutional Amendment to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision
SUCH A GOOD IDEA!!!
savedemocracy.net
"
Via Graysons website (savedemocracy.net), here are the six bills 'and what they aim to accomplish,':
- The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
- The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
- The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
- The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
- The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
- The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.
The fifth measure has already gained the support of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chair of the House Judiciary committee, Grayson said. Grayson hopes the committee might hold a hearing on that bill sometime in the next 30 days. Grayson circulated his proposals among his colleagues on Thursday. He has a decent record with winning support for populist ideas— last year he signed up over 100 cosponsors for Texas Republican Ron Pauls bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Still, what Grayson could really use is the support of President Barack Obama, who has slammed the Supreme Court decision and promised a 'forceful' legislative response. Graysons bills would certainly qualify. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has reported that the White House and other Hill Democrats are seriously considering three options for responding to the decision, including one that bears a resemblance to Graysons sixth bill—requiring shareholders to approve of independent political expenditures. When we spoke, Grayson also voiced support to another idea Ambinder says is under consideration—a 'Stand by Your Ad' requirement. As Ambinder describes it, 'The head of an insurance company would be forced to say, Im Honus Wagner, the CEO of Acme, and I stand by this ad.' Grayson emphasized that such a move would be consistent with the Supreme Courts decision today, which explicitly allowed Congress to pass tough disclosure requirements.
(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Campaign Finance Refomers: What Now?
Campaign Finance Refomers: What Now?: "
As of Thursday, ExxonMobil is allowed to run election-day phonebanks. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that corporations should be free to make independent expenditures in political campaigns. The decision overturned most existing campaign finance law and dealt a severe blow to supporters of campaign finance restrictions. But it didn't take reformers by surprise. Groups like Common Cause, Public Campaign, and Change Congress have been anticipating this defeat for months. In a confidential internal memo obtained by Mother Jones last year, Common Cause and Public Campaign warned, 'Without an aggressive media effort, reporters will likely call a bad decision in Citizens United another sign that campaign finance reform is a fools errand.' That effort continued with a massive press call midday Thursday, with the presidents of the top reform groups going on at length about their problems with the decision. 'It is a disaster,' said Nick Nyhart, the president of Public Campaign, told reporters. 'Its an immoral decision that puts the Roberts court on the side of Wall Street and big money lobbyists.' That was typical.
So what's the reformers' plan? Last month, Mother Jones reported that disparate reform groups had been merging staff, budgets, and agendas to coordinate their efforts to deal with the fallout of the Supreme Court decision and to push for public financing of elections. On Thursdays press call, Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, confirmed that strategy. 'For the past year weve moved towards having a specific campaign with a campaign structure,' he said. 'A whole host of groups have put together a common staff, a common budget, a common agenda to get the financial resources together and the staffing in place.' Common Cause and Public Campaign, the two older, DC-based groups, combined their campaign finance reform teams late last year to focus their energy on pushing for publicly-funded elections. Theyll be the good cops, playing the Washington 'inside game,' working with Capitol Hill allies like Rep. John Larsen (D-Conn.) to sign up more support for reform. Change Congress, the newer organization founded by Larry Lessig, will play the bad cop, attacking members of Congress who dont support reform and accusing them of corruption.
No Comments | Post Comment
(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)
Friday, January 15, 2010
[audio] High Court Bans Same-Sex Friendships
[audio] High Court Bans Same-Sex Friendships: "Onion Radio News - with Doyle Redland
(Via The Onion.)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
California's scary sneak preview
California's scary sneak preview: "Washington Post - By Ezra Klein - Dec. 31 (News Analysis) - a troubling question: What happens when one of the two major parties does not see a political upside in solving problems and has the power to keep those problems from being solved?
NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer
"Ping Pong It Is
The civics-textbook version of what happens next to the health care bill is that Senate and the House leaders sit down in a ‘conference committee’ to work out agreements on all the areas that their versions of the bill differ. Once an agreement is found, the members of the conference committee take a vote on the blended bill they produce and send it back to both chambers for final approval.
But that’s not what’s going to happen with the health care bill. Rather than using a formal conference committee, the Democratic leadership has decided to work out a blended bill through informal negotiations and then, when they have an agreement they think can get 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House, send it to the House for passage as an amendment to the Senate bill and then send the Senate bill as amended by the House back to the Senate for a cloture vote and a final vote on passage. This is known as ‘ping-ponging,’ and the Democrats are going to do it with the health care bill not because they are trying to rush the bill through without deliberation, but because Democrats in the Senate don’t want to sit through a hundred more hours of filibustering and procedural votes when passage of the bill is all but guaranteed.
The Senate already went through hundreds of hours of debating day and night on procedural motions leading up to the vote to approve their bill on Christmas Eve. Once the deal was struck in mid December that won the support of every Democrat by dropping the public option, there was never any chance the bill could be derailed. On every single procedural vote leading up to the final vote and the final vote itself, every Democrat voted ‘yes’ and every Republican voted ‘no.’ The Republicans’ filibusters made it into the second longest debate in Senate history. But they had no practical effect besides delaying the inevitable passage of the bill. If the Democrats used the conference committee process now, they would be susceptible to several more Republican filibusters and a lot more time wasted on procedural hurdles (see here).
As David Waldman at Congress Matters explains, the ping-ponging process will, in some ways, be less transparent than the conference committee process would be. Under House rules, at least one of the conference committee’s meetings would have to be televised. Also, under the conference committee route, conference committee members would have to go down on the record in support of the blended bill — also known as a ‘conference report’ — before it can go back to the two chambers. But as Waldman explains, even when a formal conference committee is used, all the meaningful negotiating happens behind-the-scenes anyways. Most of the meetings are closed to the public and most of the deal-making happens in the proverbial cloakroom.
Still, the ping-ponging process, even though it’s being used to avoid meaningless delay, could end up blocking opportunities for the bill to be improved. If the Democrats had chosen to go with a conference committee, the Republicans in the committee would have had one more chance to give their input on the bill. Ping-ponging the bill will close them out of the blending process entirely. The process from here on out will be focused on winning the support of a few key swing votes — the Bart Stupaks and Joe Liebermans of the world — at the expense of considering other members’ good ideas, be they Republican or Democrat.
"(Via Open Congress : Blog.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)