Read the whole story here.
BONUS: Today, our President & CEO Tom Perriello bids adieu to us here at CAP Action as he heads to the State Department and its Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (click here to learn what that complicated-sounding project actually does). Thanks for your leadership, Tom, and good luck!
This week at the Court
By Kali Borkoski on Oct 6, 2013 at 12:03 am
Monday is the first day of the 2013 Term. We expect orders – primarily cert. denials from the September 30 Conference – at 9:30 a.m.
The Justices will hear two oral arguments each day, Monday through Wednesday.
The hearing list for the October sitting is here.
On Friday the Justices will meet for their October 11 Conference.
Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
Argument preview: Campaign finance — again
****************************************************************************
By Lyle Denniston on Oct 5, 2013 at 12:11 am
At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the latest constitutional dispute over campaign finance — this time, the constitutionality of federal ceilings on donations to political candidates or parties. In the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, arguing for Alabama Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee will be Erin E. Murphy of the Washington law firm of Bancroft PLLC, with twenty minutes of time. Arguing for Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — in the case as an amicus — will be Bobby R. Burchfield of the Washington law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, with ten minutes. Representing the FEC, with thirty minutes, will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
It has been nearly four years since the Supreme Court set off a constitutional revolution in the financing of federal elections, in Citizens United v. FEC, and the controversy it stirred up still has not lost its fury. The Court, however, is ready to consider extending that revolution by, perhaps, casting aside a constitutional formula it has used repeatedly in this field for more than four decades to curb campaign donations.
The formula, put simply, is that those who contribute money to candidates or political committees get less protection for their activity than those who spend money directly to try to influence election outcomes. The Court is being asked to give donors the same full protection that spenders get under the First Amendment. In short, the Justices have a chance to reexamine the core of the landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Republican leaders from the House and Senate got together and plotted on the very night President Obama was first inaugurated and agreed that there would be no cooperation, no compromise, no nothing but unceasing obstruction. And that’s exactly what we’ve seen ever since, whether it’s on legislation, judicial nominations, or other executive branch nominations.
After more than four years of unprecedented obstruction, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said enough is enough. He’s previously made two agreements with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to try and get the Senate moving without formally changing the rules, but both times Sen. McConnell failed to keep up his end of the bargain and the Senate remained gridlocked. Some nominees have literally been stalled for years at a time.
Today, Sen. Reid filed cloture on seven Obama nominees, many of whom are to serve in positions that protect workers, consumers, and our clean air and water. If the Republicans still insist on blocking these nominations come Tuesday, Democrats are poised to use the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster on executive branch nominations.
Filibusters would still be allowed on legislation and judicial nominations, but Senate Republicans would no longer be able to paralyze the government by denying the president the ability to fill key vacancies.
This is an important first step toward making the Senate function as our Founding Fathers envisioned it when they specified in the Constitution that only simple majorities were needed to approve both legislation and nominations.
The practical consequences of this decision are huge. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cannot issue rules in certain areas and do many key tasks unless it has a director. It will be difficult for the president to advance his agenda to combat climate change unless Gina McCarthy is confirmed to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Unless new members are confirmed to the National Labor Relations Board, it will literally cease to function soon — something that will hurt both workers and employers alike.
BOTTOM LINE: Republicans have engaged in years of unprecedented obstructionism and they have only themselves to blame if Democrats are forced to use the “nuclear option” to simply make the Senate function more like the Constitution says it should. Interestingly, many of the Republican Senators decrying this potential rules reform today argued vehemently in favor of it just eight short years ago.
Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate says health insurance should not cover check-ups or physicals.
House Republicans pass cruel Farm Bill that dropped all funding for food stamps.
Colorado counties want to secede and form a new petro-state with lax environmental rules.
No, the Department of Justice did not organize Trayvon Martin rallies.
As Alabama cuts benefits, desperate man “robs” bank in order to get food, shelter.
Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky.
Brazilian Attorney General challenges constitutionality of World Cup tax exemption.
What do motorcycles and abortion have in common?
Texas women will be forced to turn to “flea market abortions.”
The country is bearing down on March 1, the day that deep, damaging across-the-board spending cuts — known as the “the sequester” in Beltway parlance — start to kick in.
If Republicans hadn’t taken the entire economy — the full faith and credit of the United States — hostage in 2011, there would not be a sequester. Period. End of story. What’s more, an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate voted in favor of the cuts. At the time, Speaker Boehner said he’d gotten 98 percent of what he wanted in the deal that wrote the cuts into law.
In the year and a half since Republicans demanded — and received — the cuts, they have rebuffed every effort to substitute something else smarter, more balanced and less damaging to the economy in their place . The president repeatedly offered significant spending cuts and changes to social insurance programs, including Medicare and Social Security, as part of balanced plan that also included new revenues, but Republicans always said no in order to protect millionaires and special interests from having to pay their fair share in taxes.
Just months ago, Mitt Romney and Speaker Boehner actively advocated for closing tax loopholes and eliminating giveaways in the tax code. But now Republicans are saying no in order to protect the wealthy and special interests like Big Oil and Wall Street. They say they now prefer spending cuts that stand to kill several hundred thousand jobs and could potentially drag the economy back into recession to raising even a penny more in new revenue. Just months ago, leading Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan said these cuts would “devastate” the country, but now they appear to be fine with them.
Here’s a few examples of what the choices we face actually mean — and which side Republicans are coming down on:
We need to reduce our deficit, but we should do it in a balanced, targeted way instead of with blunt, across-the-board cuts that will harm the economy. Instead of governing, the GOP is only interested in gimmicks and games. As the President said again last week, we have got to stop governing by crisis. Our economy cannot afford to play the GOP’s games any longer.
BOTTOM LINE: Once again we find ourselves facing yet another crisis manufactured by the GOP. It’s time for the GOP to choose sides: the middle class and the military or millionaires and special interests.
¿GOP en Español? Not no fast.
The latest frontier in the GOP’s war on abortion rights.
Anti-Hagel Republicans in disarray.
GOP Congressman invites Ted Nugent, who threatened the president’s life to be his guest at the State of the Union.
Pentagon to offer expanded benefits to same-sex partners.
NRA lobbyist dismisses the “Connecticut Effect.”
A few things you might not know about outgoing Pope Benedict XVI.
Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.
Karl Rove’s latest scheme could backfire for the GOP.
With all of the attention on the presidential and congressional elections right now, it can be easy to forget that there’s a third branch of government. But the judicial branch is just as important – and it needs our help.
Our constitutional rights and individual liberties are protected by a strong and effective judiciary. But our courts are in crisis because of the “judicial emergency” created by vacancies in courtrooms nationwide. Why? Because an average of 1 out of every 10 judicial seats is vacant nationwide.
Ask your senators to help protect our freedoms by moving forward with judicial confirmations!
A strong judiciary is critical to American women. Not only can the federal courts be a shield for civil rights laws like Title IX and the Equal Pay Act, but they’re also often the last, best hope for women who have experienced discrimination in education, employment, health care, and in other aspects of their lives. Yet with the Senate dragging its heels, we’ve got 32 federal courts in a state of “judicial emergency,” which means there are far too few judges to keep up with all the cases. Half of these courts have pending nominees – but the Senate still hasn’t acted to fill those vacancies.
Furthermore, the slow confirmation process is also affecting the diversity of the courts. While President Obama has nominated an impressive number of women and people of color for the bench, that’s only half the battle. The only way to increase the diversity of the judiciary is for the Senate to confirm qualified nominees. Of the 32 nominees pending before the Senate, 19 of them are women or people of color. This is not acceptable.
To be sure, President Obama has not been nominating people to fill the vacancies as quickly as he could – and AAUW has told him that. But the fact remains that there are 32 nominees, 22 of whom have already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Senate could confirm when it returns from recess next month.
So that’s why we need you to send a message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Ask your senators to urge Sens. Reid and McConnell to quickly call for confirmation of the federal judicial nominees from your state and move all consensus nominations to the Senate floor immediately for confirmation.
The vacancy crisis can have an easy solution, but we need your help. To send a letter to your senators, click the “Take Action” link or visit AAUW’s Two-Minute Activist.
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.