Controversy surrounds Supreme Court Nomination

Posted on by grager3

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on the morning of Saturday, Feb. 13, having passed away in his sleep at the age of 79. Scalia served on the Supreme Court for 30 years and consistently voted as a strong conservative.

During his presidency, Ronald Regan nominated three Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981, Anthony Kennedy in 1988, and Antonin Scalia in 1986. Thirty years later, controversy is surrounding the nomination of a new Justice to replace Scalia following his death.

Historically, the President of the United States nominates Supreme Court Justices as the need arises during their presidency, and those Justices are then confirmed by the Senate. Since Scalia’s death, the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Rep.-KY), has threatened to block President Obama’s potential SCOTUS nomination and demanded that Obama’s successor, to be elected in November, makes the appointment.

“President Obama insists that he will nominate someone for the court. He certainly has the authority to do so. But let’s be clear — his nominee will be rejected by the Senate,” senator Pat Toomey (Rep.-PA) said in a Time Magazine article.

Democrats in the Senate consider this disgraceful behavior, arguing that Obama will remain in office until January 2017 and therefore must appoint a replacement for Scalia.

“By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Dem.-NV) said of Republican threats.

According to Article Two of the United States Constitution, “[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court…” This dictates that it is the President’s constitutional right and duty to appoint Justices if the Supreme Court suffers vacancies during their term. The wording of the constitution leaves little room for interpretation; the president shall, not may, nominate. This means that the Republicans denying Obama his right are technically in violation of the Constitution, making their actions illegal.

In Saturday’s Republican debate, candidates urged the Senate to delay approval on Obama’s eventual nominee. SenatorsTed Cruz (Rep.-TX) and Marco Rubio (Rep.-FL) both claimed that it has been 80 years since a Supreme Court Justice was appointed during an election year. However, they overlooked Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated in 1987, but confirmed by the Senate in February of 1988, the election year that also served as the finale of Reagan’s presidency.

With Obama’s recent legacy-building agenda, nobody is surprised he is trying to leave his mark on the Supreme Court as well. Without the ultra-conservative Justice Scalia, the court is currently in no-man’s land, with four conservatives and four liberals. The right nominee could swing the SCOTUS from conservative to liberal, a legacy every Democratic president would be itching for. And with both history and the law on his side, there is no reason Obama should not be the one to do it.

View the original story on nileswestnews.org!!

 

photo credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images

 

New Hampshire Primary: Predictions

Posted on by grager3

On February 9, New Hampshire voters will partake in their state’s primary event for the 2016 Presidential Election. After the “historically close” Democratic caucus between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in Iowa, and Ted Cruz‘s upset over Donald Trump among Republicans, the New Hampshire results are pivotal for the upcoming election.

Historically, the winner of the New Hampshire caucus doesn’t always go on to win the nomination. In 2008, Clinton won the New Hampshire primary among Democrats over now-President Barack Obama, despite the surge in support for Obama following his Iowa caucus win. Also, no Democratic who won the New Hampshire primary has actually gone on to successfully win the presidency since Jimmy Carter did it in 1976.

Among Republicans, New Hampshire has yielded equally questionable results. Although the 2012 and 2008 victors, Mitt Romney and John McCain, respectively, did win their party’s nomination, the years before that were incredibly inaccurate. McCain also won the primary in 2000, yet George W. Bush ended up winning the nomination, and later the presidency. Similarly in 1996, Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire, yet Bob Dole went on to get the nomination.

Voters in both parties hoping for similar results to those in Iowa will be disappointed; New Hampshire’s voter base differs significantly from Midwestern Iowa.

Republican Cruz was able to win Iowa due to his mass appeal among the Evangelical base, which isn’t going to work for him in New Hampshire. Polls are predicting a Trump victory, with the Huffington Post putting him at 31.6%. In second place, first-term Florida senator Marco Rubio has 16.9%. This upward trend for Rubio isn’t surprising, given his strong third-place finish in Iowa.

Despite winning the Iowan Caucus, Cruz hasn’t been able to maintain that momentum in New Hampshire. He had a slight surge after Iowa, but has now fallen into a relative race for third place, with relatively-unknown Ohio governor John Kasich, who has been popular among New Hampshire voters since he announced his candidacy.

For Democrats, New Hamsphire is even more important, after Iowa failed to produce a clear front-runner. Roughly 44% of voters in New Hampshire consider themselves independent or undeclared. This will probably end up being a clear advantage for Sanders, who is the longest serving Independent in Congress. However, New Hampshire also allows Independents to vote for either party, as opposed to Iowa, where people could only vote for the side they were a registered supporter of.

With Martin O’Malley suspending his campaign after failing to garner even 1% of voters in Iowa, there are only two Democrats left. Among those two, Sanders is the clearly assumed winner. Every poll puts him ahead of Clinton by a strong margin. Sanders has been narrowly ahead of Clinton since August in New Hampshire, but current polls put him nearly 20% above Clinton, a far cry from the .3% that dictated the Iowa caucus. Sanders is currently at 56.*%, with Clinton following at an even 38%.

No matter what the polls say, New Hampshire doesn’t always go as suspected. As it is, it looks like Sanders and Trump will walk away victorious.

View the original story on nileswestnews.org!!

 

photo credit: Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

 

The Benefits of Bernie in a General

Posted on by grager3

In the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans managed to maintain control of the House of Representatives, as well as gain control of the Senate for the first time since 2006. Virtually nobody had predicted these results, but the reason for them was clear: a shockingly low voter turnout rate.

2014 had an absolutely dismal voting rate, with only 36.3 percent of the VEP (voting-eligible population) participating in the election. This was the lowest rate since 1942, following the entry of the United States into WWII. The number of votes cast dropped by 42 percent compared to the 2012 elections.

Republicans were able to win so many seats because of an uninspired, disillusioned Democratic population, resulting in a low voter turnout. There is danger of this happening in the presidential election of 2016 with previously assumed front runner Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate.

In new Huffington Post polls, Bernie Sanders is polling better than Clinton against Republican leader Donald Trump. The latest polls show Clinton winning a general with 48.1% of the vote against Trump’s 43.9%. While this is still a win for Democrats, Sanders’ poll predicts him winning 51.5% of votes versus Trump’s predicted 40.4%. Both of these are close, but clearly show Sanders having the edge over Clinton if they were both forced to confront Trump. In addition, these polls report that the probability of Sanders leading Trump is 99%, compared to Clinton’s 97% confidence of lead.

These results may be surprising to some, but in truth they reflect the new wave of inspiration that Sanders’ supporters have spread with greater intensity over the past few weeks. The often-criticized beliefs of the Vermont senator turned presidential candidate are reactivating a voting base that has begun ceding the political in recent years, paving the way for Republican victories.

Sanders himself said that a reinvigorated group of Democrats will lead to the high voter turnout that he can access, but Clinton cannot.

“Republicans win as they did in November 2014 when voter turnout is low, when people are demoralized, when a lot of people don’t go in to vote,” Sanders said. “So, if in November 2016 you have a demoralized base in the Democratic Party…there is a decent chance that a Republican can win. If you have an excited Democratic base and Independents who are saying, ‘it’s time for real change in this country’, then, we win.”

This optimism and ability to excite has been particularly helpful to Sanders in gaining the support of younger voters.

Osaremen Okolo, a 21-year-old Harvard Student who currently supports Clinton, recently told the Guardian why Sanders is so popular among her peers.

“Young people like Bernie because he sounds like a revolutionary,” she said. She also said she “misses feeling fired up” by Clinton, as Sanders’ supporters feel about him.

With that excitement clinging to Bernie’s campaign and lacking from Hillary’s, it is easy the benefits of a general election with Sanders as the Democratic candidate.

 

Photo Credit: Getty Images/ Joe Raedle

Paris climate talks set new goals for fighting climate change

Posted on by grager3

Thursday, delegates at the Paris talks on climate change released a draft agreement far more optimistic and ambitious than many were expecting.

This new draft includes a demand from less wealthy countries that are punished with the worst effects of climate change: “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C, recognizing that this would significantly reduce risks and impacts of climate change.”

This excerpt shows that the delegates recognize that limiting the temperature increase even more would have a more substantial effect on climate change, particularly in the poorer communities that often suffer the most from climate change.

Potsdam Institue scientist John Schellnhuber, explained that there was a specific scientific rationale for the draft agreement including 1.5C.

“When I have looked into tipping points of the climate system, you discover the real dangers start around 1.5C, 2C,” he said. “We can say we are entering the risk zone at 1.5C.”

These new boundaries set a low precedent for temperature changes that require intervention.

Meanwhile, Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, indicated that the climate talks would conclude Saturday, December 12, instead of Friday, as had previously been planned.

““I will not present the text Friday evening, as I had thought, but Saturday morning,” he said. “There is still work to do. Things are going in the right direction.”

This delay is a small one, and comes following the two back-to-back overnight sessions delegates held to try and come up with the new international climate agreement.

Even with the delay, United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres remained confident the parties could reach a strong, effective agreement, but that their were a few gaps left to fill.

“The agreement is done at the political level. Everyone knows: OK, we can do this,” she said. “What is not done yet is the language: how we can translate this common understanding about the next steps, and the progress to a flexible and transparent process, from political language into agreement language. This is the challenge we have today.”

As negotiations continue throughout Friday night, Figueres still believes that challenge will be met.

 

 

Deadline Extended for Year End Spending Bill

Posted on by grager3

Thursday, the Senate passed a five-day stop-gap spending bill. Said bill will extend negotiations through to December 16, to give participants more time to craft a year-end spending bill. The House of Representatives is set to vote on the bill today, Friday, December 11, where it is expected to pass, as it is considered relatively non-controversial.

Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said that the responsibility for a bill now remained with top leaders, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McCarthy, whose leadership team Senator Blunt is junior member of.

Most people have determined that there’s not much they can do about these final negotiations,” Blunt said. “That’s probably finally set in that this is going to be decided by three or four people and most of us are not one of those three or four people.”

He also said that the negotiations were not nearing a close anytime soon.

“We’re not close to a [touchdown],” Rogers said.

He seemed to believe that the extension was going to be necessary, as the it would still be cutting it very close.

“Even the five day extension is going to be really close.”\

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s White House seems relatively un-involved.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama “is certainly aware of what’s going on,” but that the bill would be decided by “members of Congress negotiating among themselves.”

This new bill would also seek to extend several expired or expiring business tax breaks and middle-class tax credits, something very important to the president’s administration.

There is hope throughout Congress that the bill will be completed by the new deadline of December 16, with a bill that has the ability to garner broad bipartisan support, and that will not be vetoed by the President when it reaches him. Although if his separation from the proceedings is any indication, President Obama seems content to approve nearly anything Congress puts in front of him.

 

 

Donald Trump’s candidacy has stopped being funny

Posted on by grager3

With the 2016 presidential election looming, Donald Trump remains near the top of the Republican polls. Following a string of racist and sexist remarks, Trump’s poll numbers have miraculously avoiding falling.

Just last Sunday, December 6, the day before Trump’s comments about banning all Muslims from entering the country, presumed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton giggled at the idea of him during an ABC News interview.

Yet on Wednesday in Iowa, Clinton took a more serious approach to Trump for his recent rhetoric. She condemned his proposal as “not only shameful, it’s dangerous”, while adding that the focus of his statements are “prejudice and paranoia.”

Tuesday, former Secretary of State Clinton released an open letter titled, ““No,Donald Trump, We’re Not Barring Muslims From Entering the Country”. This is only one of the several responses by the Clinton campaign to Trump in the past few days. The campaign also released a “Love Trumps Hate” bumper sticker, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent a fundraising email with the subject, “I am a Proud Muslim”.

These recent stands against Trump show that he is no longer considered a laughing matter to Democrats. As the primaries draw near, many are fearful of Trump’s staying power.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus gave a response to Trump’s latest proposal. “I don’t agree [with Trump],” he said to the Washington Examiner. “We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism but not at the expense of our American values. That’s as far as I’m going to go.”

Many Republicans fear a guaranteed loss of the presidency in 2016 if Trump wins the nomination. Many realize he has absolutely no hope of winning the general election next November, with all Democrats and moderate Republicans voting against him.

Most people in politics are simply surprised he has stuck around thus far, and are hoping his offensive comments going onward finally cause a drop in the polls.

 

Obama considering XO on gun control

Posted on by grager3

President Obama has asked senior White House advisor Valerie Jarret to help him come up with a new executive order centering on gun control laws.

This order would close the so-called “gun show loophole”, in which people obtain firearms while circumventing the National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS) if they buy their weapons at gun shows.

Only a week ago, President Obama asked Congressional legislators to propose bills strengthening gun control during his televised address Sunday, December 6 in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest refused to give any further information during his daily briefing Thursday, December 10.

“At this point, I still don’t have an update on the progress the administration is making on scrubbing the rules,” Earnest said.

He did, however, speak more generally about why the president is now considering this executive order.

“Given the congressional inaction, the question that’s been raised is what more can the Obama administration do? And that’s the substance of this review,” Earnest said at Thursday’s press conference. “These are essentially recommendations the President has asked for from his staff based on their review of available executive authority.”

In October, following the mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon, President Obama said he and his team were considering taking action on gun control. It seems the final straw has been the continuation of shooting around the country.

Republicans in Congress have repeatedly defended the right to own guns while blocking any gun control legislation to come through either the House or the Senate. In the past week, Republican Congressmen and women have blocked legislation to prohibit individuals on the nation’s “no-fly list” from purchasing guns, another aspect of Obama’ Sunday evening speech. Obama’s potential new XO would effectively circumvent Congress, promising real action on gun control.

Fellow Republicans respond to Trump’s comments on Muslims

Posted on by grager3

In a Monday afternoon statement, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continued his policy of outrageous declarations, saying that the country needs “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States…” in the wake of the ISIL-inspired attack in San Bernardino. He continued, arguing that all Muslims should be considered suspect. This latest policy is a continuation of the outlandish, offensive claims Trump has been making throughout his campaign.

Thankfully, other Republicans have been incredibly quick to condemn the front-runner’s comments.

Florida governor and fellow candidate Jeb Bush tweeted, “Donald Trump is unhinged. His ‘policy’ proposals are not serious,” bringing hope to Republicans everywhere who do not want Trump to become the party’s candidate in the general election.

Even more hardline conservative candidates weighed in, including U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

Senator Graham tweeted, “@realdonaldtrump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with him bombastic rhetoric,” even tagging his competitor in the tweet. He then called on other candidates to denounce Trump’s statements. “Every candidate for president needs to do the right thing & condemn @realdonaldtrump’s statement,” he demanded.

During a radio show appearance, Governor Christie called Trump’s plan out as being “a ridiculous position and one that won’t even be productive.” In a shocking twist, he also showed a degree of common sense, calling for cooperation with peaceful Muslim-Americans. Christie even went so far as to chalk Trump’s words up to his lack of political experience, saying, “This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.”

On his official twitter account Monday night, the junior senator from Florida said he disagreed with Trump’s proposal. “His [Trump’s] habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together,” Rubio tweeted.

Former businesswoman and now-candidate Carly Fiorina used Trump’s gaff to castigate President Obama instead of condemning Trump’s bigotry. “Donald Trump’s overreaction is as dangerous as President Obama’s under reaction,” she said while in Iowa, presumably referring to the president’s remarks during his oval office address Sunday evening.

These responses all came quickly enough, with the majority of candidates using the opportunity to highlight their differences from the preposterous views of Mr. Trump. Hopefully the polls in the coming weeks will reflect the public’s opinion of the candidates statements.

Stop the Sexist Comparison of Politicians’ Wives

Posted on by grager3

Recently, a meme has become popular comparing the First Lady Michelle Obama and Lacena “Candy” Carson, wives of President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, respectively. The meme feature a picture of Mrs. Obama mrscarsoncrop-crop-rtstoryvar-largenext to her husband, both dressed in black tie for a state dinner. On the other side, there is a photo of Mrs. Carson with her husband at a campaign rally. Above the photo are the words, “Hi, I’m President Obama, and I have Directv. I’m presidential candidate Ben Carson, and I have cable.”

This “joke” is supposed to be comparing the appearance of the politician’s wives. But what about the offensive, sexist comparison of two incredibly accomplished women is supposed to be funny?

Because these women are just that. Michelle Obama graduated cum laude from Princeton University, and later Harvard Law School, after which she went on to become Executive Director for the Chicago Office of Public Affairs, a nonprofit group that encouraged young people to work on social issues, at which she set fundraising records that remained in place over 12 years after she left the organization. As first lady, she has helped lead multiple coalitions in support of military families, girls’ education, and the improvement of childhood health nationwide. Meanwhile, Mrs. Carson attended Yale University, where she met her husband, and Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. She is a celebrated concert violinist, and has played the National Anthem on the violin at several of her husband’s campaign events. Since 2013, Mrs. Carson has co-authored four books with her husband. She now runs the Carson Scholars Fund, an organization founded by the Carsons that awards academic scholarships to use for college education. Without a doubt, both women have proven time and again that they are compassionate, intelligent, and talented.

And yet, people on the internet still feel the need to compare them, something that distracts not only from their accomplishments, but also from the issues they and their husbands are discussing. Whatever your politics, such a misogynistic post should disgust you.

Obama gives rare address in wake of San Bernardino shooting

Posted on by grager3

On Sunday, December 6, President Barack Obama gave a rare special address live from the Oval Office in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting. As only the third of Obama’s Oval Office speeches, the rare address emphasized the importance of the attack and the President’s placement of the issue as one of his top priorities.

The speech began with an overview of the attacks, in which a married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik, 29, attacked an office holiday party, killing 14. Obama said the FBI was still investigating the attacks, but affirmed that the investigation had led to no evidence that the couple were acting on orders from ISIL, or ISIS, or that they were a part of a larger terrorist cell. However, their actions were “inspired” by the terrorist group’s violent ideology.

The President then went on to explain to the American people what was being done to combat the terrorist threat both at home and overseas, as well as calling for Congress to act to do more. President Obama asked Congress to officially vote to support the airstrikes he has been ordering for over a year, and to increase gun control, which has become a staple of the President’s addresses. Specifically, Obama asked Congress to take steps to ensure that no individual on the no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun, since “no suspected terrorist should have access to an assault weapon.”

In what seemed to be the most important aspect of the speech, President Obama counseled Americans not to turn on each other, with quotes like, “The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it,” and “Freedom is more powerful than fear.” In between these well-meaning slogans, Obama asked Americans to view the world’s Muslims as “some of our strongest allies,” while reminding the American people that more Muslims are killed in terrorist attacks than any other group and only an incredibly small fraction believe in ISIL’s violent view of Islam.

Although this speech was important, it did little to highlight any real change. It mostly served to remind Americans of the President’s frequently-criticized strategy against ISIL, and to remind the people not to give in to discrimination in the wake of tragedy.