Tag: Politics

Jul 01 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Wednesday is Ladies’ Day.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Katrina vanden Heuvel: There’s Finally Momentum Behind Paid Sick Leave

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld a core provision of the Affordable Care Act, quashing the Republican Party’s latest attempt to gut the law through the judicial system. At issue in the case, King v. Burwell, was the government’s ability to provide subsidies to help millions of working Americans purchase health insurance through the federal exchange. Yet, as too many middle-class families know, health insurance is only one of the costs associated with getting sick. For more than 40 million workers who currently lack paid sick leave, another pressing concern is how to afford taking time off.< [..]

To appreciate the momentum for paid sick leave, however, it’s necessary to understand how we got here. The recent passage of multiple laws in rapid succession belies a long struggle to get politicians to take up the cause, even within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Indeed, a closer examination reveals the anatomy of a legislative movement and demonstrates how grassroots pressure can turn what some considered a fringe issue into a political juggernaut.

Wendy R. Davis: Texas women got a reprieve from the state’s anti-abortion law. It might not last

Until I exhaled on Monday, I hadn’t realized that I had been holding my breath.

Like so many people, I spent part of my weekend tearing up as I looked at post after post on social media of committed, loving partners’ marriage photos with a renewed sense of hope that sometimes, “right” actually wins – but then there was the fitful sleep of Sunday night because, still pending before the US supreme court, was a case that would have meant the closure of almost all of Texas remaining reproductive health clinics.

The supreme court had to decide whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision to allow the full enforcement of HB2 – Texas’ sweeping anti-abortion law – could stand pending the final outcome of appeals in the case. If they sided with the lower court, it would have forced all but nine of the original 41 clinics in the state to close as of 1 July. With Monday’s stay of the circuit court’s ruling came reason to breath … if only for a little while.

But hundreds of thousands of Texas women await two more decisions in the case: whether the US supreme court will hear the appeal and, if it does, whether it will strike down the challenged provisions of HB2. Reading the supreme court’s majority opinion in the Obergefell same sex marriage case issued on Friday, I feel reason to hope: its findings, rooted in the concepts of equal protection and individual autonomy, ought to extend to reproductive rights as well.

Anna Lappé: The billion-dollar business to sell us crappy food

New report sheds light on the covert tactics used to shape public opinion about what we eat

At the turn of the last century, the father of public relations, Edward Bernays, launched the Celiac Project, whose medical professionals recommended bananas to benefit celiac disease sufferers. Those pitched on the sweet fruit’s miraculous properties didn’t know the project was actually created for the United Fruit Co., the largest trader of bananas in the world.

The creation of front groups – independent-sounding but industry-backed organizations – as a public relations strategy dates at least as far back as Bernays’ day. But a new report by Kari Hamerschlag, a senior program manager at the environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth; Stacy Malkan, a co-founder of the food industry watchdog U.S. Right to Know; and me shows that such tactics are continuing with ever more scope and scale today.

Zoë Carpenter: The Next Tactic in the Right’s Fight Against Gay Marriage? ‘Religious Liberty’

As a jubilant crowd at the Supreme Court celebrated Friday’s 5-4 ruling that same-sex couples have a right to marry, moans of impotent fury emanated from conservatives in and out of the Court. “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” Justice Antonin Scalia fumed in his dissenting opinion. In his own dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Court should not worry about human dignity: “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved,” he wrote. Justice Samuel Alito, also dissenting, fretted that homophobes now “will risk being labeled as bigots.”

Among the field of Republican presidential candidates, the responses ranged from outrage to resignation; none embraced the ruling. Some were quick to throw red meat to the conservative base, ignoring yet another thing the GOP supposedly learned after getting crushed in 2012. But a few of the more serious candidates, who have read the polls and know that aggressive opposition to gay marriage spells trouble in a general election, tried to shift the focus to one of the next issues in the marriage debate, which Nan Hunter explores in detail here-the attempt to frame discrimination as the exercise of “religious liberty.”

Michelle Chen: Shouldn’t Home Care Workers Earn a Living Wage?

Healthcare workers in Massachusetts got good news twice this past week. First, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act and its insurance exchange rules-a system expected to add some 360,000 Massachusetts residents to the healthcare rolls. On Friday, about 35,000 workers who are providing disability and senior care through state programs got a major pay raise. Their new wage of $15 an hour puts Massachusetts personal-care assistants at the helm of the low-wage workers’ movement known as the Fight for 15.

George Gresham, president of the home care workers’ union, 1199 SEIU, said in the announcement of the deal, ‘”It is a moral imperative that all home care and healthcare workers receive $15 per hour, and Massachusetts is now a leader in this effort.”

The wage agreement was brokered over several months of talks between the union and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration, for a contract covering one of the country’s largest unionized home care workforces. The raise in the hourly base pay, set to increase from the current $13.38 to $15 by 2018, will cover a majority of the state’s home care workforce, who provide an array of household services, such as daily social support and medical assistance, to seniors and people with disabilities, and now heads for a union ratification vote.

Leslie Savan: In the Wake of Charleston, Fox News Is Perplexed on Just What the Confederate Flag and the N-Word Mean

It’s been quite a week for racist symbols. It took the murder of nine black churchgoers at the hands of a killer steeped in Confederate and apartheid logos and logic, but politicians have started removing rebel flags and other symbols of Dixie from places we’d thought they were nailed to (like Alabama’s capitol grounds, and South Carolina’s, where the Stars and Bars will need a two-thirds majority vote of both houses to come down).

There is even an “Et tu?” quality to the defenestration, since it has often been Republican politicians and corporations like Walmart who have suddenly realized that these symbols can be hurtful “to some.”

And the Charleston murders have galvanized a US president to publicly say the n-word to explain why not ever saying it in public does not magically end racism-anymore, he might have added, than electing a black president does.

Jun 30 2015

SCOTUS Puts Hold on Closing Texas Abortion Clinics

In a late announcement Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court stayed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which imposed limits on a woman’s right to choose. In a 5 -4 decision, the court allows Texas abortion clinics to remain open.

The Supreme Court issued a brief, two paragraph order (pdf) on Monday permitting Texas abortion clinics that are endangered by state law requiring them to comply with onerous regulations or else shut down to remain open. The order stays a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which imposed broad limits on the women’s right to choose an abortion within that circuit.

The Court’s order is temporary and offers no direct insight into how the Court will decide this case on the merits. It provides that the clinics’ application for a stay of the Fifth Circuit’s decision is granted “pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition” asking the Court to review the case on the merits. The Court adds that, should this petition be denied, the stay will automatically terminate. Otherwise, the stay “shall terminate upon the issuance of the judgment of this Court.”

Justce Anthony Kennedy joined the liberal judges to grant the clinics a reprieve. The court has yet to decide if they will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

Jun 30 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Richard H. Pildes: At the Supreme Court, a Win for Direct Democracy

IN 2000, voters in Arizona adopted a state constitutional amendment that created an independent commission to draw congressional districts. But the commission immediately faced a legal challenge: the United States Constitution gives the power to state legislatures (and to Congress) to regulate national elections – not to the voters. Can the word “legislature” in the Constitution mean voters themselves?

That question eventually came before the Supreme Court, which on Monday ruled, in a 5-to-4 decision, that the Constitution permits states to let their voters use “direct democracy” – popular votes on ballot measures, known as voter initiatives – to regulate the rules for national elections. [..]

The Supreme Court often surprises critics who see it in simplistically ideological terms. As this term and this decision confirm, the current court remains a pragmatically minded institution that interprets legal language with an eye toward the problems that language was created to address. As a result, direct democracy will remain available to constrain partisan gerrymandering and other ways legislatures seek to manipulate democratic purposes for self-serving reasons.

Scott Lemieux: If execution by torture isn’t ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment, what is?

You might think that the Eighth Amendment, which forbids “cruel and unusual” punishments, clearly prohibits death penalty regimes like those currently in effect in Oklahoma: unqualified and inexperienced personnel trying experimental drug regimes that have a substantial likelihood of inflicting serious pain before death. But, if you know anything about the Roberts Court, you won’t be surprised to discover that they disagree. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito (appropriately, as he’s the current justice with the very worst record on civil liberties) the US supreme court gave the green light to Oklahoma’s method of death (pdf).

Late last year, Oklahoma horrifically botched its execution of Clayton Lockett, effectively torturing him for 40 minutes before he died (and blocking him from view from observers midway through). Its system for lethal injection relies on a three-drug cocktail, the formula invented (entirely arbitrarily) by the Sooner State itself in 1977: two of the drugs stop the heart but, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in her dissent to the majority ruling, “they do so in a torturous manner, causing burning, searing pain.” The first drug, then, is supposed to be a barbiturate that renders the condemned prisoner unable to feel pain (although, since the second drug is generally a paralytic, it’s not really possible to tell if it works). Oklahoma, however, has been unable to obtain any of its usual drugs for the first step of the process, and has thus resorted to an alternative that carries the substantial risk of producing death by torture.

Nonetheless, to a bare majority of the court, Oklahoma’s system is good enough for the Eighth Amendment, based on a series of scientifically weak defenses offered for the protocol by a single witness and the argument that the condemned prisoners themselves are required to offer the state a less risky method for their own executions. The state can, under Alito’s reasoning, torture people to death as long as it cannot procure the drugs needed for a safer, less torturous method.

David Cay Johnston: Egalitarianism is on the march

The fall of the Confederate flag is the latest step in a progressive wave of reforms

Bigotry is suddenly on the run in America.

It is as if a giant dam thrown up to block human progress has begun to spill over the top, the outpouring growing until the dam collapses, a flood of decency, fairness and respect washing the stains of discrimination, exploitation and oppression.

Before June 17, many Americans were already feeling revulsion towards our country’s legacy of white supremacy after seeing numerous cellphone videos of police attacking innocent blacks. Then Dylann Roof massacred nine worshippers at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Suddenly and unexpectedly the vile nature of the Confederate battle flag, waved with pride by Roof in several photos released after the shooting, became obvious to so many people that within a week Southern politicians scurried away from that symbol of racist hatred.

This is just the beginning. We will see more positive change in the near future as those who solicit votes through fear and denunciation watch America move toward its founding ideals: that all people are created equal with inalienable rights and that America does best when our government follows the six noble purposes of our Constitution, especially promoting the general welfare.

Joseph Stiglitz: Europe’s Attack on Greek Democracy

The rising crescendo of bickering and acrimony within Europe might seem to outsiders to be the inevitable result of the bitter endgame playing out between Greece and its creditors. In fact, European leaders are finally beginning to reveal the true nature of the ongoing debt dispute, and the answer is not pleasant: it is about power and democracy much more than money and economics. [..]

It is startling that the troika has refused to accept responsibility for any of this or admit how bad its forecasts and models have been. But what is even more surprising is that Europe’s leaders have not even learned. The troika is still demanding that Greece achieve a primary budget surplus (excluding interest payments) of 3.5% of GDP by 2018.

Economists around the world have condemned that target as punitive, because aiming for it will inevitably result in a deeper downturn. Indeed, even if Greece’s debt is restructured beyond anything imaginable, the country will remain in depression if voters there commit to the troika’s target in the snap referendum to be held this weekend.

Alexis Goldstein and Luke Herrine:  Higher education reform should start with for-profit schools

Presidential candidates should recognize that the government’s education policy is rife with conflicts of interest

As the presidential campaign season heats up, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are talking about debt-free or tuition-free college. Using student debt as an issue to damage Republicans and to energize young voters is a smart strategy. But to make the case for why higher education should be free in the United States, 2016 candidates need look no further than the current crisis in the for-profit college industry. The government’s deep conflicts of interest as both the regulator meant to protect students and the banker profiting off student debt has led to an unmitigated disaster – one that, so far, has stuck students with the bill.

For decades, for-profit colleges have run an outrageously profitable scam: They have devoured more than a quarter of all federal student loan money and used it to lure first-generation college students into career training programs that lead to few, if any, real prospects. These schools often spend more money on marketing (pdf) than on instruction. As a result, employers laugh at for-profit college degrees. [..]

For-profit colleges perfectly illustrate why the privatization of public goods doesn’t work. It turns public servants into the guardians of private interests, and students are left behind as collateral damage. Politicians on both sides of the aisle proclaim education as the civil rights issue of our time. If that’s the case, it’s time to move past the model of individual indebtedness, which falls most heavily on poor and minority students, and show we value education for more than just talking points.

 

Jun 29 2015

Scotus: The Final Three New Rules

Today is the last day of this years Supreme Court session. After yesterday’s momentous ruling in favor of marriage equality for all (yes, gays should have the same right to be miserably married as heterosexuals), the court handed down rulings in three cases, two which have even a wider impact than the Affordable Care Act ruling.

In another five – four ruling Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the conservatives approving Oklahoma’s use of the controversial sedative midazolam in Oklahoma’s execution protocols which opened the door for the state to carry out the first executions since January.

The ruling ends a hold on most executions outside Texas and Missouri. Several states had delayed executions while they awaited the ruling in Glossip v Gross, in which the court was asked to decide whether Oklahoma’s use of midazolam fell within the boundaries of the US constitution.

Though the ruling fell into the familiar 5 to 4 conservative to liberal split within the supreme court, it marked the first time in seven years that the nation’s highest judicial panel considered directly the constitutional basis of modern executions by lethal injection. It also gave the progressive-leaning justices an opportunity to vent their opinions on the ultimate punishment, with Stephen Breyer backed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, using a dissenting opinion to openly denounce the death penalty as a violation of the eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In the case against the Environmental Protection Agency, the court struck down the agency’s efforts to set limits on the amount of mercury, arsenic and other toxins coal-fired power plants can spew into the air, lakes and rivers.

The 5-4 decision was a major setback to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and could leave the agency more vulnerable to legal challenges from industry and Republican-led states to its new carbon pollution rules.

It was also a blow to years of local efforts to clean up dangerous air pollution.

The supreme court has now sent the case back to the Washington DC circuit court of appeals, which will then ask the EPA to reconsider its rule-making. Activists are now urging the EPA to act definitively and quickly to issue revised regulation.

In its final ruling, the curt upheld Arizona’s independent redistricting that was passed in a 2000 ballot referendum, striking a blow to gerrymandering.

The court’s decision affirms the constitutionality of an Arizona state ballot measure approved by voters in 2000 that allowed an independent commissioner to determine congressional districts in the state.

State legislatures determine congressional district boundaries after each census, as dictated by the constitution, but the Arizona measure sought to undo this model, which is widely understood as a tool for partisan lawmakers to divvy up districts to favor the political party in power – also known as gerrymandering.

The supreme court ruled 5-4 that the elections clause of the US constitution does not disallow such commissions from being created.

Jun 29 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

New York Times Editorial Board: Affordable Housing, Racial Isolation

A Supreme Court ruling last week forcefully reminded state and local governments that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 forbids them from spending federal housing money in ways that perpetuate segregation. Communities across the country have been doing exactly that for decades.

Instead of building subsidized housing in racially integrated areas that offer minority citizens access to jobs and good schools, local governments have often deepened racial isolation by placing such housing in existing ghettos.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered this timely message in the majority opinion, ruling that the law allows plaintiffs to challenge housing policies that have a discriminatory effect – without having to prove that discrimination was intentional.

Paul Krugman: Greece Over the Brink

It has been obvious for some time that the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. Europe never had the preconditions for a successful single currency – above all, the kind of fiscal and banking union that, for example, ensures that when a housing bubble in Florida bursts, Washington automatically protects seniors against any threat to their medical care or their bank deposits.

Leaving a currency union is, however, a much harder and more frightening decision than never entering in the first place, and until now even the Continent’s most troubled economies have repeatedly stepped back from the brink. Again and again, governments have submitted to creditors’ demands for harsh austerity, while the European Central Bank has managed to contain market panic.

Rep. Alan Grayson: A Good Rule of Law: Mind Your Own Business

Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision was a great victory for LGBT rights. But it also was a great victory for something that rests right at the heart of the human experience, the paramount legal doctrine of M.Y.O.B.

Mind Your Own Business.

Reporters love to generate controversy. In a TV interview on Friday, a reporter asked me, “What do you have to say to all of the millions of opponents of gay marriage?”

I replied thusly: “Mind your own business.”

OK, I’ll admit that that response will not earn me the Nobel Peace Prize. But I’m making an important point here. What difference does it make to Person X if Person Y marries Person Z? Seriously.

Robert Reich: Why We Must Fight Economic Apartheid in America

Almost lost by the wave of responses to the Supreme Court’s decisions last week upholding the Affordable Care Act and allowing gays and lesbians to marry was the significance of the Court’s decision on housing discrimination.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 requires plaintiffs to show only that the effect of a policy is discriminatory, not that defendants intended to discriminate.

The decision is important to the fight against economic apartheid in America – racial segregation on a much larger geographic scale than ever before.

The decision is likely to affect everything from bank lending practices whose effect is to harm low-income non-white borrowers, to zoning laws that favor higher-income white homebuyers.

Robert Kuttner: A Good Week for America

What an extraordinary week in the political and spiritual life of this nation.

It was a week in which President Obama found the voice that so many of us hoped we discerned in 2008; a week in which two Justices of the Supreme Court resolved that the legitimacy of the institution and their own legacy as jurists was more important than the narrow partisan agenda that Justices Roberts and Kennedy have so often carried out; a week in which liberals could feel good about ourselves and the haters of the right were thrown seriously off balance.

Yet this is one of those inflection points in American politics that could go either way. It could energize the forces of racial justice and racial healing. It could reconstitute the Supreme Court as a body that takes the Constitution seriously. The week’s events could shame, embarrass and divide the political right.

Jun 28 2015

Punting the Pundits: Sunday Preview Edition

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Needless to day, after this week’s Supreme court rulings on the Affordable Care Act and marriage equality, the right wing heads will be exploding on all the usual Sunday programs. It might actually be fun to watch.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

The Sunday Talking Heads:

This Week with George Stephanopolis: The guests on Sunday’s “This Week” are: 2016 presidential candidates former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders; and  Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

The roundtable guests are:  Family Research Council senior fellow Ken Blackwell; Democratic strategist Donna Brazile; ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd; and ABC’s Cokie Roberts.

Face the Nation: Mr. Dickerson’s guests are: Chad Griffin, President of the Human Rights Campaign; Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Gov. John Kasich (R-OH); Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI); Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC); and Rep. Ellijah Cummings (D-SC).

His panel guests are: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; David Ignatius The Washington Post; April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks; and Reihan Salam, Slate Magazine.

Ocassionaly, it’s worth watching Peggy Noonan struggling not to slur her words and, often, failing miserably.

Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: The guests on Sunday’s “MTP” are: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders; and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA).

The panel guests are: Michael Eric Dyson, Professor, Georgetown University; Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; Charles Ogletree, Professor, Harvard Law School; and Kathleen Parker, Columnist for The Washington Post.

State of the Union with Jake Tapper:

This week Mr. Tapper’s guest is GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Jun 27 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

New York Times Editorial: A Profound Ruling Delivers Justice on Gay Marriage

To the list of landmark Supreme Court decisions reaffirming the power and the scope of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law – from Brown v. Board of Education to Loving v. Virginia to United States v. Windsor – we can now add Obergefell v. Hodges.

In a profound and inspiring opinion expanding human rights across America, and bridging the nation’s past to its present, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

As news of the ruling came out on Friday morning, opponents of same-sex marriage struggled to fathom how the country they thought they understood could so rapidly pass them by. But, in fact, the court’s decision fits comfortably within the arc of American legal history.

Trevor Timm: [Think it’s cool Facebook can auto-tag you in pics? So does the government Think it’s cool Facebook can auto-tag you in pics? So does the government]

State-of-the-art facial recognition technology, which had been the stuff of hypothetical privacy nightmares for years, is becoming a startling reality. It is increasingly being deployed all around the United States by giant tech companies, shady advertisers and the FBI – with few if any rules to stop it.

In recent weeks, both Facebook and Google launched facial recognition to mine the photos on your phone, with both impressive and disturbing results. Facebook’s Moments app can recognize you even if you cover your face. Google Photos can identify grown adults from decades-old childhood pictures.

Some people might find it neat when it’s only restricted to photos on their phone. But advertisers, security companies and just plain creepy authority figures have also set up their own systems at music festivals, sporting events and even some churches to monitor attendees, which is bound to disturb even those who don’t give a second thought to issues like the NSA’s mass surveillance programs.

Chelsea E. Manning: Same-sex marriage isn’t equality for all LGBT people. Our movement can’t end

It wasn’t that long ago – 4 November 2008 – that the US had an election that galvanized a generation of activists to change policies in this country that would have enshrined into law the continued marginalization of a large group of people. I’m not talking about who was elected president, or which political party took the most seats in Congress: rather, a ballot initiative in the state of California, called Proposition 8, passed by a four-point margin that night and successfully amended the state’s constitution by adding language that defined marriage as being between “one man and one woman”. [..]

But I worry that, with full marriage equality, much of the queer community will be left wondering how else to engage with a society that still wants to define who we are – and who in our community will be left to push for full equality for all transgender and queer people, now that this one fight has been won. I fear that our precious movements for social justice and all the remarkable advancements we have made are now vulnerable to being taken over by monied people and institutions, and that those of us for whom same-sex marriage rights brings no equality will be slowly erased from our movement and our history.

Joe Conason: The Real Meaning of the Confederate Flag

In the intensifying debate over the Confederate flag, important clues about the true meaning of this seditious symbol are staring us in the face. Dozens of those clues were posted by an angry, glaring Dylann Storm Roof on the “Last Rhodesian” website, where the confessed Charleston killer pays homage to certain flags-notably those of apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, as well as the old Confederacy-while he enthusiastically desecrates another.

Pictures of Roof burning, stomping and spitting on the Stars and Stripes are interspersed among the photos of him grasping and waving the Confederate battle flag, sometimes while holding a gun. “I hate the sight of the American flag,” he raged in a long screed on the site. “Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke.”

What this racial terrorist meant to express, in crude prose and pictures, is a lesson that the diehard defenders of the Confederate flag should no longer ignore: To uphold the banner of secession is to reject patriotism-and has never meant anything else.

Bill Boyarsky: Obamacare: Not Perfect, But ‘Here to Stay’

Republicans have been cornered by a president they had vowed to drive from office. Obamacare, an imperfect but badly needed revolution in health care, is, as President Barack Obama said, “here to stay.” Tens of millions of Americans will keep health insurance long denied them, and millions more will obtain such policies in the future.

Republicans sound angry and confused as they try to convince these many millions that they got a bad deal. It reminds me of earlier GOP generations warning Americans that Social Security and Medicare would land us all in the poor house. No doubt their latest effort will backfire, too.

Jun 26 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

New York Times Editorial Board: The Supreme Court Keeps the Fair Housing Law Effective

Housing discrimination doesn’t have to be intentional to be illegal. That is the point of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday interpreting the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in accord with clear congressional intent, and preserving a well-established and critical tool in the long-running battle to ensure a more integrated society.

By a vote of 5-4, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the four more liberal justices, ruled that the law allows plaintiffs to challenge government or private policies that have a discriminatory effect, without having to show evidence of intentional discrimination.

Explicit, legally sanctioned racial segregation in housing may be over, Justice Kennedy wrote, but “its vestiges remain today, intertwined with the country’s economic and social life.” From discriminatory lending practices to zoning laws that favor higher-income home buyers, persistent patterns work to hurt minorities and other vulnerable groups the law was written to protect.

Scott Lemieux: John Roberts saved Obamacare again – and used Antonin Scalia’s words to do it

For all the time and money that fanatical opponents of providing health care to the uninsured poor and middle class have poured into their legal struggle against President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”),they’ve now failed twice to achieve their ultimate objective. Thursday, in a 6-3 vote, the US supreme court refused the opponents’ invitation to willfully misread the law to take health care away from millions of people.

Showing a legal craftsmanship that has too often been absent from his major opinions, Chief Justice John Roberts calmly obliterated the latest challenge to the ACA, providing a model of how to properly read a statute. (Hint: if your method of statutory interpretation shows that Spain was invaded by the “Moops”, you’re doing it wrong.)

Roberts’ opinion simply stated what should have been obvious: Congress anticipated that at least some states would not establish their own health insurance exchanges, authorized the federal government to establish exchanges on their behalf, and did not intend for this federal backstop to fail. “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets” concluded the chief justice, “not to destroy them.”

John Nichols: Green Jill Stein Is Fighting for Open Debates and Real Democracy

Dr. Jill Stein has some great ideas about how to create “deep system change, moving from the greed and exploitation of corporate capitalism to a human-centered economy that puts people, planet and peace over profit.”

If the 2012 Green Party presidential nominee and contender for the party’s 2016 nod gets a hearing, those ideas will expand and improve the national debate. They could also strike a chord with the millions of Americans who are ready for a plan to “end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of everyone in our society and our world.” [..]

The question is whether Stein, who this week formally launched her second presidential bid, will gain the hearing that is necessary to realize that potential. That is far from guaranteed, because the status quo polices presidential campaigns in order to maintain itself. That policing begins with ballot-access demands that make it hard for millions of American voters to have the multi-party choices that are available to voters in Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Canada, and every other credible democracy.

Even if Stein and the Greens secure every available ballot line-and they have a smart, ambitious plan for busting through the barriers-that still does not guarantee that she will be heard.

Faiza Patel: When will surveillance reform stop being just ‘cool’?

The USA Freedom Act marks the beginning, not the end, of the fight to protect our privacy

Last week, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden declared that he was “cool” with the recently enacted USA Freedom Act, which reined in government bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. His characterization of that program as “little” is no doubt accurate. Information from the archive of documents released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed many other programs that pose equal or greater risks to Americans’ privacy.

But Hayden is too quick to assume that the phone records program will be the only reform. The passage of the USA Freedom Act is the first curtailment of intelligence authorities since the 9/11 attacks and should mark the beginning – not the end – of reform.

Peter van Buren: Five Things That Won’t Work in Iraq

When at First You Don’t Succeed, Fail, Fail Again

In one form or another, the U.S. has been at war with Iraq since 1990, including a sort-of invasion in 1991 and a full-scale one in 2003. During that quarter-century, Washington imposed several changes of government, spent trillions of dollars, and was involved in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. None of those efforts were a success by any conceivable definition of the term Washington has been capable of offering.

Nonetheless, it’s the American Way to believe with all our hearts that every problem is ours to solve and every problem must have a solution, which simply must be found. As a result, the indispensable nation faces a new round of calls for ideas on what “we” should do next in Iraq.

With that in mind, here are five possible “strategies” for that country on which only one thing is guaranteed: none of them will work.

George Zornick: What’s Next for the GOP After the Obamacare Ruling?

The case of King v. Burwell may have been the last legitimate chance to disable the Affordable Care Act. So the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in favor of the administration, with only the conservative rump of the Court dissenting in amusingly strident terms, should leave conservatives despondent. [..]

And as always, this split will continue to trouble the GOP. The hard-core members still have ample opportunity to use real leverage to disable or hurt the Affordable Care Act. At some point this year, Congress will have to pass government spending bills-and there is considerable conservative activism around using the process, which only requires 50 Senate votes, to defund significant parts of the law.

Some more moderate senators are already urging caution, and openly saying the GOP is better served by waiting until 2016 to take on Obamacare. But if the hard-core members, and the base they represent, not to mention ambitious renegades like Ted Cruz, force the GOP’s hand, that dog might start nibbling at the bumper again within a matter of months.

Jun 26 2015

SCOTUS : New Rules

It’s been a busy court calendar for the Supremes this year. They had to add extra days for the release of their rulings. One of the biggies came today when the court rejected the lawsuit that would have ended the health care subsidies of the Affordable Care Act.

The stakes of the case, King v. Burwell, were enormous. Had the plaintiffs prevailed, millions of people who depend upon the Affordable Care Act for insurance would have lost financial assistance from the federal government. Without that money, most of them would have had to give up coverage altogether. And the loss of so many customers would have forced insurers to raise premiums, seriously disrupting state insurance markets.

But two of the court’s conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the court’s four liberals in rejecting the lawsuit in a 6-3 decision. Roberts delivered the opinion (pdf) for the majority. And the decision was a concise, stinging rebuke of the plaintiffs, who contended that Congress intended to write a law that would leave so many people without coverage, and cause such disarray.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” Roberts wrote.

In the other ruling released today, in a 5 – 4 decision the justices backed a broad interpretation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act a crucial tool in the fight against housing discrimination.

The question in the case was whether plaintiffs suing under the housing law must prove intentional discrimination or merely that the challenged practice had produced a “disparate impact.” Drawing on decisions concerning other kinds of discrimination, Justice Kennedy said the housing law allowed suits relying on both kinds of evidence.

The first kind of proof can be hard to come by, as agencies and businesses seldom announce that they are engaging in purposeful discrimination. “Disparate impact,” on the other hand, can be proved using statistics.

Justice Kennedy wrote that the history of the law and of the civil rights movement supported the broader interpretation.

On Monday they handed down four rulings

Supreme Court rules on patents, property

By Jaelynn Grisso, Scripts Howard Foundation Wire

Patent holders cannot be paid after the patent expires

The Supreme Court ruled that patent holders cannot keep getting paid for their inventions after the patent expires, upholding a previous Supreme Court decision.

Marvel agreed to pay Stephen Kimble royalties for a Spider-Man glove that shot out fake spider webs. He held a patent on the glove, but the contract did not specify how long payments would last. When the patent on the toy expired after the typical 20 years, Marvel stopped paying Kimble. The district court and the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals sided with Marvel based on the Supreme Court case Brulotte v. Thys, which also ruled patent holders were not entitled to royalties after the patent expired.

The court reaffirmed these decisions in a 6-3 vote, determining Kimble’s reasons for overturning Brulotte were not substantial enough. [..]

Crops, like raisins, are protected property

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make raisin growers forfeit a portion of their crops because they are protected property under the Fifth Amendment.

Marvin and Laura Horne refused to give the USDA a portion of their raisin crop, violating a law passed in 1937, which allows the government to require growers to reserve a portion of their crops for government management. The law said the government could take the crops for free to help control market prices. It would pay farmers only if it made profit on the produce.

The court’s ruling reversed the 9th Circuit’s decision on an 8-1 vote, with Sotomayor dissenting. The ruling upheld that personal property – such as cars, computers or raisins – is protected under the Fifth Amendment as is real property, such as houses. [..]

Excessive force needs to be determined objectively

The Supreme Court ruled that county jails need to set objective standards for use of force against prisoners who have not yet been convicted. The court reversed a ruling from the 7th Circuit Court and sent the case back for a rehearing.

Michael Kingsley sued officers in a Wisconsin county jail after they used force to remove him from his cell after he refused to comply with their instructions. Kingsley had not been convicted of a crime and was being held until his trial.

After a jury trial found in favor of the officers, Kingsley appealed. He claimed the instructions to the jury did not require that jurors consider whether the guards had intentionally violated Kingsley’s rights or had use force with complete disregard for his rights.

The 7th Circuit disagreed, saying that subjective standards about the officers’ intentions – whether or not they meant to violate or disregard his rights – should be used. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on a 5-4 vote, with Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan agreeing. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito dissented.

Officers cannot conduct a search without judicial review

In a case involving the city of Los Angeles and a group of hotel operators, the Supreme Court decided city ordinances allowing officers to search hotel records was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The 5-4 vote upheld the decision of the 9th Circuit.

Los Angeles requires hotel operators to keep records about their guests, and the hotel operators can be charged with a criminal misdemeanor if the records are not maintained correctly. The district court sided with the city because it said hotel operators did not have an expectation of privacy for the records. But the 9th Circuit reversed this decision because the ordinance did not allow for a neutral party, such as a judge, to review the records for compliance before a search.

The city will now need to get a subpoena before getting hotel records if the hotel operator declines to give up the records voluntarily. The city wanted access to records because it said maintaining the records is a deterrent to criminal activity like prostitution and housing undocumented immigrants.

The court also previously released these rulings:

Race and Redistricting

In two Alabama cases, the court found that the State Legislature had relied too heavily on race in its 2012 state redistricting by maintaining high concentrations of black voters in some districts.

Religious Freedom in Prison

In Holt v. Hobbs, the court found that Arkansas corrections officials had violated the religious liberty rights of Muslim inmates by forbidding them to grow beards over security concerns.

Pregnancy Discrimination

In Young v. United Parcel Service, the court found that the lower courts had used the wrong standard to determine whether UPS had discriminated against one of its drivers, Peggy Young, who was pregnant.

Judicial Elections and Free Speech

In Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the court ruled that states may prohibit judicial candidates from personally asking their supporters for money.

Employment Discrimination

The court decided in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores that Samantha Elauf was not required to make a specific request for a religious accommodation to wear a hijab when applying for a position at a children’s clothing store owned by the company.

Social Media and Free Speech

The court decided in Elonis v. United States that prosecutors did not do enough to prove Anthony Elonis’s intent when he published threatening rap lyrics on Facebook directed at his wife.

Separation of Powers in Foreign Affairs

The court decided in Zivotofsky v. Kerry that Congress was not entitled to order the State Department to “record the place of birth as Israel” in the passports of American children born in Jerusalem if their parents requested.

The Confederate Flag and Free Speech

The court decided in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans that Texas had not discriminated against the view of the group that “the Confederate flag is a symbol of sacrifice, independence and Southern heritage” when refusing to allow its license plate bearing the Confederate flag.

Religious Signs and Free Speech

The court decided in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., that a town ordinance that places different limits on political, ideological and directional signs violates the First Amendment.

There are four more rulings coming down the pike for tomorrow and Monday:

1. Obergefell v. Hodges (Same Sex marriage)

2. Glossip v. Gross (Lethal Injection)

3. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (Congressional Redistricting)

4. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA et. al. ( EPA Emissions Regulations)

5. Johnson v. U.S. (Gun Laws and Criminals)

So far, the Supremes haven’t upset the apple cart too much

Jun 25 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Trevor Timm: IRS employees can use ‘password’ as a password? No wonder we get hacked

The public is finally starting to learn what security experts have been warning for years: the US government has no idea what it’s doing when it comes to cybersecurity. Worse, the government’s main “solutions” may leave all our data even more vulnerable to privacy violations and security catastrophes.

The effects of the massive hack of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) continue to ripple through Washington DC, as it seems every day we get more information about how the theft of millions of government workers’ most private information is somehow worse than it seemed the day before. (New rule: if you read about a hack of a government or corporate database that sounds pretty bad, you can guarantee it be followed shortly thereafter by another story detailing how the same hack was actually much, much “worse than previously admitted.”)

How many millions of people were affected by the OPM hack exactly? Well, no one has any idea. And we’re not just talking about credit card numbers that can be reset. The siphoned files include what are known as SF-86 forms, which contain the detailed financial, medical, and personal histories of anyone who applied for a federal clearance. It’s a goldmine for potential blackmailers. The government’s penance to those affected is to offer everyone 18 months of free credit report monitoring. How generous.

Dean Baker: Growth is sacrosanct – when it benefits the rich

Commentary about the TPP and the Fed tells us a great deal about where the allegiances of elite commentators lie

The accidental timing of events can offer remarkable insights into underlying reality. Last week saw the Federal Reserve meeting to debate interest rate hikes at the same time that President Barack Obama and the Republican congressional leadership were desperately struggling to find ways to pass fast-track authority in order to facilitate passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. While it may not be immediately apparent, the views of elite commentators on these two events tell us a great deal about their views on economic policy.

The defeat of the original fast-track proposal, due to a revolt by House Democrats, infuriated the likes of George Will, David Brooks and members of The Washington Post editorial board, who all expressed deep dismay that Congress may block the TPP. They have raised various issues, but one recurring theme is that the TPP will promote economic growth and that the opponents are apparently willing to sacrifice this growth if they block the deal.

The claim the TPP will promote growth is dubious. After all, a study by the United States Department of Agriculture found the impact on growth would be a rounding error in GDP. Furthermore, none of the studies that have made growth projections incorporate any negative impact on growth due to higher drug costs or other price increases associated with the TPP’s stronger and longer patent protections.

Sen. Bernir Sanders: Corporate Greed Must End

Here is the reality of the American economy. Despite an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity, the middle class of this country continues its 40-year decline. Today, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages and median family income is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. Today, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent, while the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent. In the last two years, the wealthiest 14 people in this country increased their wealth by $157 billion. That increase is more than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans — combined.

Over the last 40 years, the largest corporations in this country have closed thousands of factories in the United States and outsourced millions of American jobs to low-wage countries overseas. That is why we need a new trade policy and why I am opposed to the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership now before Congress.

Robert Reich: Making the Economy Work for the Many and Not the Few #11: Medicare Isn’t the Problem; It’s the Solution

Again and again the upcoming election you’ll hear conservatives claim that Medicare — the health insurance program for America’s seniors — is running out of money and must be pared back.

Baloney. Medicare isn’t the problem. In fact, Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance.The real problem is that the costs of health care are expected to rise steeply.

Medicare could be the solution — the logical next step after the Affordable Care Act toward a single-payer system.

Please see the accompanying video — #11 in our series on ideas to make the economy work for the many rather than for the few. And please share.

Dave Johnson: Wall Street and Big Corporations Got What They Wanted — This Time

“Fast track” passes. Our Congress — the supposed representatives of the people — voted to cut themselves and us out of the process of deciding what “the rules” for doing business “in the 21st century” will be.

How do the plutocrats and oligarchs and their giant multinational corporations get what they want when a pesky democracy is in their way? They push that pesky democracy out of their way.

Because of fast track, when the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and any other secretly negotiated “trade” agreements are completed, Congress must vote in a hurry, with only limited debate; cannot make any amendments, no matter what is in the agreement; and cannot filibuster. Nothing else coming before our Congress gets that kind of skid greasing, only corporate-written “trade” agreements — and it doesn’t matter how far the contents go beyond actual “trade.”

Althea Butler: The decision to forgive is rooted in faith. The desire to forget is rooted in racism

For many people, the forgiveness offered to Dylann Roof, the man charged with killing of nine black members of Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, at his arraignment by the families of his victims is impossible to understand – and worthy of veneration. “I forgive you” said Nadine Gardner, daughter of slain church member Ethel Lance. “I will never ever hold her again. But I forgive you, and may God have mercy on your soul”.

But how could someone forgive such a heinous crime so quickly, so easily? The answer lies in part with Christian interpretation of the New Testament, a history of racialized violence and the civil rights movement.

Forgiveness is a spiritual practice and biblical mandate from the New Testament that many American Christians engage in as a part of their faith. Familiar scriptures (such as Jesus forgiving the Romans while hanging on a cross, or saying that forgiveness should be given 70 times seven) are staples of Christian teaching and theology. Forgiveness is enshrined in the Lord’s prayer – forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. These scriptures point to the power of forgiveness not only as a way to absolve transgressions, but to ensure that the person extending forgiveness will be forgiven of theirs. For many Christians, these teachings form the foundation of their Christian faith, even when that forgiveness can be difficult to give.

Load more