Particularly when they do so repeatedly, so I have no comment on the fact that the Republicans in the house voted for the 33rd time to repeal Obamacare.
Pathetic.
Category: Legislation
I Learned Something Today
Never ever try to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do.
If you want to read what it all means, I’ll just point you to Scotusblog. They’ve owned this.
In my reading, two things stick in my head:
- Scalia is really insane.
- Roberts being the swing vote, as opposed to Kennedy, surprised the hell out of me.
This is a Big F%$#ing Deal
To quote Joe Biden.
SCOTUS upheld Obamacare and the mandate.
Roberts was the swing vote, go figure.
Posted via movile.
The USA Is Going to Invade Norway
The Chairman of the JCS has said that if the automatic budget cuts kick in for the pentagon, we will see more war:
The nation’s top military officer warned Wednesday that automatic defense cuts agreed to in last year’s bipartisan debt limit deal could lead to more war.
At a Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon has gone along with recent targeted cuts to limited targeted cuts, but argued that the the sweeping across-the-board cuts in the so-called sequestration would weaken the country’s ability to deter adversaries and therefore lead to more war.
“Sequestration is absolutely certain to upend this balance. It would lead to further end-strength reductions, the potential cancellation of major weapons systems and the disruption of global operations,” Dempsey said. “We can’t yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation. We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visible globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus, and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.”
Who the hell are we going to war with?
We have troops and/or mercenaries in:
- Afghanistan.
- Iraq.
- Iran (if it’s Thursday, but it’s a secret)
- Bosnia
- Kosovo
- Germany
- The UK
- Poland
- Korea
- Japan
- Kazakhstan
- Pakistan
- Belgium
- Italy
- Panama
- Kuwait
- Saudi Arabia
- Bahrain
- San Diego
- etc.
Seriously, there isn’t anyone left for us to invade who has any oil but the Norwegians.
About F%$#ing Time
The AFL-CIO is going to fight voter suppression laws being enacted by Republicans:
The nation’s largest labor federation plans to mount an aggressive campaign against voter identification laws in a half-dozen battleground states that will be key in the presidential election.
AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker told reporters on Tuesday that the labor federation will have boots on the ground registering and helping voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in coordination with the group’s political program.
Labor is pushing back against voter ID laws, which they say suppress voting by minorities, the elderly, the poor and students. Supporters of the measures say showing identification to vote is needed to crack down on fraud and protect the integrity of elections.
They should have started this a year ago.
They Will Be Back
Small farmers in Mexico have managed to block a law to legalize Monsanto’s seed monopolies:
Progressive small farmer organizations in Mexico scored a victory over transnational corporations that seek to monopolize seed and food patents. When the corporations pushed their bill to modify the Federal Law on Plant Varieties through the Committee on Agriculture and Livestock of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies on March 14, organizations of farmers from across the country sounded the alarm. By organizing quickly, they joined together to pressure legislators and achieved an agreement with the legislative committee to remove the bill from the floor.
What’s at stake is free and open access to plant biodiversity in agriculture. The proposed modifications promote a privatizing model that uses patents and “Plant Breeders’ Rights” (PBR) to deprive farmers of the labor of centuries in developing seed. The small farmers who worked to create this foundation of modern agriculture never charged royalties for its use.
Although the current law, in effect since 1996, pays little heed to the rights of small farmers, the new law would be far worse. Present law tends to benefit private-sector plant breeders, allowing monopolies to obtain exclusive profits from the sale of seeds and other plant material for up to 15 years, or 18 in the case of perennial ornamental, forest, or orchard plants–even when the plants they used to develop the new varieties are in the public domain.
The legislative reform would extend exclusive rights from the sale of reproductive material to 25 years. Further, it seeks to restrict the rights of farmers to store or use for their own consumption any part of the harvest obtained from seeds or breeding material purchased from holders of PBRs.
The bill wasn’t defeated, it just didn’t pass, so this is a temporary victory.
Monsanto and its ilk will come back again … and again … and again until they get their bill.
It’s All About the Racism
I tend to see a lot more racism in American politics than most other white* people, and here we have a a case where it manifests as a primary motivation for anti gay bigotry:
Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers.
…Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”
Nance said he recruited a friend, who works for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, to witness his interview with Jodie Brunstetter. He said Brunstetter reluctantly acknowledged that she had used the term “Caucasian” and then repeated the statement previously attributed to her, but substituted the pronoun “we” for “Caucasian. Nance said Brunstetter insisted there was nothing racial about her remarks, but could not explain why she used the term “Caucasian.”
When you look at many of the motivations on many of the hot button issues of “social conservative”,† you find either racial animus or racial paranoia at its core.
First, we amp up gun regulations in order to take guns from the Black Panthers, and then the NRA goes insane because they want to have guns to protect themselves from black people.
It’s like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, only instead of Kevin Bacon, it’s racism.
*Nominally white. I’m Jewish, and my brother suggested that, while we are European pale, we aren’t any more white than an Irish immigrant was in 1880.
†For example, the right wing jihad against the courts, started with Brown v. Board of Ed, and Roe v. Wade didn’t become a cause celebre for the right wing until it became a proxy for Runyon v. McCrary, which held that private schools can be denied tax deductible status for being segregated.
I’m Cynical as to the Motives Here
So, after expressing concerns about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), the White House has now threatened a veto:
The White House has said that the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), currently before the US House of Representatives, lacks enough privacy protections in its current form and will probably be vetoed if passed.
A statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget said that, while the importance of protecting the national infrastructure from online attacks is paramount, it “strongly opposes” the bill because it lacks proper oversight, could seriously damage individuals’ privacy and hands over responsibility for domestic cybersecurity to the NSA, rather than to a civilian body.
“Legislation should address core critical infrastructure vulnerabilities without sacrificing the fundamental values of privacy and civil liberties for our citizens, especially at a time our Nation is facing challenges to our economic well-being and national security,” the statement reads.
“The Administration looks forward to continuing to engage with the Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to enact cybersecurity legislation to address these critical issues. However, for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”
Yea! The White House is standing up for privacy.
Or maybe not:
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, in its current form,” the White House said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon. “H.R. 3523 fails to provide authorities to ensure that the nation’s core critical infrastructure is protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards.”
CISPA’s sponsors, House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., dismissed the White House statement.
“The basis for the administration’s view is mostly based on the lack of critical infrastructure regulation, something outside of our jurisdiction,” the pair said in a statement released during the House Rules hearing. In addition, the sponsors pointed out that the White House objects to the bill’s current form, which doesn’t contain the latest changes hammered out with civil liberties groups.
(emphasis mine)
Maybe I’m a bit of a cynic, but I’m thinking that their objection is that it does not grant enough power.
If we look at the Obama administration’s prior behavior, their concerns for civil liberties or transparency have always taken a back seat to expanding executive power. (Basically Dick Cheney with abortion support)
Also, as PC Magazine notes, the Obasa administration made exactly the same sort of statements about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens, but decided to sign it anyway.
In any case, the House just called what is likely his bluff, and they passed CISPA and sent it to the Senate.
I’m not optimistic.
White House Statement after break:
CISPAvetostatement
I Try to be Tolerant of Other Religions, But………
I understand that people want to worship their God in their own manner, but the Islamist in Egypt may be taking it a bit too far.
How much too far? How about legalizing necrophilia:
Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.
The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.
She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.
You know, I can understand wanting to kiss your spouse goodbye, (no tongue, please) but this is completely nuts.
Of more significance, is the fact that they are also trying to remove a woman’s right to an education, and the right for a woman to initiate a divorce.
If it gets any more insane, Egyptian politics will start looking like a Focus on the Family convention.
H/t JR at the Stellar Parthenon BBS.
Signs of the Apocalypse: Bloomberg Edition
The editors at Bloomberg are calling for an increase in the minimum wage:
Here’s an unhappy observation about the minimum wage: Congress last increased the rate in stages in 2006, topping it out at $7.25 an hour in 2009, or $15,080 a year.
That amount, when adjusted for inflation, is actually lower than what a minimum-wage worker earned in 1968 and is too meager to offer anyone the chance to climb out of poverty, let alone afford basic goods and services.
About 10 states are now considering raising the rate, and Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, is proposing to increase the federal rate in three increments to $9.80 an hour in 2014. Many of the initiatives under consideration would smartly tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, meaning that those workers’ wages would finally keep up with inflation.
………
It’s also becoming clear that many Americans are being forced to take lower-paying jobs and that a low-wage bias is creeping into the economy, as Bloomberg economist Joseph Brusuelas recently put it. In many cases, minimum-wage work is all that’s available, which may explain why such workers are older and better-educated than they were three decades ago. In 2010, nearly 44 percent of minimum-wage workers had either attended or graduated from college, up from 25.2 percent in 1979, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank.
Raising the minimum wage won’t entirely solve the problem of anemic incomes, but it would help. Economists have long found that boosting the minimum wage can raise income levels for those earning just above the minimum. Employers, seeking to protect “wage ladders,” often bump up salaries for slightly higher-paid employees, too.
………
The editorial page of Bloomberg is not like the moon-bat insane Wall Street Journal‘s page, they don’t contract facts on the front page in the OP/Ed Section, but this is not a populist publication by any means, and they just called out the neoliberal consensus that calls for more suffering from the least of us.
I’m beginning to think that economic populism may be a winner this year.
Wisconsin Voter Suppression Law Won’t Be In Effect in November
The State Supreme Court has decided not to review the court decisions at this time, so the injunction remains in place:
The state Supreme Court refused Monday to immediately take up a pair of cases that struck down the state’s new voter ID law, a decision that will likely mean citizens won’t have to show identification when they cast ballots in recall elections in May and June.
The court’s terse orders send the cases back to two different appeals panels, though the cases could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
The justices issued their orders just three weeks before the May 8 primary for Democrats to pick a candidate to run against Republican Gov. Scott Walker in the June 5 recall election.
Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan in March blocked the voter ID law for the April presidential primary, saying it likely disenfranchised voters, based on testimony that there are more than 220,000 Wisconsin residents who do not have photo IDs but who are otherwise qualified to vote.
A trial in that case began Monday, and Flanagan is expected to decide whether to lift his injunction or block the law permanently after it concludes this week. The case was brought by the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera.
My guess is that one of the 4 reactionary hacks (7 members on the WI state Supreme Court) on the court looked at the political landscape, and realized that there was no benefit to jumping in line, because it would put a pall over the recall election.
Bummer of a Birthmark, Scott
Bummer of a birth mark, Scotty
The recall elections for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, his Lt. Governor, and 4 state Senators is now officially on:
The recall election ordered Friday for embattled first-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker quickly turned into a possible rematch when the Democrat he narrowly defeated in 2010 announced he was jumping into the race.
Walker expressed confidence he would hold on to his seat shortly after the Government Accountability Board ordered the election, after more than 900,000 signatures were collected supporting a recall in the wake of Walker’s push against union bargaining rights. It marks only the third recall of a governor in U.S. history.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett announced hours later he would challenge Walker, shaking up a Democratic primary race that had been led by union-backed candidate Kathleen Falk. Barrett has publically clashed with unions who were urging him not to get into the race.
In an email to supporters, Barrett said he would begin campaigning immediately to win the primary that looms just 39 days away on May 8. The general election is June 5.
What’s More, a federal court, invalidated significant portions of his union busting bill today as well:
A federal judge in Madison on Friday ruled that portions of Act 10 – which removed most collective bargaining for most public employees – are unconstitutional.
Though critics of the law welcomed the decision as a major victory, backers seemed unconcerned since it preserved a main limit on bargaining, and suggested broader restrictions would pass muster if applied to all state workers.
Seven major public employee unions had challenged the fact that Act 10 dramatically narrowed what could be bargained by general employee unions, an required those unions to recertify every year, by an absolute majority union while denying the same unions voluntary union dues deductions for payrolls.
The court sided with state officials in upholding limitations on what can be bargained, but found the two other provisions violated the union members’ equal protection and First Amendment rights, considering that the same rules did not apply to unions for public safety workers such as police and firefighters.
I’m not sure how the election is going to go, though my guess is that it will flip the state senate, since it’s now a one senator margin.
In a very real way, the recall against Scott Walker may be the most important election of this cycle, because if he loses, it will create a bright line in the political process.
Of course, if he wins, the Republicans will take it as carte blanche, even if they lose the Senate.
Why I am Not Covering the Scotus Arguments Over Obamacare
Because I think that the law and precedent is clear, and the only questionis whether there are 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 justices who are corrupt enough, and partisan enough, to vote to strike down the act.
If Kennedy votes not to strike down, I think that he takes Roberts with him, giving a 6-3 decision, but if he swings the other way, so does Roberts.
The Chief Justice will not be on the dissenting side of this vote, because of the optics, not because of the law.
Roberts may be a corrupt partisan hack, but he only uses the secret sauce when it makes a difference in the final decision.
My guess is that it will be 4-5 to strike down much of the law, but if not, it will be 6-3 supporting it.
What must be noted though is that this is not a matter of law. The law has been settled for at least 60 years.
The only question is how corrupt the 5 right wing justices are.
Fabulous!!!!!!!
The New Hampshire state house just defeated a bill to repeal gay marriage.
Headline of the Day
Knit Your Congressman a Vagina
Just go read it.
Just When Thought that the ‘Phants Could Not Get Any More Repulsive…
The Republicans in Arizona are trying to pass a bill allowing your employer to fire women for using birth-control pills for ……… birth control:
Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!
Because allowing employers to afflict their hatred of women on their employees is freedom!
Seriously, this people, and I mean people, the sponsor, is a woman, Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, have an attitude towards women that makes the Taliban look like the editorial staff of Cosmopolitian.
They really hate the idea of women having any sort of freedom.
I have a suggestion for dealing these rat-f%$#s, that we go classic Greek theater on their asses.
More specifically, I suggest that their significant others go Lysistrata on their asses.
On to the November Referendum
Martin Omalley has signed Maryland’s gay marriage bill into law:
Amid cheers and camera flashes from a crush of onlookers, Gov. Martin O’Malley signed into law Thursday his bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland — legislation that raises his national profile and, advocates say, gives momentum to those pushing similar measures in three states.
“The way forward is always found through greater respect for the equal rights of all,” said O’Malley, giving brief remarks before signing the legislation. “If there is a thread that unites all of our work here together, it is the thread of human dignity. … Let’s sign the bill.”
Opponents are already collecting signatures for a referendum, but I really think that they will lose the vote.
The public views on gay marriage are shifting with remarkable speed.
Federal Court is Dubious of Republican Redistricting in Wisconsin
Republican lawmakers said Tuesday they believe they have no power to make changes to election maps they approved last summer, inserting new questions into fast-changing litigation over those maps.
A trial over those maps began with a surprise Tuesday, when the presiding judge told the attorneys to confer with top legislative leaders and others to consider redrawing the maps taking into account legal challenges from Democrats and Latinos.
After a day of consultation, an attorney for the state told the three federal judges that top Republicans were willing to consider making changes to the maps but believed a 1954 opinion by the state Supreme Court prevented them from doing so. The attorney, Dan Kelly, said the state’s high court had found lawmakers can make changes to the maps just once a decade.
Two groups suing the state disagree and say the Legislature still has the ability to make changes.
Tuesday’s developments left numerous questions in place – including when the trial may continue in earnest. The presiding judge told the attorneys to be available Wednesday to return to court with 45 minutes notice, but made clear the court may rule only on the relatively narrow issue of the extent to which an attorney for the Legislature would have to later testify.
The panel – which includes two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one appointed by a Democratic president – has repeatedly criticized Republican lawmakers in written orders for their secretive process for drawing the maps.
On Tuesday, presiding Judge J.P. Stadtmueller did the same shortly after hearing that attorneys for the legislators had released a new batch of emails Friday that they had not previously disclosed they had. The release of emails came a day after the court had ordered the lawmakers’ attorneys to make public a separate group of emails.
“The facts are the facts and what has occurred here is beyond the pale in terms of lack of transparency (and) secrecy,” Stadtmueller said. “Appearances are everything and Wisconsin has prided itself one generation after another on openness and fairness in doing the right thing. And to be frank we have seen everything but that in the way this case has proceeded.”
Almost all lawmakers signed secrecy agreements about the maps and they tried repeatedly to prevent their aides from having to testify or produce documents. Those attempts were unsuccessful, and last month the panel ordered the Republicans’ attorneys to pay the other side $17,500 for filing frivolous motions.
Here’s a hint to the Republicans in the WI legislature and their attorneys: When the judges demand the testimony of one your counsels, and fine your attorneys 17½ grand, your prospects are not good.
When you have pissed off the judges this much, Clarence Darrow couldn’t help you.
Fabulous!!!!!!!
The Maryland House has just approved gay marriage in Maryland:
A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage squeaked through the House of Delegates Friday night with one more vote than the minimum needed for passage, putting Maryland on the cusp of being the eighth state to allow such unions.
Cheers erupted when the gavel dropped on the final 72-67 tally. Within minutes, Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, walked from his second-floor office to the door of the House chamber, embraced House Speaker Michael E. Busch and said, “Good job, man.”
“We are a good people. We all want the same things for our kids,” O’Malley said. Then he extended credit to delegates and activists, many of whom had been skeptical about his commitment to the issue. “These guys did it,” he said.
The measure now goes to the Senate, which passed a similar bill last year and is expected do so again. The chamber will likely take up the measure next week.
Should the bill pass in both chambers, activists on both sides believe it would be petitioned to referendum in November. If voters approve the measure, the earliest a gay couple would be able to wed is January 2013, when the law would go into effect.
The victory is significant for O’Malley, who threw the weight of his office behind the measure after a similar bill fell a few votes short in the House last year. The governor had been working the halls of the House office building at all hours to persuade wavering delegates.
In national terms, the Maryland vote caps a week in which proponents of same-sex marriage have scored significant victories with the signing of a similar law in Washington state and the Legislature’s approval of a marriage bill in New Jersey, though Gov. Chris Christie vetoed it Friday.
This is very good news, because it passed the state Senate last year, so it looks like it will make it to the Governor’s desk.
One weird bit: One of the people that we have to thank for this is Dick Cheney:
By far the biggest boost came in the morning when Republican Del. Wade Kach, who was considered a sure-fire no vote, threw his support behind O’Malley’s bill. Kach had voted against the bill two days earlier in committee.
The Baltimore County delegate said he reached his decision after mulling the testimony he’d heard during a nearly 11-hour hearing on the bill last week and watching how same-sex couples supported one another. “I thought to myself, if my constituents were here, they’d have a different perspective on the issue,” Kach said. “I’m sure of it.”
He also became the target of a last-minute lobby effort, and said his voice mail was full of messages from important people, including Mehlman, Bloomberg and an offer to talk with former Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Kach regards as a “great man.” All three are recognized for their support of gay rights issues.
But you know, I’ll take it.
That being said, there are still enough bigots in Maryland to put this on the ballot, and it’s probably gonna be close.
Virginia Republicans Are Aliens
I don’t mean foreigners, I mean malevolent creatures from another world.
Think about it. The only time you hear about involuntary probes, it is because of alien abductions.
Virginia republicans want to mandate involuntary vaginal probes for women:
Inserting something into the vagina of an unwilling woman is a violation in every sense of the word. But not to a majority of Virginia’s Senate.
This week, the Senate passed a bill, largely along party lines, that would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound and wait as long as a day for the procedure.
The ultrasound requirement may evoke images of the abdominal sonograms standard in most pregnancies, fuzzy black and white pictures conjured by a wand passed across a woman’s stomach.
But those ultrasounds are ordinarily done fairly late in pregnancy. In the beginning, particularly the first weeks, an abdominal ultrasound may not be sensitive enough to detect anything.
That’s why doctors in many cases use a transvaginal ultrasound. In plainspeak, they insert a condom-covered probe into a woman’s vagina to obtain an image.
In order to satisfy the goals of the legislation – which includes a requirement that a doctor determine the gestational age of the pregnancy- a transvaginal ultrasound may be the only reliable course.
The bill, among the most invasive ever passed in Virginia, is the result of frustration by lawmakers opposed to abortion. Unsuccessful in making abortion illegal and unwilling to be frank about their goals, they have tried by technicality and obfuscation to make it harder for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.
Every so often, I hold the delusion that Republicans cannot get any more contemptible.
They always manage to disabuse me of this.