PEOPLE FOR BLOG

NYT: Who's Filibustering Now?

Great editorial in New York Times this morning recognizing the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans threatening to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominees well before any are named and urging Senator Leahy to let the blue slip process -- under which senators get a way to block judicial nominees from their home state -- die quietly. The editorial very eloquently echoes some of the most important points People For the American Way has been making for weeks, and it is definitely worth reading.

When President George W. Bush was stocking the federal courts with conservative ideologues, Senate Republicans threatened to change the august body's rules if any Democrat dared to try to block his choices, even the least-competent, most-radical ones. Filibustering the president's nominees, they said, would be an outrageous abuse of senatorial privilege.

Now that President Obama is preparing to fill vacancies on federal benches, Republican senators have fired off an intemperate letter threatening -- you got it -- filibusters if Mr. Obama's nominees are not to their liking. Mr. Obama should not let the Republicans' saber-rattling interfere with how he chooses judges.

Read the whole article.

PFAW

Republican Silence in the Face of More Rush Outrage

Rush Limbaugh is at it again, this time with his glaringly offensive - and tasteless - reference to Senator Kennedy's health. I'm sure you've seen the comment:  "Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy memorial health care bill."  Well, Politico's just up with this post about the deafening silence so far from the GOP's top leaders:  House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and RNC Chair Michael Steele: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0309/GOP_silent_on_Rushs_Kennedy_slap.html?showall  Wonder when -- or, more likely,  if -- we'll ever hear anything from these folks?

PFAW

Supreme Court Dismisses Al-Marri Case

Today, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Ali al-Marri, who has been in federal custody in South Carolina since January 2002 when Bush designated him as an enemy combatant, claiming that he was an al-Qaeda sleeper agent. The order was in response to the Obama administration’s important move last week in filing criminal charges against al-Marri after 9 long years of detention without review by Bush, a move which transformed al-Marri’s detention to a criminal matter that will be heard in the normal course through the federal courts. He’ll now have the right to a speedy trial, be able to confront his accusers, the right to the effective assistance of counsel – the whole shebang.

The Obama administration’s decision to take this bold step shouldn’t go unnoticed to those of us who have been staring in paralytic shock over the last 8 years during which the Bush administration did whatever it wanted to foreign nationals and citizens alike in its “war against terror”. Bush even deemed as unpatriotic the notion that a federal court could ever review what the president does or why during a time of war – however, unconventional that war may be – thereby delivering a one-two punch to the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and separation of powers. Both of these, by the way, were swiftly decimated by Bush lawyers as revealed in the recently disclosed OLC memos.

In this case, the new administration correctly did what some have been saying all along – if there is evidence of wrongdoing, charge the individual with a crime and allow him to be tried in a civilian criminal court. The government has the tools to prosecute suspected terrorists and has done so in the past. It is clear that our courts can address the real concerns of national security, even during times of war, without reversing decades of due process jurisprudence. 

PFAW

The Right Re-Tools as 'Resistance Movement'

Another week, another clear example of who is pulling the strings in the Republican Party. On Monday, Republicans in the Senate -- all 41 of them -- sent a letter to President Obama all but demanding that he re-nominate three of President Bush's nominees and threatening filibusters if the president does not do what they want with his future judicial nominations.

It was only a few years ago that the GOP wanted to eliminate the judicial filibuster entirely, telling anyone who would listen that every judicial nominee deserved an up-or-down vote without exception. Apparently, the Senate Republicans have the collective memory of a goldfish.

Of course, these senators' attempt to force "bipartisanship" at gunpoint, to coerce the president with threats, is one giant pander to their extreme right-wing base. The Far Right wants to maintain conservative majorities on the most powerful courts in the country. And they want senators to do everything in their power to block judges that don't meet their strict litmus tests on everything from Roe v. Wade and gay rights to free speech and the separation of church and state -- and much more.

This is one more example in a long list of the GOP marching in lockstep to the Radical Right's orders in just the last few weeks:

  • In the spirit of Rush Limbaugh's clarion call to conservatives to hope for President Obama's failure, 100% of the Republican caucus in the House voted against the majority's stimulus package last month.
  • Some Senate Republicans have been following through on the Radical Right's challenges to the president's Department of Justice nominees, this week moving to delay a floor vote on the confirmation of David Ogden.
  • And earlier this week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was forced apologize to the real leader of his party after making some comments seen as critical of Rush Limbaugh -- proving that Limbaugh and other extremists are calling the shots within the party.

People For the American Way just released a very timely Right Wing Watch In Focus on the status of the Radical Right's strength and influence (available here). Please read it and share it with your friends and fellow activists.

There has been much talk in the media about the Republican Party and even the Conservative Movement being lost in the wilderness. But the leadership vacuum is being filled with the most fringe elements of that side of the political spectrum. The Far Right is stronger than ever ... and the weakness of one of the major parties has provided a huge opportunity for them to assert that strength.

AND we've released our own take on Limbaugh's recent comments which is a must watch. Please take a moment to watch the video and then send a message to Rush telling him to GROW UP. Then tell your friends to check it out at www.BabyRush.org.

PFAW

Rebuild and Renew America Now

Yesterday, People For the American Way joined a growing coalition of organizations in support of President Obama's budget priorities. While People For doesn't "do" health care or housing or the environment, we do "do" equal opportunity and justice for all -- and that's what this bold and progressive budget is about. You can read the statement of support we joined here. The Rebuild and Renew America Now campaign has a lot of work ahead of it. I hope we all do our part to realize this budget's vision of an America that has turned its back on the "harsh trend of rising poverty, unemployment, hunger and homelessness."  

PFAW

Voter Caging Bill Introduced in the Senate

Today, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), along with 10 of his colleagues, re-introduced his bill – the “Caging Prohibition Act” – that if enacted, would prevent political operatives from removing eligible voters from voting lists based on inaccurate and unreliable information. Like the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, originally introduced by then Senator Barack Obama, the need for this bill became increasingly evident in the most recent federal elections where we have seen an increase in dirty campaign tricks aimed at suppressing the vote.

From the press release:

The Caging Prohibition Act, which was first introduced in the 110th Congress, would prohibit interference with registration or voting based solely on unreliable information, such as a "caging list." Caging is a voter suppression tactic in which a political party, campaign, or other entity sends mail marked "do not forward" to a targeted group of voters - often minorities or residents of minority neighborhoods. A list of those whose mail was returned "undelivered" is then used as the basis for challenges to the right of those citizens to vote, on the grounds that the voter does not live at the address where he or she is registered. There are many reasons that mail is returned undelivered, however; an eligible voter could be overseas on active military service or a student registered at a parent's address.

The Caging Prohibition Act would mandate that anyone who challenges the right of another citizen to vote must set forth the specific grounds for that voter's alleged ineligibility and describe the evidence to support that conclusion, under penalty of perjury. Following allegations in 2008 that Republican Party officials in Michigan, Florida, Indiana, and Ohio were considering challenging the eligibility of voters who were on a list of people whose homes were subject to foreclosure, the sponsors updated last year's version of the Caging Prohibition Act to explicitly prohibit challenges based on the foreclosure status of a voter's residence.

People For the American Way is committed to passing legislation that will increase the franchise and eliminate barriers to the ballot. This is what a true democracy is all about. While this country may have passed a threshold in the 2008 elections such that those working to decrease the franchise were overtaken by voting right advocates and the massive participation of voters, we must still be vigilant in protecting the franchise lest we repeat the electoral tragedies experienced during the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections. Senator Whitehouse’s voter caging bill is a welcome step in this process and we encourage all Senators to support this bill in a timely fashion so that we can protect the rights of all voters.

PFAW

Rush's Greatest Hits

I couldn’t resist the urge to get in on the rush. (I know, I know.) The latest in the Limbaugh saga: he’s invited President Obama on his show for a “one-on-one debate of ideas and policies.” Although I suspect President Obama would never entertain Rush’s tomfoolery, I thought I’d compile some of Rush’s greatest hits, as recorded by PFAW Foundation’s Right Wing Watch, in case such a conversation were to ever take place. Besides, a little oppo research never hurt – although I’m certain there’s plenty of folks on the job.

Following Katrina, Limbaugh criticized what he described as “entitlement mentality” in New Orleans. Several right-wing think tanks, pundits, and lawmakers followed Rush’s lead with offensive comments.
 
Back in 2006, Media Matters caught Rush Limbaugh blaming the liberal government and UNICEF for the obesity crisis. Limbaugh accused the Bush Administration of “killing the poor with too much food.” 
 
The GOP’s mouthpiece has also encouraged Republicans to deliberately disenfranchise voters: 
I mean, you take a look at the average Democrat voter registration drive, you can take for every hundred thousand voters they register, the cumulative IQ would probably be less than a pencil eraser. So when it comes time for the election, half of them can be fooled in saying, "No, it's not Election Day. It's tomorrow, Wednesday." And they show up on Wednesday to vote when the polls are closed, and the Democrats claim a trick has been played on them. That's how stupid some of their voters are.
More Right Wing Watch hits on Rush available here, if you can even stomach this much Rush. Somehow, I think you get the point.

 

 

PFAW

Report from the Judiciary Committee

I'm sitting in the Senate Juduciary Committee executive meeting where Senator Leahy confirmed what we had been hearing -- despite the fact that David Ogden's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General was reported out on a vote of 14-5, with three Republicans including the ranking member in support -- the Republican caucus is going to filibuster the nomination on the floor.  All this because Ogden had the temerity while in public practice to stand up for the First Amendment and a woman's right to choose.

Senator Leahy also flagged the absurdity -- which People For noted earlier this week -- that the entire Republican caucus is threatening to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominees even before a single nomination is put forward. Senator Leahy noted that Republicans and their allies may want the President to fail, but that the American people surely do not. For the good of all of us, he said, President Obama needs to succeed. And that certainly means moving the President's nominees through expeditiously.

By the way, the final votes on the nominations of Elena Kagan -- who will be the first woman confirmed as Solicitor General -- and Tom Perrelli -- nominated to be Assistant Attorney General -- were both held up by the Republicans at the last executive meeting. The vote today? 13-3 and either 17-1 or 16-2. (There was some confusion about the last vote - will report back when it's clarified.)
 

UPDATE: So, it looks like the planned filibuster of the Ogden nomination may be losing some steam. Thanks to Senator Leahy for exposing the Republican obstructionism to the light of day. Also, the Committee has clarified the vote on Tom Perrelli's nomination: it was 17-1, with Senator Coburn as the only "no" vote.
 

PFAW

Rove, Miers to Testify

In my office, CNN is blasting the news that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have agreed to testify before Congress, under oath, about the Bush Administration's firing of US Attorneys.

Both will give depositions to investigators from the committee, and claims of privilege will be "significantly limited," according to a statement from the committee. Rove and Miers had been resisting congressional subpoenas about the matter, but a federal judge in Washington ruled that the former Bush administration officials had no grounds to invoke executive privilege in the case.

This is, in short, very good news.

People For has been pushing for some time to make Bush Administration officials testify about the politicization of the Department of Justice.  (Click here to see pictures of yours truly delivering your "Hold Rove in Contempt" petitions to Rep. Linda Sanchez.)

Getting Rove and Miers to testify is a big step towards exposing the actions of the Bush Administration, but there's plenty more to do.  Be sure to join our Campaign to Restore Justice and be sure to sign the three point petition.

PFAW

Republican Senators Make Threats on Judges, Try to Force "Bipartisanship" at Gunpoint

From Poltico:

President Barack Obama should fill vacant spots on the federal bench with former President Bush's judicial nominees to help avoid another huge fight over the judiciary, all 41 Senate Republicans said Monday.

...

"Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee," the letter warns. "And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not."

In other words, Republicans are threatening a filibuster of judges if they're not happy.

The letter talks about "bipartisanship" and, separate from the letter, several Republicans have been warning the president for some time against nominating "far left judges." But for all this talk about "bipartisanship" and throwing terms around like "far-left judges," what do they really mean?

Does bipartisanship mean nominating half right-wing judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade and don't believe in the Constitution's promise of equal rights under the law; half who agree that the Constitution makes certain guarantees in terms of people's rights and liberties and that it gives the government the authority and the responsibility to protect those rights, not undermine them?

Or does it mean that all of the president's judicial nominees must be "moderates," and if so, what is their definition of "moderate?" Is a moderate someone who is respectful of fundamental constitutional rights and principles like privacy, equality, the right to choose and checks and balances… as long as they are pro-corporate? We already have a Supreme Court that is overwhelmingly pro-business, much more so than many precious Courts, including the four supposedly "liberal" Justices.

Of course that's probably not the case (not that the president should feel compelled to nominate judges with a corporate-friendly bent anyway, especially now that we are in the middle of the havoc wreaked by corporate greed and excess, but I digress).

When it comes to this issue, what they really care about is pleasing their base. And when it comes to their base, the ONLY judges who are acceptable are extreme right-wing ideologues. So any actual "moderate," mainstream judges of course will be rejected -- and they will be cast as "far-left."

The Right sees the Judicial Branch in very black and white terms. They have accused the Democrats of having a litmus test on judges when it comes to Roe v. Wade. But that was obviously proven wrong by the fact that both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were confirmed even though they both, according to many experts, would vote to overturn Roe. No, it's the Right that has strict litmus tests on everything from Roe v. Wade and gay rights to free speech, the separation of church and state and, yes, how "business-friendly" a judge may be. Their base demands it! And Republican Senators -- even the so-called moderates like Snowe, Collins and Specter -- are unified on this one.

The judicial philosophies of the jurists respected by the Right are defined by extremism -- plain and simple. It's one thing for a judge to find legal exception with the way a certain case was decided (even if that decision protects a fundamental right, like Roe v. Wade), but quite another to subscribe to theories and views that fly in the face of mainstream judicial thought like:

  • "Constitution in Exile," which takes an extreme and limited view of the Commerce Clause and basically states that the regulatory policies of the New Deal were unconstitutional... and a huge number of policies and Supreme Court decisions going back nearly a hundred years, including civil rights protections, are unconstitutional as well. (Opinions expressed by Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia support "restoring the lost constitution.")
     
  • "Unitary Executive Theory," which has been used to justify insanely expansive views of executive power that defy the most commonsense understanding of our founding principles relating to checks and balances and a limited executive (remember, our founders were breaking from a monarchy - they obviously didn't want to create another one). The Bush administration exploited this theory over and over again its now infamous abuses of executive power.; and
     
  • a blatant disregard for the bedrock judicial principle of stare decisis (which Justice Clarence Thomas is said, even by Justice Scalia, to show).  

This is par for the course for right-wing judges. While those of us on the progressive side are not devoid of ideology, and are proud to have our own ideology when it comes to the Constitution and the law, the Right is by far more ideological and Republicans need to be called out for doing the Far Right's bidding once again.
 
President Obama and the Senate Democrats should challenge these Republican Senators to define their terms more specifically -- to tell them and the country EXACTLY what they mean by "bipartisanship" in this case and what they would consider acceptable or "moderate" nominees.  And the president should reject the GOP's attempt to force bipartisanship at gunpoint, by making threats and trying to use coercion to get him to appease their base on judges.

PFAW

On Fair Courts and Big Coal

Today in the Supreme Court, a case was argued that makes a pretty compelling case for a fair and independent judiciary. Robert Barnes at the Washington Post did a good overview yesterday.

Caperton and his little coal company sued a huge coal company on claims that it unlawfully drove him out of business, and a jury agreed, awarding him $50 million.

That company's chief executive vowed an appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court -- but first, he spent an unprecedented $3 million to persuade voters to get rid of a justice he didn't like and elect one he did.

Today during arguments the Court was (no surprise) divided. But the real principle may be bigger than simply campaign donations.

The Constitution sets up the judiciary as the branch of government dedicated to ensuring that the rule of law applies equally to all people. When it's broken – or perceived to be broken, -- there's scant reason for citizens to put their full faith in the government. And yet over the last years, President Bush has systematically flooded the courts with jurists who put political ideology over our most basic constitutional principles.

No longer fearing the worst when it comes to judicial appointments is, well, a big sigh of relief, but this case makes very clear how crucial it is that we repair the damage eight years of George Bush has done.

PFAW

The Party of NO Targets the Courts

Just last week I wrote about the Republicans as the Party of NO after their reflexive and not very wise decision to prevent two DOJ nominees, Elena Kagan and Tom Perrelli, from being voted on in Committee. This week they were at it again with a threat to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominees before a single nomination has even been submitted. You can read our Right Wing Watch post on their hypocrisy here. And you can read People For president Kathryn Kolbert's statement here. I particularly like her pointing out that Senate Republicans, who argued vigorously against filibusters in their previous incarnation apparently "have the collective memory of a goldfish."

PFAW

Court Rejects State Secrets Claim in Wiretapping Suit

There was good news today from the federal court of appeals in San Francisco today:

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security is a good enough reason to stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, cited the so-called state secrets privilege as its defense. The government claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the U.S. chapter of an Islamic charity was allowed to proceed.

You may remember that we were more than a little disappointed when the Obama Administration decided to assert its state secrets privilege earlier this month.  Today's ruling was a good sign our third branch of government is standing up for the rule of law.

PFAW

Remembering Barbara Jordan

Every February, People For the American Way, along with the rest of the country, celebrates Black History Month. And this year, more than ever, it's humbling to see just how far our nation has moved. And how far we still have to go.

I'm proud that People For the American Way can point to its own history to demonstrate why Black History Month is relevant to people of all backgrounds. Barbara Jordan was the first African American woman to serve in the Texas State Senate, the first African American woman to represent a southern state in Congress, and one of the founders of People For the American Way.

In 1981, when U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan joined Norman Lear to form People For the American Way, they understood that the promise of our nation, that all men (and women) are created equal, was not just unrealized, but was under active attack. But instead of focusing on what was wrong with our country, they used their powerful, utterly unique voices to speak for America's highest ideals and to push forward towards a better America.

Rep. Jordan was an energetic advocate of our Constitution's core values of fairness and equality under law. She continues to be an inspiration in our work, and it's not an exaggeration to say that it's because of leaders like Barbara Jordan that we were all able to celebrate the inauguration of President Barack Obama last month.

But still, there are those who are intent on dragging us backwards. While the inauguration was still fresh in our minds, People For was forced to lead an aggressive campaign to help confirm President Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder -- the first African American to hold the position. After eight years spent undermining the crucial work of the Department of Justice, the Right is fighting hard to prevent the new administration from truly restoring justice at the DOJ. This is why Attorney General Holder's comments about the racism in America ring true to so many of us in this constant battle against those who would turn back the clock on civil rights. And just last week we all got an ugly reminder of this pervasive racism and racial insensitivity in America when the New York Post published an offensive cartoon depicting President Obama as a chimp getting shot by two white police officers. The cartoon literally included several layers of tastelessness: the comparison of our first African American president to an ape, what could be construed as an invitation for violence against the president AND the stirring up of racial issues with law enforcement in a city that has particularly sensitive recent history in that area.

Many have pointed out that the lack of diversity in senior management and on the editorial staff of the Post was a major contributing factor to how a cartoon like that could get published in the first place. That's why I'm proud that People For and our affiliate foundation have taken so seriously our mission to help promote diversity. It can be seen very clearly in People For the American Way Foundation's leadership development programs, the Young Elected Officials Network and Young People For, which are among the most diverse programs of their kind -- ever. And it can be seen in our groundbreaking efforts to promote equality for all, like with People For Foundation's work with African American ministers to combat homophobia in the Black Church.

We're working hard to make sure that civil rights remain a top priority for this administration, and fighting against those who are intent on erecting barriers to the ballot, not to mention advocating for a more just Supreme Court, organizing for marriage equality for all and defending religious liberty by maintaining the separation between church and state.

Barbara Jordan made clear that there are certain principles that are not negotiable, values she called "indigenous to the American idea." Opportunity. Fairness. Equality under law. Those are still the values that bind our community together, and every day we're moving closer to that nation that she envisioned.

PFAW

Justice Stevens moderates panel on Marbury v. Madison

Today, at an event sponsored by the First Amendment Center and the Supreme Court Fellows Program Alumni Association, Justice John Paul Stevens, the Senior Associate on the Supreme Court, moderated a discussion with the authors of a new book, The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall and the Battle for the Supreme Court, Clifford Sloan and David McKean. The Justice gave only a brief introduction before the authors spoke about the book and answered questions. Justice Stevens first spoke about his initial exposure to Marbury v. Madison in law school. He jokingly reminisced about the length of time spent on the case, stating that his teacher spent the first six weeks of a constitutional law class devoted solely to the intricacies of the case. He voiced his admiration for the case, calling it fascinating, and agreeing with the assertions by the panelists that the case is “the cornerstone of the Constitutional system.

He then moved on to an issue that, while he admitted was not directly on topic, was very important, the separation of powers. Marbury solidified the independence of the judiciary as a separate branch of government with its own powers. Stevens strongly believes in this and voiced concern that the wall between the executive and the judiciary is weakening. He recalled that when he was sworn in as a justice, his ceremony was performed in the Supreme Court which he viewed to be strongly symbolic of the separation between the political appointment process and his judicial post. Since that time, however, the practice changed and is now performed in the White House. He has boycotted the past four swearing in ceremonies, as he believes that the judiciary should be strongly separated from the political branches, beginning with the swearing in. Stressing the symbolism of the place and manner of the oath, he voiced hope for a change in this process with the next appointee.

Again focusing on the importance of separating the judicial branch from the political process, Stevens questioned the authors about the impeachment of Justice Chase from the Supreme Court shortly after Marbury was decided. Essentially, the opposition party in the House of Representatives sought to impeach Chase because they did not agree with his decisions politically, and used the impeachment as a retaliation against the Court. Chase was eventually acquitted, establishing the doctrine that judges may not be removed due to a dispute over their political preferences or political disagreement with their decisions.

Those looking to for a discussion focused on Stevens's thoughts on the issue might have been disappointed.  Through out the event Stevens was largely content to listen to the panelists. When he spoke he showed his vast knowledge on the subject area, but remained in the role of moderator and gave much of the spot light to the panelists.

PFAW