Think Progress

Kyl’s Same Old Bag Of Tricks: Accuses Kagan Of Lying, Just Like He Did With Sotomayor

In a desperate, last-minute ploy to scuttle Justice Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) falsely accused her of perjuring herself before the Senate Judicary Committee:

Later in her hearing, Judge Sotomayor gave the following testimony: “I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statues. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws except in the situations where American law directs the court.” While this kind of declarative statement would normally provide some measure of comfort, it is belied by words Judge Sotomayor uttered less than three months ago, that judges were “commanded” to look to “persuasive” sources, including foreign law, in interpreting our own law. [...]

It gives me great pause that Judge Sotomayor could say one thing at a public speech earlier this year and say the opposite while under oath before the Judiciary Committee, especially since she never repudiated her speech.

Now, as Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is just as certain to be confirmed, Kyl is apparently just as desperate. In what will likely be his final floor speech on Kagan’s nomination, Kyl once again falsely accused a Supreme Court nominee of lying:

In explaining why I could not vote for now-Justice Sotomayor, I said I thought she was disingenuous with the Judiciary Committee. Obviously reaching such a conclusion precludes support notwithstanding other qualifications for the position. Reluctantly, after analysis of her testimony, weighed with her past writings, statements and actions, I have reached the same conclusion regarding Elena Kagan.

Watch it:

Kyl then proceededd to recite a long list of mythical claims about Kagan, and argue that she must have been lying at her confirmation hearing because her testimony does not square with the right’s mythology. “Exhibit A” of his case against Kagan, for example is that she claims to be in favor of gay rights, but she really has no objections to a anti-gay tenets of “Shariah law.” “Exhibit B” is that she claims to not be a judicial activist, even though she had the audacity to praise legal legend and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And so forth.

This tactic did not work when Sotomayor was up for a vote, and it will not work now. Kyl needs to learn that there is nothing “disingenuous” about refusing to confess to an absurd list of trumped up charges again you.

Cornyn Attacks Activist Judges, Then Attacks Kagan As Insufficently Activist

In a floor speech explaining his opposition to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) attacked her for refusing the endorse the frivolous argument that unelected judges should strike down the health care law enacted by elected representatives:

I was also troubled by a couple of other areas . . . One has to do with the power of the federal government and I had mentioned a moment ago. Under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has previously basically given the federal government almost limitless powers and we’ve seen that play here in the debate over the individual mandate in the health insurance bill . . . But Solicitor General Kagan did not seem to recognize that the federal government’s powers are one of enumerated powers delegated by — delegated by the states and by the people.

Just a few minutes earlier, however, Cornyn ranted against judges who have the audacity to substitute their views for those of elected Members of Congress:

­If ­we ­don’t ­like ­the ­way ­Congress ­– ­the ­law ­congress ­makes, ­well, congress,­ of ­course, ­is ­free ­to ­change ­it. And ­if ­we ­the ­people still don’t like the way Congress writes the law when they refuse to respond to the will of the people, we have a right to replace Members of Congress. That’s the way a democracy runs, not by a judge dictating to us what he or she thinks is good for us.

Watch it:

This is not the first time Cornyn set the landspeed record for self-contradiction.  During Kagan’s confirmation hearing, Cornyn insisted that precedents he approves of are sacred, while precedents he disagrees with are a blasphemy that must be overruled.  Moreover, Cornyn’s view that the law and the Constitution mean whatever he wants it to mean is all too common among conservatives.  Most famously, Chief Justice Roberts promised “to have the humility to recognize that [judges] operate within a system of precedent” when he was up for confirmation, only to spend his entire time as Chief Justice ignoring precedents that conservatives don’t like.

In other words, Cornyn and Roberts are taking a page out of Henry Ford’s playbook.  The American people can have whatever kind of laws they want — so long as they’re conservative.

Contradicting His Earlier Denial, Rubio Admits ‘Tax Cuts Don’t Pay For Themselves’

Republicans have spent the last two weeks trying to create a fantasy world in which — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary — tax cuts inevitably pay for themselves through economic growth. This absurd claim supports their demand that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans be extended beyond their January First end date, and that the $830 billion in lost revenue they represent doesn’t need to be offset.

Marco Rubio, who is running for the Senate in Florida on the GOP ticket, has also been a proponent of this alternate reality. When pressed on MSNBC last month about how he would offset the cots of extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, Rubio suggested there’s no need to, saying, “they will be paid for because they create economic growth.”

But at a recent campaign stop in Fort Lauderdale with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rubio seemed to be suddenly struck with a dose of reality, admitting that “tax cuts don’t pay for themselves“:

With the Bush tax cuts set to expire in January and debate in Congress heating up, Rubio has been staking out his position at recent campaign events. [...]

“The tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, but they certainly lead to [economic] growth,” Rubio said. “Combined with the kind of measures we’ve proposed to hold down spending . . . put us in the place we want to be.”

Asked how he would pay for the tax cuts, Rubio pointed to his support for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and his 12-point plan to spur economic growth. His proposals include repealing the new healthcare legislation, freezing nonmilitary spending and banning so-called earmarks for members’ pet projects.

This acknowledgement is in stark contrast with the message of the congressional Republican leadership, in addition to Rubio’s own prior statements.

Perhaps Cantor’s presence contributed to Rubio’s off-message reversal. Cantor recently admitted — very reluctantly — that extending the Bush tax cuts would indeed “dig the hole deeper” on the deficit. Of course, Cantor and the new Rubio are correct — the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves, and extending them on the wealthy will only increase the deficit.

Pence Can’t Think Of Any GOP Ideas That Are Different From Bush, Says Simply: We Are ‘Pro-Growth’

Yesterday at a fundraiser in Atlanta, President Obama took a jab at Republicans for failing to break away from President Bush and trying to “bamboozle” the American public. “It’s not like they’ve engaged in some heavy reflection,” he said. “They have not come up with a single, solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people. They don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas – not one.”

Today on MSNBC, when host Joe Scarborough asked Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) to differentiate today’s GOP from Bush, Pence couldn’t offer much in the way of specifics:

SCARBOROUGH: Give Americans listening to you today a vision for America that is different from the vision that George W. Bush had for America because their argument is you guys are all just George Bush clones.

PENCE: … The vision for Republicans going forward is to produce pro-growth tax policies that will get this economy moving again. But to really practice what we preach about fiscal discipline and entitlement reform. … We can have pro-growth tax relief going forward but we’ve got to get back to basic spending discipline and the principles of limited government.

Despite Pence’s generalizations of “fiscal discipline,” Scarborough seemed convinced. “That is a radical difference from what Republicans did from 2001 to 2008,” he said. Watch it:

For starters, like Pence, President Bush was also good at delivering similar sweeping, non-specific rhetoric:

– “I also had a good discussion today…about how we can kind of get away from all the distractions that tend to dominate Washington and focus on a pro-growth agenda for this fall.” [9/07/01]

– “Social Security reform, entitlement reform is an important topic.” [10/16/04]

– “You have to have some fiscal discipline if you want to balance the federal budget, and that’s what I’m asking Congress to do.” [2/06/07]

Moreover, a new CAPAF report out today notes that the GOP agenda out of the Republican Study Committee — of which Pence is a member — is a mirror image of the Bush years. Their “Economic Freedom Act” calls for more deficit funded tax cuts and will cost a whopping $10 trillion and their ideas to pay for it will cover less than 5 percent of the total cost. Sixty-one percent of the tax benefits will go to the richest 1 percent of households while the average middle-class tax payer’s tax cut will be paltry in comparison to the richest one pecent.

Writing in the New York Times today, David Stockman, President Reagan’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, agrees. “If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing,” he said.

As the President noted yesterday, the reality is that Republicans have yet to come up with a “single idea” that is different from Bush and as demonstrated by Pence’s comments this morning, they’re having a hard time disproving that.

NRA Too Afraid Of Looking Weak To Fully Oppose Kagan

Almost immediately after President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, conservatives started spouting trumped up claims that she would take away everyone’s guns, even though there is no evidence that her views on the Second Amendment differ from right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia. Yet while conservative media tells armed Americans to be very, very afraid of Kagan and oppose her at all costs, the nation’s largest gun lobby is backing away:

Conservative activists who focus on the judiciary say the NRA is very protective of its win-loss record in political fights and is loath to undermine its powerful reputation with a losing effort against Kagan. [...]

“While they put effort into it, it hasn’t been a full-throated effort,” [right-wing operative Curt] Levey said of the group.

He said the NRA is used to focusing on legislative battles over gun control and “they know that that Kagan’s going to be confirmed.

“They’re worried about their won-loss record,” he said. [...]

[I]t has not waged the intensive grass-roots campaign that some conservative activists had hoped for. These activists believe the NRA is also reluctant to strain relations with Democrats such as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) who often side with gun owners in legislative fights.

If all the NRA cares about its batting average, than it should have never spoken on on Kagan in the first place. Last year, the gun lobby embarrassed itself by opposing Justice Sotomayor — the first time in its history that the NRA spoke out against a Supreme Court nominee. Although a handful of senators flirted with voting against Sotomayor because of her record on guns, the NRA’s unprecedented action ultimately swayed no votes.

Meanwhile, gun lobby groups like the NRA have pumped up both their membership and their apparent “win” ratio by fighting against entirely imaginary threats — spouting conspiracy theories about how the Recovery Act is a secret plan to take away all guns, and encouraging gun enthusiasts to stockpile weapons before Obama takes them away.

No doubt when Obama leaves office — and none of these threats have actually materialized — the NRA will claim “victory” and use the opportunity to fundraise. In the meantime, however, lawmakers on Capitol Hill should ask whether they need to keep caving to the NRA when the NRA itself doesn’t think that it has the mojo to fight and win a hard battle.