ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

The 5th Circuit's Political Tantrum Against Obama

Trump Offers To Expose His ‘Very Very’ Impressive Genitals

Anti-Evolution ‘Monkey Bill’ Poised To Become Law In Tennessee

Economy

Mine Union President Compares Fate Of Coal Industry To Osama Bin Laden’s Death

By Travis Waldron posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm

UMWA President Cecil Roberts

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulations to limit coal-fired power plants will have the same effect on the coal industry that the American military had on Osama bin Laden, the president of the nation’s largest mining labor union said Tuesday.

The rules seek to limit emissions from new power plants, forcing new plants to install carbon capturing technology to comply. United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts opposes those rules, saying that if enacted, they would kill the coal industry the way Navy SEALs killed bin Laden, The Hill reports:

“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Cecil Roberts, president of the powerful union, said during an interview Tuesday on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline. [...]

“I noticed this past week the vice president was talking about the campaign and he mentioned that Osama Bin Laden was dead and General Motors was alive,” Roberts said. “He should have gone on to say that the coal industry is not far behind with respect to what happened with Osama Bin Laden.”

Roberts’ preposterous comparison aside, the new rules wouldn’t affect clean coal, which the industry and its backers — like Roberts — claim exists. Roberts also ignores that despite falling coal production in the nation’s biggest coal producing region — Appalachia is rapidly approaching its peak coal capacity — coal employment rose to a 15-year high in 2011, largely due to EPA regulations.

While the UMWA will most likely avoid challenging President Obama on the issue during the 2012 presidential election, the new EPA rules could cost the president an endorsement. Still, Roberts thinks Obama has “done a lot of great things for the country,” though it isn’t clear whether Roberts considers bringing about the death of the world’s most notorious terrorist to be one of them.

Climate Progress

Tea Party Introduces ‘Wacky’ And ‘Ludicrous’ Conspiracy Bill To Shut Down Arizona Energy Efficiency Programs

By Stephen Lacey posted from Climate Progress on Apr 4, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Arizona State Senator Judy Burges believes efficiency programs are a way to create a one-world government

Citing conspiracy theories about “a one-world order,” the Arizona Tea Party is attempting to slip a bill through the legislature that could strip programs designed to help residents in the state become more energy efficient.

The bill’s sponsor, Arizona State Senator Judy Burges, says her goal is to wipe out any environmental program administered or funded by the government to prevent “social engineering … including where we live, what we eat.”

Burges’ bill, Senate Bill 1507, is based upon an unfounded conspiracy theory about “Agenda 21,” a non-binding international plan for environmentally-sustainable development crafted by the United Nations. The plan was adopted in 1992 by 178 countries, including the United States under the George H.W. Bush administration.

Burges and other members of the Tea Party believe that clean energy programs in Arizona are a plot by the United Nations to create a single world government in order to control people’s lives. AZ Central reported on SB 1507:

The bill would bar the state and Arizona counties and cities “from adopting or implementing the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.”

Under the provisions of Burges’ bill, the state, counties and cities could not accept funds from, spend funds from or give funds to “certain non-governmental organizations,” including non-profit groups and contractors, for any of the declaration’s initiatives.

Wes Harris, a Phoenix resident and tea-party member, also testified with Burges, repeating theories about the declaration that have been floated among conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, which refer to the declaration as “Agenda 21.”

Harris claimed the declaration “is an attempt to implement a one-world order. It’s been going on for 20 years. It has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. It has been snuck around the back door by the Clinton administration.”

The Arizona conspiracy bill has already moved through the Senate, through a House committee, and is now set for discussion on the House floor. If passed by the House, the bill could block state and municipal programs that help home and business owners invest in energy efficiency improvements.

Chad Campbell, the Democratic House Minority Leader called the legislation “the most ludicrous … I’ve seen in six years…. You could pretty much shut down any form of government sustainability” program.

An onlooker with the Sierra Club called it “wacky.”

The bill was crafted through a “strike-everything” amendment, which allows a legislator to re-write an existing law with limited scrutiny. Burges has substituted language in an unemployment bill with the Agenda 21 wording that would severely limit Arizona’s ability to adopt efficiency and clean energy programs.

This isn’t the first conspiracy theory Judy Burges has been involved in. She is also a fierce “birther” who questions President Obama’s citizenship, despite being presented with a certificate of live birth.

Her previous attempts to pass legislation demanding Obama’s long form birth certificate have failed. But this latest conspiracy-laden bill actually has momentum in the Arizona legislature — threatening to derail the state’s valuable clean energy programs in the process.

Special Topic

Wisconsin And Maryland Show Romney Still Struggling To Win Over Lower-Income Voters

By Alex Seitz-Wald posted from ThinkProgress Special Topic on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, exit polls from the states that have held primaries thus far show that Romney wins among wealthy voters, and does less well among middle- and working-class voters.

This trend continued in last night’s primaries. Even though he won both Maryland and Wisconsin, the results were uneven when broken down by income. Romney’s vote share increases as income goes up, and vice versa. He captured big majorities of the wealthiest voters, but was unable to break 50 percent among those making under $100,000. Exit polls from the two states:

It’s no wonder everyone seems to agree he “favors the rich,” according to a CNN poll.

Health

Romney Accuses Obama Of Taking ‘A Series Of Steps That End Medicare As We Know It’

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress Health on Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Just one day after President Obama declared that the Republican budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) would “ultimately end Medicare as we know it,” his likely Republican opponent appeared at the Newspaper Association of America and threw the accusation right back at him. Obama, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it” and “is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare”:

ROMNEY: I’d be willing to consider the President’s plan, but he doesn’t have one. That’s right: In over three years, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.

Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it. He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare. And, as a result, more than half of doctors say they will cut back on treating seniors. He is destroying the Medicare Advantage program, eliminating the coverage that millions of seniors depend on and reducing choice by two-thirds.

To control Medicare cost, he has created an unelected, unaccountable panel with the power to prevent Medicare from providing certain treatments. The result will be fewer treatments and services available to patients in need, and nowhere else to turn.

Watch it:

Romney rarely lets the facts get in the way of his rhetoric, but these oft-repeated accusations ring particularly hallow — and are hardly rare. The savings achieved in Medicare through the Affordable Care Act will help stabilize Medicare by eliminating overpayments to private insurers and slowly phasing in payment adjustments that encourage greater efficiency. As a result, the law extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by nine years and allows seniors to retain all of their guaranteed Medicare benefits. Medicare beneficiaries are already paying less for prescription drug coverage and receiving preventive care as a result of the law, while enrollment in Medicare Advantage has increased and premiums have fallen. The law, in other words, does exactly the opposite of Romney’s claim: it expands Medicare “as we know it.”

That doesn’t mean that it solves all of our health care cost problems. It doesn’t and Obama has proposed accelerating some of the law’s cost-control mechanisms to further lower the growth of spending. But Romney has labeled such efforts “rationing” and is offering an alternative “premium support” scheme that transforms senior’s guaranteed Medicare benefit into a voucher and significantly reduces the government’s contribution to the program. As a result, seniors will likely pay more for their health care, while the market clout and purchasing power of traditional Medicare — which has led on delivery reform and efficiencies — will shrink. So if the question is, which candidate ends Medicare for seniors, it’s hard to see how Romney’s plan to push future retirees into private insurance doesn’t fit the bill.

Politics

Rebuild The Dream: Change Doesn’t Come Without A Fight

By Guest Blogger on Apr 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm

Our guest blogger is Van Jones, a former green jobs adviser in the Obama administration and author of a new book, Rebuild The Dream, which is being officially released today.

In 2008, millions of people voted for hope and change. We found out it was a lot harder than we thought. Now, millions of us are struggling to make it to the next paycheck, and we’re barely fighting off attacks on the environment, women’s health rights, economic regulations, and everything the 99% need to reach the American Dream.

As a grassroots outsider who became a White House insider, I’ve got a special perspective on these challenges. My new book, Rebuild the Dream, pulls no punches in explaining what we’re up against. But it’s also a roadmap to win — in 2012, and beyond.

It’s likely the book will cause controversy. In it, I say what I think about the Tea Party (including what it does well), and I offer constructive feedback for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

On the Tea Party:

A major reason the Tea Party movement was so successful was that it faced effectively zero competition from elsewhere along the political spectrum. In a period of economic agony, there was only one form of militant economic populism that was visible: the right wing, libertarian variety that was on offer from the Tea Parties. Progressives also could have been demanding redress, marching for jobs, barking at the banks, and thereby attracting millions of supporters, but most were peaceably getting to know the new administration, muting their criticisms of Wall Street, and hoping the stimulus bill would work. For two years, progressives let angry right-wingers own the streets, unchallenged. If an American was “mad as hell” about the economy, there was only one place to go.

On Occupy Wall Street:

Occupy Wall Street is composed of people of all ages, but it is powered by younger people…Millennials are going to account for one-third of all the eligible voters in 2016. They stood up in 2008 for Obama and made history. Disillusioned by politics, they sat down in 2010. In so doing, they made history again but in the opposite direction. Then they got out their tents and sleeping bags to lie down in the streets of New York and made history that way, too. Standing, sitting, or lying down, this generation shakes the foundations of the nation into which it was born…If they continue to fight for a more fair economy, all bets are off as to the kind of transformation Millennials can bring about.

I’m the first Obama insider to write about my experience; the book has a real shot at the Best Seller List. This could be HUGE for our movement. If we make it, Rebuild the Dream will be the only bestseller on economic justice. It will validate our movement in mainstream media, and it will get our message out to millions of people in libraries, airports, and bookstores around the country.

Read more

Justice

87 Year-Old Voter Claims She Was Disenfranchised By Voter ID Despite Court Decision Striking It Down

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Two Wisconsin state courts have declared Wisconsin’s Voter ID law unconstitutional under the state constitution. Moreover, as one of the two judges to do so pointed out, the law already disenfranchised voters during the short time it is in effect — including a Marine veteran and a 84 year-old former elected official. Yesterday, it also appears to have disenfranchised one more elderly voter, despite the fact that the law is supposed to be suspended due to the multiple court decisions against it:

It took persistence – and a second trip to her Waukesha polling place – by a 63-year-old Waukesha woman to vote Tuesday. But she said her 87-year-old mother who couldn’t make the trip back was disenfranchised by a poll worker who asked to see a photo ID.

Wisconsin’s new voter ID law was in place for the February primary but not for Tuesday’s general election after a judge ruled it was unconstitutional. The photo ID requirement is on hold while the matter is appealed. . . .

The woman said she and her mother had moved to Waukesha last May and registered to vote at Waukesha City Hall in January. They went to their Waukesha West High School poll Tuesday but were asked to show identification – which her mother hadn’t brought with her. Her own driver’s license had an out-of-date address on it, she said.

“We were listed on their friggin’ poll list,” she said, “and yet we had our names highlighted.” The poll worker said maybe they didn’t register in time, though they clearly had.

As a new Center for American Progress Report points out, elderly voters are frequently the victims of Voter ID laws. A short list of older voters who have been kept from the polls by these laws include Paul Carroll, a 86-year-old World War II veteran from Ohio; Dorothy Cooper, a 96-year-old African-American woman from Tennessee, and Thelma Mitchell a 93-year-old woman who cleaned the Tennessee Capitol for 30 years.

Yesterday, however, probably marks the first time an elderly voter was disenfranchised by a voter ID law that isn’t even supposed to be in effect.

LGBT

Top Romney Surrogate Donald Trump Offers To Expose His ‘Very Very’ Impressive Genitals

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress LGBT on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Politico’s Mike Allen reported last month that reality star/businessman/attention seeker Donald Trump is building his political stature as a top surrogate for Mitt Romney. The controversial figure is supposedly “gaining juice and respectability in national politics,” Allen reports, has recorded robo-calls ahead of key primary battles and participated in “a ton of talk radio for Romney in Michigan, Arizona and Ohio.” The Donald even received personal “thank you” shout outs from Ann Romney during multiple campaign victory speeches.

It’a curious relationship and one that may prove dangerous for the Massachusetts governor, as he courts independent voters ahead of the general election. Trump is a shameless and at times unpredictable self-promoter whose history of misogyny will do little to help Romney’s low standing with women voters. After all, this is the same guy who described Rosie O’Donnell as a “very unattractive woman both inside and out” and a “fat slob,” allegedly required Miss USA pageant contestant to parade in front of him “so he could separate out those he found sexually appealing from those he did not,” and suggested that he would be dating his daughter and her “very nice figure” if he were not her father. Just yesterday, Trump inserted himself into the controversy surrounding a transgender contestant who had been disqualified from participating in his Miss Universe competition by offering to show his penis:

Donald Trump is confident … attorney Gloria Allred would be blown away by his man junk.

The Donald called in to TMZ Live moments ago, claiming, “I think Gloria would be very very impressed with [my penis].”

Donald’s genitals became a topic of contention earlier today during Gloria’s news conference with transgender beauty queen Jenna Talackova — when Gloria said, Jenna “didn’t ask Mr. Trump to prove he’s a naturally born man, or see photos of his birth, or to view his anatomy … It made no difference to her.”

But it makes a difference to Donald, who said he’d be willing to show what he’s got … if Gloria’s willing to pay the right price.

Donald also said he wouldn’t apologize for disqualifying Jenna last week from the Miss Universe pageant on the basis of her birth gender — even though he later reversed his position — and added, he “couldn’t care less” if Jenna even competes.

Romney courted Trump’s endorsement and even appeared alongside him to accept his support. And while one can’t ascribe Trump’s sexist comments to Romney, it’s a wonder that he feels so comfortable with Trump representing his candidacy to voters.

Justice

Anti-Evolution ‘Monkey Bill’ Poised To Become Law In Tennessee

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:20 am

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) announced yesterday that he will “probably” sign a bill that attacks the teaching of “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” by giving broad new legal immunities to teachers who question evolution and other widely accepted scientific theories. Under the bill, which passed the state legislature last month:

Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

Although the bill is written to seem benign, as it neither specifically authorizes the teaching of creationism nor permits teachers to do more than criticize scientific theories “in an objective matter,” the practical impact of this bill will be to intimidate all but the heartiest of school administrators against disciplining teachers who preach the most outlandish junk science in their classrooms. Because the bill provides little guidance as to what constitutes an “objective” criticism of a scientific theory, any principal who reigns in teachers who force creationism or Pastafarianism upon their students risks finding themselves on the wrong side of the law.

In reality, of course, there are few, if any, “objectively” valid objections to the theory of evolution (or, for that matter, to global warming). Rather, as Travis Waldron explained when this bill passed a legislative committee nearly a year ago, “Scientists have reached a consensus that evolution is ‘one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science,’ and as such, it is ‘a core element in science education.’”

Related Posts

Special Topic

McCain Jokes That Sarah Palin Would Be A Good VP Pick For Romney

By Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress Special Topic on Apr 4, 2012 at 10:45 am

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared to be joking this morning when he told CBS that he thought Mitt Romney should pick former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Palin was McCain’s famed VP pick in his own 2008 presidential bid, and cited by many as one of the reasons he lost. McCain has endorsed Romney.

“I think it should be Sarah Palin,” McCain told CBS’ This Morning, laughing. He then listed other possible picks — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). Watch it:

If McCain was joking, it’s both an admission of his own error in judgment for picking Palin in 2008, and a sleight against the former Alaska Governor-turned-TV-celebrity.

Economy

Rep. Steve King Becomes The Latest Republican To Waver On Norquist’s Anti-Tax Pledge

By Scott Keyes posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Apr 4, 2012 at 10:15 am

ALGONA, Iowa — The latest Republican to vacillate on Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge was found yesterday in rural western Iowa, where Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a town hall that although he’d signed the pledge, he didn’t know what he would do if taxes were cut too much.

King was pressed by Algona resident Blair Redenius on why Congress continues to give tax breaks for the wealthy during a time of war. Redenius’ son served three tours in Iraq. After King defended the Bush tax cuts, Redenius noted that the Iowa congressman had signed Norquist’s pledge.

Though nobody’s idea of a moderate, King showed surprising sensibility on the issue of taxes. “I signed this pledge, but what do we do when we get taxes down to where they need to be?” King asked. “At some point we’re going to cut taxes too much. What’s the answer then?”

REDENIUS: One I know you signed is the Norquist pledge, no new taxes. If President Bush would have raised effort for the war effort, would you have voted for that?

KING: [...] I don’t know if I would have or not. I would have to look at the configuration of it and see what it would have been. But I talk to Grover Norquist and I told him this: I signed this pledge, but what do we do when we get taxes down to where they need to be? At some point we’re going to cut taxes too much. What’s the answer then? I’m thinking about that. I haven’t made a public statement on that. That’s as far as I’m willing to go on that.

Watch it:

Still, Redenius remained unconvinced that King would actually break his pledge to Norquist. “I felt he wouldn’t have voted for it because he signed that pledge,” Redenius told ThinkProgress. “The only pledge he should take is the one when he takes office.”

King is just the latest Republican to waver on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. Others include Reps. Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Charles Boustany (R-LA), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Pennsylvania state Rep. John Bear.

  • Comment Icon

Justice

Fox News’ Legal Analyst Disagrees With 5th Circuit’s Attack On Obama: ‘I’m Not So Sure The DoJ Has To Comply With This’

By Faiz Shakir posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Apr 4, 2012 at 9:31 am

Last night, Fox News host Greta Van Susteren – an accomplished former trial attorney and legal analyst – criticized the 5th Circuit panel for making an illogical demand of the Department of Justice.

Yesterday, Republican Judge Jerry Smith, speaking presumably for the entire panel, demanded a 3-page, single-spaced letter from the Department of Justice on whether it agrees with President Obama that it would be inappropriate for “unelected judges” to strike down Obamacare. Obama himself clarified yesterday that, “[w]e have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care,” which is correct.

Judge Smith asked the DoJ attorney whether courts have the power to overturn an act passed by Congress and signed by the President. The lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, straightforwardly answered yes and referenced the landmark case affirming such power of judicial review — Marbury v. Madison. Van Susteren said last night, “What I see, first of all, the judge doesn’t need this information, and she [DoJ attorney] answered the question. It really should be over at that point.” Explaining “I’ve never seen anything like this,” she urged the DoJ to refuse to comply with the Judge’s request:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department – I would certainly be having this discussion – is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it’s clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I’m not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.

Watch it:

As Ian Millhiser observed, the 5th Circuit is mostly interested in trying to “embarrass the president.” He writes, “This is not how judges behave. This is how politicians behave. If Judge Smith and his co-ideologues cannot refrain from such purely political tantrums, they should resign their seats and run for office as Republicans.”

  • Comment Icon

Politics

Morning Briefing: April 4, 2012

By ThinkProgress on Apr 4, 2012 at 9:00 am

Mitt Romney swept yesterday’s primary contests in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C. With the victories, Romney has taken a commanding lead in the delegate count. Romney’s win, combined with President Obama’s attack on the Republican yesterday, has led many in the media to declare the primary campaign over and the general begun.

After the losses, Rick Santorum has more than delegates at stake in the Pennsylvania primary on April 24 as he clings to life. Romney’s campaign is now debating whether or not to try to crush Santorum in his home state, or save resources for the general.

Despite Republicans’ attempts to portray President Obama as bad for Israel, 62 percent of American Jewish voters want him to be reelected, according to a new poll form the Public Religion Research Institute. About a third of Jewish voters prefer a Republican candidate.

The U.S. Justice Department warned a lawyer for Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a letter yesterday that he’s been negotiating with them in bad faith and that they may have to sue the lawman. The sheriff has refused to allow court-appointed monitor into his department. Arpaio is under investigation for civil rights violations.

The U.S. and Afghanistan are close to signing an agreement to give Afghans effective control over nighttime raids, clearing the way for the two nations to sign a strategic-partnership agreement next month. Night raids have been one of the biggest sticking points in relations between the two countries.

Syrian government officials claimed a few hours ago that they began withdrawing troops in the country, a week ahead of the deadline set as part of the Kofi Annan-brokered truce plan. But renewed violence has broken out in the city of Homs and other pockets across the country, and a U.N. advance peacekeeping team is on its way to Syria.

Thirty people were pepper sprayed yesterday during a protest of high tuition costs at Santa Monica College in California. The protesters were chanting, “no cuts, no fees, education should be free” outside of a trustee meeting when police tried to silence them with pepper spray. Five people were brought to the hospital for treatment.

A new book assessing the impact of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell through studies and personal essays finds the impact to be “negligible, if that.” It’s just further evidence that conservatives’ fears about allowing gay soldiers to serve were unfounded.

And finally: Veteran news anchor and presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer has a message for audiences at debates: “Shut up.” “These debates are critical,” he said in an interview. Audience members should be told that they aren’t participants, he advised. “Shut up. Do not scream. Do not holler.”

  • Comment Icon

Special Topic

Top Romney Surrogate: In General Election, Women Will See Romney’s ‘Real Views’

By Judd Legum posted from ThinkProgress Special Topic on Apr 3, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Tonight on CNN, Robert Ehrlich, Mitt Romney’s Maryland campaign chair, suggested that voters — particularly women — would not be exposed to Romney’s “real views” until the general election. Ehrlich said that once women “see” Romney’s “real views,” the gender gap between him and President Obama would dissipate.

Watch it:

Ehrlich, the former Republican Governor of Maryland, is pro-choice.

Last month, a top Romney aide said that Romney didn’t have to worry about lurching to the right during the primary because in the general election he could start over fresh “almost like an Etch A Sketch.”

Yesterday, Romney’s wife Ann said, “I guess we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out.”

  • Comment Icon

Justice

Republican Fifth Circuit Pitches A Partisan Tantrum After President Obama Speaks Out About Supreme Court

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit may be the most ideological court in the country. When the oil industry’s allies in Congress wanted to protect the industry from drilling lawsuits, they passed a bill trying to force those lawsuits into the reliably industry-friendly Fifth Circuit. When a high school cheerleader sued her school district after it made her cheer for her alleged rapist, the Fifth Circuit ordered the alleged rape victim to pay more than $40,000. When one of the court’s few progressives asked a series of probing questions to a prosecutor during a court hearing, Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Edith Jones yelled at him to “shut up” and asked him if he would like to leave the courtroom. Earlier today, however, the Fifth Circuit left the realm of mere ideology and leaped over the line into partisanship.

Immediately after a DOJ attorney took the podium today in an appeal of a lower court decision upholding a provision of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Judge Jerry Smith threw a tantrum:

[W]hen a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law. . . . Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

After argument, the Republican panel then ordered the attorney to produce a three page, single-spaced letter explaining that courts do have the power to strike down federal laws.

Let’s be clear what’s going on here. Yesterday, President Obama made a statement that can plausibly be read either as saying that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down any law enacted by democratically elected officials, or that the Affordable Care Act was both enacted by democratically elected officials and that it would also be unprecedented for the Court to strike it down.

Today, President Obama make it clear that he intended the second meaning, and he went into more detail about just what he believes would be “unprecedented” about striking down his signature law. As the president explained, “[w]e have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care” during the modern constitutional era. And, lest their be any doubt, President Obama is unquestionably right. The Supreme Court has only struck down two laws as beyond Congress’ power to regulate commerce in the last 75 years, and both of those cases involved laws that were completely non-commercial in nature.

The Republicans on the Fifth Circuit panel heard President Obama’s original statement, however, and they did not hear two plausible meanings. They did not consider the possibility that President Obama might have misspoke. And they did not wait for him to elaborate on his statement today in a way that both clarifies his meaning and removes any suggestion that the president’s views are not 100 percent accurate. Instead, they saw an opportunity to embarrass the president by forcing a fairly junior attorney in the Department of Justice to write a letter that might then be used to embarrass the president politically.

This is not how judges behave. This is how politicians behave. If Judge Smith and his co-ideologues cannot refrain from such purely political tantrums, they should resign their seats and run for office as Republicans.

Update

The Wall Street Journal has a transcript of Judge Smith’s remarks. They are even more overreaching and partisan than previous reports suggest:

Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

Needless to say, the only possible reason why Smith could specifically require that the letter make “specific reference to the president’s statements” is because this Republican judge believes that it will force DOJ to produce a document that will embarrass President Obama.

  • Comment Icon

Alyssa

What’s Wrong With This Picture Illustrating Vanity Fair’s Women In Television Article?

By Alyssa Rosenberg posted from ThinkProgress Alyssa on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Is it:

a) None of the women featured here are the women who created this year’s crop of female-centric television shows, a decision that minimizes the importance of women in creating and shaping depictions on the back end of television production.

b) That Vanity Fair has a strange idea of what women wear to sleepovers.

c) That a feature on a boom in dude shows would never, ever be shot solely with a mind towards providing women with eye candy.

d) All of the above.

Because we needed yet another reminder that even when television is about women, it still has to be for men.

  • Comment Icon

Green

Koch-Funded ALEC Behind State Attempts To ‘Reclaim’ Your Public Lands

By Public Lands Team posted from ThinkProgress Green on Apr 3, 2012 at 6:15 pm

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In the last few months, Republican presidential candidates from Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum have shown their ignorance about the value of public lands.  And recently a handful of states have joined the fray, with state legislators introducing bills that demand Congress turn over millions of acres of public lands to the states or face a lawsuit.  Utah has taken this idea the furthest, where two weeks ago Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed a bill into law demanding that Congress give 30 million acres of federal land located in Utah to the state by 2015 or it will sue.

But buried under the headlines is the fact these bills are being quietly drafted and promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing corporate front group that provides draft legislation to state lawmakers and is funded by some of America’s biggest corporations including Koch Industries, BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.

As the Associated Press reported:

Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.

And in January, Utah Pulse noted that:

Lawmakers in four western land states will be running similar bills in their legislative sessions this year – Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Idaho.  Ivory’s bill will be unique to Utah, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has turned his bill into model legislation that other western land states can use.  While ALEC is a conservative legislative/business group, Ivory says he hopes to get Utah Democrats onboard with this new effort.

ALEC is behind many controversial state legislative efforts, including Wisconsin’s anti-union legislation, “stand your ground” gun laws, and teaching children climate denial.

Read more

  • Comment Icon

Older

Switch to Mobile