Today the Don't Ask Don't Tell leaped over the final major hurdle to passage. It passed a cloture vote today with a 63 to 33 in favor of moving the bill to vote. Six Republicans Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted in favor of the bill. This allows the bill to have an up or down vote. The possible vote will happen as early as 3pm today. After that it goes to the President for his signature, and after his signature he will implement the repeal. This is a great day to be an American.
Below is a link to CSPAN-2 so if anyone is interested they can watch the Senate proceedings.
Watch the Debate on CSPAN-2
18 December 2010
15 December 2010
A Conservative Activist Judge Strikes at Healthcare Reform
On Monday Judge Henry Hudson ruled in favor of Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli by agreeing that the Individual Mandate was Unconstitutional. This is an interesting ruling since two other judges have already dismissed the claims. His argument was that the Individual Mandate went passed what was intended in the Commerce Clause. This ruling is pretty radical on all fronts. Not even conservative lawyer thought it was possible for this denial. George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy, claims that, "Given that existing Supreme Court caselaw gives the federal government a fairly straightforward argument in support of the mandate under the Necessary and Proper clause, Judge Hudson’s error leads him to assume away as a matter of “logic” what is the major question in the case." The statement by Kerr argues that with prior caselaw argues that if the Commerce Clause does not cover a law, that the Necessary and Proper Clause usually covers most laws of that magnitude.
Now the question that should be asked if a Conservative Lawyer like Kerr argued that Hudson made a mistake in his ruling, why did Hudson make this ruling? Talking Points Memo via Gawker found information that Hudson had ties to Campaign Solutions (a Conservative Public Relations Firm) that helped Congressional Republicans fight the Healthcare bill. Notable Congressional Republicans that used Campaign Solutions were future House Speaker John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, John McCain, and Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann were extremely against the Healthcare bill, and Ken Cuccinelli from the state side has been leading a crusade against the Healthcare bill. Overall Hudson was profiting from the idea of being against the Healthcare bill.
Now here comes the legal problem that arises from Hudson's ruling. We are not going to get into the specifics of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, because that is extremely higher than our pay grade, but we will look at if Judge Hudson should have recused himself from this case. Reason's for recusing yourself from a case mainly are based if it is thought that the judge may show impropriety to a certain issue. What sort of impropriety should you avoid? The Federal Judicial Center has a list of the five basic canons that every judge should abide by. They are listed below.
The Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees provides as follows:
Overall, Judge Hudson overstepped his bounds as a judge. He did not give an impartial ruling, or recuse himself from the case because of the huge conflict of interest he had with the case. Also, he did not take into account of the other rulings by the other Federal judges who already ruled against the plaintiffs, which upheld the current healthcare law. To say the actions by Judge Hudson were based on legal scholarship is wrong when some of the best conservative legal minds disagreed with him. Only one logical conclusion can be made that his ruling was a pure political ruling. Judge Hudson did not look at past caselaw, but decided to blaze a new trail with his legal decision.
Now the question that should be asked if a Conservative Lawyer like Kerr argued that Hudson made a mistake in his ruling, why did Hudson make this ruling? Talking Points Memo via Gawker found information that Hudson had ties to Campaign Solutions (a Conservative Public Relations Firm) that helped Congressional Republicans fight the Healthcare bill. Notable Congressional Republicans that used Campaign Solutions were future House Speaker John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, John McCain, and Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann were extremely against the Healthcare bill, and Ken Cuccinelli from the state side has been leading a crusade against the Healthcare bill. Overall Hudson was profiting from the idea of being against the Healthcare bill.
Now here comes the legal problem that arises from Hudson's ruling. We are not going to get into the specifics of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, because that is extremely higher than our pay grade, but we will look at if Judge Hudson should have recused himself from this case. Reason's for recusing yourself from a case mainly are based if it is thought that the judge may show impropriety to a certain issue. What sort of impropriety should you avoid? The Federal Judicial Center has a list of the five basic canons that every judge should abide by. They are listed below.
The Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees provides as follows:
Canon 1: A judicial employee should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and of the judicial employee’s office.From my reading of the Canons, I can tell there are three Canon's that Judge Hudson broke. It would be Canon 2, Canon 4, and Canon 5. Canon 2 was broken by Hudson when he took a case knowing that he had financial ties to the outcome of this case. Canon 4 was broken when he received his share of the profits from Campaign Solutions, a PR firm helping Republicans to stop healthcare reform, and did not see that as a conflict of interest and did not recuse himself from the case. Canon 5 is more difficult to argue, but if you look at a line taken from Judge Hudson's memoir and quoted in the Virginia Lawyer Weekly December 3, 2007 issue you find the evidence to support this claim. Hudson is quoted in saying,
Canon 2: A judicial employee should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Canon 3: A judicial employee should adhere to appropriate standards in performing the duties of the office.
Canon 4: In engaging in outside activities, a judicial employee should avoid the risk of conflict with official duties, should avoid the appearance of impropriety, and should comply with disclosure requirements.
Canon 5: A judicial employee should refrain from inappropriate political activity
“Campaigning for a federal judgeship is almost as challenging as running for political office,” he writes. “Rather than court voters, aspirants solicit endorsements from influential political activists with close ties to the senators, particularly the activists who raise the big money.This a clear argument that Hudson thinks being a judge is just as important of a job dictating legislative policy similar to a Congressional Representative. That train of thought breaks Canon 5.
“That is where 20 years of active service to the Republican party, and helping in the various campaigns of each senator, paid dividends and gave me the edge[.]”
Overall, Judge Hudson overstepped his bounds as a judge. He did not give an impartial ruling, or recuse himself from the case because of the huge conflict of interest he had with the case. Also, he did not take into account of the other rulings by the other Federal judges who already ruled against the plaintiffs, which upheld the current healthcare law. To say the actions by Judge Hudson were based on legal scholarship is wrong when some of the best conservative legal minds disagreed with him. Only one logical conclusion can be made that his ruling was a pure political ruling. Judge Hudson did not look at past caselaw, but decided to blaze a new trail with his legal decision.
10 December 2010
Bernie Sanders the One Man Filibuster
Today Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is filibustering the Obama Tax Compromise on the floor of the Senate today. This is the exciting to see an actual filibuster and not a threat of a filibuster. I hope this challenge by Senator Sanders wakes up the American People and Congress to not pass this Compromise. For your enjoyment here is the link.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx/
Updated
Senator Sanders filibuster lasted 8 1/2 hours. He ended it at about 6:30 EST. I am still looking for a video of the whole thing, but here are the first twelve minutes of it from his website.
We at the Common Civic Good would like to personally thank Bernie Sanders the Senator from Vermont for fighting for the working people of America.
Below here are the links to Senator Sanders website and his Youtube page.
http://sanders.senate.gov/
http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorSanders
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx/
Updated
Senator Sanders filibuster lasted 8 1/2 hours. He ended it at about 6:30 EST. I am still looking for a video of the whole thing, but here are the first twelve minutes of it from his website.
We at the Common Civic Good would like to personally thank Bernie Sanders the Senator from Vermont for fighting for the working people of America.
Below here are the links to Senator Sanders website and his Youtube page.
http://sanders.senate.gov/
http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorSanders
08 December 2010
Congress in Defiance: Congressional Democrats and Republicans Saying No to the Obama Tax Plan
Two days ago, the Obama Administration presented a bipartisan plan to stop the gridlock on the Bush-era Tax Cuts and created a tax compromise with Congressional Republicans. This compromise; would extend all of the Bush-era Tax Cuts for all income levels for two years, index the alternative minimum tax for inflation, drop the estate tax down from 45 percent to 35 percent on all income above five million dollars, an extension of Unemployment Benefits for all that apply, a payroll tax holiday of 2 percent, an extension of all tax credits, would allow businesses to write off their capital improvements, and also allow business to keep a research and development tax credit. Overall, with this plan, everyone wins, but this does not help the country to become more fiscally responsible, help the people in the greatest need.
The cost of this plan would be 990 billion dollars. That is 171 billion more than the Stimulus spending in back in 2009. Republicans back then and during the 2010 general election argued that the Stimulus spending was a waste of taxpayer money. In article published in August of this year at the Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Gary Burtless argued, "there are many indications that these policies have been successful in achieving
their intended goals." The tax compromise though, does not look like a policy that will help all Americans.
Today in the Huffington Post Jason Linkins reports that wage earners that make between 20,000 and 40,000 dollars will see an increase in their taxes due to the reduction of available tax credits for that income bracket. While the richest people get the greatest benefit. For example, the richest Americans will benefit from the tax cut, the estate tax, and benefit from the payroll tax holiday. Granted the poorer Americans will receive the payroll tax holiday, but their benefit from the tax holiday is smaller than the lost tax credits.
Overall, the Obama Tax Compromise should not be passed. Obama administration made the best compromise possible with Congressional Republicans, but the problem is that the rich get richer while the poor become the pawns for the powerful. Obama promised during the 2008 election that he would not extend the Bush-era Tax Cuts for the wealthiest. This compromise breaks that promise and should not be supported by Congressional Democrats.
It would be for the best for Congress to reject this plan, because what the nation will give up will hurt us in the end. Example this plan increases the deficit by 990 billion dollars over two years. This plan is supported by Republican leadership, which argued that by electing them they would help cut the deficit. This plan does not do that. If Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, they need to vote against the plan.
Compromise is a great item and should have been used more often during the 111th Congress. Unfortunately, though, this is not one of those times. A new plan needs to put on the drawing board that limits the impact on the deficit, but does the greatest Common Civic Good.
The cost of this plan would be 990 billion dollars. That is 171 billion more than the Stimulus spending in back in 2009. Republicans back then and during the 2010 general election argued that the Stimulus spending was a waste of taxpayer money. In article published in August of this year at the Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Gary Burtless argued, "there are many indications that these policies have been successful in achieving
their intended goals." The tax compromise though, does not look like a policy that will help all Americans.
Today in the Huffington Post Jason Linkins reports that wage earners that make between 20,000 and 40,000 dollars will see an increase in their taxes due to the reduction of available tax credits for that income bracket. While the richest people get the greatest benefit. For example, the richest Americans will benefit from the tax cut, the estate tax, and benefit from the payroll tax holiday. Granted the poorer Americans will receive the payroll tax holiday, but their benefit from the tax holiday is smaller than the lost tax credits.
Overall, the Obama Tax Compromise should not be passed. Obama administration made the best compromise possible with Congressional Republicans, but the problem is that the rich get richer while the poor become the pawns for the powerful. Obama promised during the 2008 election that he would not extend the Bush-era Tax Cuts for the wealthiest. This compromise breaks that promise and should not be supported by Congressional Democrats.
It would be for the best for Congress to reject this plan, because what the nation will give up will hurt us in the end. Example this plan increases the deficit by 990 billion dollars over two years. This plan is supported by Republican leadership, which argued that by electing them they would help cut the deficit. This plan does not do that. If Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, they need to vote against the plan.
Compromise is a great item and should have been used more often during the 111th Congress. Unfortunately, though, this is not one of those times. A new plan needs to put on the drawing board that limits the impact on the deficit, but does the greatest Common Civic Good.
01 December 2010
House Democrats Finally Showing Some Backbone
Today the leadership of the House Democrats announced that they will proceed with a vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts for wage earners that make less than 250,000 dollars. This is a major step forward made by the Democrats. Instead allowing the cuts to expire or having the Republicans bully them into extending the cuts for all wage earners, they finally showed some backbone. They are following through with the President's promise to only extend the cuts to people making 250,000 dollars of less.
The problem that arises from this move by the House Democrats is that Republican Minority Mitch McConnell (Ky) stated that that Republicans in the Senate will not take up any legislation unless all of the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for all wage earners. This means that the tax cut extension to the middle class will be delayed or will possibly not get passed. With the Senate bogged down with the possible incoming battle on who will have their tax rate extended, the outlook of other possible legislation passing through the Senate during lame duck session is minimal. The problem with this is that many things that the American people want are stuck in the Senate.
For success in the lame duck session both houses of Congress need to go to work and stop playing political games. Political games will not lead to success in passing any legislation that will help the American people. Overall, Senate Republicans need to learn that they need to compromise instead of playing hard ball.
The problem that arises from this move by the House Democrats is that Republican Minority Mitch McConnell (Ky) stated that that Republicans in the Senate will not take up any legislation unless all of the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for all wage earners. This means that the tax cut extension to the middle class will be delayed or will possibly not get passed. With the Senate bogged down with the possible incoming battle on who will have their tax rate extended, the outlook of other possible legislation passing through the Senate during lame duck session is minimal. The problem with this is that many things that the American people want are stuck in the Senate.
For success in the lame duck session both houses of Congress need to go to work and stop playing political games. Political games will not lead to success in passing any legislation that will help the American people. Overall, Senate Republicans need to learn that they need to compromise instead of playing hard ball.
24 September 2010
Texas Board of Education Makes another Controversial Move in its State's Social Studies Curriculum
Today by a 7-6 vote, the Texas Board of Education voted to pass a resolution that stated that the Texas Board of Education would not purchase any social studies textbooks that would give more Islam more space in the textbooks than Christianity. Their move to do this came from the idea that most social studies textbooks have a Pro-Islam slant and an Anti- Christian slant. In a Dallas Morning News Op-Ed, Southern Methodist University Professor Mark Chancey wrote,
We as Americans have to realize that, not all history portrays Americans beliefs and ideals in the positive light. Our history is checkered with massacres and bad decisions that have shaped the country that we live in today. For example of this 50 years ago students were taught that what happen at Wounded Knee in 1890 was a battle between the Sioux people and the U.S. Army, and today most students learned that it was a massacre of the Sioux people by the U.S. Army. Yes, it does not paint the U.S. Army in a positive light, but it is the truth and the truth hurts some times. We cannot rewrite history to the way we want it because it makes us feel good, because we lose the teachable lesson that history provides us to become a better society. To put this full circle the Texas Board of Education can rewrite history and depict it on how they feel it should be taught, but that teaching of history will never be the truth and never can be accepted as the truth.
[The Resolution in] Its first line complains that "pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias has tainted some past Texas Social Studies textbooks." It later objects that "pro-Islamic/anti-Christian half-truths, selective disinformation, and false editorial stereotypes still roil some Social Studies textbooks nationwide." In its rhetoric, the terms "pro-Islamic" and "anti-Christian" go hand in hand; whatever is "pro-Islamic" is by definition "anti-Christian."Pitting religions against each other is not good especially in the political climate that we are in today. The idea that one religion is taking priority over another is bad, but in the way that the Texas Board of Education is doing it is to raise fear and create hate to another religion. This idea that it is right to use education as a religious battleground is unfair to the students of Texas and the students of the United States. By this resolution by the board will change textbooks because Texas is the second largest market for textbooks. U.S. students will already have to suffer to the changes made to the Social Studies Curriculum in March, to see the changes check out Texas Board of Education New Amendments to the Social Science Curriculum Give it a Conservative Spin, now with this change the national Social Studies curriculum will change for all Americans.
We as Americans have to realize that, not all history portrays Americans beliefs and ideals in the positive light. Our history is checkered with massacres and bad decisions that have shaped the country that we live in today. For example of this 50 years ago students were taught that what happen at Wounded Knee in 1890 was a battle between the Sioux people and the U.S. Army, and today most students learned that it was a massacre of the Sioux people by the U.S. Army. Yes, it does not paint the U.S. Army in a positive light, but it is the truth and the truth hurts some times. We cannot rewrite history to the way we want it because it makes us feel good, because we lose the teachable lesson that history provides us to become a better society. To put this full circle the Texas Board of Education can rewrite history and depict it on how they feel it should be taught, but that teaching of history will never be the truth and never can be accepted as the truth.
16 September 2010
According to the New Census Numbers ONE out of SEVEN people live in Poverty
The Census Bureau came out with its 2009 numbers on poverty. In their research, 14.3 percent Americans are in poverty. The number increased from 13.2 percent from 2008. This is the largest amount of Americans below the poverty line since 1959. The biggest increase came in a racial demographic Hispanic population. This is not good for America.
Two reasons this is not good for America. Even though businesses are recovering, American citizens are not feeling the recovery yet. Second the increase of Hispanics into poverty. I will dissect these two groups in the following paragraph.
American businesses are recovering the stock market has rebounded from its low of 7,029 points in January of 2009 and has increased 3500 points now in September of 2010. Most businesses have recovered and most of the TARP money has been paid back to US Government. Our financial sector is slowly recovering, and now the biggest problem for the American economy is that the working class has not recovered. These numbers show that the working class has not recovered like businesses. Granted most small businesses are not in shape to survive another collapse, but its important to realize if businesses are going to survive the standard of living of Americans needs to improve.
The second reason the increase of Hispanics into poverty is also troubling. It is known that the Hispanic population is the largest growing population in the United States. The increase of Hispanics into the US population, but their inability to get into the middle class will affect America. With the largest growing group having the most difficultly becoming middle class, the need to help this group is very important. Now how to help this group is the more complex problem that needs to be solved. I will tackle this in a later post.
It is important overall to realize that to solve our problems we need to work together.
Two reasons this is not good for America. Even though businesses are recovering, American citizens are not feeling the recovery yet. Second the increase of Hispanics into poverty. I will dissect these two groups in the following paragraph.
American businesses are recovering the stock market has rebounded from its low of 7,029 points in January of 2009 and has increased 3500 points now in September of 2010. Most businesses have recovered and most of the TARP money has been paid back to US Government. Our financial sector is slowly recovering, and now the biggest problem for the American economy is that the working class has not recovered. These numbers show that the working class has not recovered like businesses. Granted most small businesses are not in shape to survive another collapse, but its important to realize if businesses are going to survive the standard of living of Americans needs to improve.
The second reason the increase of Hispanics into poverty is also troubling. It is known that the Hispanic population is the largest growing population in the United States. The increase of Hispanics into the US population, but their inability to get into the middle class will affect America. With the largest growing group having the most difficultly becoming middle class, the need to help this group is very important. Now how to help this group is the more complex problem that needs to be solved. I will tackle this in a later post.
It is important overall to realize that to solve our problems we need to work together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)