The controversies surrounding Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas just never seem to end. We witnessed this during his confirmation hearings and now, his wife seems to want a piece of the notoriety too.
The New York Times is reporting that Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is now a lobbyist and self-appointed “ambassador to the Tea Party movement.” The Times reports;
Virginia Thomas, the justice’s wife, said on libertyinc.co, a Web site for her new political consulting business, that she saw herself as an advocate for “liberty-loving citizens” who favored limited government, free enterprise and other core conservative issues. She promised to use her “experience and connections” to help clients raise money and increase their political impact.
Ms. Thomas’s effort to take a more operational role on conservative issues could intensify questions about her husband’s ability to remain independent on issues like campaign finance and health care, legal ethicists said.
Wait a minute! There’s something wrong with this picture!
The Supreme Court, often called the court of last resort, is the final say on how laws are interpreted in this country. According to Article III, §1, of the Constitution, “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.” The court has jurisdiction over all cases, including Laws and Equity, to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States.
Every judge takes a lifetime oath to uphold and form decisions on cases based on the law. How can any judge be objectionable when he/she comes home and is greeted by a lobbyist spouse?
The Teaparty is in a push to get the Supreme Court to declare President Obama’s Health Care Law as unconstitutional.
A Virginia Thomas is lobbying for the Teaparty.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is married to aforementioned Virginia Thomas…
Shocking turn of events in the Egypt uprising. Eli Lakes of the Washington Times reports on an interview in which a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood calls for the withdrawal of Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.
A political leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Thursday called on any government that replaces Hosni Mubarak’s regime to withdraw from the 32-year-old peace treaty with Israel.
“After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel,” Rashad al-Bayoumi, a deputy leader of the outlawed movement, said on Japan’s NHTV.
The interview contrasted with earlier signals from the group. On Feb. 1, Mahmoud Ezzat, a spokesman for the brothers, told CBS News that his organization “will respect the peace treaty with Israel as long as Israel shows real progress on improving the lot of the Palestinians.”
In the past, Muslim Brotherhood leaders have supported the Palestinian branch of the brotherhood, Hamas, that rejects any negotiations with Israel and pledges to destroy the Jewish state.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the world’s largest, most influential Islamic group. It was formed in Egypt in 1928 their stated primary goal include reinstatement of the caliphate and reunite the “dar el Islam” (Countries where Muslims are free to practice their religion).
Although they preach non-violence, The Brotherhood is believed to be the group behind previous attacks in Egypt, and the assassination of Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha, the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1948 and the president of Egypt in 1981.
They’re pretty certain the provision will hold up against the onslaught of the Republicans and the Supreme Court, but just in case the unexpected happens, some Congressional Democrats are already making other preparations to replace the individual mandate.
One idea floating around is that of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). According to her plan, an open enrollment period will be offered where people can voluntarily buy insurance policy. After that period passes, anyone wishing to purchase insurance will incur a penalty, causing their policy to be considerably higher.
The idea is based on existing requirements, where once a year individuals get to choose their insurance policies that best suit their needs. After that period passes, they face an expensive alternative when the need to get insurance arises.
Derek Thompson of the Washington Posts explained it this way;
Let’s say I tell you at the beginning of flu season that you can buy Nyquil for a $2 discount today, but tomorrow the price will go up to $20 forever. What do you do? You stock up on Nyquil, of course! Note that I haven’t required that you do anything. I’ve just weighted the incentives to make you buy the medicine. It’s not a mandate, just an irresistible deal.
Although this plan sounds like a great idea, even Claire McCaskill have reservations. She explains, “the issue is will the research support that approach as workable to still allow us to cover people with pre-existing conditions.”
The advantage of the individual mandate meant that everyone had a responsibility to insure themselves, thus, bringing more money into the insurance industry eventually reflecting in lower premiums for individuals. It also allow for the coverage of pre-existing conditions because more people will be involved in the program. Mrs. McCaskill’s method raises questions about whether pre-existing conditions and other important aspects of the Health reform will be implemented if individuals choose not to participate.
As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressed his concerns with this idea, saying that altering the mandate will weaken the bill. He said;
“You’d have to look at the specific proposals. The bottom line is that if you change the mandate, one of two things will happen: Many of the good things in the bill will not be there, such as pre-existing conditions, or premiums will go way, way up.”
The individual mandate is under attack by Republicans as unconstitutional, although when the idea was first floated in 1993 for then president George Bush, they were all in support of the idea. Mr. Mark Pauly, the original author of the now controversial idea said questioning the mandate’s constitutionality was never the issue when it was first introduced, saying;
“I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I’ve been surprised at that argument.”
The Associated Press is reporting ongoing negotiations between the Obama Administration and Egypt’s Vice President on what is being said is the “immediate resignation of President Hosni Mubarak and the formation of a military-backed caretaker government.” The article referenced talks between Vice President Joe Biden and Egypt’s Vice President Omar Suleiman, as well as conversations between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Suleiman.
With protests in Cairo and other Egyptian cities expected to grow in size and intensity Friday, the administration fears they may erupt into more widespread violence unless the government takes tangible steps to address the protesters’ main demand that Mubarak leave office quickly. Creation of an interim government is just one of several possibilities under discussion, the officials said late Thursday.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive diplomatic talks, which are continuing.
The officials stressed that the United States isn’t seeking to impose a solution on Egypt but said the administration had made a judgment that Mubarak has to go soon if there is to be a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
“The president has said that now is the time to begin a peaceful, orderly and meaningful transition, with credible, inclusive negotiations,” a White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said Thursday night. “We have discussed with the Egyptians a variety of different ways to move that process forward, but all of those decisions must be made by the Egyptian people.”
White House and State Department officials would not discuss details of the discussions U.S. officials are having with the Egyptians. Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman on Thursday, a day after a similar conversation between Suleiman and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Officials said neither Biden nor Clinton made a specific call for Mubarak to resign immediately but pressed for measures that would ease tensions on the streets and set the stage for democratic elections.
In an effort to stop news from going out, Mubarak supporters began attacking reporters. Caught in the middle of a mob scene, Anderson Cooper and his crew is attacked and as Mr. Cooper puts it, he was “punched in the head.”
Below is the official video released by CNN. Anderson is seen in a dimly lit room as he recalled what happened. He apologies to the audience for being in an “undisclosed location,” then said, “journalists don’t like to become part of the story, but unfortunately, they have been made part of the story.”
After getting to a “safe location,” Cooper admits to being hit multiple times.
In another masterfully produced video, Thomas Jefferson encounters the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Their conversation ranges from the Constitution, to Palin’s understanding of the Constitution and how slavery ended.
After hearing what Mrs. Palin had to say, Jefferson has an “Aha” moment! Hilarious!
A recent report from Automatic Data Processing (ADP) shows the following improvements in the job market.
Private-sector employment increased by 187,000 from December to January on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the latest ADP National Employment Report released today. The estimated change of employment from November to December was revised down by 50,000 to 247,000 from the previously reported increase of 297,000.
This month’s ADP National Employment Report suggests solid growth of private nonfarm payroll employment heading into the New Year. The recent pattern of rising employment gains since the middle of last year appears to be intact, as the average gain over December and January (217,000) is well above the average gain over the prior six months (52,000). Strength was evident within all major industries and across all size business tracked in the ADP Report.
According to the ADP Report, employment in the service-providing sector rose by 166,000 in January, marking twelve consecutive months of employment gains. Employment in the goodsproducing sector rose 21,000, the third consecutive monthly gain. Manufacturing employment rose 19,000, also the third consecutive monthly gain.
Employment among large businesses, defined as those with 500 or more workers, increased by 11,000 while employment among medium-size businesses, defined as those with between 50 and 499 workers, increased by 79,000. Employment among small- size businesses, defined as those with fewer than 50 workers, increased by 97,000.
In January, construction employment dropped 1,000. The total decline in construction employment since its peak in January 2007 is 2,311,000. Employment in the financial services sector increased 3,000 in January.
Tomorrow, the official BLS report ( Bureau of Labor Statistics ) comes out, and although that report is expected to show an improvement in January’s job figures, the unemployment rate is expected to climb slightly to 9.5%
After the Republican controlled House of Representatives approved a measure to repeal the Health Care Reform passed by President Obama and the Democratic controlled congress in 2010, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Leader promised a vote will be held in the Senate as well.
Mr. McConnell attached the repeal bill to another legislation for aviation as an amendment, and the vote was held yesterday needing 60 votes to pass. It failed along party lines, with all 47 Republicans voting for repeal, and all 51 Democrats voting against it.
McConnell however, promised to continue his efforts to deny Americans the very same health coverage he and the rest of Congress has, saying;
“This fight isn’t over, we intend to continue to fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with sensible reforms that would lower the cost of American healthcare…
This issue is still ahead of us and we will be going back at it in a variety of ways”
The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, pleaded with Republicans to work with Democrats on finding “common sense” ways to improve the bill;
“It’s time for Republicans to set aside the battles of the past. It’s time to move on from extreme, ideological plans to repeal a health care law that is lowering prices, expanding access to care and lowering our deficit.”
There was one area of bipartisanship where both Democrats and Republicans agreed overwhelmingly. One provision of the Health Reform Law was repealed through an amendment, and received a vote of 81-17. The provision required businesses to file a 1099 form for every purchase they made over $600.00. That provision has been under heavy attack, and criticized as unnecessary and burdensome additional paperwork. Both parties voted, and the amendment was adopted.
According to a new Gallup Poll, a whopping 83% of Americans want Congress to do something about an energy bill favoring clean energy or alternative energy. This same poll also finds that 76% of Americans want the tax system overhauled, and 72% want a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan.
In a recent interview conducted by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, with one of the original authors of the individual mandate – the piece of language in the health care reform bill that requires Americans to purchase health insurance, but is attacked by Republicans as “unconstitutional,” – was asked if the constitutionality of the mandate was ever questioned back in 1991 when the term was first used.
Mr. Mark Pauly, who was the lead author of a Health Affairs paper, was given the job to come up with a way to persuade President George H.W. Bush to adopt a health care policy where all Americans will be covered, while keeping the private health care providers in charge of the industry. The individual mandate was seen as the only way to accomplish this feat.
The question was asked by Mr. Klein; “Was the constitutionality of the provision a question, either in your deliberations or after it was released?” Mr. Pauly answered;
“I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I’ve been surprised at that argument. But I’m not an expert on the Constitution. My fix would be to simply say raise everyone’s taxes by what a health insurance policy would cost — Congress definitely has the power to do that — and then tell people that if they obtain insurance, they’ll get a tax break of the same amount. So instead of a penalty, it’s a perfectly legal tax break. But this seems to me to angelic pinhead density arguments about whether it’s a payment to do something or not to do something.”
Opponents of the law, which they have affectionately dubbed ‘ObamaCare,’ states that the law violates the Commerce Clause in the constitution, which, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 states that Congress shall have the power to: “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This its opponents claim, does not give congress the power to mandate commerce, or to make anyone buy insurance, thus, its unconstitutionality.
Proponents claim that the power given to Congress through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is a grant of power, not an express limitation on the power of Congress to regulate the economy, thus, the law is giving Congress the power to improve the economy through the individual mandate and is therefore constitutional.
This ongoing debate prompted the next question from Mr. Klein, “…whether the individual mandate is a penalty for economic inactivity or whether it’s part of a broader system of regulations affecting a market for health care that we’re all participating in.” Mr. Pauly answered;
I see it in the latter way. We thought it was a good idea to do everything possible to encourage people to get insurance. Subsidies will probably pick up the great bulk of the population. But the point of the mandate was that there are a few Evil Knievals who won’t buy it and this would bring them into the system. In our version, the penalty was effectively equal to the premium of a policy. You paid the penalty and you got the insurance. That’s one of my puzzlements here: In the new law, the actual level of the penalty is quite small compared to the price of a policy. It’s only about 20 percent of the cost of a policy
In short, at the time this ‘individual mandate’ was implemented and presented to a Republican president, the common wisdom was that it would keep the government out of the healthcare sector. Requiring people to buy healthcare as the mandate did back in the early nineties, insured a larger portion of Americans and eliminated the need for a single payer government run option.
Because the private sector would benefit from the increased policies sales the individual mandate provided, Republicans signed on to the measure. Democrats on the other hand did not approve of the measure.
So why now the debate on the constitutionality of the individual mandate coming from the right? Simply put, there is now a Democratic President in the White House, and although he and other Democrats have now seen the need for the individual mandate as a way to allow the private sector to offer health care to all, Republicans now have a change of heart. So the debate, childish as it is, continues…
New legislation is being introduced in the Senate by John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming that will take away the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, also called the EPA.
This has always been a goal of the Republican party, and now with the numbers they’ve gained in the House of Representatives and the Senate, they are determined to pursue their ill-advised goals.
The bill will also allow regulation on pollutants and other greenhouse gases to go forward if an immediate threat is posed to the general public, so if a company continues to expose the public to polluted air that may possibly pose a threat in the future, then according to this bill, no regulation will be allowed on the companies.
The bill will also allow a previously negotiated vehicle mileage and emission standard agreement to go forward, but it takes away the power to manage how the regulations are enforced from the EPA and shifts the responsibility to the Department of Transportation.
The global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Joe Mendelson, disagrees with the basis of Mr. Barrasso’s bill. Mr. Mendelson, who was part of the legal team that won the Supreme Court case that led to the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public welfare and the environment, said;
“It would create a parade of polluter loopholes allowing for unlimited carbon pollution. Americans don’t want Congress undermining The EPA’s work on new clean vehicle standards and cleaning up dirty smokestacks.”
In a statement, Mr. Barrasso explains the reasoning for his bill;
“It’s time for the administration to face the facts: Americans rejected cap and trade because they know it means higher energy prices and lost jobs. Washington agencies are now trying a backdoor approach to regulate our climate by abusing existing laws.”
This bill is of no surprise. Republicans have a proven track record of protecting companies over the lives of real living (polluted air) breathing Americans. The EPA’s goal is to make sure that these companies maintain some standards in the amount of gas emission they’re allowed to emit into the atmosphere, but according to the Republican way of thinking, doing so will impose unnecessary regulations, cause the company to loose some of their profits, and worst of all ultimately result in a healthier environment for the nation.
According to their ideology, a healthy nation is of less importantance than the right of a company to dump infinite amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere for the sake of profit for said company.
Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly ran an interesting piece, stating that judges who voted against the Affordable Care Act, or what the conservatives are calling ObamaCare, receive more press attention than those who voted for the bill.
He then broke it down by the numbers showing that on verdict 1, which supported the Democratic position of Health Care, received an average of 581 words from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press and Politico.
On verdict 2, which also went in favor of the Democrats and the Obama administration, received an average of 438 words per article from the same four news agencies.
However, when verdict 3 came out by Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, whose decision went against the Democrats, the same four news agencies wrote an average of 1648 words in articles. Then yesterday, January 31st, another Federal Judge in Florida issued verdict 4 against the Health Reform Bill, and receive an average of 1742 words from the four. Mr. Benen question was, “If there’s a sensible explanation for this, I’d love to hear it.”
“I actually think there is a sensible explanation for this: The two judges who ruled for the bill upheld the status quo. And they went first. So their rulings changed nothing. No one could accuse me of harboring an anti-ACA agenda, but I didn’t give those rulings much coverage.
The two judges who ruled against the bill called for enormous changes to the status quo, and enormous changes to the status quo are almost the definition of what “news” is. These two rulings have genuinely called the bill’s future into question, and that’s a big story.”
Well, although I tend to agree with Ezra Klein on many issues, and besides the fact that we share the same first name, I’ll have to disagree with his position on this matter.
Benen is right! There is simply no sensible explanation for the one-sided coverage. And although some may claim the sensationalism of a Federal Judge voting against the status quo is the “definition of what news is,” I prefer to think of the sensationalism of a life changed, if the Health Care reform law remains in effect. Now that’s news!
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
