Categories
Politics

Hillary Clinton Sheds a Light on Her 2016 Presidential Ambition

Over the weekend, she said that she would “make a decision soon.”

According to the Texas newspaper The Monitor, Clinton made the comments at a Texas fundraising event Sunday for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation during a question and answer session with Doctors Hospital at Renaissance CEO Israel Rocha.

When Rocha asked the former first lady if she would run in 2016, Clinton said she “would make a decision soon,” Abby Reyna, an attendee at the event, told The Monitor.

Another attendee, Democratic state Rep. Bobby Guerra gave a different version of what he recalled Clinton as having said, according to The Monitor.

“She said she would make a decision at sometime in the future, at the appropriate time,” Guerra said.

Clinton made a speech at the event about the state of U.S. healthcare and also talked about some of the lessons she learned from other countries as secretary of state.

 

 

Categories
Politics the supreme court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Parts of The Voting Rights Act

Justice Scalia

Thanks to the Conservative controlled Supreme Court, some southern states can now legally take away the voting rights of some of their residents.

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.

The 5-4 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, found that “things have changed dramatically” in the south nearly 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was signed.

“There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act,” the court ruled. “The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process.”

“Section 4 and 5 were intended to be temporary, they were set to expire after five years,” the justices added.

Consider this two steps forward, three steps back.

Categories
Arizona Politics Voter registration

Supreme Court Rejects Arizona’s Voter Suppression Law

In a 7-2 decision announced Monday morning, the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the state of Arizona’s efforts to add a proof of citizenship requirement to voter registration forms.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (a/k/a “The Motor Voter Law”) requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections, and the Court now holds that states cannot graft additional requirements onto that form, which only requires that voters affirm that they are citizens.

Justice Scalia—yes, him—wrote the decision of the court, a majority consisting of everyone other than Justices Thomas and Alito. It relies on the Elections Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, §4, cl. 1), which provides that while states have preliminary control over federal elections, Congress can supersede the states’ choices:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.

And, basically, the Court holds that when the NVRA says the states must “accept and use” the federal form, it must accept and use them as sufficient to register voters:

When Congress legislates with respect to the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections, it necessarily displaces some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States. Because the power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to preempt, the reasonable assumption is that the statutory text accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s preemptive intent. Moreover, the federalism concerns underlying the presumption in the Supremacy Clause context are somewhat weaker here. Unlike the States’ “historic police powers,” the States’ role in regulating congressional elections—while weighty and worthy of respect—has always existed subject to the express qualification that it “terminates according to federal law.” In sum, there is no compelling reason not to read Elections Clause legislation simply to mean what it says.

We conclude that the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form. If this reading prevails, the Elections Clause requires that Arizona’s rule give way.

Categories
ObamaCare Politics

Mr. President, This Is A Big F*ing Deal – Part 2

As Donald Trump would say, what the Supreme Court did Thursday in upholding President Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act is “HUGE!”

Even Mitt Romney realized the magnitude of what would happen if ObamaCare was declared constitutional. On the days leading up to the Court’s decision, Mitt Romney was heard at various campaign events saying, “if this law is unconstitutional, that would prove that Obama wasted his presidency.”

Needless to say, the Supreme Court – whose main task is to interpret laws in accordance with the Constitution of the United States – disagreed with Mitt Romney wholeheartedly.

But if we are to apply Romney’s logic to this, wouldn’t it mean that the President’s first term was not wasted but turned out to be a tremendous success? Wouldn’t it then mean that President Obama has done his job in accordance to the Constitution – approved and validated by the highest Court in the land – and furthermore, if we apply Romney’s logic to this situation, wouldn’t it mean that Romney, with his everlasting calls to repeal ObamaCare, is going against a Supreme Court that called the law constitutional, thus, is he not going against the United States Constitution?

When President signed the Affordable Health Care Act into law in 2010, Vice President Biden was overheard whispering in the President’s ear, “Mr President, this is a big f*cking deal.” With the Supreme validating the constitutionality of the law on Thursday, consider this a big f*cking deal… part 2!

And by the way, why exactly are Republicans pushing Mitt Romney as their presidential candidate? The  man is apparently against the Constitution of the United States.

Categories
Health Care Politics

No Matter What The Supreme Court Decides About Healthcare, Americans Will Be Unhappy

Poll Results

A new Pew Research Poll found that the public is unlikely to be satisfied with the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on the 2010 Affordable Care Act – no matter what the Court decides. Whether the Court decides to uphold the entire law, overturn the entire law, or reject the “individual mandate” while allowing the rest of the law to remain in place, fewer than half of Americans say they would be happy with the decision.

The public’s expected reactions track along partisan lines. Most Democrats would be happy if the law is upheld, while most Republicans would be happy if it is thrown out.

But the other widely discussed possibility – that the court could reject the part of the law that requires individuals to have health insurance while keeping the rest – does not satisfy either side. Among Democrats, 35% would be happy with this outcome, while 56% would be unhappy. Republicans, who have consistently opposed the individual mandate, are not much happier: 43% would be happy if the court strips only this provision, while 47% would be unhappy.

 

Categories
Health Care Nancy Pelosi Politics Repeal

Nancy Pelosi Predicts Health Care will Survive Supreme Court

In a vote of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court will uphold President Obama’s healthcare reform law, the top House Democrat predicted this week.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she’d respect whatever the high court decides, but forecasts the verdict would fall for the Democrats.

“I’m predicting 6 to 3 in favor,” Pelosi said during a long interview Tuesday with The Paley Center for Media in New York City, without specifying which justices would rule on which side.

The detailed prediction is something of a change for Pelosi, who has long said the Democrats’ reform law is “ironclad” constitutionally, but has also warned that speculation about Supreme Court decisions is just that — speculation.

Source: The Hill

Categories
Politics Repeal

President Obama Confident Supreme Court will Uphold the Affordable Care Act

While the Judges on the Supreme Court lose sleep over the upcoming health-care decision – they’re not really losing sleep. We already have a pretty good idea what this historically activist court will do – President Obama chimed in today for the first time with his opinion on what he believe the Court will do.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

Categories
Domestic Policies trayvon martin

Skittles and Broccoli

Every once in a while, a week comes along that brings clarity and definition to the world and enables us to find meaning in the beautiful things that make up our lives.

Perhaps next week will be such a week.

For the parents of Trayvon Martin, this was a week that saw the world finally notice the tragedy that befell their child. It’s a story that is easily told but terribly difficult to understand:

The circumstances – an unarmed teen carrying Skittles, a gated suburban community and a man with no official authority – along with simmering economic frustrations in the nation’s African-American community turned the death into a social touchstone. Social media, black radio and cable television drove the debate about racial profiling and the state of black males, helping give rise to an indelible image that seems to be everywhere: Trayvon Martin and his hoodie.

It shed light on the Florida Stand Your Ground Law, which essentially allows people with guns to decide who’s a threat and who’s not, and to allow suburban vigilante justice in the guise of neighborhood watch. And as more evidence comes out about what might have happened on that fateful night, more questions are raised. Finally, what about Wrigley, the company that makes Skittles? That’s complicated. Sales are up, but for all the wrong reasons.

As if the Martin story wasn’t complicated enough, this was also the week of health care. Ironic, no?

Enough words have been senselessly killed since Monday in an effort to describe, analyze, parse, interpret, divine, enunciate, explicate and pontificate on what exactly the justices meant, when it’s fairly clear that the conservatives would rather make love to a broccoli stalk than rule the law to be constitutional.

And the broccoli bit is the heart of the problem. Is it just me or did anyone else get the sense that Antonin Scalia didn’t merely complain about having a 2,700 page law to leaf through, he never actually read any of the briefs related to it? How else to explain his repetition of the broccoli conundrum that was standard fare in the mainstream press for the past 6 months? Or his mis-citation of the Cornhusker Kickback, which was troubling enough for a man of his intellect?  I thought the justices were supposed to focus on the law, not repeat the talking points that radiate from all corners of the Cable News/Twitter/Blogosphere Axis.

At least we’ll know the outcome of the health care law at the end of June. After that, President Obama and Mitt Romney can adjust their campaigns and move forward with their lives.

Trayvon Martin’s parents might not get that kind of closure for many months after that. And they’ll always have more questions than answers.

Justice indeed.

Please join me on Facebook at  www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest  

 

Categories
Politics presidential Republican Sarah Palin

In Case Anyone Is Interested, Sarah Palin Calls It Quits…Again!

This time, she quits even before trying. Not that this is really news, but yesterday, while the world mourned the loss of Steve Jobs – the man who made Apple what it is today with the creation of Apple’s Ipad , Itunes and  more – Sarah Palin, the quitter from Alaska, made an announcement: she was quitting again! “After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States.”

For some strange reason, and we believe it was to scam more donations from the unsuspecting Teaparty loyalists, Sarah Palin pulled a Newt Gingrich, forming a Political Action Committee and asking for donations as she “explored” the path forward. We all knew there was no path, especially after maintaining her job at Fox News when other potential presidential candidates were asked by the network to resign their positions. For the record, Newt actually used the donations he received and had the courage to enter the Republican Presidential race.

Sarah Palin will now continue doing what she does best – looking for the media spotlight and rambling on about… nonsense.

Here’s an example of the nonsense – her “I-am-not-running”  Statement.

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

Categories
Barack Obama China Donald Trump Donald Trump Politics Republican Sarah Palin United States

Donald Trump Has Decided To Run… In His Mind

In a telephone interview yesterday, Donald Trump broke the news that he will seek the presidency… in his mind that is.

In my mind, I have already decided,” Trump, 64, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “I am going to announce. But I can’t do anything until the show ends.

Trump said he will focus on “making our country rich and respected,” by creating jobs, boosting the economy and stopping China and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries from taking advantage of the U.S.

Many people have already concluded that The Donald is not running. They call his stunt over these past few weeks, a sad and pathetic attempt to garnish more publicity for his show, Celebrity Apprentice and his many financial endeavors. They point to the fact that The Donald has pulled this stunt before as evidence that he is simply not serious.

But what if he is? What if Trump is intent on proving his detractors wrong and is hellbent on living up to the pompous, egotistical excuse for a man we’ve seen on exhibit in recent weeks and actually try his hand at running  for the most powerful position in the world? A position that he has absolutely no competency in ever performing?

The decision to run will be a liberal’s dream. We’re, quite frankly, not sure who will be more entertaining  – Palin, Trump or Bachmann?

Exit mobile version