Tag Archives: scalia

Top Government Ethics Official Blasts Trump’s Conflict of Interest Plan

by RichieStillwell Posted on January 11, 2017

Mother Jones

Walter Shaub, the head of the Office of Government Ethics, blasted President-elect Donald Trump’s new plan to handle his conflicts of interests on Wednesday. Trump laid out a plan earlier in the day to put his assets in a trust that his adult children control, with Trump receiving little information about the operations of the family business. At an event at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, Shaub said that Trump’s plan is not sufficient. “Nothing short of divestiture will resolve these conflicts,” he said. “This has been my position from the start.”

Shaub noted that the arrangement Trump unveiled at a Wednesday press conference should not be compared to a blind trust, which is overseen by an independent trustee who works to sell off assets and reduce conflicts. “This is not a blind trust,” Shaub remarked. “It’s not even close. It’s not even halfway blind. The only thing it has in common with a blind trust is the label ‘trust.'”

Shaub noted the pile of envelopes Trump had laid out next to the podium during his press event. Trump said each contained a legal agreement separating himself from one of his businesses. The sheer volume of these agreements, Shaub said, underscores the problem. Despite Trump’s proposed arrangement—which was presented at the press conference by a Washington tax lawyer named Sheri Dillon—Shaub suggested it was inevitable that some of these deals would end up posing conflicts.

He acknowledged the president and vice president are exempt from the conflict of interest rules that apply to all other federal employees, but he maintained that conflicts can still arise. He pointed out that having a president who voluntarily complies with the rules would set a positive tone and provide the OGE with an ally in enforcing ethics rules throughout the executive branch. Shaub cited a memo on presidents and conflicts of interest written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that concluded that if presidents do not deal with their financial conflicts, they open themselves up to “damaging criticism.”

“The sheer obviousness of Scalia’s words become apparent if you just ask yourself one question: Should the president hold himself to a lower standard than his own appointees?” Shaub said.

Shaub said that Trump and his team did not consult him or the OGE while developing the plan. He challenged Dillon’s assertion that it would be too expensive and too complicated for Trump to divest all of his assets. “I wish she had spoken to those of us in government who do this for a living,” he said, pointing to all the other elected officials and federal employees who are forced to divest. Other federal officials have been unhappy about divesting, Shaub said, but “their basic patriotism usually prevails as they set aside their personal interests.”

“It’s important to know that the president is now entering a world of public service,” Shaub said. “He’s going to be asking his appointees to make sacrifices.” And Trump may well ask members of the military services to make sacrifices, too. “So, no,” Shaub said, “I don’t think divestiture is too great a cost to pay to be president of the United States of America.”

Read more – 

Top Government Ethics Official Blasts Trump’s Conflict of Interest Plan

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top Government Ethics Official Blasts Trump’s Conflict of Interest Plan

The Supreme Court Just Shot Down a Big Challenge to Affirmative Action. Read the Decision Here.

by JoieKennerley Posted on June 23, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Supreme Court delivered a major victory for affirmative action on Thursday, rejecting a challenge to a University of Texas admissions system that uses race as a factor to ensure diversity for a portion of its student body. The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, concerns the school’s use of a “holistic” system for 25 percent of its class—the rest of the class as admitted purely on the basis of high school grades—that includes race among other factors. A white applicant who was rejected by the school challenged the system.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court sided with the university in a 4-3 decision. Read the full ruling here:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2894830-Fisher.js”,
width: 630,
height: 400,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
pdf: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2894830-Fisher”
);

Read more about the man who brought this case to the Supreme Court and statements by the late Justice Antonin Scalia earlier in the case suggesting that black students belong at “slower” colleges.

Jump to original:

The Supreme Court Just Shot Down a Big Challenge to Affirmative Action. Read the Decision Here.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Just Shot Down a Big Challenge to Affirmative Action. Read the Decision Here.

Ted Cruz Tells Nevadans Only He Can Preserve Scalia’s Legacy

by DemetriHmi Posted on February 22, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After a disappointing third-place finish in Saturday’s South Carolina Republican primary, Ted Cruz is looking to a new ally to boost his performance in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday: the ghost of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Cruz seems to have settled on the idea that President Barack Obama won’t get a Supreme Court justice confirmed to replace Scalia. During a stump speech Monday afternoon in Las Vegas, Cruz said one of his first actions as president would be to name a “strong principled constitutionalist” as Scalia’s successor.

Cruz has begun to emphasize his legal career on the campaign trail in order to paint himself as the lone Republican candidate who can defend Scalia’s legacy. It’s a two-step dance to take down his rivals: heighten the stakes of the election to minimize Donald Trump as an unserious candidate, and push the idea that Marco Rubio isn’t conservative enough to be entrusted with picking Supreme Court nominees.

“As Ronald Reagan was to the presidency, so too was Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court,” Cruz said. “And his passing underscores the stakes of this election. It’s not one branch of government, but two that hang in the balance.”

Cruz laid out a conservative’s dystopian vision of the Supreme Court, where the law of the land would flip to a liberal interpretation should Scalia’s seat go to a Democratic appointee. “We are one liberal justice away from the Supreme Court mandating unlimited abortion on demand all across this country with no restrictions whatsoever,” Cruz said. “We are one liberal justice away from the Supreme Court reading the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.” Cruz warned that a 5-4 liberal majority would also mean the dismantling of statues based on the Ten Commandments, “or the Supreme Court concluding that the United Nations and the World Court can bind our justice system…and subjecting us to international law and taking away sovereignty.”

Amid this doom and gloom, Cruz made sure to remind the crowd of Nevadans that he is a former lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, so he knows how the institution operates. At the same time, he repeatedly hammered the point that he wouldn’t waffle, vowing that he was the only Republican candidate the voters should trust to appoint truly conservative judges.

“I think Justice Scalia’s passing,” Cruz said, taking a veiled jab at Trump’s gutter politics, “has elevated the assessment of the men and women of Nevada.”

Original article: 

Ted Cruz Tells Nevadans Only He Can Preserve Scalia’s Legacy

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Tells Nevadans Only He Can Preserve Scalia’s Legacy

Blocking Scalia’s Replacement Could Put GOP Senators in a Bind, Poll Shows

by LatoyaMallory Posted on February 22, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As Republicans and Democrats gird for a showdown over when and with whom to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the political question is which party will benefit from the battle. If a new survey is any indication, Republicans could end up sacrificing seats in the Senate if they refuse to allow a vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee until after the elections in November.

The Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a survey Monday showing the political peril of objecting to any nominee Obama may put forward, as leading Senate Republicans have indicated they will do. The danger may be greatest for Republican senators up for reelection this year in purple states, including the subjects of the PPP survey, Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Both senators have taken the position that the next president should appoint Scalia’s replacement—and both have been attacked by their Democratic challengers for holding this stance. For Republicans, whose hopes of confirming a conservative replacement for Scalia next year could hinge on retaining control of the Senate, the poll results are bad news.

In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, a majority of voters want to see a new justice confirmed this year. Among Ohioans, 58 percent want to see a new justice this year, while 35 percent would prefer to wait. Pennsylvania residents feel the same way, by a 57 percent to 40 percent margin. As PPP notes, independent voters, who could sway a tight Senate race, are even more supportive of approving a replacement this year, by 70 percent to 24 percent in Ohio and 60 percent to 37 percent in Pennsylvania.

In both states, 52 percent of respondents said they were less likely to reelect their current senator if the senator refuses to confirm any replacement no matter whom is nominated. Only 25 percent said a blanket refusal to confirm an Obama nominee would make them more likely to vote for reelection. Among independents, again, the numbers are even worse for Portman and Toomey.

The battle over Scalia’s replacement is just getting started, and voters are still making up their minds about it. Both parties, as well as outside groups, are only beginning their public campaigns for and against an Obama nominee. But for Republicans hoping to hold onto the Senate—which would require the reelection of Republican senators in states such as New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Illinois, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania—this is a first indication that obstructing a vote on the president’s Supreme Court pick may take a political toll.

View original: 

Blocking Scalia’s Replacement Could Put GOP Senators in a Bind, Poll Shows

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Blocking Scalia’s Replacement Could Put GOP Senators in a Bind, Poll Shows

Obama Should Let the Senate Advise Him on a Replacement for Scalia

by DemetriMattox Posted on February 15, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

John Holbo has an interesting notion: President Obama should take seriously the advise part of advise and consent and give the Senate an informal list of nominees to choose from to replace Antonin Scalia. Maybe they’ll pick two or three off the list, maybe just one. Then Obama transmits his final choice for confirmation hearings.

The basic idea is that this puts Republicans in a pickle. If they flatly reject the entire list, it makes their obstructionism a little too barefaced for an election year where they need votes from more than just their base. But if they give tentative approval beforehand, then it’s harder to pretend afterward that Obama has sent them an obviously radical and unacceptable choice.

I suspect this is the kind of idea that sounds better on a blog than it does in the Oval Office, but it’s still interesting. Partly this is because the best Republican response isn’t quite as obvious as it seems. If someone on the list is genuinely moderate, what do they do? They can bet the ranch on winning the presidency and then abolishing the filibuster, which would allow them to confirm a hardcore conservative in 2017. But if they lose—or if they don’t have guts to abolish the filibuster next January—they’ll almost certainly end up being forced to confirm a more liberal justice nominated by President Sanders or President Clinton. Decisions, decisions.

View post:

Obama Should Let the Senate Advise Him on a Replacement for Scalia

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Should Let the Senate Advise Him on a Replacement for Scalia

Republicans Invent New Supreme Court Tradition Out of Thin Air

by ChrisHedberg555 Posted on February 14, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Republicans are pretty unanimously refusing to consider confirming a Supreme Court nominee to replace Antonin Scalia before the election. That’s hardly unexpected, but what cracks me up is their effort to make this sound like a principled stand. “It’s been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice,” Marco Rubio said last night, apparently not understanding what “lame duck” means. “We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year,” Ted Cruz agreed, apparently not realizing that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988. No matter. “It’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” thundered Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, which will hold hearings on Obama’s nominee.

This has quickly become a meme on the right. It’s a deeply held American tradition not to confirm Supreme Court justices during an election year. Needless to say, this is ridiculous. Anthony Kennedy aside, the reason Supreme Court nominees haven’t been confirmed during election years for the last few decades is just coincidental: none of them happened to have died or retired during an election year.1Some tradition. Perhaps Scalia should be posthumously censured for having the gall to break this custom.

In any case, congratulations as usual to Mitch McConnell for not bothering with this self-righteous pretense. He says the Senate won’t vote on a replacement for Scalia because, basically, they just don’t want to. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said yesterday, and that’s that. Republicans have the power to delay in hopes of electing a Republican in November, and that’s what they’re going to do.

1Abe Fortas was rejected during the 1968 election year, but this had nothing to do with any kind of hallowed tradition. It was because Republicans and Dixiecrats were pissed off at the Warren Court, and preventing LBJ from elevating Fortas to chief justice was a way of showing it. They were able to use an ethics scandal to gin up opposition, and Fortas never even made it to a floor vote.

Jump to original:

Republicans Invent New Supreme Court Tradition Out of Thin Air

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Invent New Supreme Court Tradition Out of Thin Air

Watch: Obama Rejects GOP Demands, Pledges to Appoint Scalia’s Replacement

by ChristyLyttleto Posted on February 14, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Defying demands from leading Republicans, President Barack Obama pledged Saturday evening to nominate a Supreme Court justice to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Calling Scalia a “larger than life presence on the bench” and “one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court,” Obama told the nation that “today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy.”

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” added Obama. “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy. They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned.”

Obama’s comments were a thinly veiled rejection of calls by conservative activists and GOP politicians—including presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell (Ky.)—to leave Scalia’s seat vacant until a new president takes office next year.

View original article: 

Watch: Obama Rejects GOP Demands, Pledges to Appoint Scalia’s Replacement

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch: Obama Rejects GOP Demands, Pledges to Appoint Scalia’s Replacement

Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Is Dead at 79

by JohnnieVernon5 Posted on February 13, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at a ranch outside Marfa, Texas, on Saturday, according to multiple news reports. He was 79. The death was confirmed by Texas governor Greg Abbott, in a statement posted to Twitter on Saturday afternoon:

According to an ABC affiliate, KVIA, Scalia died in his sleep last night after a hunting trip.

This is a breaking news post, and we will be updating it with new information as it becomes available.

More: 

Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Is Dead at 79

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Is Dead at 79

How Sharp is Justice Scalia These Days?

by MistyBlesing422 Posted on December 11, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

During Wednesday’s oral arguments in the University of Texas affirmative action case, Justice Antonin Scalia said this:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.

As many people have pointed out, what Scalia was haltingly trying to describe is “mismatch theory.” I’ll let a conservative explain this:

The argument is that students who are (1) not up to a college’s usual admissions standards and (2) nonetheless admitted for reasons wholly unrelated to their academic backgrounds are less likely to have good educational outcomes than if they had gone to a college for which they were more properly prepared and qualified. It’s not a new argument.

No indeed. In fact, several amicus briefs were filed making exactly this argument.

When I first read about Scalia’s remarks, I wasn’t surprised that he had brought this up. There’s considerable debate about mismatch theory, but it’s a respectable argument. What I was surprised about is the way he brought it up. Scalia had read the briefs. He has a famously keen mind. And yet, he sputtered and searched for words, and eventually described mismatch theory in the crudest, most insulting way possible.

I don’t think that was deliberate. I think he was just having trouble searching his brain for the right words. He’s also seems even more prone to outbursts of temper than usual lately. I wonder if Scalia is still as sharp as he used to be?

Original article: 

How Sharp is Justice Scalia These Days?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Sharp is Justice Scalia These Days?

Mr. T, Joe Biden, and Other Celebrities Who Gave Us New Ways to Say "Bullshit"

by Ninette O Mara Posted on November 7, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

While researching my new book Bullshit: A Lexicon, I came across hundreds of words that refer to bullshit or bullshitters. Most of these words—like most words in general—don’t have a definitive inventor. Word history is usually far too tangled to point to one person as the creator of a word. But a select few BS words, whatever their origin, have a Patron Saint: Someone highly associated with that word who pushed it to greater prominence and popularity.

Here’s a look at five people and the BS they spread.

Pete Marovich/ZUMAPress

Stephen Colbert: truthiness

While the word truthiness was not an original coinage of Colbert’s—it’s been around since at least the 1800s—Colbert launched it into the linguistic stratosphere when he used it in the first episode of The Colbert Report in 2005. Not only is truthiness commonly used, it’s inspired the Colbert suffix, which forms terms such as mathiness, an approach to math that doesn’t quite add up.

Olivier Douliery/UPPA via ZUMAPress

Joe Biden: malarkey

There are many reasons why some people would like to see Joe Biden run for President. For my money, I’d just like to hear the word malarkey more often. Biden has used the term several times, but his most memorable use was probably when he responded to Paul Ryan in an October 2012 debate: “With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.” The origin of malarkey is uncertain, but it does seem to share Irish roots with the vice president.

Globe Photos/ZUMAPress

Mr. T: jibber-jabber

Thanks to the huge success of The A-Team and Mr. T’s character B.A. Baracus in the ’80s, jibber-jabber (or ­jibba-jabba) became a very popular word that’s still associated with the fool-pitying actor. Jibber has been around since the 1800s, and jibber-jabber first started popping up in the early 1900s. The Oxford English Dictionary‘s first use is from Archibald Haddon’s 1922 book Green Room Gossip: “The jibber-jabber was entertaining, not because the utterances were those of ordinary human beings, but because they were the voice of George Bernard Shaw.”

Library of Congress

Warren Harding: bloviation

For a long time, Harding was considered the inventor of this wonderful, hot air-inspired word, but he was just the spreader of this Ohio-ism. Bloviation is a near-perfect word for bullshit, especially long-winded pretentious bullshit: it sounds like what it is. The verb form is bloviate, which is done by a bloviator. If any BS word deserves a comeback during this interminable election season, it’s this one.

Pete Marovich/ZUMAPress

Antonin Scalia: applesauce

Whatever you think of his politics, it can’t be denied that Supreme Court Justice Scalia has a way with words, especially old words with a folksy flavor. In addition to using jiggery-pokery—another word in the neighborhood of BS—Scalia used the expression “Pure applesauce” in a dissent back in June. Green’s Dictionary of Slang traces this use back to the late 1800s, mainly in exclamations. If only a debate moderator had the wit to pull a Scalia and reply to some truthiness with “Applesauce!”

Visit link:

Mr. T, Joe Biden, and Other Celebrities Who Gave Us New Ways to Say "Bullshit"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mr. T, Joe Biden, and Other Celebrities Who Gave Us New Ways to Say "Bullshit"