Tag: Supreme Court of the United States

Susan Collins, the moderate US senator from Maine whose vote to put Brett Kavanaugh on the supreme court was decisive, despite sexual assault allegations, defended herself on Sunday against charges of betraying women and the #MeToo movement – as the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, boasted that the bitter fight on Capitol Hill has given his party a late advantage in the forthcoming midterm elections. With the dust barely settling after a process that was meant to uphold the sanctity and august bearing of the supreme court but ended up being one of the most partisan, and narrowly won, confirmation proceedings in history, brickbats continued to fly over the weekend. He told CBS that the fight put up by Democrats against the judge had simply energized Republican voters for the November midterm elections who had previously been less motivated then Democrats. “So I want to thank the other side,” he said. He’d said after the confirmation vote on Saturday afternoonthat: “These things always blow over.” But bitter divisions in Congress and the country are almost certain to continue. The political wing of the women’s health organization Planned Parenthood, which has been a firm ally of Collins in the past and even presented her with an award, put out a devastating statement in which it said: “Senator Collins has made it clear that she can no longer call herself a women’s rights champion. Play Video 3:24 A crowd-sourced fund set up this weekend to try and unseat Collins when she comes up for re-election in 2020 has already attracted more than $2m. Collins hit back at Rice on Sunday with a snarky remark about her potential rivals’ connections to Maine. Hirono, however, concluded with: “I want to ask Susan Collins, if you were interviewing someone for a lifetime position to some company would you hire somebody with this kind of cloud over their heads?” Meanwhile Heidi Heitkamp, a Democratic senator who voted against Kavanaugh despite representing the deeply conservative state of North Dakota, where her seat is now in serious jeopardy, put out a new TV ad in which she states: “I don’t think he told the truth” and in any case he was “too biased to be impartial”. “Everybody knows how energized the Democrat side is, and so our energy and enthusiasm was lagging behind theirs until this.

NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro gets a political update from Time magazine national political correspondent Molly Ball. And on the left, many see the Republican Party now as the party of sexual assault supporters, with Roy Moore in Alabama, President Trump on tape saying he has sexually assaulted women and now Kavanaugh, a sitting Supreme Court justice. BALL: Well, a week ago when Senator Jeff Flake made his extraordinary stand - stalling the nomination for a week in order to let the FBI investigate - what he said was, this is ripping our country apart. And on the right, you know, you had Republicans who might have been feeling discouraged at the relative inaction of the Congress or the Republicans who were on the ballot this year, their inability to give the president some of the things that he has wanted to accomplish. The midterm elections are less than a month away. BALL: This close to an election, it's hard to tell what is signal and what is noise, whether you're talking about polling or just sort of the national sentiment. But his poll numbers are still low because it seems that, even at this moment, there are scandals. And Republicans will tell you that he is the main reason that they are struggling so much in this midterm election year. So I think that things like the constant thrum of scandal - the Russia scandal, things like this tax investigation - they do always loom over the fate of all of the Republican Party. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Molly Ball is national political correspondent for Time magazine.

Here are 10 companies that are influencing politics by donating huge amounts of money to political groups in 2018. Campaign contributions directly to political candidates are limited for individuals and companies alike. But since 2010, companies can pour millions of unregulated and uncapped "soft money" into independent Super Political Action Committees (PACs) to influence the outcomes of federal elections without contributing to an individual candidate. Open Secrets has compiled a list of the largest organizational political contributors to Democratic and Republican or liberal and conservative outside groups. According to Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson has contributed over $200 million to conservative candidates and causes in recent years. Uline has donated $31.7 million so far in 2018, more than it spent for the 2016 cycle, according to Open Secrets. According to Open Secrets, Fahr LLC has donated $29.4 million to the current election cycle so far, and that may be just the beginning, since the corporation's 2016 contributions topped $90 million. In 2016, the hedge fund donated $59 million, giving slightly more to Democrats than Republicans. Through nonprofit Americans for Prosperity (which also donates millions to further Republican causes), the Koch brothers have organized to defeat transit projects in several cities, according to the New York Times. The company's donors gave more to Democrats in 2016, but favor Republicans so far this year.

Here are 10 companies that are influencing politics by donating huge amounts of money to political groups in 2018. Campaign contributions directly to political candidates are limited for individuals and companies alike. But since 2010, companies can pour millions of unregulated and uncapped "soft money" into independent Super Political Action Committees (PACs) to influence the outcomes of federal elections without contributing to an individual candidate. Open Secrets has compiled a list of the largest organizational political contributors to Democratic and Republican or liberal and conservative outside groups. According to Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson has contributed over $200 million to conservative candidates and causes in recent years. Uline has donated $31.7 million so far in 2018, more than it spent for the 2016 cycle, according to Open Secrets. According to Open Secrets, Fahr LLC has donated $29.4 million to the current election cycle so far, and that may be just the beginning, since the corporation's 2016 contributions topped $90 million. In 2016, the hedge fund donated $59 million, giving slightly more to Democrats than Republicans. Through nonprofit Americans for Prosperity (which also donates millions to further Republican causes), the Koch brothers have organized to defeat transit projects in several cities, according to the New York Times. The company's donors gave more to Democrats in 2016, but favor Republicans so far this year.

In the ugly past, American politics was tainted by the “spoils system.” Winning politicians fired multitudes of government workers, replacing them with their own political minions — who spent government time politicking. The people need professionalism in their government offices, not to pay for jobs that election winners can hand out like prizes, so the Civil Service was created. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such victims have a right to sue. The amount of disruptive turnover with each election subsided. However, periodically, a new case arises. When he took office in early 2017, Warner purged 16 workers in his office — 15 Democrats and one independent. Now, four of them have won nearly a combined $1 million in settlements, while eight more await judgments. But an independent agency like BRIM ought to be the one deciding whether to pay settlements like this. Otherwise, elected officials like Warner might choose to fight a losing case all the way through the court system — costing taxpayers even more, all in an attempt to save face. Some Republicans claim they’re “draining the swamp.” Elected officials with practices like this bring the swamp with them.

In Thursday’s Times letter column was the headline “Accusations against judge aim to further delay process” with a letter by Bruce Hallowell. In his letter, Mr. Hallowell points out the Democrats are just trying to delay the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The Republicans used similar tactics to deny Democrats a Supreme Court nomination when Barack Obama was president. This is just another example of how polarized our politics have become, to the detriment of the country, especially when it comes to Supreme Court justices. Everything has become about winning instead of compromise and collaboration for the overall good of the country. If those are his true priorities, how can he possibly be looking out for the well-being of all the people in this country? He is just an example or how ridged the country’s leaders have become. Shouldn’t all our leaders, once they are elected, consider the opinions of all the people they represent? I would like to see our political leaders have these priorities: “I am a human, an American, and a (fill in Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Independent/other), in that order.” First we are human; we have no choice about that. Tom Vivelo Flowery Branch Send a letter to the editor here or by email to letters@gainesvilletimes.com Letter: Local property tax exemptions shouldn’t punish working seniors Letter: Atlanta mayor’s actions prove Amazon should move elsewhere Letter: Accusations against judge aim to further delay process Tom Baxter: Candidates for governor play the health plan name game

A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned. Yale provided Kavanaugh with many of the judge’s clerks over the years, and Chua played an outsized role in vetting the clerks who worked for him. One source said that in at least one case, a law student was so put off by Chua’s advice about how she needed to look, and its implications, that she decided not to pursue a clerkship with Kavanaugh, a powerful member of the judiciary who had a formal role in vetting clerks who served in the US supreme court. [Rubenfeld] told me, 'Kavanaugh hires women with a certain look'. However, the remarks from Chua and Rubenfeld raise questions about why the couple believed it was important to emphasize the students’ physical appearance when discussing jobs with Kavanaugh. Chua allegedly told the students that it was “no accident” that Kavanaugh’s female clerks “looked like models”. A Yale Law School official said in an emailed statement: “This is the first we have heard claims that Professor Chua coached students to look ‘like models’. We will look into these claims promptly, taking into account the fact that Professor Chua is currently unreachable due to serious illness. The couple have hired a well-known crisis communications expert but he did not respond to specific questions from the Guardian about Chua’s remarks or the internal investigation. “There is good reason so many of them have gone on to supreme court clerkships; he only hires those who are extraordinarily qualified.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s prospects of confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court changed significantly over the weekend after Christine Blasey Ford told The Washington Post that he sexually assaulted her when both were in high school. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast discusses the political reaction so far and debates whether Kavanaugh is still likely to be confirmed. The crew also looks back at the public’s response to Anita Hill’s accusations against Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 and asks whether this case will be different. You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s prospects of confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court changed significantly over the weekend after Christine Blasey Ford told The Washington Post that he sexually assaulted her when both were in high school. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast discusses the political reaction so far and debates whether Kavanaugh is still likely to be confirmed. The crew also looks back at the public’s response to Anita Hill’s accusations against Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 and asks whether this case will be different. You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

A paper based on the research published online Friday, September 14 in the journal PLOS One, builds upon previous work by the research team that determined how echo chambers work and how to measure them. "Echo chambers can block progress toward a policy resolution related to climate change because individuals who have the same perspective and get information from the same sources are often under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective." In their initial study, researchers surveyed active members of the U.S. climate policy network in the summer of 2010 about their attitudes toward climate science and climate policy, and questioned them about their policy network connections. "The research presents data collected during two very different time periods with respect to climate politics," said Lorien Jasny with the Department of Politics at the University of Exeter, a co-investigator on the study and lead author of the paper in PLOS One. "In 2010, Congress was considering legislation aimed at regulating carbon dioxide emissions. The summer of 2016 ended up being the swan song for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which focused on reducing emissions from power plants. "Our findings show that echo chambers were not unique to 2010 but their impact on policy networks has shifted," Fisher said. Fisher and the rest of the research team are currently examining how climate policy networks changed after the 2016 election once the Trump administration took office. "Our results demonstrate that even when echo chambers are amplifying support for a particular climate policy, the President can stop progress, as the Trump administration did in the case of the Clean Power Plan," Fisher said. Shifting echo chambers in US climate policy networks, PLOS ONE (2018).