Read Blog for Arizona | Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint for more about February 2017

(Update) SCOTUS fight is not about qualifications, it is about an illegitimate nomination process

February 2, 2017 by AZ BlueMeanie

Following up on the previous post, SCOTUS fight is not about qualifications, it is about an illegitimate nomination process, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post today adds, It’s time to make Republicans pay for their supreme hypocrisy:

You want bipartisanship on Supreme Court nominations? Let’s have a consensus moment around Sen. Ted Cruz’s idea that having only eight Supreme Court justices is just fine.

“There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices,” the Texas Republican said last year when GOP senators were refusing even to give a hearing to Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee.

* * *

If that argument was good in 2016, why isn’t it valid in 2017? After all, some Republicans were willing to keep the seat vacant indefinitely if Hillary Clinton won the presidential election. “I would much rather have eight Supreme Court justices than a justice who is liberal,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in October:

At a debate on October 10th, Senator John McCain, of Arizona, said flatly, “I would much rather have eight Supreme Court Justices than a [ninth] Justice who is liberal.” A week later, in a radio interview, he made that a “promise,” telling listeners that “we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were President, would put up.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) went further: “If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”

Yes, Republicans do have a principle on nominations: When the Supreme Court’s philosophical majority might flip, only Republican presidents should be allowed to appoint justices.

Speaking Truth to Power in the #AZLeg (video)

February 2, 2017 by Pamela Powers Hannley

Arizona House — Taking our first votes of the 53rd Legislature

This has been an action-packed week in the Arizona Legislature. We returned to work on Monday– just a few days after immigration restrictions and the Muslim travel ban and related protests unfolded at airports (including Sky Harbor).

This week I was proud of the Democrats in the Legislature. I am particularly proud of my Sisters who are also first-time Legislators: Representatives Athena Salman, Isela Blanc, Kelli Butler, Winona Benally, Mitzi Epstein, and Kirsten Engel.

Yes, we’re the minority, but we’re a fiery bunch with a lot to say. Thirteen of the 25 Dems in the House are new, and several of the newbies are unabashedly Progressive (like me) or Progressive-leaning, depending upon the issue.

Often, the people who spoke truth to power this week included some or all of the women listed above. But don’t take my word for it. Watch the videos.

Jan 30: Democrats made statements about the Muslin travel ban.

Jan 31: Democrats spoke out against snake shot and rat shot in the city. (The vote broke along party lines, see below.)

SCOTUS fight is not about qualifications, it is about an illegitimate nomination process

February 1, 2017 by AZ BlueMeanie

In an embarrassing display of his reality TV show showmanship, President Trump announced his nomination of Appellate Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court in prime time last night.

Trump invited Judge Neil Gorsuch from Denver and Judge Thomas Hardiman from Pittsburgh to Washington, but only one would receive his rose. Trump in Peak Reality-TV Form for Supreme Court Reveal; Trump brings reality TV instincts to White House; Jimmy Kimmel gawks at Trump’s reality TV Supreme Court nomination, does him one better:

“That’s right, he freaking Ryan Seacrest-ed his choice for the Supreme Court,” Kimmel said. “This is like a two-on-one date on The Bachelor.”

“Was that a surprise?” Trump asked. “Was it?” “Well, yeah, you know who it was a surprise for?” Kimmel said. “The guy who drove all the way out from Pittsburgh to not get picked as Supreme Court judge.”

Regardless of what you may think of Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Thomas Hardiman, they were entitled to be treated with more dignity and respect than the has-been celebrities on Trump’s reality TV show The Apprentice.

The New York Times editorializes today, Neil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat:

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.

President Trump had a great opportunity to repair some of that damage by nominating a moderate candidate for the vacancy, which was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died last February. Instead, he chose Neil Gorsuch, a very conservative judge from the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit whose jurisprudence and writing style are often compared to those of Justice Scalia.

* * *

In normal times, Judge Gorsuch — a widely respected and, at 49, relatively young judge with a reliably conservative voting record — would be an obvious choice for a Republican president.

These are not normal times.

Arizona Lege is ‘Robin Hood in reverse’ on public education funding

February 2, 2017February 1, 2017 by AZ BlueMeanie

At a time when Gov. Doug Ducey boasted more than $100 million in new investments for education in his budget plan, a Senate panel advanced a bill that could put roughly double that amount of school funding in jeopardy. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Bill advances that could jeopardize more than $200 million in desegregation funds:

Over the objection of dozens of parents and local school officials, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 6-3 for SB1174, which eliminates the automatic levy of property taxes in more than a dozen Arizona school districts for funding allotted for desegregation and student achievement efforts.

Instead, the funding mechanism would have to be prompted by voters, in what would essentially be an override vote.

SB1174, sponsored by Sen. Debbie Lesko and pushed by the [conservative] Arizona Tax Research Association, would allow a special vote for up to seven years of funding at the level at which desegregation dollars were set in 2009.

Nineteen Arizona school districts levy those extra taxes for desegregation funding. The Phoenix Union High School District alone raised roughly $55.8 million in fiscal year 2015 in additional property taxes thanks to the state- and court-authorized taxing method. In fiscal year 2015, the tax levy in that and the other districts provided more than $211 million in funding.

School officials have argued that they are under strict scrutiny from courts and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights, and would be thrown into legal trouble if they don’t continue to utilize the taxes.

ATRA has for years pushed efforts to eliminate those funds [and Debbie Lesko has been their dutiful water carrier]. They claim it’s unfair to Arizona’s other school districts — particular those that neighbor the 19 districts receiving desegregation funding — that some schools can draw in more funds than others. Sean McCarthy, a research analyst at ATRA, claimed it’s a program that voters are woefully unaware of, and those that know of it want it gone.