Featured Stories
(Update) Oklahoma legislators exempt themselves from drug testing
March 27, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Because politicians believe that they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us. They're "special." The Oklahoma Senate has dropped legislation that would require politicians throughout the state to be drug tested along with people receiving temporary public assistance. Oklahoma legislators kill provision to drug test politicians: The … Read more
Birther Madness
March 27, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Los Angeles Times reported last week on the return of "Birther Madness." 'Birthers' sue to force state to verify candidates' eligibility:
Undeterred by documentary evidence and repeated judicial rejection, a group of conspiracy theorists who say President Obama was born in Africa have sued the California secretary of state to demand that she verify the eligibility of all presidential candidates before putting them on the November ballot.
* * *
The lawsuit filed by Republican primary write-in candidate John Albert Dummett Jr., Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party of California and five others also alludes to "questions concerning the eligibility" of Mitt Romney to vie for the role of commander in chief. The birthers' lawyer, Gary Kreep of Ramona, said Wednesday that his clients wanted the issue of Romney's eligibility raised because of his parents' long residency in Mexico.
Ah, you didn't see that one coming, now did you? One birther explained that Mitt Romney's citizenship is up for debate because his dad was born in Mexico. Birthers want proof that Mitt Romney was born in America. "Thats right, Mitt Romney's father was born in the Mexican colony that Mitt's great-grandfather founded after fleeing the United States so he could stay married to Romney's four great-grandmothers."
Not wanting to be outdone, Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio and Rep. Carl "barking mad" Seel held a press conference this afternoon trying to revive Seel's "Birther" bill in the Arizona legislature to permit a similar lawsuit in Arizona. The Phoenix New Times reports Joe Arpaio and the "Birther" Gang Gather at the Capitol, Where Carl Seel Likened His "Birther" Bill to Women's Suffrage:
Today's press conference made it pretty clear (as if it wasn't already) that the bill is aimed at President Obama, as people are still trying to push the continuously debunked conspiracy that the president was born in another country.
Arpaio and Seel were joined by "birther" squad lead investigator Mike Zullo, Representative David Burnell Smith, Senator Lori Klein, and some tea party folks to speak on behalf of Seel's bill. State Representative Jack Harper was also in the audience, as was infamous conspiracy nut Jerome Corsi.
SCOTUS Day 2 on the Affordable Care Act
March 27, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Today's argument was the "Superbowl" as Politico called it, the oral arguments on the individual mandate. I would caution anyone from trying to read the tea leaves from oral arguments today. There was skepticism with a dose of Devil's advocate in the questions from the bench. The Justices were testing the lawyers' arguments.
Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog.com picked up on the important question from Justice Kennedy towards the end of oral argument. The argument is done:
Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com agrees. Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call:
If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.
The Arizona Daily Star opts for stenography in CD 8 election coverage
March 27, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I realize that the Arizona Daily Star's political reporter Rhonda Bodfield recently left the paper and other reporters have been reassigned to cover the special election for Congress in CD 8, but really, is this the best the Star can do?
The Arizona Daily Star, at least since it has been owned by Lee Enterprises, has engaged in the practice frequently referred to as "fair and balanced" reporting. If the Star reports on a Democrat, the report will include a quotation from a Republican for "balance." And if the Star reports on a Republican, the report will include a quotation from a Democrat for "balance."
At least that's what the Star used to do until its coverage of the CD 8 special election for Congress. Now there is no "balance," only stenography. And that's hardly "fair."
As for fact checking, Fuhgettaboutit! The Star abandoned fact checking years ago.
Here is just an example of what I am talking about. I will give you the "Cliff Notes" version. Where GOP contenders in CD8 stand on 4 key issues:
In an effort to provide voters with more information about the GOP contenders, we've asked them each four questions on these topics.
They had to answer the questions in 50 words or less.
Q1: On jobs and the economy: Name at least two concrete steps you would take to jump-start the economy and create more jobs in Arizona?
Antenori: Repeal "Obamacare," reduce government regulations!
Kelly: Lower taxes, reduce government regulations! Drill, baby, drill!
McSally: Simplify the tax code, reduce government regulations!
Sitton: I have a 10-point plan I can't explain "in 50 words or less." Renew our commitment to free enterprise, reduce government regulations!
SCOTUS Day 1 on the Affordable Care Act
March 26, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has a lengthy summary of today's U.S. Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Care Act, specifically on the issue of whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 is a procedural bar to the Court deciding the case. The Q&A from the Justices on this issue would appear to suggest … Read more
Another take on ALEC’s attractiveness to Republican legislators
March 26, 2012
by
by David Safier In the Political Animal, Ed Kilgore added an important insight to Krugman's column about ALEC. Basically, Kilgore said ALEC-created legislation is catnip for Republican state legislators looking to make a name for themselves in conservative circles. [I]f you are, say, a freshman legislator elevated to office by the 2010 conservative landslide (or … Read more
Fact checking the mendacity of ‘Mittens’
March 26, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Steve Benen posted "Volume XI" — not 11 lies, 11 weekly volumes of lies — from Willard "Mittens" Romney, who is a pathological liar. Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XI: It was heartening that Mitt Romney's habitual dishonesty generated far more attention than usual this week, but the scrutiny doesn't appear to have … Read more
Legal experts believe SCOTUS will uphold the Affordable Care Act
March 26, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
A survey of legal experts finds they believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will follow precedent and uphold the Affordable Care Act.
National Journal surveyed former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the high court about the health care law, and the Legal Insiders Expect Supreme Court to Uphold Health Care Law:
The survey asked former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the Court to assess the probability, on a scale from zero to 100 percent, that the Justices would strike down the law’s mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance or its provisions expanding eligibility for Medicaid to millions of more uninsured adults.
Overall, those surveyed felt there was only a 35 percent probability that the Court would strike down the law’s individual mandate as unconstitutional. Attorneys who had clerked for one of the Court’s four conservative Justices and those who had clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the key swing vote on the issue, forecast a somewhat higher probability that the law would be struck down than those who had clerked for the four liberal justices.
But all three groups of former clerks-even those who had worked for the Court’s conservative block-said the odds that the Justices would uphold the mandate was well above 50 percent. Lawyers who have argued before the Court said there was a 36 percent probability the Justices would strike down the mandate, about the same as the clerks overall.
“I don’t think this case will be nearly as close a case as conventional wisdom now has it,” one respondent noted in an open-ended comment. “I think the Court will uphold the statute by a lopsided majority.”
The survey was sponsored by two centrist groups: American Action Forum, a center-right Republican advocacy group and the Blue Dog Research Forum, a center-left Democratic advocacy group. It was conducted by Purple Insights, the research division of Purple Strategies, a bipartisan political consulting firm.
To conduct the poll, Purple Insights last week directed e-mails, and follow-up phone calls at a group of former clerks and attorneys who have argued before the court. In the end, 43 former clerks and 23 attorneys responded to the on-line poll. “From a methodology standpoint, this was a very hard to population to reach…some of the most elite attorneys in the country,” said Doug Usher, who conducted the survey for Purple Insights. “We were pleased with their participation rate and we think the results will add to the discussion.”
Given that level of participation, the results are more suggestive than conclusive. But they may reflect a gap between a political community, where the dominant expectation is that the Court’s five Republican-appointed Justices will unify to strike down the law, and a legal community operating on different assumptions.
