The GOP war on women to appease the crazy base

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

TalibanRemember when the TanMan, Weeper of the House John Boehner, proclaimed that Tea-Publicans were all about creating jobs? Yeah, still waiting.

When they are not wasting time on meaningless symbolic votes to repeal "ObamaCare" for the 39th time to give every member of their caucus a chance to vote against it, they are wasting their time on other meaningless symbolic votes to appease the crazy base, like this.

On Tuesday, House Republicans wasted the day approving the most restrictive
anti-abortion bill considered in Congress in the last decade, the unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. U.S.
House passes bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy
:

The House approved legislation Tuesday that would ban abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy, the most sweeping abortion restriction to pass any chamber of Congress in a decade. The vote was 228 to 196.

For those of you scoring this bill, six Republicans voted against it, and six Democrats voted for it — Henry Cuellar (D-TX 28), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL 3), Jim Matheson (D-UT 4), Mike McIntyre (D-NC 7), Collin Peterson (D-MN 7), and Nick Rahall (D-WV 3) — canceling each other out.

Under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, abortions
can be performed until the point when an individual doctor determines a
fetus’s viability, which is generally defined as up to 24 weeks of
gestation. After that point, the government can prohibit the procedure
as long as it provides sufficient safeguards for the mother’s health and
well-being.

* * *

Tuesday’s vote marks the first time Congress has voted to redefine the point where a fetus becomes viable [in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the real reason for doing this.]

Obama Opposes Food Stamp Cuts, Threatens Veto of Farm Bill

by Pamela Powers Hannley

President Barack Obama has issued an official statement saying that he opposes the current form of HR1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (AKA the Farm Bill).

Specifically, he opposes the deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP– food stamps) and the spending increases in the form of subsidies. Cutting food subsidies (in the form of food stamps) to the poor while increasing subsidies to agribusiness is immoral. (You’ll remember that, in public, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is all “we gotta tighten out belts and reduce spending”, but in reality, they love spending money on pet projects– like war and corporate welfare. They passed the $640 Billion Pentagon Pork Bill last week. )

Will Obama’s statement and threatened veto give weak-kneed Blue Dog Democratsthe back-up to stand up for what’s right? I hope so. (The House of Representatives is still working on this bill; there is still time to call your representative and urge him/her topreserve funding for food stamps.) Read the President's full statement after the jump.

Tea-Publicans against democracy threaten comprehensive immigration reform

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

The TanMan, Weeper of the House John Boehner, the "Worst. Speaker. Ever.," is signaling to the Tea Party terrorists holding him hostage that he will not allow the immigration reform bill to come to a vote in the House unless "a majority of the majority," i.e., the infamous Hastert Rule, is met.

Why do Tea-Publicans hate democracy? The Hastert Rule is a GOP Caucus rule that operates much like the hated cloture rule (filibuster) in the Senate, which allows a tyranny of a minority to thwart the will of the majority in that chamber. It is undemocratic and an abuse of process. Boehner: No immigration bill without most of GOP support:

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) privately reiterated to
colleagues Tuesday that the House will not vote on an immigration reform
package that doesn’t have the support of a majority of Republicans.

The comments came as some of the most conservative GOP lawmakers and well-financed outside conservative groups are seeking to change internal House GOP rules that would block legislation from the House floor that does not have “majority-of-the-majority” support.

Tucson civil unions ordinance on the agenda tonight

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: On the Consent Agenda of the Tucson City Council Agenda for Tuesday, June 18, at 5:30 p.m. is the proposed city ordinance for civil unions, following in the footsteps of the City of Bisbee last month. TUCSON CODE: AMENDING (CHAPTER 17) RELATING TO DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AND CIVIL UNIONS a. Report from City … Read more

Federal voter registration form preempts Arizona’s Prop. 200 proof of citizenship requirement

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Surpeme Court issued five opinions this morning, but one opinion comes from Arizona, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. challenge to Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) requirement of proof of citizenship. The federal voter registration form only requires the voter to attest to citizenship status.

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. that Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form. Justices Thomas and Alito both filed dissenting opinions.

Here is a copy of the opinion.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Disgraced recalled Senator Russell Pearce and Governor Jan Brewer (who was Secretary of State at the time) are going to have a cow today over the Court's opinion.

I will have more when I have time to read through the 51 page opinion.

UPDATE: Today's win for the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. will be short-lived, because Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion lays out the administrative path for Arizona to follow to have the proof of citizenship requirements of Prop. 200 included in the federal voter registration form, and possible future litigation.

Here are highlights from Justice Scalia's majority opinion: