ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

After Opposing Kagan To Be Solicitor General, Specter Says He Has An ‘Open Mind’ About Her For SCOTUS

By Amanda Terkel on May 10, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Sen. Arlen Specter When Elena Kagan came before the Senate to be confirmed as Solicitor General, Sen. Arlen Specter — then the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee — voted against her, saying he didn’t know enough about her “approach to the law and approach to the job of Solicitor General.” Today, however, Specter put out a statement saying that he has an “open mind” about Kagan for the Supreme Court:

There is no doubt that Elena Kagan has exemplary academic and professional credentials. And she has been a pioneer for women, serving as the country’s first female Solicitor General and as the first woman to be Dean of Harvard Law School. I applaud the President for nominating someone who has a varied and diverse background outside the circuit court of appeals.

I voted against her for Solicitor General because she wouldn’t answer basic questions about her standards for handling that job. It is a distinctly different position than that of a Supreme Court Justice.

I have an open mind about her nomination and hope she will address important questions related to her position on matters such as executive power, warrantless wiretapping, a woman’s right to choose, voting rights and congressional power.

The likely reason for Specter’s change of heart is that not only is he now a Democrat, but he’s stuck in a tough primary against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who has picked up significant progressive support and has a slight lead in the polls. Sestak is already hitting Specter for his original vote against Kagan. “I expect Sen. Specter may backtrack from his earlier vote on Ms. Kagan this week in order to help himself in the upcoming primary election, but the people of Pennsylvania have no way of knowing where he will stand after May 18,” said Sestak.

As the National Review explains, “But the political realities for Specter have changed. As Obama campaigns for him and helps him in his fight in an upcoming Democratic primary, it appears to be a safe bet that, in the end, whether a nominee is responsive or not, the Pennsylvania senator will vote ‘aye’ to confirm the president’s choice to fill Stevens’ seat.”

However, some of the seven Republicans who backed Kagan for Solicitor General are now leaning the other way, leaving themselves open to possibly voting against her confirmation. From a statement by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT):

Now that the President has nominated Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, the Senate must thoroughly and fairly evaluate her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Judicial qualifications go beyond legal experience; any Supreme Court nominee should have an impressive resume. The more important qualification is judicial philosophy and a nominee’s understanding of the power and proper role of a Justice in our system of government.

I will examine Ms. Kagan’s entire record to understand her judicial philosophy. My conclusion will be based on evidence, not blind faith. Her previous confirmation, and my support for her in that position, do not by themselves establish either her qualifications for the Supreme Court or my obligation to support her. I have an open mind and look forward to actively participating in the confirmation process.

Hatch previously called Kagan “brilliant,” but as the Salt Lake Tribune points out, he appears to now be trying to downplay that remark. Sen. Jon Kyl similarly said that “a temporary political appointment is far different than a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who also both voted for Kagan, have both put out statements simply stating that they look forward to questioning Kagan. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Judd Gregg (R-NH) have not yet put out statements.

Health

REPORT: Health Care Bill Only A Start In Fighting Obesity Epidemic

By Igor Volsky on May 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm

ObesityReportToday, my colleagues here at the Center for American Progress released a new report examining how the health care bill addresses the child obesity epidemic that’s been largely ignored in the reform debate. President Obama has called childhood obesity “one of the most urgent health issues that we face in this country,” however, and has created a Presidential Task Force on Childhood Obesity charged with developing and submitting to the president an inter agency plan that “details a coordinated strategy, identifies key benchmarks, and outlines an action plan.” First Lady Michelle Obama has also launched Let’s Move!, a nationwide campaign, to help eliminate “the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation.”

The new health care law does several things to advance this cause:

- Improved nutrition labeling in fast food restaurants, which will list calories and provide information on other nutrients

- The Childhood Obesity Demonstration Project, which gives grants to community based obesity intervention programs

- Community Transformation Grants, which gives grants to community-based efforts to prevent chronic diseases

- Prevention and public health programs that invest in broader, population-level obesity intervention efforts

- Primary care and coordination efforts that emphasize prevention, a team-based approach and paying for improved health

-Community-based care that targets communities that are disproportionately obese and overweight.

- Maternal and child health that promote breastfeeding and early-childhood nutrition.

The report notes that none of this alone can significantly lower obesity rates. For that, policy makers must look beyond health care into the quality of food in school cafeterias (they’ll have to do much better than Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s (D-AR) recent proposal), the physical education programs, America’s agricultural subsidies, and the food options in lower-income neighborhoods. As the analysis points out, “the inflation-adjusted price of fruits and vegetables rose 17 percent between 1997 and 2003, while the price of a McDonald’s quarter-pounder and a Coca-Cola fell by 5.44 percent and 34.89 percent, respectively.” Consequently, American adults and children are now consuming, “on average, one-third of their calories from eating out.” In other words, the health bill is a start, but the government will need to take on some powerful food interests and tax some popular foods if it hopes to get health care spending under control and improve the quality of health and life of future generations. How realistic that is, is another matter.

Look for the Task Force to release their obesity recommendations tomorrow, but in the meantime you can read CAP’s report here, check out Marc Ambinder’s reporting on the issue and policy suggestions here or read Health Affairs’ very insightful obesity issue here.

Alyssa

Everything old is new again: Betty White on SNL

By Alyssa Rosenberg on May 10, 2010 at 7:21 pm

(Evening, folks. I’m BabylonSista: pop culture junkie, political soap opera lover, and music snob. Glad I can give Alyssa the break she needs and pinch hit this week.)

I love it when older entertainers find their second wind–it happened for crooner Tony Bennett and for Johnny Cash, elder statesman of badasses, in the early 90′s. And it’s been just as heartening to see actress and comedian Betty White make a comeback of sorts through late night shows like Fallon and Ferguson. White does play up her age for gags, but her routine doesn’t seem to be any different than what she’d do at any age: snarky, raunchy, and just a bit of silly. The Facebook push (which she hilariously ridiculed in her SNL monologue) for White to host Saturday Night Live was even better: a TV pioneer would honor the show with her comedy wisdom.

I really wish that’s what happened. The show’s start was promising: White’s earlier mentioned monologue was on point. But the rest of the show sagged…because it was Saturday Night Live. Bringing back their best female players to do their best old bits did nothing but remind the audience of the times when the show was good. And most of the skits hung on White’s age–something I’m surprised she went along with for skit after tedious skit. When the material played more to her style than her years, it was great; when being 88 was the joke, the joke fell flat. Even the MacGruber shorts got tired and creepy pretty quickly.

But mostly–and this really bothered me–SNL’s writers didn’t go the extra mile to write new, interesting material. After hyping a show this big, I thought their team would bring it. Instead, they relied on old ideas and lame gags. I was sure they were going to do something with their musical guest, Jay-Z, but they passed up the chance.

Betty White worked with what she had, and I admit to tearing up a little at the end when the cast gave her bouquets of roses. A comedian was honored with a choice spot on television. Too bad the show didn’t honor her with better material.

Politics

Schwarzenegger jokes that if he went to Arizona with his ‘accent…they would try to deport me.’

By Zaid Jilani on May 10, 2010 at 6:50 pm

naaaaaaaa Today, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered the undergraduate commencement address at Atlanta’s Emory University. At one point in his speech, Schwarzenegger took a swipe at Arizona’s newly passed radical immigration law, joking that he was planning to speak in Arizona, but with his “accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me“:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger joked that he was afraid of being deported in Arizona during a commencement speech he delivered Monday at Emory University in Atlanta.

Schwarzenegger’s office provided a copy of his prepared remarks and confirmed he made the Arizona joke. “I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend,” Schwarzenegger said. “But with my accent I was afraid they would try to deport me.”

Schwarzenegger had previously attacked the Arizona law and called for comprehensive immigration reform during an appearance on Jay Leno. “Let me just say that I, as governor here, I would never do that in California,” he told the host. “[The] federal government does not get their act together and have immigration reform so that we know who is in this country, how many people are in this country, do the background checks, let people come in legally and work here because we need the workers, and all the people cross legally and do everything in a legal way.”

Economy

Airlines Threaten Lawsuit After Labor Board Rules To Make Union Elections More Democratic

By Pat Garofalo on May 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm

Today, the National Mediation Board (NMB), which oversees labor-management relations under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), issued a ruling making union elections more democratic. Before today, under the RLA, workers who did not vote in a union organizing campaign — including workers on furlough, military leave and extended medical leave — were counted as “no” votes. So in order to form a union, workers had to gain a majority of all workers, instead of a majority of voting members. It was as if people who did not vote in a Presidential campaign were recorded as voting for one party or the other.

The NMB’s rule-change — which it first sought comment on back in November — states that workers who do not vote in an election simply won’t be counted (just like in political campaigns). This would bring the RLA in line with the other major piece of legislation governing unionization, the National Labor Relations Act.

But airlines, which are governed by the RLA, like the higher bar for unionizing that the previous rule set. So they immediately announced that they will launch a lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule, according to the Air Transport Association, an industry trade group:

We continue to believe the National Mediation Board does not have legal authority to implement this rule, one that undoubtedly will lead to more labor discord. It is quite clear to us that the NMB was determined to proceed despite the proposed rule’s substantive and procedural flaws, leaving us no choice but to seek judicial review.

At its core, the airlines — including Delta, Jet Blue, and United — are arguing that workers who don’t vote in union elections should immediately be recorded as voting against the union. It’s an odd concept of democracy, if I’ve ever heard one.

But the reaction of the airlines is part and parcel of the corporate campaign to keep the bar for unionization high, even when the rules are antiquated or create uneven playing fields between companies. For instance, Federal Express (which, interestingly, has joined the airlines’ lawsuit against the NMB’s ruling) has been waging a campaign against a proposed change by Congress that would remove unionizing obstacles for that company’s drivers. The clear goal of this lobbying — and the airlines’ lawsuit — is to keep workers who want to unionize from actually following through and forming a union.

The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA said that the NMB’s ruling represents “a new era of democracy.” “For far too long, flight attendants and other aviation and railway employees have faced significant obstacles in their quest for collective bargaining rights,” it said. And the airlines are going to court to fight for keeping those obstacles in place.

Update

Two Republican lawmakers — Rep. John Kline (R-MN) and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) — also criticized the rule change today and said that they would try to stop it from being implemented.

Climate Progress

Obama’s campaign pollster: “In the aftermath of the oil spill disaster, voters overwhelmingly support a comprehensive clean energy bill…. Voters understand the dangers of our dependence on oil. Now, theyre ready to hold Congress accountable.”

By Joe Romm on May 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm

WashPost: “Dems have a real opportunity to seize on the Gulf spill to make energy reform a major issue.”

Joel Benenson, who “was Obama’s lead pollster” during the 2008 campaign,” has released a must-read strategy memo, “Support for energy bill.”

Based on polling of 650 registered voters May 4 and 5 — still the early days of BP’s Titanic oil disaster — Benenson finds, “not only do voters support a comprehensive clean energy bill by large double-digit margins, they also indicate their Senator’s vote could be an impactful re-election factor.”  Here are the numbers:

Read more

Justice

Defense Secretary Gates: A Quick Repeal Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Is ‘A Stupid Way To Do Change’

By Igor Volsky on May 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm

robert-gates-at-senate-armed-servic-com-2-6-08CNN is reporting that tonight, during an interview on John King USA, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will reiterate his support for repealing the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (DADT) and argue that lawmakers should wait for the Pentagon to complete its review before rescinding the policy. Gates has expressed a similar sentiment in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), and his tone has drastically chilled any chance of ending the policy before the end of the year. But during tonight’s interview, he will go one step further, suggesting that a quick repeal would be “a stupid way to do change”:

“I know there’s some that are suspicious out there that this is some kind of effort to slow roll this process,” Gates says in an interview set to air Monday on CNN’s John King, USA. “But as I said in that testimony, I’ve led several huge public institutions and I’ve led change in every one of them and there’s a smart way to do change, and there’s a stupid way to do change. This one has to be done smartly.

“And I think it’s only fair as we get ready to make this change that we give our force the opportunity to tell us how they feel about it, for us to find out their concerns, for us to identify the challenges we’re going to face if Congress does change the law, and how we will go about doing that, and how we will mitigate negative consequences by what we hear from the force. And so I’ve said this is not about whether, but about how, and that continues to be our position.”

Legislating a change to the policy before the military’s review was done “would send a very negative signal to men and women in uniform that their views on this and how it should be done, don’t matter,” Gates added.

Of course the real world experiences of our allies — all whom have acted swiftly to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve openly — suggests that the opposite is true; acting quickly is “a smart way to do change.” As Larry Korb details in a new memo, “Our allies’ experiences repealing similar bans, as well as our own experience in implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” suggest that a drawn-out process is unnecessary and that the military’s recommendations do not need to be completed before Congress exercises its legal authority to overturn the law”:

Three of the United States’ closest allies—Israel, Canada, and the United Kingdom—have successfully removed all restrictions on gays and lesbians in their armed forces since the early 1990s. All three countries made quick, successful transitions to policies of open service…Contrary to what Gates and Mullen set forth in their letter, our allies’ experiences suggest that repeal will be a straightforward process and that a swift policy reversal sends the appropriate signal that both uniformed and civilian military leaders are on board with the decision.

Moreover, Gates’ frame for repeal presents a false choice. He’s suggesting that Congress can either repeal the policy recklessly, without consulting the military, or wait until the Pentagon reviews how best to implement a new nondiscrimination policy before proceeding. But there is a third option: delayed implementation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has already proposed legislation that lays out a timeline for repeal and sets benchmarks for the Pentagon’s ongoing review. This kind of model places Congress and the Pentagon on two separate tracks — Congress passes legislation to repeal the policy, but the repeal isn’t fully carried out until the military is ready to act.

In fact, when “the United States adopted ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in October of 1993, the Pentagon had not yet issued “final rules on how to implement the policy until December. And DOD was still making adjustments to the implementation policy in early 1994.” In that instance, the Department of Defense had ample opportunity to issue new guidelines even after Congress acted, but by Gates’ standard, the government acted in “a stupid way.”

Politics

It didn’t take long for Rush Limbaugh to start making sexist attacks against Elena Kagan.

By Matt Corley on May 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm

When President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court last year, hate radio talker Rush Limbaugh led the conservative opposition to her, often making gender-based attacks such as calling her “an angry woman” who needs to “get over it.” Once again, Limbaugh is leading the opposition to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, calling her “a pure academic elitist radical.” True to form, Limbaugh couldn’t help criticizing Kagan in sexist terms, saying that “we don’t need to go too deep in analyzing the babe” and “I guess she can change her mind. She’s a woman“:

LIMBAUGH:I know Obama said during the campaign that he didn’t believe marriage, same-sex marriage, it was between a man and a woman. He said it during the campaign. I guess she can change her mind. She’s a woman.

Listen here:

Yglesias

Conservatives Lay the Groundwork for Complaints that Elena Kagan is Insufficiently Activist

By Matthew Yglesias on May 10, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Igor Volsky rounds up conservative demands that Elana Kagan claim to believe that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional:

—SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): “The other issue is the health care bill that’s come out — there’s a mandate everybody in the country has to buy a product. That’s a 10th amendment issue… she is going to have to make a decision if she’s on the court about how that goes forward with these 20 states suing.” [TP, 5/10/2010]

— REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): “On this, and other issues – including the Constitutional questions arising from Washington Democrats’ new health care law – Solicitor General Kagan deserves a fair hearing on her qualifications, and her commitment to fairness, the rule of law, and interpreting the Constitution as written.” [GOPLeader, 5/10/2010]

— GOP.COM: A research document published by the GOP asks, “Where Does Kagan Stand As Health Care Overhaul Faces Variety Of Legal Challenges?” [GOP, 5/10/2010]

Consider it example two million for the “complaints about ‘judicial activism’ are disingenuous nonsense” file.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up