In 2020, someone will be elected president, and they will likely need to appoint a Supreme Court justice during their time in the White House. Senate Republicans have wielded every power at their disposal, however, to ensure that that this future president will have no experienced federal judges to nominate if they are a Democrat. When President Obama nominated Goodwin Liu, a young, brilliant legal scholar and former Supreme Court law clerk to a seat on the Ninth Circuit, the Republican caucus filibustered Liu until he was forced to withdraw his nomination (Liu is now a justice on the California Supreme Court). When Obama nominated Caitlin Halligan, another relatively young, brilliant attorney and former Supreme Court law clerk, she suffered a similar fate.

The cases against these two nominees were flimsy at best, even from a conservative perspective. Liu’s enjoyed the support of conservative icons like Clinton-inquistor Ken Starr and torture advocate John Yoo. Senators opposing his nomination offered little more than misrepresentation of his scholarship or hyperbolic claims that he wanted to turn America into “communist-run China.” The case against Halligan was even weaker, and largely boiled down to the fact that she once represented a client — the State of New York — that disagreed with the NRA.

On Monday, the Senate will try to break yet another filibuster — this time on Ninth Circuit nominee Paul Watford. And, once again, it’s tough to imagine a good reason to support this filibuster. Watford is a leading young attorney and a former Supreme Court clerk. He has a small army of conservative supporters, including nearly every single person who clerked for a Supreme Court justice at the time Watford worked on the Court. And his opponents have barely even managed to articulate a reason to oppose him. The best they’ve come up with is that, in a legal career that stretches twenty years, he represented two clients that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) doesn’t like.

Unfortunately for Watford, however, he is guilty of being the kind of exceptionally talented attorney who could be on the Supreme Court some day. If past is prologue, that will be reason enough for conservatives to filibuster him.

House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) claim that Attorney General Eric Holder should be held in contempt for declining to turn over records of ongoing criminal investigations to Issa’s committee has not been received well by people who actually know something about law enforcement. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey warned that Issa’s crusade against Holder has “distracted the Department of Justice in its efforts to assist state and local law enforcement — particularly in the area of violent crime prevention and suppression,” and a group of senior African-American law enforcement officials similarly warned that Issa’s efforts are “an impediment to the vigorous enforcement of violence and crime.”

Indeed, Issa’s overreach against Holder extended so far that even the House Republican Leadership is trying to reign him in. Nevertheless, a core group of House freshmen are now trying to pressure them to ignore the wishes of law enforcement:

In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.); Reps. Sandy Adams (Fla.), Ben Quayle (Ariz.), Tim Griffin (Ark.), Dennis Ross (Fla.), Tom Marino (Pa.) and Trey Gowdy (S.C.) argued that “the House of Representatives has seen its proper oversight function thwarted and obstructed. It’s time for the House to formally recognize the obvious — that Attorney General Holder has not and will not cooperate with the legitimate investigation launched by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is therefore in contempt of Congress.”

For weeks, Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (Calif.) has unsuccessfully lobbied leadership to allow contempt proceedings to begin against Holder.

Last week, even Eric Cantor seemed to understand that Issa’s crusade went too far. Cantor and his fellow members of the House leadership will now have to decide whether to abandon that good sense, ignore the wishes of law enforcement, and pick up his own pitchfork alongside the House freshmen.

In the last two months, sixteen companies and other institutional supporters of the American Legislative Exchange Council announced that they would part ways with the organization — likely costing the conservative group hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual funding. Similarly, several dozen lawmakers broke ties with ALEC due to a progressive campaign highlighting the organization’s harmful impact on state lawmaking. ALEC drafts and promotes “model” conservative legislation, including bills disenfranchising thousands of student, low-income and minority voters, and the so-called “stand your ground” laws that may shield Trayvon Martin’s killer George Zimmerman from justice.

Today, eleven more state lawmakers announced that they would no longer associate with ALEC. According to an email from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, the ex-ALEC lawmakers are:

• 8 Pennsylvannia legislators (Sen. Lisa Boscola, Sen. Leanna Washington, Sen. Anthony Williams, Rep. Nick Kotik, Rep. Ted Harhai, Rep. William Keller, Rep. Joseph Markosek, Rep. Joseph Petrarca)
• 2 Illinois legislators (Rep. Mary Flowers, Rep. Brendan Phelps)
• 1 Iowa legislator (Rep. Brian Quirk)

All eleven of these lawmakers are Democrats. In total, 39 Democratic lawmakers have dropped ALEC.

The campaign against ALEC already pressured the conservative group to eliminate its Public Safety and Elections task force, which was responsible for both voter suppression and many gun-related laws. Nevertheless, the group redoubled its focus on bills sacrificing the environment and the middle class in order to funnel even more wealth to the very wealthy. A short list of ALEC-sponsored initiatives includes state union-busting measures, bills repealing minimum wage laws, attempts to privatize public lands, bills to repeal capital gains taxes and estate taxes, fighting any efforts to address manmade climate change while touting “the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment,” repealing paid sick day laws, requiring a super-majority to raise taxes and pushing rules deeming that kids eating rat poison is an “acceptable risk.”

Yesterday, the New York Times reported on new census data which showed, for the first time, that non-white births made up over 50 percent of all births in the United States last year.

It marked an important milestone, indicative of a changing United States that has long been considered the world’s melting pot. Or, if you’re the conservative, Phyllis Schlafly-backed Eagle Forum, it’s a clarion call that America is in grave danger of being overrun by uneducated, un-American brown people:

It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.
[...]
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

Setting aside for a minute the offensive way in which the Eagle Forum dismisses all of “the immigrants” as thoughtless criminals, it’s telling that The Eagle Forum views this as simply a political problem. The Eagle Forum’s political allies have long insisted on treating immigrants as second-class citizens, and rather than pivot their policy proposals to better accommodate the nation’s shifting demographics, the group seems instead to want to curb minorities’ procreation.

The Eagle Forum doesn’t dwell on the fringes of the conservative movement either. The group still wields considerable influence in conservative circles, and has achieved more than a few legislative victories, like derailing the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and staunchly opposing bills aimed at protecting a women’s right to choose.

The post goes on to accuse immigrants — and, for reasons passing understanding, The New York Times for reporting on this — of seeking to “destroy the American family,” arguing that immigrants do not share American values. Of course, this is hardly the first time The Eagle Foundation has pushed xenophobia.

Police officers were caught by a security camera apparently beating a black teen as he lay prone with his hands behind his head. Chad Holley, then fifteen, was running from police after committing burglary, but after falling over the hood of a police car remained on the ground and put his hands behind his head. The video shows Officer Andrew Blomberg reach Holley first, and he then appears to kick or stomp Holley on the head or neck. Blomberg then runs to pursue another suspect. Holley remains surrounded by at least five officers who appear to continue beating him.

Watch it:

Despite the video and expert testimony that “Blomberg’s actions were ‘objectively unreasonable’ and were ‘contrary to any legitimate police action,’” an all-white, six member jury acquitted Blomberg on Wednesday. Blomberg was the first of four officers who were fired by the Houston police department over the incident to face trial trial for official oppression, which carries a penalty of up to one year in jail. Blomberg claimed to being using his foot to “sweep” not stomp Holley after Holley failed to put his hands behind his back. Jurors in the case told Blomberg’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, that prosecutors had failed to prove that Blomberg had acted unreasonably.

The acquittal came after another white officer was accquitted of wrongdoing in the shooting of African-American Robert Tolan in the driveway of his home last year, and members of the local community are outraged at the outcome:

“The jury sent a message that the life of a black man don’t mean a damn thing in Houston,” African-American community activist Quanell X told the Los Angeles Times. “I believe the prosecutor never truly intended to convict this cop. I believe that allowing an all-white jury to be impaneled in this case was absolutely wrong and a miscarriage of justice.” …

“Black people must rise up and send a message to white people in this city and this town that our lives and the lives of our children do matter,” Quanell X told the Times. “We’re at a boiling point where America is headed toward some real civil conflict because of cases like Trayvon Martin and Robbie Tolan and Chad Holley. Black people are sick and tired of being sick and tired.”

The community responded to the outcome by holding a protest in downtown Houston on Thursday. The protest started with three dozen people but the crowd grew to about 300.

Both Houston Mayor Annise Parker and Harris County District Attorney agree with protesters that the verdict in the case was incorrect. Mayor Parker told a news conference that none of the officers who were fired over the incident will ever be Houston police officers again regardless of the outcome of their trials. State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, also disagreed with the verdict and has called for a complete review of the Houston criminal justice system, stating that “[a]n officer of the law simply cannot be above the law.”

Three other officers await trial for their part in the incident. Drew Ryser is charged with official oppression and Phillip Bryan and Raad Hassan are both charged with official oppression and violating the civil rights of a prisoner.

–Alex Brown

Last night, state prosecutors released a large amount of evidence — including 183 pages of documents and numerous multimedia files — related to their murder case against George Zimmerman. Here are eight notable pieces evidence that were just made public:

1. Two days after Trayvon Martin’s death a woman called the police to say that George Zimmerman has “racist tendencies” and is “fully capable of instigating a confrontation.”

The woman refused to identify herself.

2. PHOTO: Trayvon Martin’s can of Arizona Iced Tea

According to the police, Martin’s body was under the yellow tarp in this photo.

3. The lead police investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

“The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidtable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waitied the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialogue in an effort to dispel each party’s concern.” The lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter notwithstanding the fact he believed it was Zimmerman, not Martin, yelling for help on the 911 tapes.

Read more

As ThinkProgress documented this week, both of the “non-citizens” shown in James O’Keefe’s latest video sting supposedly committing voter fraud by participating in American elections are actually American citizens.

Following our stories, ThinkProgress readers confronted O’Keefe with these facts on his Facebook page. The conservative filmmaker refused to acknowledge that the two “non-citizens” he smeared in his video, Zbigniew Gorzkowski and William Romero, are actually American citizens, demanding “official documentation that proves otherwise” before he’d correct his story.

Romero’s family provided this official documentation to ThinkProgress last night. Here is a scanned copy of Romero’s certificate of naturalization, issued on February 4, 2011. Redactions are ours:

To refresh, O’Keefe’s “proof” that Romero had committed voter fraud was that he refused jury duty in 2010 for not being a citizen but then registered to vote on December 5, 2011, as though there was no possible way his citizenship status could have changed in the interim year.

O’Keefe has pledged to correct the story if someone showed proof that it was wrong. Setting aside his misguided ethics of being willing to report outlandish smears but putting the responsibility on others to prove whether his allegations are factually correct, we have taken the liberty of providing this proof.

If O’Keefe — or any of his proponents who so enthusiastically lauded the conservative filmmaker for supposedly exposing “massive voter fraud” — issues a correction, we will update this story.

Among the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case released by the Florida state prosecutor yesterday was a 15-minute interview with a former work colleague of George Zimmerman. The man, who is not identified by name, says that Zimmerman relentlessly bullied him at work.

Zimmerman, according to the witness, targeted him because he was Middle Eastern. He repeatedly called the man a “fucking moron” and mocked him using the voice of “Achmed the terrorist.” Zimmerman’s stories about the man would involve “bombing,” “I’ll kill your family” and other “jokes” about “Middle Eastern stuff.” According to the man, this went on “for days and days.”

Listen:

After a few months, Zimmerman was terminated. According to the witness, “he was fired for calling HR hotline so many times…he would complain about each and every manager and employee.”

Zimmerman is currently being investigated by the FBI, who reportedly may charge him with a hate crime.