Yesterday, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue delivered his “State of American Business” address, in which he laid out the wealthy corporate lobbying group’s agenda for the coming year. After using several questionable statistics to attack regulations intended to protect the environment or prevent Wall Street from triggering another economic crisis, Donohue’s speech includes a promise to unleash a barrage of well-compensated lawyers to help immunize corporate America from these regulations. “You are going to see us significantly expand the expertise in our law firm, the National Chamber Litigation Center and in other areas of our institution, in order to deal with regulations. Our preference is always to work within the legislative and regulatory processes and we do that on a daily basis. But when rights have been trampled on, or regulators have overstepped their bounds, we’ll take the necessary legal action.”

So long as the Supreme Court’s current majority sits, the Chamber’s threat needs to be taken seriously. One of the Chamber’s top attorneys, Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips, claimed in 2007 that “[e]xcept for the solicitor general representing the United States, no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.” If anything, this understates the corporate lobby’s success before the Roberts Court. According to a 2010 study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber’s victory rate before the Supreme Court spiked 15 points once Chief Justice Roberts took the Court’s center seat. In total the Court favors business interests 61 percent of the time.

Indeed, the Roberts Court is so favorable to the corporate lobby’s position that every single justice examined by the study was more likely to favor the Chamber’s position that the one who held that seat 25 years before:

If anything, the Roberts Court has become even more favorable to corporate interests since this study was conducted. In the term that concluded earlier this year, the Chamber went 7-0 before the justices — the first time since 1991 that the Chamber was undefeated in the nation’s highest Court.

Federal immigration agents raided the home of Erika Andiola, an undocumented immigrant and co-founder of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, and detained her mother and brother, who are also undocumented. Initially, Andiola tweeted that her brother told her that her mom would be deported “first thing in the morning.” Her brother was released early, and it was later announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials would exercise prosecutorial discretion to release Andiola’s mother, Maria Arreola.

Before Andiola’s mother was released, the immigrant rights community quickly organized a protest outside of the Department of Homeland Security’s office and calls to state and federal offices asking for her family’s release.

This is not the first example of an immigrant’s deportation being halted because of media and grassroots attention to the case. In June, a young undocumented immigrant was granted a one-year deportation reprieve one day after the Washington Post wrote a story about her case. “It makes me extremely sad that we had to go through all of this…to stop one deportation,” Andiola said on a call with reporters. “We don’t have to do this.”

Marielena Hincapié, executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center, said this case is another example of why the nation needs immigration reform. Even though Maria Arreola has been released, there is no guarantee that Andiola’s mother won’t be picked up by ICE agents again because she has a previous removal order from 1988. The only certainty would be if the Obama administration granted her deferred action. “We cannot keep fighting these deportation cases on dreamer at a time, one worker at a time, one family at a time,” Hincapié said.

There have been a record number of deportations under President Obama, and last year, the Obama administration announced a case-by-case review of deportations to ensure that lower-priority deportation cases “are being set aside so we can focus more on our more serious cases of convicted criminals and other high priority categories.” Obama has taken steps to try to limit deportations that separate families living in the U.S., but as a new report shows that immigration officials detained more people in 2012 than the federal bureau of prisons holds, officials are not using the discretionary policies available.

The U.S. also spends more on immigration enforcement — $18 billion — than every other federal law enforcement agency combined. And in two years, ICE agents have deported more than 200,000 undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens, making up 23 percent of all deportations between July 1, 2010, and Sept. 31, 2012.

The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education in Montelier, Ohio voted unanimously on Wednesday night to allow handgun training for four custodians, who will then tote firearms on the school’s campus. In an explanation of this policy that echoes the National Rifle Association’s infamous claim that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” school Superintendent Jamie Grime claimed that “having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect.”

This is not the first time janitors were suggested as the first line of defense against a school shooter, in an article arguing that the Sandy Hook shooting resulted in more deaths because “[t]here was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred,” the National Review’s Charlotte Allen lamented that “[t]here didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees.”

[HT: Stephen Webster]

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

GOP Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) on Friday came out in favor of stronger gun laws, particularly a limit on high-capacity magazines and background check requirements.

Gingrey is backed by the National Rifle Association and received their coveted “A+” rating. Despite the fact that it might cause backlash with the financially powerful organization, Gingrey endorsed such stronger gun laws in an interview with the Marietta Daily Journal:

“There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for someone who says, ‘look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice,’ but do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?” Gingrey asked. “I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine.”

Gingrey, who took the time to praise Adventure Outdoors owner Jay Wallace as the gold standard for running a responsible gun retail business, said he is also open to revisions of the so-called gun show loophole.

“What it is basically, if you go to a gun show and there’s somebody out there in the parking lot, and they’re getting out of their car, and they’ve got an A-15 on their shoulder or …. John Q. Public wants to sell a handgun or whatever, then there’s no background check,” Gingrey said. “You know, you’re buying a used weapon from somebody and then basically no background check.”

Gingrey’s position indicates that the stronger gun laws Vice President Biden might suggest on Tuesday will enjoy some level of bipartisans support. It also demonstrates that such measures are sensible, and not specifically “Democratic” proposals.

But while Gingrey might be lauded for his approach to sensible gun laws, he might be damned on other issues. In the same interview, the Congressman floated the idea that Todd “legitimate rape” Akin was “partly right” when he said that a woman cannot get pregnant from rape.

(HT: PCCC)

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ had a very public awakening to gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and seven adults dead. In recent weeks, the former six-term Republican congressman went from longtime supporter of the National Rifle Association to an advocate for more gun safety measures. But it appears Scarborough is not just waking up to the danger of guns — he’s also becoming aware of the dangerous gun lobby.

This morning, Scarborough took aim at the NRA, calling out the organization’s resistance to any gun safety by saying “this is not about protecting the second amendment,” “the NRA’s about money.” He also called out the Republican party for going along with the delusional policies of the NRA, which have nothing to do with safety, but rather with sales:

SCARBOROUGH: This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away? Hey got news for you: They can’t take your guns away. We’ve got something called the Second Amendment to the constitution[...]

SCARBOROUGH: The NRA’s about money… This isn’t gun control. The big lie that the NRA is pushing on gun owners to try to whip stupid people into a frenzy is they’re coming to take your guns away. And I say stupid people because you have to be stupid in 2013 to believe that the federal government can come and take your hand guns, or come and take your shotguns.

Watch it:

(HT: Mediaite)

If “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” as the NRA proclaimed in its post-Newtown press conference, why do so many gun shows prohibit attendees from carrying loaded firearms?

According to a ThinkProgress analysis, 51 gun shows in January ban attendees from bringing loaded guns onto the premises. In addition, ThinkProgress was unable to identify a single gun show this month that explicitly allowed people, even those with concealed-carry permits, to bring a loaded weapon with them.

For every event, their stated rationale for not permitting loaded weapons in the gun show was simple: safety. Crossroads Gun Show, a touring event across the western United States, explained on their website:

Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.

A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.

At most shows, if an attendee brings a personal firearm, he or she must check it at the door and use a tie “so that they cannot be operated, be breached or loaded.”

Some events, like Bill Goodman’s Gun & Knife Shows across Ohio and Tennessee, even threaten prosecution for those who try to enter with a loaded weapon. “Patrons who bring loaded magazines or weapons into the show will be refused entry and may be subject to prosecution,” their website reads.

The widespread prohibition undermines the backbone of the NRA’s case against stronger gun safety laws. The powerful gun lobby argues that the best way to prevent more gun violence is for more people to have guns, supposedly deterring would-be criminals. The organization has succeeded in convincing every state but Illinois to enact laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons and conservative lawmakers are passing legislation to eliminate gun-free zones around schools and hospitals.
Read more

Vice President Joe Biden, the head of President Obama’s task force to curb gun violence, held meetings with both supporters and opponents of stricter gun restrictions, and his task force is set to make its recommendations by next Tuesday. Biden met with a dozen religious leaders Wednesday night, when he urged them that there was moral reason to take action.

New polling shows that religious leaders agree. According to a survey from the National Association of Evangelicals, nearly three-quarters of evangelical leaders support increasing restrictions on guns as a way to curb America’s gun violence epidemic, according to a release from the organization:

When asked whether the government should increase gun regulations, 73 percent said it should.

“Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives,” said Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). “The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also called for increased gun regulations in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. “With regard to the regulation of fire arms, first, the intent to protect one’s loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible,” USCCB said in a December statement. As far back as 1978, the USCCB has advocated for stronger gun restrictions, including “the registration of handguns” and “the licensing of handgun owners.” In the 1978 statement, the USCCB said it believed “that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police, military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.”

And Daniel Darling, an evangelical pastor in Chicago, where 87 percent of the city’s 500 homicides were gun related last year, wrote that people of faith should “advocate making it harder for people to acquire guns, even sensible weapons purchased for self-defense or hunting. Gun ownership should be a privilege earned by good behavior and conferred only on the most trustworthy of our citizens.”

A majority (52 percent) of religious people supported stricter gun laws in a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in August 2012, months before the Sandy Hook massacre focused the nation’s attention on gun violence. (HT Faith In Public Life)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) defended former Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)’s claim that women who are victims of a “legitimate rape” can’t get pregnant. Speaking to the Marrietta Daily Journal, Gingrey, a doctor who is co-chair of the GOP’s Doctor Caucus, stuck by Akin’s distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate rapes”:

And in Missouri, Todd Akin … was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’ — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that…

I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he?

Gingrey manages to repeat two pernicious falsehoods in short order. First, falsely reported rapes are extremely rare — much rarer than unreported rapes, which often happen because victims are afraid of being called liars by people like Gingrey. Second, rape simply does not lower the risk of pregnancy.

During the 2012 election, several candidates (including Akin, then running for the Senate) made false and insensitive comments about rape. All of them lost.

Not surprisingly, Gingrey has maintained a staunchly anti-choice voting record in the House.

(HT: National Journal.)

Last week, a California appeals court overturned a man’s conviction for rape of an unconscious woman because she was unmarried. According to the court, under the 19th century-era law, someone is prohibited from impersonating the woman’s husband for sex, but not from impersonating a boyfriend.

California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D) and member Katcho Achadjian (R) have introduced legislation to address this loophole, after a similar bill died in committee last year. The bill would expand this outdated definition of rape to include cases involving unmarried women or men.

According to data from the Federal Judicial Center, President Obama appointed just one fewer women to the federal bench during his four years in office than President George W. Bush did in eight. Obama appointed 70 judges to lifetime positions on the federal bench, including Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Bush appointed just 71 after two full terms in the White House.

Overall, about 41 percent of Obama’s confirmed nominees to the bench are women. Sadly, this places him well ahead of his predecessors. Indeed, until the Carter Administration, female federal judges were exceptionally rare. Presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Ford appointed just one woman each to the federal bench: