ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Blank Slate SCOTUS Strategy Works

By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Kagan

Progressive lawyers and conservative lawyers alike tend to find the trend toward presidents trying to find Supreme Court nominees who haven’t weighed in on major constitutional issues annoying. And with Elena Kagan representing a continuation and extension of that trend, there’s been a lot of disgruntlement. But as Chris Bowers points out, the strategy seems to be working well.

Kagan’s poll numbers aren’t good when compared to other recent nominees. But despite that, Republicans are basically waving the white flag and admitting that they won’t make a serious effort to beat her.

Now of course from a progressive point of view, this is arguably part of the problem. Right now, the GOP would find it difficult to block a nominee no matter how hard they tried simply because there aren’t very many Republican Senators. What’s more, it’s overwhelmingly likely that in the near future there will be quite a few additional Republicans. So arguably if Obama really likes Kagan, he should have kept her in his back pocket as a possible “blank slate” nominee to be deployed in the future at a time when the Republicans have a stronger objective position in the Senate.

Climate Progress

Reid Calls The Bluff Of Climate Peacocks

By Brad Johnson on Jun 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm

THE CLIMATE PEACOCK CAUCUS

ALEXANDER
BROWN (MA)
COLLINS
CORKER
CRAPO
ENZI
GRAHAM
GRASSLEY
HATCH
KYL		 LANDRIEU
LINCOLN
McCAIN
MURKOWSKI
NELSON (NE)
PRYOR
RISCH
ROCKEFELLER
SNOWE
THUNE
VOINOVICH

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is giving obstructionist senators a chance to finally take action on climate and clean energy, after they attempted to block the “unelected bureaucracy” of the Environmental Protection Agency from doing so. After holding a “thrilling” climate caucus with his members last week, the Democratic majority leader plans to bring an “impenetrable” comprehensive package of legislation to repair the damage caused by fossil fuels to our economy and our planet.

Earlier this month, 47 senators — every Republican and six Democrats — voted for Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific global warming endangerment finding, finalized after years of delay in following a Supreme Court mandate to obey the language of the Clean Air Act.

Twenty-one of Murkowski’s supporters claimed they voted to reject science in order to preserve the “balance of power” between the legislative and executive branch. They said that they had to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding because setting pollution limits should instead be the job of the elected members of Congress. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) even said he voted for Murkowski to “ensure that Congress keeps its responsibility to establish our nation’s environmental regulations.”

Like “deficit peacocks” who pretend to be hawkish on budgets but refuse any real solution, these “climate peacocks” claim to care about science, energy reform, and the environment, but have yet to find solutions to the threat of climate change. Reid is now calling the bluff of these twenty “responsible” senators, who will be proven to be fossil-fueled hypocrites if they fail to support policies that bring the swift reduction of carbon pollution that science demands.


The Climate Peacock Caucus

Read more

Politics

Steve Forbes celebrates Robert Byrd’s death: ‘Good news’ for Wall Street.

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jun 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm

News of Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) death has been met with an outpouring of reverence for his distinguished career, with even political opponents, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), praising Byrd’s “remarkable life” and “devotion to the U.S. Constitution.” But Steve Forbes, CEO of Forbes Inc. and perennial GOP presidential candidate, celebrated Byrd’s death, declaring that it was “good news” for those opposed to Wall Street reform:

Forbes

Byrd’s death does indeed imperil the final passage of financial reform bill, but Forbes could show a little more respect by hiding his glee at the prospect of his Wall Street friends getting off the hook. The major threat to the bill comes from Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who has threatened to vote against the measure, even though he secured a special deal and has been supportive thus far. Forbes is a co-chair of the corporate-funded astroturf group FreedomWorks, which helped Brown win his seat in January. (HT: Wonkette)

Update

Forbes later responded to criticism of his comments, writing, “Want to clarify previous message re Byrd & fin reform bill-previous message was abbreviated,meant only to point to political impact on bill.” “We all mourn the passing of the longest serving member of the US Senate — Byrd’s accomplishments were truly legendary,” he added.

Yglesias

Rand Paul Panders to Young Earth Creationists

By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm

File-Rand_Paul_portrait_by_Gage_Skidmore_edit 1

There’s a lot to be said in favor of giving parents more choice over what kind of education their children get. But one risk with choice, often exemplified in the home schooling movement, is that what parents really want is to deliver inaccurate information to their kids. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance of risks here and how much choice it’s wise to grant. For example, the Christian Homeschool Educators of Kentucky aims to “[p]rotect children from mental physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by secular humanists in a socialist society or governmental system” a mission that they feel is best advanced by teaching children that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

At any rate, Rand Paul, fresh from the Kinsley gaffe in which he admitted that his crackpot ideology would have caused him to vote against the Civil Rights Act, attended the CHEK conference recently and refused to say how old he thinks the planet it.

Obviously a reasonable person could in a general sense believe in less regulation and less spending without adhering to any particularly nutty views and might consider himself a libertarian. But as on the Civil Rights Act issue we see that Paul holds to a wildly irresponsible version of libertarianism, the kind that’s designed to appeal to white supremacists and flat-earthers.

Justice

Montana GOP Seeks To ‘Keep Homosexual Acts Illegal’

By Igor Volsky on Jun 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm

MontanaGOPAndy Towle is reporting that like the Texas GOP, the Montana Republican Party has adopted a platform that would criminalize “homosexual acts“:

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

The position is certainly troubling, but given the party’s strong emphasis on the Constitution, it’s also somewhat ironic. For instance, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. “We agree with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who stated that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the sole authority to judge the constitutionality of federal laws. We hold with these men that the States not only have the right, but also the duty to nullify unconstitutional laws in order to protect their citizens,” the platform states.

But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that the law violates the State constitutional right to privacy. “Until this ruling, all homosexual relations were labeled deviate sexual conduct, punishable by a $50,000 fine and 10 years in prison. No one had been prosecuted under the law since it was enacted in 1973, but its existence placed gay men and lesbians at risk of prosecution. The high court was not persuaded by the State’s argument that the sodomy law was permissible because it prevented HIV infection and preserved public morality, largely because the law was enacted a decade before the first case of AIDS was reported in Montana.”

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas that Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law — a measure outlawing oral and anal sex — unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Texas statute “making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” “The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons,” the Court ruled in a 6-3 ruling.

Montana voters banned marriage for same-sex couples in 2004.

Politics

Bachmann pushes for a future where America is run by Rep. Steve King and his allies.

By Tanya Somanader on Jun 28, 2010 at 3:39 pm

BachmannKing While denying any plans to seek the presidency herself in 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has made no secret of her “high opinion” of right-wing colleague Rep. Steve King (R-IA) as a “potential nominee.” While headlining a fundraiser on Saturday for Iowa Attorney General candidate and King’s former chief of staff Brenna Findley, Bachmann expanded on her national design by plugging King and his political family as the future of the federal government:

“Who would you like to see nominated to the Supreme Court – Elena Kagan or Brenna Findley?” Bachmann said, prompting applause. “I knew you were smart. And when Steve King is president, he can appoint her.”

Findley, who spent seven years serving King, has deemed the federal health care reform law as “an abuse of power” and vowed to join other conservative attorneys general in their challenge against it. King not only voted against a relief aid for Hurricane Katrina victims, but touted it as “the best vote that I cast.” His current idea for immigration reform? “Everytime we give amnesty for an illegal, we deport a liberal.”

Alyssa

The Girl Can’t Help It

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jun 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm

I would be absolutely fine with the Black Eyed Peas breaking up, both because they’ve become obnoxious and sonically much worse, but also because it would allow Fergie to do a solo album. But I do think it’s worth remembering that brief moment in 2003 when Fergie had just joined the Peas, and they were kind of charming. “Where Is The Love?” is hardly the most intelligent political song in any genre, but it definitely had Song of the Summer status that year, and the video is kind of charmingly low-rent, particularly the shots of the dudes riding around in a sound track:

And I like the high-school-play-from-hell vibe of “Shut Up, too. That was the first moment when they really knew how to use Fergie, I think:

It all got bad, both in quality and annoyance value, really, really fast. But there was some potential there, and something endearing. If Fergie quits, has a kid, and goes solo, I hope she figures out how to get it back. There was a lot to like on her solo album. I really would like another one. Particularly if she and Lil Mama get together and combine some of the aesthetics from “Clumsy” and “Truly in Love.”

Economy

Wall Street Banks Back To Issuing Guaranteed Bonuses

By Pat Garofalo on Jun 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Last week, the Federal Reserve announced the results of an inquiry it made into the structure of pay packages on Wall Street, noting that many are still “deficient” and encouraging too much risk. “While many firms are using or are considering various methods to make incentive compensation more risk sensitive, many are not fully capturing the risks involved and are not applying such methods to enough employees,” the Fed found.

Prior to the financial meltdown, one of the biggest problems with Wall Street pay was the guaranteed bonus, which was given to a particular trader or executive regardless of whether or not his or her work was a benefit or detriment to the company. The New York Times referred to them as “ironclad, multimillion-dollar payouts — guaranteed, no matter how an employee performs.” And according to Bloomberg News, the guaranteed bonus is back:

Firms are adding jobs for the first time in two years, rebuilding businesses cut during the financial crisis and offering guaranteed payouts to lure top bankers…The demand for investment bankers and traders has led some firms to offer pay packages as high as $8 million, including guaranteed bonuses, which are paid regardless of an employee’s or the company’s performance, recruiters said. That recalls Wall Street compensation practices before the credit crisis forced banks to cut more than 345,000 jobs worldwide.

“When markets fell to hell in a handbasket, people were lucky to get a job with a base salary, and everything else would depend on their performance,” said Richard Lipstein, a managing director at Boyden Global Executive Search, a recruitment firm. “As we start to see people being recruited from one firm to another, as opposed to being recruited from unemployment, the need to make some kind of guarantee is becoming more necessary.”

It’s not hard to understand why a guaranteed bonus would be problematic if the goal of restructuring pay packages is to make them more sensitive to risk. After all, a guarantee is just that: given regardless of performance. Though other money is likely tied to an individual executive’s performance or lack thereof, a guaranteed bonus gives him or her little reason to not make huge bets, as a substantial sum of money will still be there even if the gambling doesn’t pay off.

When Wall Street handed out its 2009 bonuses, former Citigroup CEO John Reed said that “there is nothing I’ve seen that gives me the slightest feeling that these people have learned anything from the crisis. They just don’t get it. They are off in a different world.” It doesn’t seem that another six months has changed that assessment.

Related Posts

Politics

Wamp’s Monthly Stimulus Hypocrisy: Stimulus Both A ‘Flawed Notion’ And Creates ‘Good High-End Jobs’

By Lee Fang on Jun 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Earlier this year, ThinkProgress released a report detailing how more than 114 lawmakers who voted to kill the Recovery Act — over half the GOP caucus in Congress — later either took credit for stimulus projects or hailed stimulus-related programs as a success. Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is mentioned in the report for celebrating a stimulus-funded laboratory after voting against the stimulus, has continued to vigorously attack the stimulus as a failure, while hailing Tennessee stimulus projects as a success.

On Friday, Wamp’s office released a statement praising the construction of a new Alstom steam and gas turbine factory in Chattanooga. Wamp said the $300 million dollar factory, “means good high-end manufacturing jobs for our region’s workers.” Wamp did not mention anywhere in the release that Alstom’s new plant was boosted by $63 million in stimulus funds, and that the Recovery Act Wamp opposed contains various clean energy loan guarantees and tax credits for Alstom’s business.

While there are many stimulus hypocrites abound in the Republican Party, Wamp seems to flip-flop on his stimulus position on a near-monthly basis:

February 2009: Wamp votes against the stimulus, explaining that it will only hurt the economy. “The larger picture is: This is not good for our country,” Wamp said, “It would make our recession longer and deeper.” He added, “it’s a flawed notion that we can borrow our way out of this mess.”

March 2009: Wamp urges Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) to reject stimulus funds for unemployment insurance.

March 2009: Wamp hails $71 million in stimulus funds to Oak Ridge laboratory. “This modernization effort will help keep ORNL as one of our nation’s premier laboratories,” said Wamp at the news of the new 170 construction jobs.

April 2009: Wamp demands more stimulus spending on high speed rail projects. “We need to throw the ball deep,” Wamp said.

July 2009: Wamp signs onto a bill to repeal the stimulus, stop future stimulus projects.

August 2009: Wamp complains to the Chattanooga Times Free Press that “unfortunately” the stimulus did not contain enough loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

August 2009: Wamp praises the Chickamauga Lock replacement project, funded by a $58.9 million stimulus grant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

October 2009: Wamp boasts that stimulus money is being spent quickly in his district. “We have done a better-than-average job in our state of actually taking the stimulus money and getting it out in the field, and we’re ranked high there. Sure there is going to be some silver lining in this, but the dark cloud is still there,” said Wamp.

January 2010: Wamp attacks the stimulus program as a failure, claims “our country can no longer accept these spending policies,” and says the stimulus was “reckless.”

January 2010: Wamp’s press office praises the construction of a $200 million stimulus-funded solar panel manufacturing plant.

March 2010: Wamp celebrates opening of stimulus-funded uranium stage facility. “Big projects just don’t happen. Somebody has got to get in the middle of it, and make it happen, and the people in this room made it happen. Congratulations to all of you,” said Wamp.

June 2010: Wamp hails stimulus-funded turbine factory in Chattanooga.

Wamp, who is running for Governor of Tennessee, has postured as a states’ rights candidate, going as far as threatening that if President Obama tries to confiscate firearms, he will “meet him at the state line.” Despite the bluster and fiery rhetoric against the federal government, Wamp clearly has embraced federal stimulus funds with open arms.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up