Holding Court

Call this post a full-court press on Supreme Court news and views (article on Stevens "The Dissenter," and "The Incredible Shrinking Court," need to be read by Monday):

1) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings. The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012335
__________

2) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news last week by speaking his mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.

As the above data shows, Thomas' silence during Supreme Court oral arguments is legendary. While his colleagues pepper lawyers with questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8 justices force legal teams to perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes at a time, Thomas often leans back in his large chair and stares at the ceiling.

When he does speak during oral arguments, it's almost always in private conversation with Justice Breyer. (And from the looks at the menus that they swap, those conversations are often about what to get for lunch.)In the past, Justice Thomas has said the oral argument time is not meant for Justices to show off but for the lawyers to make their legal arguments before the Court. But Thomas has recently said--in jest-- that “My colleagues should shut up!”

_____________

3) In the Ny Times article, "The Disenter," gives insight into how the High Court has moved right and now the self-proclaimed conservative, and eldest (and now retired) member of the Supremes, may have been be The Nine's most liberal justice:

"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to federal courts.

"Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Monday.

___________________________

4) The second article you need to have read by Monday is Time's cover story from last October:

The Incredible Shrinking Court

"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly symbolic."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670489,00.html

5) Finally, a re-run post from last year's 'Global Warming' SC decision:

The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.

The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar.

At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.

From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?

MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.

JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.

(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.

MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.

_____________

In analyzing new Chief Justice John Roberts and newest associate justice Samuel Alito influence of the high Court, attorney Patrick Cotter said the two, who have not spoken or written much, have had little effect so far. For the long term, however, Cotter said President Bush may have created what conservative presidents have been trying to do since the 1950s – cement a solid block on the bench. He said to watch how many times Kennedy sides with Roberts and Alito.Statistically, the Roberts Court took 40% fewer cases this year than last, when it issued just 69 opinions (the lowest # since 1953). Now the docket is even less filled with just half the opinions to come down as compared to the Rehnquist court of the late 1980s. What would possible reasons for the Court deciding less? Blog your thoughts. Linked is the transcript of the oral arguments in 05-1120.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120/argument/

There are no cameras in the Supreme Court or other Federal Courts, although movement to advance bills such as the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007" has been progressing.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19772

But there are charts that track the decisions that our Judiciary make. Click on the picture above and you will get a great graphic from the Washington Post which shows the number of US circuit court judges appointed by Dems & Repubs as well as the # appointed by Bush. Then click here for an article that argues that Bush may not have changed the Supreme Court as much as he wanted (Justice Stevens the 87-year-old hold out) but he has had a significant impact on the circuit court level.

This article talks about how Obama may be able to create a "major shift"in the federal judiciary.The chart at the left tracks the SCOTUS voting record of the last session of the High Court, which had more 5-4 decisions than the Supremes have had in the past.

As we watched the Elena Kagan hearings last June, here are some sites to help you teach the US Supreme Court. First off the Chief Justice always writes a year end report which, among other things, talks about the number of cases appealed to the Court each year and how many were given certiorari. It is a very short document that your students could easily digest.

SCOTUS Blog is another great resource. Here is a link they put together yesterday on year end statistics, graphs, etc. (including how often each judge voted w. each other, the number of 9-0 decisions (more on this than any other) and much more.

Where does Elena Kagan stand on...

//www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html?ref=politics

Compromising Position

WASHINGTON (AP)– His political credibility on the line, President Barack Obama testily defended his willingness to choose compromise over combat with Republicans on Tuesday, lecturing fellow Democrats not to be "sanctimonious" purists.

Sensitive to charges of caving on bedrock principles, he said he welcomed fights with the GOP ahead of his 2012 re-election bid.

"I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues," Obama said. "I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side."

The subject was taxes, who would or wouldn't keep Bush-era reductions come Jan. 1. But for Obama, barely a month after disastrous congressional losses to the Republicans, there was a lot more to it.

What emerged Tuesday was a portrait of a president determined to show he's not a weak, irrelevant capitulator — the kind of image that, if it becomes part of a lasting narrative, could derail his presidency and re-election bid.

In the past few days, Obama has tried to recover from the midterm elections by showing deference to his opponents, angering allies in the process.

The key moment came Monday, when he announced a deal with Republicans that would extend tax cuts to all taxpayers for two years, after long insisting that upper income Americans did not need the help and the nation couldn't afford it. Though he won a number of concessions from Republicans, congressional Democrats were left bristling.

Fore more:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama

With all the budget talk this last week, the 2 Teachers at CBS 2 School gave us a good post on Budget Basics:

You had to know your GSL (Government as a Secondary Language) if you expected to understand the big budget news last week.

President Barack Obama’s bi-partisan national debt commission released its formal report suggesting ways to reduce the nation’s deficits and total debt. But the Commission also released news that its suggestions did not garner enough support to automatically move the proposals forward in the legislative process.

The Commission’s proposal dealt with five key budget basics:

Revenues—the taxes collected by the federal government that pay for government expenses.

Among the Commission’s proposals was a plan to simplify the U.S. tax code but eliminate popular incentives such as tax deductions for mortgage interest. The proposal also caught political flak for suggesting that top income earners should pay even more into the Social Security program.

Entitlement Spending—governmental expenses that are permanent and can only be changed with amendments to laws. Of the $3.5 trillion dollars that the federal government spends, more than $2 trillion is spent on entitlement spending.

Social Security is the government’s single most expensive program, and only getting more expensive with a larger pool of retirees who are living longer than ever. Among the Commission’s more controversial proposals was trying to save money by increasing the age (from 67 to 69) at which someone could receive full Social Security benefits.

Discretionary Spending—well less than ½ of the federal government’s expenses are costs that can be adjusted on an annual basis.

Defense spending takes up the lion’s share of this spending with more than $600 billion spent in this area for the 2010 fiscal year. The Commission recommended that discretionary spending be capped from 2012 through 2020. It also recommended that non-critical spending be cut in order to get spending more in control.

Deficit and Debt—our federal government has spent over a trillion dollars more than it takes in for revenues this year. With the accumulation of deficits during the last 40 years, our government as accrued more than $14 trillion in total debt during that time.

The Commission’s recommendations were meant to deliver a stark message about the importance and difficulty of cutting expenses while increasing revenues. If adopted fully, the Commission’s proposal could have resulted in cutting $4 trillion dollars in deficits by 2020. But with key lawmakers from both parties refusing to endorse the Commission’s deficit-cutting proposals, we’re back to hearing the same old message that GSL has delivered for nearly 50 years: let the next generation deal with it.

Don't Tell Me.....

While President Obama could use and Executive Order to hault enforcement of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy, he has said it would be better for Congress to take action after the Defense Department issued it's report.

Congress at work in the Senate Miltary Affairs Committee produced this, as covered by TPM (and the Daily Show):

Jon Stewart last night lampooned Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) continued stalwart opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, even after the Pentagon released its review indicating that a repeal of the ban on openly gay men and women would have little to no effect on military readiness.

"McCain's like one of them Japanese soldiers living on Okinawa in 1949, still fighting because he doesn't realize the war ended a long time ago," Stewart said. "And, for some reason, even though he's been alone for years and years on this island, doesn't like gay people."

Read TPM's full coverage of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate here.

Gaypocalypse Now

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
http://www.blogger.com/'http://www.thedailyshow.com/'
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Executive Branch & the Bureaucracy Study Guide

Executive Branch & the Bureaucracy -- Patterson, Chapters 12/13

Roles of the president -- Chief Diplomat, Chief Legislator, Commander-in-Chief, etc.
Presidential Leadership Style -- pyramid, circular, ad hoc
Presidential Veto Power -- Line Item Veto
Stewardship Theory, Whig (or Strict Constructionalist) Theory
President's role in foreign policy v. domestic policy
Two presidencies thesis
Bully Pulpit
Coattails
War Powers Act
Executive Agreements
President's power to influence legislation
Impeachment procedures
Executive power in a presidential system vs. a parlimentary system
Executive office of the President "umbrella-like"
Imperial Presidency
Constitutional (Formal) Requirements
Informal Requirements
Formal (Expressed) Powers of the Presidency
Informal powers of the Presidency
Power of Prez. in times of crisis
Presidential electoral systems -- primaries, electoral college
Cabinet -- selection process and roles
presidential approval ratings -- first term vs. second term
Lame Duck
prez. powers granted without consent of Congress
Executive Privilege
Signing Statements
Bureaucracy -- cabinet departments, regulatory agencies, independent agencies
Managing the bureaucracy --patronage, executive leadership, merit system
Bureaucratic accountability
Public opinion on bureaucracy
ID -- president's current: Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General
FRQ -- Public Approval of President's over time

Broken Government? Your Assignment: Fix It

Mike Adams,the creator of the above cartoon, thinks things are bad at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):"Of all the cartoons we've ever done on the FDA, this is the one that people seem to like the best."

It addresses the issue of FDA conflicts of interest. The Food and Drug Administration, an agency that suffers under the hallucination that it protects the public from dangerous foods and drugs, has actually become the marketing department of Big Pharma. It actually takes money from drug companies in exchange for evaluating and approving their drugs, and the decisions concerning which drugs to approve almost always come down to a panel of "experts" who have strong financial ties to the very companies impacted by their decisions.''

Well, if it's "Broken Government" then it's your job to fix it.

Before you start with your poster/policy pitch assignment due Monday, consider this article from US History.org
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/8d.asp (take note or the merit system and bureaucratic accountability).

Breaking News: Tuesday the Senate passed a Food Safety Bill at a cost of $1.4 billion over the next five years to increase FDA inspections of domestic and imported food.

http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=F4D1A9DFCD974EAD8CD5205E15C1CB42&nm=Breaking+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129CB433&tier=3&nid=2F7B6BCDE22F449EB9B969D5AB26954A

Can you be a half Fiscal Conservative?

Question: What is the difference between fiscal and monetary policy?

Answer: Fiscal = budgetary choices of taxing and spending

Monetary = federal reserve decisions on interest rates and monetary supply.

Why blog this now? Well, it's two days before the expiration of federal extensions of unemployment compensation for jobless Americans.

The "Lame Duck" session of the 111th Congress is debating the merits of extending this compensation -- a fiscal choice. The non-partisan Congressional Budget office report (see chart) says unemployment benefits are the best of several proposed stimulus policy options.

On his first day in the Senate, Mark Kirk, who campaigned as a moderate this time (video) had what he called "fiscal conservative" talking points (reported by Daily Kos):

KIRK: We should extend the Bush tax cuts and make sure we don’t have a double-dip recession. And I have the honor to be the first of ninety-five new Republicans, fiscal conservatives, to help right our ship of state. [...]

Q: The first thing you’re talking about is deficit reduction and spending. Does that mean that right now, as of today, you’d be against extending the unemployment insurance?

KIRK: That’s right. You could extend it if you found a way to pay for it. And I voted for that in the past. But these proposals to extend unemployment insurance by just adding it to the deficit are misguided.

Meanwhile Monday, President Obama proposed a two-year federal pay freeze Monday that may be as much about increased Republican power in Congress as it is about the size of the federal debt.

Obama said his proposal, which must be approved by Congress, would save $28 billion over five years — a tiny percentage of the total federal debt now pegged at $13.7 trillion.

//www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-30-1Apayfreeze30_ST_N.htm

My question on these proposed fiscal policies is this. Can calling for extending the "Bush Tax Cuts" for (over $250,000) and not paying for them, when cutting them will save CBO estimate $3.7 trillion, really be fiscally conservative?

A New Cold War?

The Presidential power to negotiate treaties, and the Senate's check to approve or reject those treaties is playing currently playing out. Is it more of playing politics instead of governing? Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, and political cartoonist Matt Davies seem to think so.
Cold War 1962 (above). Cold War 2010 by Matt Davies (below).


Pat Buchanan (an original Tea Party-type conservative Presidential candidate) blogged the following last week:

Is GOP Risking a New Cold War?

Before Republican senators vote down the strategic arms reduction treaty negotiated by the Obama administration, they should think long and hard about the consequences.

In substance, New START has none of the historic significance of Richard Nixon’s SALT I or ABM treaty, or Jimmy Carter’s SALT II, or Ronald Reagan’s INF treaty removing all intermediate-range missiles from Europe, or the strategic arms reductions treaties negotiated by George Bush I and Bush II.

The latter cut U.S. and Russian arsenals from 10,000-12,000 nuclear warheads targeted on each nation to 2,000 – a huge cut.

If Republicans could back those treaties, what is the case for rejecting New START? Barack Obama’s treaty reduces strategic warheads by 450, leaving each side 1,550.

Is this not enough to deter when we consider what the Chernobyl disaster did to the Soviet Union and what the knockdown of two buildings in New York has done to this country? Ten hydrogen bombs on the United States or Russia could set us back decades, let alone 1,000.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is holding up the treaty until he gets more assurances that the administration will do the tests and upgrades necessary to maintain the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons. He should receive those assurances.

Maintaining the credibility of the U.S. deterrent is a vital national interest. But does this justify holding the treaty hostage?

Without a treaty, we lose our right and our ways and means to verify that Russia is carrying out the terms of arms treaties already agreed upon.

For more:

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2010/11/22/is-gop-risking-a-new-cold-war/

Presidential Pardons

(From Ken Halla's, US Government Teachers Blog)

We spoke about pardons in this unit, so here is a link from Wikipedia that tells how many people were pardoned by each president and who are the ones that were notable.

President Gerald R. Ford's Presidential Pardon of Richard Nixon is captured by YouTube here. Wonder how long it would have taken to unravel the Watergate scandal if we had the Youdia (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and 24 Hr. News) back in the day?

CBS 2 School: Medicinal Potter

(From CBS 2 School, For Dan C. and Mac H. and all the other Harry Potter fans)

We take our medicine quite seriously. Historically speaking, going to the movies has always made us feel better. During the Great Depression roughly 60% of Americans, on average, attended the cinema once a week. [With the advent of TV this percentage has hovered around 10%.] In the 1930s we laughed at Charlie Chaplin and were enchanted by Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz while falling in love with Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind. Movies helped us forget about the pain of the real world.

In our days of uncertainty going to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows might be just what the doctor ordered. Based on the seventh and final book of J.K. Rowling this two-part movie finale finds Harry, Ron and Hermione in search of Voldemort’s vital horcruxes. In these horcruxes Voldemort has hidden pieces of his soul. As long as these horcruxes remain Voldemort stays immortal.

This sounds a lot like our United States Constitution. Its immortality seems to defy reason. When wondering how our governing document has survived for as long as it has one first must discover its horcruxes. Buried deep inside our constitution students of government will find the secrets of its immortality.

First is the concept of separation of powers. The founding fathers saw to it to dilute government power at every instance. The best safeguard of our liberty is to divide government power into three branches. The power of the purse and the power of the sword should be in different hands. The President might send troops to far away places but the Congress through its budget can limit the duration. The Courts can decide outcomes when legal questions arise.

Second is the concept of checks and balances. Checks and balances allow each branch of government to negate or limit what the other branches are doing. If the President acts out of order the Court can practice judicial review and

declare such actions unconstitutional. Members of Congress are held accountable through a President’s veto.

Third is federalism. The dilution of power did not stop at the national level. The founding fathers saw fit to divide wherever they could. We also divide power between national, state and local governments. Federalism is another firewall used to protect our liberty.

And the final horcrux is popular sovereignty. The most important source of our government’s seemingly immortal standing is that ultimate authority is found in the people. From the greatest to the least and to those with the highest and lowest stake all citizens have a voice in our government. We the people are responsible for our own survival. The natural instinct of self preservation helps to explain why our constitution endures.

The immorality of our constitution will depend upon the preservation of these four horcruxes. Our longstanding form of government and the way of life it promotes is rooted in the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and popular sovereignty. In the darkness of our age the immutability of the United States Constitution may be the tonic we are looking for. Used as medicine, our constitution can help cure what is ailing us.

Have a spoon full of sugar handy just in case.

Stand Pat?

As the first day of the holiday travel season began amid the uproar over new TSA security check procedures, polls seem to say that Americans are OK with the full-body scanners in Airports, no so much with the enhanced pat-down procedures.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But half of all those polled say enhanced pat-down searches go too far.

TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is a department under Homeland Security. Read TSA administrator John Pistole's statement here:

//www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/112110_right_balance.shtm

Blog here what you think. Plus, if you travel this Thanksgiving weekend by air, or have relatives that do, share any experiences here. This situation is yet another example of the President's administration having the responsibility of many, many things in this country. This week, the Obama Administration was both blasted by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
//thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130265-jindal-blasts-obama-administration-calls-tsa-searches-excessive?page=2 and in two separate letters to the TSA, Congress began using its oversight function:

//www.congress.org/news/2010/11/22/house_challenges_tsa_pat_downs

And of course, SNL had its take last weekend.

Thanksgiving -- a political, cultural event

This year marks the 63 rd anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation. Though live Thanksgiving turkeys have been presented intermittently to presidents since the Lincoln administration, the current ceremony dates to 1947, when the first National Thanksgiving Turkey was presented to President Harry Truman.

So while they say not to talk about religion or politics around the Thanksgiving Day table, here is the Political Warrior cornucopia of political/historical/religious/culture info to impress your guest this Turkey Day.

Starting with the 'Chief Turkey.' At right, President George W. Bush pardoned "Pumpkin & Pecan" the two birds that were saved by the president's signature in 2008.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, President Obama will pardon the National Thanksgiving Turkey in a ceremony in the Rose Garden. The President will celebrate the 63rd anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation, reflect upon the time-honored traditions of Thanksgiving, and wish American families a warm, safe, and healthy holiday. If last year's embeded ceremony doesn't do it for you, you can watch Apple and Cider get their presidential pardons live here:

Live Stream: President Obama Pardons the National Thanksgiving Turkey

Next this short film from the History Channel has much on our Poltical Culture as linked with Thanksgiving -- watch for how FDR wanted to move up Thanksgiving to spur on the economy and the Christmas shopping season. "Franksgiving?"

Did you know that the author of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" was behind the US making Thanksgiving a national holiday, that Lincoln was the president who initiated this, that there is no proof that turkey was actually eaten on the first Thanksgiving. So many nice tidbits in this video and more of the story here.

And finally, from CBS 2 School the two have their take on the POLs that best play the role of the staples of today's truly American holiday table.

VIDEO: Politics And Thanksgiving

Have a great Thanksgiving. I am thankful for you reading and blogging!

Constitutional Showdown: Subpoena vs. Executive Privilege

In 2007, there was an impending Constitutional Showdown over Presidential Executive Privilege and the Congressional Power to Subpoena. Over the U.S. Attorneys standoff, White House Counsel Fred Fielding mentioned "the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency" in a letter offering a compromise to Congress. Democratic members had demanded that Administration officials testify under oath about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired.

With partially divided government coming back to Washington in January and a test on Chapters 13-14 slated for Tuesday, the re-runned post should be helpful in figuring out what the heck the terms mean.

Executive privilege: George Washington invoked it, Dwight Eisenhower named it and Richard Nixon abused it. Now it looms as the nuclear option in George W. Bush's battle with Congress over its investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. So what the heck does it mean, and how much weight will it carry in the current standoff?

Last spring, a subcommittee in the House of Representatives voted to issue subpoenas to several Bush Administration officials in the House investigation about the firings of 8 U.S. attorneys from the Justice Department.

Legislative subpoena power gives members of Congress the ability to interview Americans under oath as part of their investigative powers. But President Bush claims that using this power to question his advisors threatens the quality of advice given to the Chief Executive.

Advisors will be less forthright, he argues, if their words might one day appear on the public record.This is one of the issues that makes divided government so intriguing. Whether it was the Congressional investigation into Watergate, Iran-Contra or Bill Clinton’s financial dealings, legislative inquiry of the Executive Branch gets to the heart of separation of powers these days.

The question is, not whether you think Attorney General Gonzales or Karl Rove should (have been) fired, but whether Congress should have the power to call these advisors into a committee hearing and question them under oath. Is the scenario healthy or hurtful to our constitutional structure?

Time.com has a good article on all of this stuff from March, 2007 posted here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1601450,00.html

Try again, can you fix it?

Thanks to my friend Ms. Crawford for sending me this link. None of you were able to balance the budget in the last unit, so have another crack at it like they are saying they will do on Capitol Hill, thanks to this NY Times interactive site.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Will this Lame Duck accompish Fame?

In American politics, a “lame duck” is any politician leaving office as a successor awaits.

The term is typically applied to presidents who will be leaving the White House but are awaiting the inauguration date of January 20th to turn power over to their successor. Like a duck wounded by a hunter, this president lies powerless as those with power approach.

This week, the Congress begins a lame-duck session as the House and Senate chambers will play host to more than 100 news faces in January (56 new members were sworn in at the opening of the 111th Congress). What will get done before the new freshman class gets to Washington? Actually they got there this week, for orientations, and two new Senators (Chris Coons D-Del., and Joe Manchin D-W Va) have been sworn in to finish terms that will continue into the 112th Congress.

Lame duck sessions tend to be notoriously unproductive, especially when there's a turnover in the majority party. The party losing power is in a sour mood and just wants to go home; the party entering power usually prefers to wait until reinforcements arrive in January and wants most business put off so they can put their own stamp on it.

But there is much on the agenda, giving the possibility that this lame-duck may make some fame.

Bush-era tax cuts

Lawmakers in both parties, however, are keen to immediately address the looming expiration of Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31. Taxes on income, investments, and large estates are set to go up, while the $1,000 per-child tax credit would be cut in half and couples would lose relief from the so-called marriage penalty.

Some of the rest of the agenda:

—Taxes: Obama supports renewing most of the Bush-era tax cuts, but not those for family income exceeding $250,000. Emboldened Republicans will insist, however, and with Democrats splintered, many observers think a one- or two-year extension of everything is most likely. Otherwise, it'll fall to the new Congress to decide. Already expired tax cuts, like AMT relief, are likely to get done in the lame duck.

—Medicare physician payments: As they always do, lawmakers are likely to address a 1997 law that's forcing cuts in Medicare's payments to doctors. But it's not clear how long a reprieve the doctors will get.

The there are items that some lawmakers would like to do, but may not be able to:

—Nuclear weapons: Senate Democrats want to ratify the new START treaty between the United States and Russia that would cut each nation's nuclear arsenal by one-fourth.

—Unemployment benefits: Congress has always extended unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed when the jobless rate has been this high. But it took months earlier this year for Congress to extend jobless benefits through the end of November, and Republicans are likely to insist that any further extension be financed by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. That could limit any extension to just a couple of months.

—Social Security: Before the election, Democrats promised a vote on legislation to award a $250 payment to Social Security recipients, who are not receiving a cost-of-living hike this year. But the measure failed to garner even a majority in the Senate earlier this year, much less the 60 votes required to beat a filibuster. It won't pass.

And that doesn't include a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," or the Banning of Earmarks, which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell got on board with his Tea Party coalition and said he would support on Monday.

As for how the 112th Congress will look in January, CQ Roll Call has a look in chart form on Page 14 and 15 of this report:

http://innovation.cq.com/newmember/2010elexnguide.pdf

Roles (not egg) of Presidency on display during Asian trip

Domestically, while Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) made debunked charges that President Obama's 10-day Asian trip coast $200 million a day, the AP reports the president left Asia with a greater foothold in the emerging nations that could help shape the American economy for years. But his failure to deliver on his own high expectations on key economic issues served notice that the global stage is not nearly his for the taking.

How many Roles (or hats) of the Presidency can you identify Obama wearing during his international trip?

History check, Teddy Roosevelt was the first US President to travel outside the continental US, the the territory of Panama in 1906. TR's 1906 journey to Panama would set the precedent for his successors to travel abroad when it was perceived that important foreign policy objectives were at stake. In 1919, for instance, Woodrow Wilson would be the first sitting president to travel to Europe in the aftermath of the First World War.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIEdp4lvYPbTLyOXpn02w4L9LYcA?docId=657fa829ba9f404b8a38dac311ba7d49

Despite what Rep. Bachmann may think, or even rating the effectiveness on this Presidential trip, the US President still plays an important foreign policy role, one that must be won in road games, not just from the Oval Office.

Here is the fact check story to showing the $200 million/a day claim is false:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/cost-obamas-asian-trip-hardly-200-million-day


The AP recap of the trip is liked here. Zero-sum game is a resolution to a situation in which one side wins and others lose. It is a definition used often in comparative government and politics.

http://video.ap.org/?f=None&pid=vTm76IrfNc_67iCGJd5E04dFf8c88jwo

Cubs owners to State: 'Let's Play Curveball'

I am a long-time Cub fan. From my Soapbox, Wrigley Field needs to be renovated or the Cubs need to move. But when I follow the money and get to much of what is the backdrop of this story, it makes me about as frustrated as a fan that's waited 102 years for a World Series Champion....Oh yeah, that's me (well, 45 at least) too. First, as reported by the AP:

CHICAGO -- The owners of the Chicago Cubs want the help of the state of Illinois in their plans to renovate Wrigley Field.

The Chicago Tribune is reporting the Ricketts family, which bought the Cubs in 2009 for $845 million, wants Illinois to finance more than $200 million in renovations at the 96-year-old ball park.

The Tribune reports Thursday the Ricketts want the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which owns U.S. Cellular Field, to float up to $300 million in bonds. The bonds would be paid off with the amusement tax already paid by fans attending games at Wrigley Field.

In a letter to season ticket holders, Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts calls the plan "fair and simple."

Gov. Pat Quinn said Thursday he has no knowledge of the plan, which would require the approval of the Illinois General Assembly.

But here's the rest of the story. In the 2010 mid-terms, the Washington Post reported the Cubs ownership statistics -- this is called, "inside baseball" and has nothing to do with bats and balls. You would have thought it was supposed to be against bailouts:

A look inside campaign finance numbers, shows the chairman of one of the most popular sports franchises in America has donated over $75,000 to Republican political candidates in just the last 6 years, including FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS to McCain/Palin in 2008."The main benefit to forming one of these groups at the last minute is to avoid disclosure of where the money is coming from," said Paul S. Ryan, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. "It also makes it harder for the other side to respond. That's why so much of the money pours into the system late in the game."

Others are major players: Within a month, Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts has launched his own super PAC and spent $1.1 million in the past week, including $870,000 against Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Ads by Ricketts's Ending Spending Fund label Reid a "hooligan" for allegedly failing to curb congressional earmarks. The group has yet to report any contributions to the FEC, although it acknowledges that Ricketts is the sole donor so far.

//www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1173:washinton-post-a-surge-in-pacs-at-the-last-10-30-2010&catid=64&Itemid=62

Here is a link to Ricketts PAC:

http://www.endingspendingfund.com/

And if you thought 'Tea Party Patriots' were about less government involvement, here is the YouTube ad the PAC produced to defeated Harry Reid and support Tea Party Senate candidate Sharon Angle:

A continued debate: The Senate a non-democratic body

There is an article from Harpers, where Richard Rosenfeld argues that we should abolish the Senate. The argument has been made before but Mr. Rosenfeld does an excellent job of fleshing out the disproportionate power placed in the hands of those who live in sparsely populated states.

This NY Times OP-Chart map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/02/opinion/20081102_OPCHART.html

T-Shirt a Bullies Pulpit or Free Expression Right?

The Straight Pride T-shirt controversy that played out last week at St. Charles North High School, was litigated out of Neuqua Valley here in District 204 two years ago. In 2008, similar circumstances had a student's "Be Happy, Not Gay" slogan on a T-Shirt protected by First Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, based in Chicago, ruled on April 23 in Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District No. 204, 2008 Westlaw 1813137, that officials at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Illinois, may not forbid a student who is opposed to homosexuality from wearing the slogan “Be Happy, Not Gay,” on his T-shirt. Reversing a decision by District Judge William T. Hart, who had refused to order the school to allow Alexander Nuxoll to exhibit that slogan on his T-shirt during the so-called National Day of Truth that anti-gay activists promote as a counterpoint to the National Day of Silence sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network in the nation’s high schools, the appeals court found that censoring the slogan would violate Mr. Nuxoll’s free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/04/alert---7th-cir.html

Is this more similar or more different than the Snyder v. Phelps first amendment controversy.

The ACLU marked the 40th anniversary of landmark student free speech decision, Tinker v. Des Moines with this video that show that the student free expression over gay rights is cutting both ways.

www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/38778res20090224.html

What Legacy Left?

 


When considering presidential legacies do, "The Times Make the Man, or Does the Man Make the Times?"

For Monday, find an article about President George W. Bush book tour, which stopped in Chicago, and consider the following question in a journal entry. We will call that one of this week's articles.

Time magazine's blog "Swampland," had this to say about the, "W. Show."


"The hardest part of covering the White House is portraying the banality of the human being presiding at the heart of the sprawling executive branch of American government. In the case of George W. Bush, the caricature of incompetence accepted by much of the country by the end of his second term obscured as much about the daily work of the president as the adulation of his supporters had in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

So there was reason to hope that the roll-out of Bush's memoirs, “Decision Points,” would begin to reconstruct some of the more lifelike elements of his presidency. What debates had actually unfolded before 9/11 between the President and his advisors as to the nature of the al Qaeda threat? How had Bush become convinced that going to war in Iraq in March 2003 was so urgent that it precluded pursuing three more months of diplomacy or the apparent possibility of forcing Saddam Hussein into exile?

How had Bush decided to overturn generations of American opposition to torture to embrace waterboarding? What personal considerations led Bush to move so slowly after Katrina engulfed New Orleans?

Bush spent plenty of time on the book, and plenty of time planning the roll out. He assembled a team of advisors from his White House days, his publishers at Crown and his current office to script the unveiling. “The president was not short of a lot of good options from all of the networks, and from multiple anchors at the networks,” said Dana Perino, Bush's last press secretary who was one of those Bush consulted on the plan. “NBC had a compelling package that included a prime-time hour and promotions, as well as Today Show appearances, that was compelling; however, just as important was the president's desire to have a conversation, not a debate,” Perino said.

In the end, the “candid conversation with Matt Lauer”, as the hour-long prime time interview Monday evening was billed, was something more of a high-production-value index than a detailed look inside the mechanics of the Bush presidency. Against an innocuous grey back-drop Bush and Lauer spent most of the conversation at a gleaming wood table with two indistinguishable leatherbound books on one end, bracketed by somber but reassuring string chords at the start and finish of the segments. Lauer touched all the nerves, but with the air of a doctor informing a sufficiently etherized patient that he'd feel a little pressure.

And Bush pushed back. When Lauer asked about waterboarding, the interrogation technique that the U.S. government, Congress and the courts had all concluded constituted torture, Bush said he had approved the technique and that “It was the right thing to do.” When Lauer asked if that meant Bush thought it was OK for foreign countries to waterboard captured Americans, Bush said, “All I ask is that people read the book.”

The interview did bring back the personal atmospherics of the presidency. There was the empathetic side of Bush, the one that made him an effective retail politician, as he teared up talking about his relationship with his father and mother. There was the too-easy dismissal of serious issues, as when he defended against the waterboarding decision by saying he did it “'cause the lawyers said it was legal.” And most of all there was the perpetual, uncomfortable coexistence of confidence and defensiveness that ended up giving the country the impression that he had been in over his head all along.

But that didn't help with the facts. Bush has always said it will take years for history to judge his presidency. Maybe the book itself will provide some of the detail that can help make the two terms less of a caricature. But it's safe to say NBC's review of Bush's presidency won't move the needle much. What it did do is remind viewers of the particular brand of defensive patriotism Bush embodied. “I hope I'm judged a success,” Bush said at the end of the show, “I'm comfortable knowing I gave it my all, and I love America and it was an honor to serve.”Read more:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/08/the-w-show/#ixzz154oJTef7

From my Soap Box, I will just say this what Bush and Mayor Daley said about the government's response in Chicago on 9/11 is just plain false. My wife worked as a human resources manager in the Sears, now Willis Tower. The day was filled with chaos, with evacuation plans not designed until after the scare.

The president's book is apparently doing well. No doubt, as J.K Rowling and other can attest to fiction sells.

Veterans Day

Today is Veterans Day, and following Tuesday's Assembly we pause to honor the Vets. Check out the documentary below on the wonderful all-volunteer effort of Honor Flight Chicago, a mission to get living World War II Vets, members of the "Greatest Generation," to Washington, D.C. to see the World War II Memorial. From Census figures, the U.S, Veterans Administration estimates about 1,000 U.S. World War II veterans die every day.

Parades, memorials, flags, lapel pins and bands are important and appropriate to honor veterans. But what about policy? Linked below is a legislative update drafted by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). The grassroots interest group is tracking some bad 2010 New Veterans’ Unemployment On Track to Be Worse than 2009 and1 Suicide Every 36 Hours and some good One Big Step Forward, But Backlog Remains Staggeringly High Also notice, not much being talked about the repealing of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

For More: //iava.org/



Also to re-watch the WVHS Veterans Day Assembly ~ Nov. 9, 2010
Click Here

Blog any of your thoughts on Veterans Day, Veterans Policies or school patriotism here. Enjoy your day, and think about those who have served our country.












WVHS Veterans Day Assembly ~ Nov. 9, 2010
Click Here

Obama Backs U.N. Security Council Seat For India

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama participate Monday in a wreath-laying ceremony at Raj Ghat, the memorial to independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, in New Delhi on November 8, 2010.

Was this big breaking international news? Is the UN Security Council still relevant? And does India deserve a seat at the table? Interesting to view the contrasting different opinions in the Youdia comment modes of the same story on NPR vs. Yahoo News. Guess which is more supportive of the President's endorsement and of India itself.
__________

(From NPR)

President Obama on Monday endorsed India's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, saying in a speech in New Delhi that the U.S. and the South Asian nation have one of the "defining partnerships" of the 21st century.

The president's backing for the U.N. seat came in a speech to India's parliament on the third and final day of his visit.

"The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate," Obama told members of parliament.

"That is why I can say today - in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member," he said to loud applause inside the colonnaded sandstone structure dating from the days of British rule in India.

But none of the five permanent members –- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China -– is in any hurry to relinquish their veto-wielding seat on the Security Council, so as a practical matter, India would need to wait for a possible expansion of the council, which could take years to bring about.

//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131155914

The Redistricting Game: A way to keep a broken system from being 'fixed?'

Even though it comes at the end of our unit on Congress, here is a way for you to continue your education, win or lose, on the world of Congressional gerrymandering. Check it out and if any of you have any good ideas on how I might implement this in class, let me know.

The Redistricting Game is designed to educate, engage, and empower citizens around the issue of political redistricting. Currently, the political system in most states allows the state legislators themselves to draw the lines. This system is subject to a wide range of abuses and manipulations that encourage incumbents to draw districts which protect their seats rather than risk an open contest.

By exploring how the system works, as well as how open it is to abuse, The Redistricting Game allows players to experience the realities of one of the most important (yet least understood) aspects of our political system. The game provides a basic introduction to the redistricting system, allows players to explore the ways in which abuses can undermine the system, and provides info about reform initiatives - including a playable version of the Tanner Reform bill to demonstrate the ways that the system might be made more consistent with tenets of good governance. Beyond playing the game, the web site for The Redistricting Game provides a wealth of information about redistricting in every state as well as providing hands-on opportunities for civic engagement and political action.

The Redistricting Game was created at the USC Game Innovation Lab - part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts', Interactive Media Division.

Play the game here: http://www.redistrictinggame.org/index.php

"The Worst Person in the World?"

As most all of you scholars recognized during our Mass Media Analysis, the distinctions between news and political organizations continue to be blurred.

The debate continued last week, when MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions.

The Christian Science Montitor reports that Olbermann will be back on the air Tuesday, after a two program suspension for contributing to Democratic candidates during the 2010 election in violation of NBC News policy.

But the debate over what standards should apply to cable personalities who cover politics is likely to continue as the distinction between news and political organizations continues to blur.
“Neither Fox nor MSNBC is really a news organization, at least not in the traditional sense,” American Journalism Review editor Rem Rieder wrote Friday on his blog. “They preach to the converted, they fire up the base.”

As Mr. Rieder noted, “The situation is dicier in MSNBC’s case because of its relationship with NBC News, which remains in the news business.”

The suspension, which took effect Friday, triggered a sizable protest from Mr. Olbermann’s audience, MSNBC’s largest. An online petition calling for his return, organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had gathered more than 300,000 signatures by Sunday, the Associated Press reported.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1108/Debate-on-politics-and-news-doesn-t-end-with-Olbermann-s-suspension

FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) reported on other blurred media/political contributions:

A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann's bosses at NBC, and at NBC's parent company General Electric?

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company's political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful "No on 24" campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).

Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had "given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year," reported the Washington Post (8/18/10).

Olbermann's donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough "hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter." Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist--but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard.

So what do you think? Is Olbermann a journalist? If yes/no should he be able to give to a political candidate. And finally, is the media liberal, or conservative? I guess we need to used the Watergate press catch phrase and just, "Follow the Money."

Quite a show at Naperville commission meeting

(From Naperville SUN)

Naperville Mayor and Liquor Commissioner A. George Pradel made no decision on the future of Show-Me’s on Thursday afternoon.

He and the rest of the liquor commission did, however, hear the concerns of residents from nearby neighborhoods of the restaurant and bar proposed for 1126 E. Ogden Ave.

Fifteen residents addressed the liquor commission, and another handful of letters from residents who could not attend were read opposing the issuance of a liquor license to the establishment.

“Must Naperville reinforce the idea that women are nothing more than sex objects?” said resident Jeanette Steiner.

Show-Me’s Girls — servers in short-shorts and tank tops — and the clientele they are likely to attract were an underlying current.

Most of the residents spoke in an effort to persuade the mayor against issuing the liquor license, but a small number simply encouraged restrictions to keep events at the restaurant and sports bar from getting out of hand.

“This is not a strip joint. It’s not a topless bar. It’s not where the patrons are all perverted and drive home drunk,” said resident Jon Burk, who advocated for restrictions against a beer garden, but otherwise welcomed the restaurant for the jobs and tax revenue it would bring.

Full Article at:

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/2197792-418/liquor-restaurant-commission-pradel-residents.html

Do not forget, you need to cover one local governmental meeting this semester, and the Naperville Liquor Commission counts. Though, many of the meetings are not as interesting as this classic controversy.

How should Naperville govern, while trying to balance the Rights of Society (Naperville residents voicing their protest) v. the Right of the Individual (petitioner, who wants the permit to put their establishment on Ogden Avenue)?

What do you say? What do your parents say? Remember, in the Good Old Days not so long ago, Naperville was rated as the Best Place to Raise Children in the nation.

Another Biggert Victory

This site allows allows you to type in a member of Congress and see how many bills he/she has introduced, how many earmarks he/she have asked for and received. The site does not give its definition of earmarks, nor tell if the bills are for one's entire career (I suspect it is), but nonetheless, it is an interesting starting point.

Judy Biggert (R) our representative from the 13th District has just two bills to her credit. She was first elected in 1998. She won re-election Tuesday to a seventh term with 64% of the vote.

But she has given a big shout out to WVHS. I found the above video on the Warrior's Back-to-Back State Champion Women's Soccer Team Website. A couple of summers ago U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert gives her one-minute shout out to the Tribe. While we make fun of these "One-minute resolutions" legislatures use them to make constituents feel happy and proud. I did when I saw it.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=595320026

From my SoapBox, This just makes sense

Tell Senate Democrats: End the seniority system for committee chairs

This was posted by the CREDO Action progressive blog. Note the difference in current Senate rules for leadership (Committee Chairs).

At the beginning of the next Congress, Democrats need to be more like Republicans--at least in one specific way.

The Republican Party term limits its committee chairs in Congress, whereas Democrats award chairmanships based on seniority.

No wonder that Democrats are stuck with Senator Max Baucus as Chair of the pivotal Finance Committee and Joe Lieberman as Chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (to name two infuriating obstructionists).

The health care reform process shows why the seniority system is problematic and how it gives power to senators who are unaccountable to the rest of their caucus.

Baucus has been in the Senate since 1978, representing a state with a tiny share of the U.S. population. Not surprisingly, the drug and insurance industries are huge contributors.

And the result? Sen. Baucus, used his chairmanship to put the brakes on health care reform, with all sorts of nasty consequences.

And of course Joe Lieberman is notorious for grandstanding and using his position to undermine the rest of the Democratic caucus. He single-handedly blocked a Medicare buy-in provision in the health reform bill after agreeing to it in private negotiations with Majority Leader Harry Reid.

And Lieberman was able to do so with impunity because he doesn't need to worry about what the members of the Democratic caucus think about him. If his coveted position were subject to a secret vote, he'd have some motivation to avoid overtly antagonizing the Democrats.

Some members of the Democratic caucus have reportedly discussed putting chairmanships to a secret ballot vote every two years--that is to say, every two years, all the Democrats of the Senate would get to vote on whether committee chairs get to keep their seats. We think this is an excellent idea.

To sign their petition go to:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/end_seniority_system/