SCOTUSwatch
Adoption
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. "An American Indian child being raised by her biological father should not have been taken from her adoptive parents, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, saying that a federal law devised to keep Indian families together did not apply in the case. The 5-to-4 decision ... found that the case represented an exception to the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act ... The court’s majority held Tuesday that the case ... did not involve removing a child from an Indian home because the girl’s father had relinquished his parental rights before the girl’s birth and her biological mother had agreed to allow the South Carolina couple to adopt the girl." Dan Frosch and Timothy Williams at the New York Times.
Alito made the right call. "The Indian Child Welfare Act prevents 'involuntary termination' of an Indian parent’s rights without a showing that serious harm is likely to come to the child from 'continued custody.' ... Justice Samuel Alito’s ruling ... turns on that second phrase 'continued custody.' Since Brown never had custody ... he shouldn’t have been able to invoke ICWA to block Veronica’s adoption ... Alito’s reading of ICWA respects the fundamental purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act. This law is about protecting Indian families. 'The law shouldn’t be read as giving hyped up protections to birth parents,' ... 'Those protections are for parents who had a life with their child.'" Emily Bazelon at Slate.
Voting Rights
The Voting Rights Act decision, and its effects. "Today, the Supreme Court tossed out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the key 1965 law meant to prevent disenfranchisement of minority voters. Section 4 says states and other jurisdictions that have sufficient histories of voting discrimination have to go through what’s called 'preclearance' under Section 5 of the law whenever they redistrict or otherwise update their voting laws. Currently those jurisdictions cover most of the South but also Manhattan, Brooklyn, some counties in California and South Dakota, and towns in Michigan ... The practical effect of the ruling is to render Section 5 of the law inoperative." Dylan Matthews at Wonkblog.
Didn't conservatives once endorse judicial restraint? "When federal law is endorsed by the House, the Senate, the president, and the public, and it's consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent, a court majority probably ought to have a very good reason for tossing all of that aside. But in Shelby, five conservative justices gutted the Voting Rights Act anyway, deeming it inconsistent with Constitution because, well, they said so. These jurists said the same law used to be perfectly constitutional, but somehow morphed into being unconstitutional without anyone noticing, and without violating anything specific in the Constitution itself ... This is the opposite of restraint; it's activism." Steve Benen at Maddowblog.
Make no mistake, this is a win for discrimination. "We should ... be clear today about ... the winners ... The primary winners are vote suppressors in ... jurisdictions covered by Section 5, the politicians, lobbyists and activists who have ... endorsed and enacted restrictive new voting laws in dozens of states. The legal burden now will be shifted ... to the people whose votes they seek to suppress. This will mean that discriminatory practices will occur with greater frequency than they have before ... The deterrent effect of Section 4, alone, was enormous. As U.S. District Judge John Bates remarked last year ... its mere presence has stopped lawmakers from pitching hundreds more dubious laws." Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic.
There are still tools in the VRA toolbox, but they aren't quite as effective as Section 5. "The ruling does not nullify the Voting Rights Act in its entirety. Citizens and the Justice Department still have the power to sue under Section 2 of the law in federal court to block practices that could make it harder for minority voters to vote or dilute their political power ... However, the high court’s decision ... shifts the burden in litigation in the so-called covered jurisdictions, requiring those bringing such cases to prove discriminatory intent or impact. Until Tuesday, the states and local communities covered by Section 5 had the obligation to prove that any changes would not harm minority voting rights." Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelson at Politico.
As always, Justice Ginsberg is fantastic. "Justice Ginsburg’s dissent ... makes a powerful case for judicial restraint (which used to be considered a conservative constitutional doctrine) in every case involving Congress’ power to enforce the Civil Rights Amendents, given their massive and unrepentant violation for a century ... And Ginsburg saves her most quotable line for a rebuke to the breezy confidence of the Chief Justice that racial discrimination in voting is mainly a thing of the past: Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." Ed Kilgore at the Washington Monthly.
And the majority's concept of 'equal sovereignty' is idiotic, to say the least. "The federal government doesn’t treat states equally ... Nearly all laws affect different states differently ... Thanks to Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency can single out states with ... pollution problems, the Justice Department can keep an eye on states with ... corruption problems, and immigration authorities can single out border states for surveillance ... Yes, Section 5 places an incremental burden on Alabama—but on top of an already unequal burden that Roberts cheerfully tolerates. So whatever explains the court’s decision today, the putative principle of equal sovereignty can’t be it." Eric Posner at Slate.
The 2012 'war on voting' is just getting started. "To voting rights advocates, the mere fact that the pre-clearance requirement invalidated initiatives restricting voting as recently as last year shows that the formula Congress used to determine the need for a burden of proof of non-discrimination to be placed on jurisdictions is not outdated at all. In 2012, voting rights advocates had far more success than many anticipated in beating back various state level initiatives to restrict voting across the country. But ... the battle to defeat such initiatives in the courts over the long term looks like an uphill one. Today’s news made that hill steeper." Greg Sargent at the Plum Line.
I'm not holding my breath for Congress to fix this. 'After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support,' wrote Ginsburg ... 'In my judgment, the court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’s decision.' Roberts said Congress 'may draft another formula ...' Still, political realities are likely to make that task difficult, if not impossible. 'As long as Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, there will be no preclearance,' Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement." Greg Stohr at Bloomberg.
Partisan politics will probably get in the way. "Since 2006, the GOP has also become more hostile to the Voting Rights Act ... In recent years, Republican state legislatures around the country have passed—or tried to pass—laws requiring citizens to show identification when they vote. Claims of out-of-control voter fraud have become an article of faith on the right ... Republican voters and legislators alike will almost certainly view any widespread reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act as a Democratic push to block these types of bills. Thus the discussion should quickly turn from racial discrimination to claims that the law is a partisan power grab." Benjy Sarlin at MSNBC.
It would be hard even without Roberts stacking the deck. "Roberts's seemingly modest opinion ... is anything but. The odds that a new Section 4 can pass both houses of Congress and be the Goldilocks statute that will cover neither too many nor too few states to satisfy the Roberts Court's ... anti-Congress whims are roughly equivalent to the odds that Nancy Pelosi will be the Republican candidate for president ... There is a long and ignoble American tradition of using vague invocations of 'states' rights' to trump real, fundamental human rights. The Roberts Court ... is very much in that tradition ... It will probably take a change ... in personnel of the Court to successfully restore the Voting Rights Act." Scott Lemieux at the American Prospect.
And Texas is already making things worse. In fairness, I can't say I'm surprised. "Texas will 'immediately' enact a voter ID law that a panel of federal judges ruled last year would impose 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,' ... The decision to go forward with a measure that those federal judges called 'the most stringent in the country' comes after the Supreme Court ruled that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional ... 'The State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,' Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said ... 'Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.'" Ryan Reilly at the Huffington Post.
I'm sure this is also coincidental. "Voter identification legislation in North Carolina will pick up steam again now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a key General Assembly leader said Tuesday. A bill requiring voters to present one of several forms of state-issued photo ID starting in 2016 cleared the House two months ago, but it's been sitting since in the Senate Rules Committee to wait for a ruling by the justices ... A bill will now be rolled out in the Senate next week. The ruling essentially means a voter ID or other election legislation approved in this year's session probably won't have to receive advance approval ... before such measures can be carried out." Gary Robertson at the Associated Press.
Hey, more coincidences. "There’s plenty of leaping—for joy!—from Republicans in southern states who now feel liberated to do whatever they want in 'protecting' their elections from those people who don’t have the proper picture IDs or won’t stand in line forever to cast their ballots. No less than five VRA states—Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas ... declaring 'full steam ahead' for voting restrictions ... The Justice Department and voting rights advocates better get their act together on the use of Section 2 to challenge state practices. That may be the only thing standing between southern Republicans and ... new voter suppression activities." Ed Kilgore at the Washington Monthly.
And that's just the flashy stuff. "Just because the methods of diminishing minority voting power have changed doesn’t mean the problem has evaporated. And in fact, Congress had evidence showing that racially polarized voting persists in the regions covered by Section 5 more than in the rest of the country ... The worst aspect of the loss of Section 5 won’t be the widely publicized laws like voter ID requirements, which depress minority turnout. The worst part will be the little stuff—the changes to local school board and city council elections that are too small to make headlines." Emily Bazelon at Slate.
Politics
California
California's fiscal comeback - and other reasons Gov. Brown is great. "Brown has led a remarkable comeback, both for himself and his state. After inheriting a deficit of $27 billion on a general fund of about $90 billion, Brown has turned California around, aided by a rebound in the construction industry and the housing market on which it depends. Early this month he signed a budget that has a surplus of $1.2 billion by Brown’s conservative estimate. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office, which usually finds gubernatorial estimates too rosy, says the actual surplus will be more than $4 billion." Lou Cannon at Real Clear Politics.
Elections
The landmine waiting for the GOP on their path to victory in 2014. "Republicans’ path to a Senate majority is a narrow one ... They can’t afford many errors ... particularly those that are self-inflicted. In the last two election cycles, Republicans suffered enough self-inflicted errors to cost their party Senate seats. These errors largely came in the form of contested primaries that produced nominees who were poorly positioned to win statewide general elections. As both parties gear up for 2014, primaries again threaten Republicans’ ability to win a majority ... even though many factors are working in the GOP’s favor." Charlie Cook at the National Journal.
Climate change and the midterms. "Obama’s ... speech on climate change puts Democrats on defense in coal country. Republicans see the president’s ... announcement of new regulations to cut carbon emissions as an early gift going into the midterm elections ... The planned carbon emissions crackdown could make the president even more of an anchor on Democrats in deep-red states like West Virginia and Kentucky ... And the new regulations pose a messaging challenge for vulnerable Democratic incumbents ... in other energy-rich states, including Alaska, North Carolina and Louisiana." James Hohmann at Politico.
It might not be so bad for Democrats. "The electoral consequences of Obama’s climate policy will probably be overstated ... Democrats have already incurred the huge, if localized costs of pursuing regulations on carbon emissions. The 2009-2010 era fights over Cap and Trade and EPA regulations on new power plants solidified Democrats as the party of the so-called 'war on coal,' which resulted in cataclysmic Democratic losses in ... eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, and western Virginia ... It’s still harder to argue that Obama’s policy will matter outside of West Virginia or Kentucky ... The public isn’t reflexively opposed to policies to reduce carbon emissions." Nate Cohn at the New Republic.
Energy and the Environment
Obama's new climate plan. "The big items: The Environmental Protection Agency will craft rules to limit carbon pollution from new and existing power plants. The Department of Interior will ... accelerate the development of renewable power on public lands. And the Energy Department will ratchet up efficiency standards for appliances. The ... goal is to reduce U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 ... The White House will also try to help state and local agencies prepare for the impacts of climate change ... and pursue international climate negotiations with countries like China more aggressively." Brad Plumer at Wonkblog.
Executive action, for the win. "There is a very fortunate irony about President Obama’s second term. He has to deal with a Congress barely capable of keeping the government’s lights on, let alone crafting rational laws, and totally unable to handle any number of policy crises. Yet, on the single most urgent issue facing the country (and the world), climate change, Obama doesn’t need Congress at all." Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine.
What that means for the EPA. "Obama’s upcoming speech on climate policy ... doesn’t make Gina McCarthy’s nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency any easier. McCarthy, who heads EPA’s air and radiation office, has a history of working with industry and Republican officials to broker compromises on air pollution rules. But that hasn’t been enough to win over some key Republican senators ... Now that the president is proceeding with regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Senate Republicans are likely to be even tougher on McCarthy, who informed them in April the agency was not drafting such regulations." Juliet Eilperin at the Washington Post.
Obama is waging a war on coal - and we should be glad. "Is President Obama ... pursuing 'a war on coal,' ... To a large extent, the answer is yes ... It has pursued a string of policies making it more costly for businesses to extract and burn coal ... Obama’s announcement to regulate existing power plants is the latest example ... The EPA has already imposed stricter limits on mercury and other air toxins as well as soot, both of which come from coal-fired power plants ... The EPA has made it harder for firms to dump waste from mountaintop mining into nearby streams and valleys ... 'You can’t combat climate change without a direct confrontation with the fossil fuel industry.'" Juliet Eilperin at the Fix.
Saving the planet should be common sense. Let's hope the public sees it that way. "Perhaps the most interesting thing about Obama’s big climate change rollout speech ... is how aggressive and unapologetic a pitch he made for the virtues of government regulation. He did so by putting the need for government action to combat carbon emissions right now in a larger context ... that includes the Clean Air Act of 1970, the battle against acid rain, and other now-popular environmental initiatives. The goal was to recast the call for climate action as the centrist, common-sense solution, at a time when Republicans are already gearing up to caricature it as a resurgence of job-killing limousine liberalism." Greg Sargent at the Plum Line.
GOP
Paul Ryan and his poverty obsession is back. "Paul Ryan’s biggest takeaway from the 2012 election seems to be that he has to talk about poverty ... 'I'm focused on poverty these days.' Which, in a sense, is true! Just not exactly in the sense Ryan wants you to think ... Ryan’s very simple belief is that the main problem afflicting the poor is that the government gives them too much money, sapping their incentive to work hard and better themselves. He wants to rectify that ... 'The welfare-reform mindset hasn’t been applied with equal vigor across the spectrum of anti-poverty programs.' That is, cut them, giving the poor the kick in the ass they need." Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine.
Guns
The top ten takeaways from the latest gun safety study. William Saletan at Slate.
IRS
So, this scandal is stupid. "The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with 'Tea Party' and 'Patriots' in their titles also included groups whose names included the words 'Progressive' and 'Occupy,' according to I.R.S. documents ... The agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny ... The documents seem to change the terms of a scandal that exploded over accusations that the I.R.S. had tried to stifle a nascent conservative political movement. Instead, the dispute now revolves around questionable sorting tactics used by I.R.S. application screeners." Jonathan Weisman at the New York Times.
But the public probably won't realize that. "As for the political fallout, if the traditional trajectory of stories like these is any indication, Americans will hear quite a bit about the allegations, but the resolution will get far less play. 'Obama Scandal!' is a front-page story for weeks; 'Obama didn't do anything wrong and there is no scandal' is generally buried ... If accountability still means anything, every lawmaker and pundit who ... accused the president of using the IRS as a political weapon, has a responsibility to be equally as aggressive in telling the public that those allegations were wrong." Steve Benen at Maddowblog.
Meanwhile, Democrats begin to investigate the investigator. "The inspector general report that fueled the IRS ... scandal is 'fundamentally flawed' because it failed to include details that progressive groups were also flagged for extra attention ... Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, is demanding answers from Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George about whether it investigated the use of search terms aimed at liberal organisations in the same manner as it probed the agency’s oversight of groups that used terms such as 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their application for a tax exemption." Lauren French at Politico.
NSA
Everything we know about the formerly secret NSA programs. Timothy Lee at Wonkblog.
Focusing on Snowden is not a distraction. "There are two stories ... Snowden revealed ... how the government was implementing its national surveillance ... On the other hand, Snowden ... is a big story ... Here’s a guy who has single-handedly exposed some of America’s deepest national security secrets because keeping them secret offended his ... ideological commitments ... Snowden’s effort to evade U.S. jurisdiction ... reveals the limits of U.S. law enforcement in a global world with many countries not entirely friendly to U.S. interests. And the facts of what he did is the perfect symbol of the problem of keeping secrets in an Internet age ... They’re both big stories, and it’s legitimate to cover them both." Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Texas
What you should know about Wendy Davis. Lydia DePillis at Wonkblog.
The States
Mapping the 50 states by their most prominent corporation. Matthew Yglesias at Slate.
Virginia
The Gov. McDonnell probe gets wider and wider. "The ongoing scandal surrounding Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) continues to get progressively more serious, with the Washington Post reporting Friday that federal investigators are asking the governor's associates 'about previously undisclosed gifts given by a campaign donor to McDonnell's wife that total tens of thousands of dollars and include money and expensive designer clothing.' ... It wasn't too long ago that McDonnell was gearing up for a national campaign. It's safe to say he's now focused less on avoiding campaign pitfalls and more on avoiding indictment." Steve Benen at Maddowblog.
International
Global
Russia's effort to keep the UN corrupt. "The high-level intervention on U.N. spending marked only the latest example of Russia flexing its diplomatic muscle to protect its commercial position at the United Nations. For much of the past decade, Russia has been engaged in a systematic effort to stymie attempts to root out corruption in U.N. spending. The Russians have pushed out U.N. reformers. They've defanged watchdogs. And they've blocked internal budget reforms aimed at saving costs ... The dispute provides a textbook example of the difficulties of implementing basic financial reforms at the United Nations when major powers have conflicting commercial interests in the outcome." Colum Lynch at Foreign Policy.
Africa
Finally, some good news on the AIDS front. "Seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the world's worst-hit region in the global AIDS epidemic, have cut the number of new HIV infections in children by 50 percent since 2009, the United Nations AIDS program said ... The dramatic reductions - in Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa and Zambia - mean tens of thousands more babies are now being born free of HIV ... Overall, across 21 priority countries in Africa, there were 130,000 fewer new HIV infections among children in 2012 - a drop of 38 percent since 2009 - mostly due to increased drug treatment of pregnant women with the virus." Kate Kelland at Reuters.
The UN is going into Mali. "The U.N. Security Council approved the July 1 deployment of a Mali peacekeeping force tasked with helping the government regain control of rebel-held areas and organize crucial elections, all while facing harsh challenges in a vast desert territory." Alexandra Olson at the Associated Press.
Middle East
Musharraf to be charged with treason by Pakistan. "Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said Monday that his newly installed government intended to press treason charges against the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, setting up a potential clash with Pakistan’s powerful military." Salman Masood and Declan Walsh at the New York Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment