Tag Archives: Politics

POLITICS: Justice Thomas forced to amend financial disclosure forms, and Justice Scalia holds closed-door meeting with the Tea Party

Posted on by
1

Editorial cartoon via Clay Bennett

Justice Clarence Thomas claims that he didn’t disclose his wife’s past employment with the Heritage Foundation — a conservative think tank — or other employers, because he misunderstood the filing instructions on the disclosure forms. Considering he’s a Supreme Court justice, his excuse is both laughable and troubling. Via the New York Times:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

.       .       .

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.”

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

Today, Justice Scalia spoke “at the Conservative Constitutional Seminar, hosted by Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus.” A New York Times editorial argued that it was a bad idea for Justice Scalia to accept an invitation to speak at the Tea Party’s Conservative Constitutional Seminar:

The Tea Party epitomizes the kind of organization no justice should speak to — left, right or center — in the kind of seminar that has been described in the press. It has a well-known and extreme point of view about the Constitution and about cases and issues that will be decided by the Supreme Court.

By meeting behind closed doors, as is planned, and by presiding over a seminar, implying give and take, the justice would give the impression that he was joining the throng — confirming his new moniker as the “Justice from the Tea Party.” The ideological nature of the group and the seminar would eclipse the justice’s independence and leave him looking rash and biased.

There is nothing like the Tea Party on the left, but if there were and one of the more liberal justices accepted a similar invitation from it, that would be just as bad. This is not about who appointed the justice or which way the justice votes. Independence and the perception of being independent are essential for every justice.

More via the Christian Science Monitor:

[T]here’s a difference between justices appearing before a truly bipartisan group and one that has such a clear partisan agenda, and that the lack of transparency raises concerns.

“I think it’s outrageous that a Supreme Court justice would openly go to a political party meeting, particularly given all the issues around Citizens United [the 2009 decision about corporate political contributions] and all the issues that have come and will be coming before the Supreme Court,” says Bob Edgar, a former congressman and the president and CEO of Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Mr. Edgar says that he is concerned with a growing pattern, particularly in the cases of Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas – both of whom attended retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, which stood to benefit from the Citizens United decision – of some justices not carefully avoiding even the appearance of impartiality. “There are only nine justices, and the nine justices are supposed to be serving on behalf of all the people of the United States, not just the tea party, not just the radical right, not just the liberal left,” says Edgar.

CLIMATE POLITICS: Outgoing Republican congressman warns his party about the consequences of climate-change skepticism

Posted on by
1

Political cartoons by Clay Bennett

Bob Inglis, a Republican congressman of South Carolina, “is often described as a casualty of the ‘Tea Party-ization’ of the GOP.” Recently, the congressman, in addressing his colleges, warned his party of the negative side effects from rampant climate-change skepticism and of “missed economic opportunities in clean energy development.” Via NYTimes.com:

Mr. Inglis used an analogy comparing the climate to a sick child.

“Your child is sick,” he said. “Ninety-eight doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go.”

By taking the minority viewpoint that carbon emissions are not a problem, “you’re taking a big risk with those kids,” he said.

On clean energy development, Mr. Inglis warned his Republican colleagues that China was preparing to “eat our lunch.”

“They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century,” he said. “We may press the pause button for a few years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button.”

Other Republicans on the subcommittee stood by their doubts on climate change. Among those questioning the validity of climate science was Ralph Hall of Texas, the leading candidate to take the House Science and Technology gavel in next year’s Congress.

Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican U.S. Representative from New York’s 24th District, also rebuked his Party’s denial of climate change. Via Think Progress:

In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, former Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (NY) articulated his confusion as to why “so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong.” Allowing for debate over policy, Boehlert said he finds the GOP’s “dogged determination” to deny the actual science “incomprehensible”:

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.[...]

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.[...]

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution.


CLIMATE POLITICS: Energy Committee chairman candidate claims God promised no more catastrophic climate change

Posted on by
Reply

It’s bad enough to blend politics and climate change, but U.S. Representative John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois who’s seeking a chairmanship on the Energy and Commerce Committee, takes climate change denialism to another level. In the video below, Mr. Shimkus highlights everything that’s wrong with the GOP, and he illustrates how people use religion to impose their own biased and uninformed beliefs onto the rest of society. To declare that humans can’t destroy the Earth, because only God can, is foolish, ignorant, selfish, and unreasonable. Via Informed Comment.

CLIMATE POLITICS: Under Republican leadership, Texas has decided to ignore upcoming federal greenhouse gas emission rules

Posted on by
2

Image via melancholic optimist on Flickr

In Texas, the Republican Party is taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its obligation to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (footnotes omitted):

On the merits, the first question is whether § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does. In relevant part, § 202(a)(1) provides that EPA “shall by regulation prescribe … standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the provision.

The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” § 7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.” Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical … substance [s] which [are] emitted into … the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

SCOTUS also determined that the EPA can’t ignore science or its statutory obligations:

Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” § 7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

Despite SCOTUS’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, Texas, under Republican leadership, is “refus[ing] to meet new federal greenhouse gas emission rules that go into effect in January.” More via the Los Angeles Times:

Texas is staking out a role as the anti-California.

With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, powerful Texans such as Rep. Joe L. Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have vowed to check the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to use its existing authority to curtail greenhouse gases.

An even more ambitious challenge is coming directly from the Texas state government and leading Texas politicians. State Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, with the support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry, has filed seven lawsuits against the EPA in the last nine months.

In some ways, Texas’ attack was bound to be bigger and bolder than it might have been from other states. After all, Texans proudly trace their lineage back to the defiant stand of Texas patriots at the Alamo and the days when Texas was an independent republic under the Lone Star flag.

POLITICS: The myth of Republican fiscal conservatism

Posted on by
Reply

The Republicans regularly claim that the deficits and the national debt are the handiwork of the Democrats and Democratic policies. However, the Republicans have been and still are the architects behind our fiscal situation. They’re also a major barrier to resolving the country’s current fiscal situation. It’s amazing that Republicans can keep up this fiction. Via Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire:

Federal Budget Reality Check

New York Times: “The parties share blame for the current fiscal situation, but federal budget statistics show that Republican policies over the last decade, and the cost of the two wars, added far more to the deficit than initiatives approved by the Democratic Congress since 2006, giving voters reason to be skeptical of campaign promises.”

“Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law.”

What about the bank bailout? It earned “an 8.2 percent return over two years.” Via Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire:

Bank Bailout Earned 8.2% Profit

The federal government’s bailout of financial firms “provided taxpayers with higher returns than they could have made buying 30-year Treasury bonds — enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades,” Bloomberg reports.

“The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money-market funds and certificates of deposit. Investing in the stock market or gold would have paid off better.”

Also, Republicans who were opposed to the $787 billion stimulus bill requested funds from it. Via CBS News:

A rallying cry for many Republican candidates this fall is their fierce opposition to the $787 billion stimulus bill.

Texas Rep. Pete Sessions has been ripping the spending package, using such campaign lines as “no to budget-busting stimulus bills.”

Then there is this boast served up by Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann in an advertisement: “I fought against the Bush Wall Street bailout, the failed Pelosi trillion dollar stimulus.”

But it turns out no sooner was the ink dry on the stimulus bill than these lawmakers – and dozens of others from both parties – were reaching out behind the scenes for money to fund millions of dollars in local projects.

“When it came time to get a piece of the pie afterwards, people were writing letters by the dozens,” said John Solomon of the Center for Public Integrity.

That group says it collected nearly 2,000 letters from “scores” of Republicans and conservative Democrats requesting funds from a bill they originally opposed and many still criticize.

But that didn’t stop Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown from asking for $45.4 million in funds or stop Sessions from requesting $81 million in stimulus money for a Texas rail project, a grant he did not win.

CBS News video:

Stimulus Hypocrisy – The Center for Public Integrity says that many Republican and Democratic politicians who were outspoken in their opposition against last year’s stimulus package actually requested funds from that very same project. Armen Keteyian reports.

On the Net:

  1. The Tea Party Timeline …
  2. Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
  3. POLITICS: Tea Party hypocrisy and the myth of Republican fiscal conservatism