Tuesday 4 December 2012
Monday 26 November 2012
The Filibuster continues...
Filibuster fight seizes Senate http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84237.html
Tuesday 30 October 2012
Friday 26 October 2012
Obama 'not surprised' by Roberts upholding Obamacare
Obama 'not surprised' by Roberts upholding Obamacare http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/10/obama-not-surprised-by-roberts-upholding-obamacare-147257.html
Friday 14 September 2012
Wednesday 12 September 2012
Congress tries to shed its bad rep
A do-something Congress for vulnerable lawmakers http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81146.html
Thursday 6 September 2012
The fall and rise of Bill Clinton's popularity
Bill Clinton and the fickle favours of presidential popularity | Harry J Enten http://gu.com/p/3a9am
Friday 17 August 2012
What will be Ryan's impact on women?
Paul Ryan: the small government champion who could force transvaginal ultrasounds on pregnant women | Amy Goodman http://gu.com/p/39zx8
Wednesday 15 August 2012
Romney and Ryan
If Romney beats Obama, Ryan will set the tone and call the shots | Martin Kettle http://gu.com/p/39n6f
Thursday 2 August 2012
Foreign Policy: Obama's executive order over Syria
Obama signs order supporting Syria's rebels, reports say http://gu.com/p/39ekj
Wednesday 11 July 2012
House of Representatives votes to repeal Obamacare but Senate likely to block the move
Republicans vote again to repeal Obama's healthcare law http://gu.com/p/39x9j
Monday 9 July 2012
Sunday 8 July 2012
Saturday 7 July 2012
Thursday 5 July 2012
Wednesday 4 July 2012
Classic 'bully pulpit' but it didn't work! Clinton Uses Veto Threat on Health Care Bill - YouTube
Clinton Uses Veto Threat on Health Care Bill - YouTube:
'via Blog this'
P.S. Remember when Pres. T Roosevelt first coined the term 'bully pulpit' he meant 'good pulpit' ('bully' as in 'bully for you'). Thus, the Presidency is a good platform on which to push a certain agenda, as it has the ear of the nation (and perhaps the world). However, sometimes the President does use this attention to engage in a little bullying with Congress - the threat of veto.
'via Blog this'
P.S. Remember when Pres. T Roosevelt first coined the term 'bully pulpit' he meant 'good pulpit' ('bully' as in 'bully for you'). Thus, the Presidency is a good platform on which to push a certain agenda, as it has the ear of the nation (and perhaps the world). However, sometimes the President does use this attention to engage in a little bullying with Congress - the threat of veto.
Tuesday 3 July 2012
John Roberts, Conservative Outcast, and the Supreme Court’s Unprecedented Leak
This very brief article looks at how GW Bush's conservative appointment to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, voted with the liberal justices to uphold Obamacare last week. The article follows an anonymous leak from the Supreme Court on what was said during discussions on the case.
Original article here
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/john-roberts-conservative-outcast-and-the-supreme-courts-unprecedented-leak/#ixzz1zYmUKmQm
Original article here
So much for weeks of chatter about how the Supreme Court is the last hermetic institution in Washington. CBS News has its hands on a once-in-a-lifetime scoop: someone with intimate knowledge of the court’s health care deliberations has provided an account of the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts to reverse course in May and the intense but ultimately ineffective campaign by conservative Justices to change his mind. Supreme Court leaks — especially one originating so close to the bench and coming just a few days after a ruling of such gravity — are virtually unheard of, even if all the circumstances the story describes are not.
Though conservatives seem to be taking Roberts’ flip as evidence of the Chief Justice’s squishiness — and are generally working themselves into a lather over the Bush appointee’s betrayal — switching positions late in the game is not a new phenomenon on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy famously swapped sides in 1992′s Planned Parenthood v. Casey to uphold abortion rights, and toggles between positions more readily than most. Massimo Calabresi and David Von Drehle relayed a relevant anecdote in their recent profile of the Justice:In one famous incident, Scalia went for a walk with Kennedy before the Casey abortion case was decided and came away from their heart-to-heart discussion confident that they would vote together. The next day, Kennedy went the other way.This time, according to CBS News, it was Kennedy who did the lobbying. The story describes him as “relentless” until the very end, and “the most forceful and engaged of all the conservatives in trying to persuade Roberts.” That quote is telling.
I claim no inside knowledge whatsoever of the court or this story, but all leaks happen for the same reason. In a recent piece about why national-security officials give reporters classified information,Steven Aftergood wrote, “They do so not to subvert policy but to explain it, to defend it and to execute it.” In this case, it looks as if conservative members of the court felt the need to explain publicly why the decision went against them, defend their efforts to prevent the outcome and vent a little spleen.
It’s not necessarily an angry clerk gone rogue either. Former Kennedy clerk Orrin Kerr writes:If clerks did this, it was just crazy: A clerk who leaked this and is identified has likely made a career-ending move. It’s true that a group of OT2000 clerks leaked the details of the deliberations in Bush v. Gore, and as far as I know they did not face consequences. But that was in the fall of 2004, almost four years after the decision, and my sense is that at least some of the leaking clerks were already comfy in academic jobs and no longer practicing.CBS’s story claims knowledge of the thoughts of conservative Justices and seems to transmit their version of why Roberts flipped:Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.We tried to talk him out of it, but President Obama and the liberal New York Times were just too powerfulis not a narrative I imagine Roberts would endorse. Politics and public perception undoubtedly weighed on the Chief Justice (as it surely did on the rest of the court), but so did the precedent he was setting. Conservatives considered the structure of his opinion — which applied a heretofore-obscure argument that the individual mandate is a tax — ridiculous. “To say the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it,” the minority wrote. Roberts’ reply was that “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” His vote, in theory, was for restraint of both congressional and judicial power.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court — and to Roberts’ reputation — if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
That’s a lonely position, though. Conservatives are furious. Roberts’ fellow conservative jurists didn’t mention him by name in their dissent because “they no longer wished to engage in debate with him.” One Justice, according to CBS, said the right wing of the court effectively told Roberts, “You’re on your own.” They washed their hands of the ruling. Clearly, that’s something they want the world to know.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/john-roberts-conservative-outcast-and-the-supreme-courts-unprecedented-leak/#ixzz1zYmUKmQm
What is CISPA and why does Obama want to open a can of veto on it?
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2170999/passes-controversial-cispa-despite-obama-veto-threat
P.S. Remember when Pres. T Roosevelt first coined the term 'bully pulpit' he meant 'good pulpit' ('bully' as in 'bully for you'). Thus, the Presidency is a good platform on which to push a certain agenda, as it has the ear of the nation (and perhaps the world). However, sometimes the President does use this attention to engage in a little bullying with Congress - the threat of veto.
P.S. Remember when Pres. T Roosevelt first coined the term 'bully pulpit' he meant 'good pulpit' ('bully' as in 'bully for you'). Thus, the Presidency is a good platform on which to push a certain agenda, as it has the ear of the nation (and perhaps the world). However, sometimes the President does use this attention to engage in a little bullying with Congress - the threat of veto.
This very brief article looks at how GW Bush's conservative appointment to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, voted with the liberal justices to uphold Obamacare last week. The article follows an anonymous leak from the Supreme Court on what was said during discussions on the case. Original article here
So much for weeks of chatter about how the Supreme Court is the last hermetic institution in Washington. CBS News has its hands on a once-in-a-lifetime scoop: someone with intimate knowledge of the court’s health care deliberations has provided an account of the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts to reverse course in May and the intense but ultimately ineffective campaign by conservative Justices to change his mind. Supreme Court leaks — especially one originating so close to the bench and coming just a few days after a ruling of such gravity — are virtually unheard of, even if all the circumstances the story describes are not. Though conservatives seem to be taking Roberts’ flip as evidence of the Chief Justice’s squishiness — and are generally working themselves into a lather over the Bush appointee’s betrayal — switching positions late in the game is not a new phenomenon on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy famously swapped sides in 1992′s Planned Parenthood v. Casey to uphold abortion rights, and toggles between positions more readily than most. Massimo Calabresi and David Von Drehle relayed a relevant anecdote in their recent profile of the Justice: In one famous incident, Scalia went for a walk with Kennedy before the Casey abortion case was decided and came away from their heart-to-heart discussion confident that they would vote together. The next day, Kennedy went the other way. This time, according to CBS News, it was Kennedy who did the lobbying. The story describes him as “relentless” until the very end, and “the most forceful and engaged of all the conservatives in trying to persuade Roberts.” That quote is telling. I claim no inside knowledge whatsoever of the court or this story, but all leaks happen for the same reason. In a recent piece about why national-security officials give reporters classified information, Steven Aftergood wrote, “They do so not to subvert policy but to explain it, to defend it and to execute it.” In this case, it looks as if conservative members of the court felt the need to explain publicly why the decision went against them, defend their efforts to prevent the outcome and vent a little spleen. It’s not necessarily an angry clerk gone rogue either. Former Kennedy clerk Orrin Kerr writes: If clerks did this, it was just crazy: A clerk who leaked this and is identified has likely made a career-ending move. It’s true that a group of OT2000 clerks leaked the details of the deliberations in Bush v. Gore, and as far as I know they did not face consequences. But that was in the fall of 2004, almost four years after the decision, and my sense is that at least some of the leaking clerks were already comfy in academic jobs and no longer practicing. CBS’s story claims knowledge of the thoughts of conservative Justices and seems to transmit their version of why Roberts flipped: Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal. But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public. There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court — and to Roberts’ reputation — if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. We tried to talk him out of it, but President Obama and the liberal New York Times were just too powerful is not a narrative I imagine Roberts would endorse. Politics and public perception undoubtedly weighed on the Chief Justice (as it surely did on the rest of the court), but so did the precedent he was setting. Conservatives considered the structure of his opinion — which applied a heretofore-obscure argument that the individual mandate is a tax — ridiculous. “To say the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it,” the minority wrote. Roberts’ reply was that “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” His vote, in theory, was for restraint of both congressional and judicial power. That’s a lonely position, though. Conservatives are furious. Roberts’ fellow conservative jurists didn’t mention him by name in their dissent because “they no longer wished to engage in debate with him.” One Justice, according to CBS, said the right wing of the court effectively told Roberts, “You’re on your own.” They washed their hands of the ruling. Clearly, that’s something they want the world to know. Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/john-roberts-conservative-outcast-and-the-supreme-courts-unprecedented-leak/#ixzz1zYmUKmQm
So much for weeks of chatter about how the Supreme Court is the last hermetic institution in Washington. CBS News has its hands on a once-in-a-lifetime scoop: someone with intimate knowledge of the court’s health care deliberations has provided an account of the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts to reverse course in May and the intense but ultimately ineffective campaign by conservative Justices to change his mind. Supreme Court leaks — especially one originating so close to the bench and coming just a few days after a ruling of such gravity — are virtually unheard of, even if all the circumstances the story describes are not. Though conservatives seem to be taking Roberts’ flip as evidence of the Chief Justice’s squishiness — and are generally working themselves into a lather over the Bush appointee’s betrayal — switching positions late in the game is not a new phenomenon on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy famously swapped sides in 1992′s Planned Parenthood v. Casey to uphold abortion rights, and toggles between positions more readily than most. Massimo Calabresi and David Von Drehle relayed a relevant anecdote in their recent profile of the Justice: In one famous incident, Scalia went for a walk with Kennedy before the Casey abortion case was decided and came away from their heart-to-heart discussion confident that they would vote together. The next day, Kennedy went the other way. This time, according to CBS News, it was Kennedy who did the lobbying. The story describes him as “relentless” until the very end, and “the most forceful and engaged of all the conservatives in trying to persuade Roberts.” That quote is telling. I claim no inside knowledge whatsoever of the court or this story, but all leaks happen for the same reason. In a recent piece about why national-security officials give reporters classified information, Steven Aftergood wrote, “They do so not to subvert policy but to explain it, to defend it and to execute it.” In this case, it looks as if conservative members of the court felt the need to explain publicly why the decision went against them, defend their efforts to prevent the outcome and vent a little spleen. It’s not necessarily an angry clerk gone rogue either. Former Kennedy clerk Orrin Kerr writes: If clerks did this, it was just crazy: A clerk who leaked this and is identified has likely made a career-ending move. It’s true that a group of OT2000 clerks leaked the details of the deliberations in Bush v. Gore, and as far as I know they did not face consequences. But that was in the fall of 2004, almost four years after the decision, and my sense is that at least some of the leaking clerks were already comfy in academic jobs and no longer practicing. CBS’s story claims knowledge of the thoughts of conservative Justices and seems to transmit their version of why Roberts flipped: Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal. But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public. There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court — and to Roberts’ reputation — if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. We tried to talk him out of it, but President Obama and the liberal New York Times were just too powerful is not a narrative I imagine Roberts would endorse. Politics and public perception undoubtedly weighed on the Chief Justice (as it surely did on the rest of the court), but so did the precedent he was setting. Conservatives considered the structure of his opinion — which applied a heretofore-obscure argument that the individual mandate is a tax — ridiculous. “To say the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it,” the minority wrote. Roberts’ reply was that “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” His vote, in theory, was for restraint of both congressional and judicial power. That’s a lonely position, though. Conservatives are furious. Roberts’ fellow conservative jurists didn’t mention him by name in their dissent because “they no longer wished to engage in debate with him.” One Justice, according to CBS, said the right wing of the court effectively told Roberts, “You’re on your own.” They washed their hands of the ruling. Clearly, that’s something they want the world to know. Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/john-roberts-conservative-outcast-and-the-supreme-courts-unprecedented-leak/#ixzz1zYmUKmQm
Sunday 1 July 2012
Spring 2012: 'Broken Branch' & 'Even worse than it looks': To what extent is Congressional partisanship hindering good government?
This one is from May 2012
The below is from March 2012
The below is from March 2012
Friday 29 June 2012
Thursday 28 June 2012
How powerful is the Presidency? Will Obama's healthcare reforms be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supremem Court?
Wednesday 27 June 2012
Sunday 24 June 2012
Congressional Scrutiny VS Presidential Power: Executive Privilege and the Fast & Furious Scandal
Obama invoked 'executive privilege' in order to avoid handing over documents to congress relating to the 'fast and furious' scandal (see other posts on this for details). What are the roots of 'executive privilege'.
P.S. Yes...the chap is rather strange looking/sounding.
P.S. Yes...the chap is rather strange looking/sounding.
Friday 22 June 2012
Wednesday 20 June 2012
2 Fast, 2 Furious? Obama's Watergate? Scrutiny of the executive by Congress
My outgoing Y13s will remember a video I showed them of a congressional hearing on the Fast & Furious operation that went wrong. Well, the scandal continues to grow, though UK coverage has been limited. The following will catch you up.
Obama's Attorney-general Holder in contempt of court!!! over Fast and Furious, House decides.
An excellent article from the ever-interesting Dr Tim Swanley (Kent boy and expert in US history and politics). Excerpt below is quick summary. Full article here.
Here’s what Fast and Furious is all about – and for the uninitiated, be prepared for a shock. In 2009, the US government instructed Arizona gun sellers illegally to sell arms to suspected criminals. Agents working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were then ordered not to stop the sales but to allow the arms to “walk” across the border into the arms of Mexican drug-traffickers. According to the Oversight Committee’s report, “The purpose was to wait and watch, in hope that law enforcement could identify other members of a trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case…. [The ATF] initially began using the new gun-walking tactics in one of its investigations to further the Department’s strategy. The case was soon renamed ‘Operation Fast and Furious.”
Tracing the arms became difficult, until they starting appearing at bloody crime scenes. Many Mexicans have died from being shot by ATF sanctioned guns, but the scandal only became public after a US federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was killed by one of them in a fire fight. ATF whistle blowers started to come forward and the Department of Justice was implicated. It’s estimated that the US government effectively supplied 1,608 weapons to criminals, at a total value of over $1 million. Aside from putting American citizens in danger, the AFT also supplied what now amounts to a civil war within Mexico.
It’s important to note that the Bush administration oversaw something similar to Fast and Furious. Called Operation Wide Receiver, it used the common tactic of “controlled delivery,” whereby agents would allow an illegal transaction to take place, closely follow the movements of the arms, and then descend on the culprits. But Fast and Furious is different because it was “uncontrolled delivery,” whereby the criminals were essentially allowed to drop off the map. Perhaps more importantly, Wide Receiver was conducted with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was not.
Synopticity, foreign policy, scrutiny and drones
Drone strike: activists seek to lift lid on open secret of targeted killings http://gu.com/p/38e8j
Tuesday 19 June 2012
Housing Benefit - which department handles it?
The Department of Work & Pensions:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/
Wednesday 6 June 2012
Sunday 3 June 2012
Obama Presidential Power, Foreign Policy, EXOP (NSA)
Drone wars and state secrecy – how Barack Obama became a hardliner | World news | The Observer: ""Obama did not reverse what Bush did, he went beyond it. Obama is just able to wrap it up in a better looking package. He is more liberal, more eloquent. He does not look like a cowboy," said James Bamford, journalist and author of numerous books about the NSA including 2008's The Shadow Factory."
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Saturday 26 May 2012
Friday 25 May 2012
How effective is Congress? Broken branch- even worse than it looks?
This really is an excellent revision video on Congress. Full of useful examples and synopticity for this unit. It's easy to understand and up to date (May 2012). You may have heard the term 'broken branch' to describe Congress. It comes from the 2008 book by Ornstein and Mann. Their new book is entitled "It's even worse than it looks." The basic line is that parties in Congress are now so polarised that very little compromise is achievable. They largely blame the Republicans, but say that the Democrats are "no angels". The problem pre-dates the Tea-Party movement but has probably been exacerbated by it.
Thursday 17 May 2012
Wednesday 9 May 2012
Congressional deadlock? Role of the Tea Party
Tea Party lauds Richard Lugar defeat as Congress gets set for more deadlock http://gu.com/p/37en2
Synopticity: Who is to blame for the 'broken branch' (Congress)? The WP says its the Republicans...!
Article in the WASHINGTON POST.
First line straight out of the 1950s! "Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party."
First line straight out of the 1950s! "Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party."
Saturday 28 April 2012
Liberal media bias in the entertainment industry? Evidence of an urban liberal elite distracting the US from encroaching 'socialism'?
Liberal media bias in the entertainment industry? Evidence of an urban liberal elite distracting the US from encroaching 'socialism'?
This was the sketch Jack spoke about in class...
RIght wing interpretation of Obama
Obama Is No Ordinary Socialist: "Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show” are right about one thing. Obama is no ordinary socialist. Obama is a hybrid. He is a socialist/Marxist/fascist/and corporatist all rolled into one. And that, my friends, is the deadliest breed America has ever seen."
I'm still looking for sensible right-wing critiques of Obama. I know there is one out there. I will keep looking...
'via Blog this'
I'm still looking for sensible right-wing critiques of Obama. I know there is one out there. I will keep looking...
'via Blog this'
House defies Obama to pass student loan bill - Washington Times
The key to understanding this one is dispute over where the money will come from to pay for they cheaper interest rates the students pay on their loans. Most House Republicans voted in favour of keeping the subsidised loans for another year (which doesn't sound particularly Republican -ish), but the money for them will be taken from Obama's health Prevention Fund (which pays for healthy eating campaigns etc. etc.). We wait to see how the Senate responds with their bill and whether or not Obama will attempt a veto.
House defies Obama to pass student loan bill - Washington Times:
'via Blog this'
House defies Obama to pass student loan bill - Washington Times:
'via Blog this'
How powerful is Obama?
As always - it depends who you ask? One possible liberal interpretation might be that Obama has been hindered by dark forces that have sought to hinder Obama's administration from the start.
Democrats condemn GOP's plot to obstruct Obama as 'appalling and sad' in the Guardian
Democrats condemn GOP's plot to obstruct Obama as 'appalling and sad' in the Guardian
Friday 27 April 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)