Though much has been made about Democrats’ positioning on Obamacare as 2014 approaches, it may be Republicans that face more hurdles in the early parts of the campaign.
In seven of eight Senate races the incumbent senator facing a serious or semi-serious primary challenger is a Republican. That’s in contrast to incumbent Democrats. In the eight races just one includes an incumbent Democrat with a primary challenger.
Both Parties want to get their way all the time. How you operate when you’re in the minority will most likely be the way you are treated when you have Executive power. The GOP is/has been using their power to obstruct to such an extreme degree that the DEMs have used the Nuclear Option to restrict the use of the Filibuster for Executive appointments…except for SCOTUS nominees.
“The reality is we face is that the blue slip rule can be more problematic than the filibuster, in part because it is a silent, unaccountable veto,” an administration official familiar with Obama’s thinking on judicial nominations told TPM.
The blue slip is not a formal Senate rule and can be ignored. Over time, some committee chairs have adhered to it more closely than others. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has stood by the blue slip tradition and said after the filibuster change that he will continue to do so.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed guidelines on Tuesday that could force dark-money political groups like Crossroads GPS and the American Future Fund to spend less of their money on campaign advertising and other overt electioneering. If implemented, this guidance would clarify what actions by tax-exempt social welfare organizations are limited “candidate-related political activity” and what actions can count toward their principal purpose.
George Zimmerman was a threat before Trayvon Martin. Now he is a bigger threat due to the changes that have taken place after he killed Trayvon. More guns, more disturbed thinking and actions towards his wife or ex-wife (I don’t really know), past girlfriend and current girlfriend.
He thinks he’s a star and now it seems that he has to feed at the trough of public media exposure. It makes me ill.
When police took George Zimmerman into custody for domestic violence charges earlier this month, the man who killed Trayvon Martin was armed with five firearms and 100 rounds of ammunition, according to a warrant released by police on Tuesday.
Zimmerman’s girlfriend alleges that he assaulted her, brandishing a shotgun in her face and telling her she would “regret” calling 911 for help. According to the warrant, a 12-gauge high capacity shotgun wasn’t the only weapon he was carrying. He also had an AR-15 assault rifle and three handguns — a Glock 19, an Interarms .380-caliber, and a Taurus 9mm.
1 VoteI have always known that conservatives were spreading flat-out lies about Food Stamps but I have never had the time to do the research and write an article about these falsehoods. Today I found this article by Dave Johnson and checked his facts but I knew he was correct. Interesting and truthful read! mab Conservatives have widely circulated stories about people using food stamps to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The Blaze trumpets stories like, “THIS 65-YEAR-OLD CLERK WAS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO A FOOD STAMP CUSTOMER” and outlets like Fox echo it. These kinds of stories are everywhere in the right-wing echo chamber.Here are the facts: According to USDA, households may use food stamps to buy foods, such as breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and dairy products. Also they can buy seeds and plants which produce food to eat. (In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.)Households may not use food stamps to buy beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco; pet foods; soaps, paper products; household supplies; vitamins and medicines; food that will be eaten in the store; hot foods.
In a speech last week titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association that the court has no place acting as a “judge moralist” in issues better left to the people. Since judges aren’t qualified—or constitutionally authorized—to set moral standards, he argued, the people should decide what’s morally acceptable.
But does Scalia, whose quarter-century on the bench has marked him as the court’s moral scold for his finger-wagging views on social issues, have a coherent understanding of what it means to say something is or isn’t moral, and of morality’s proper role in the law?
Scalia would have you believe it’s liberal, pro-gay sympathizers who are imposing their own brand of moral laxity on the nation, and unconstitutionally using the courts to do it. His angry dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case ending sodomy bans—decided 10 years ago this week—blasted the court for embracing “a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda [which is] directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”