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.
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.”
Just after 11 last Sunday morning at Old First Reformed Church in Brooklyn, the Rev. Dr. Daniel Meeter is starting the Sunday service as he always does. He runs through the opening salutation and the collect for the day, and then he welcomes everyone to church as he always does, introducing Old First “as a community of Jesus in Park Slope where we welcome people of every race, ethnicity and orientation to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.”
The congregation—some eighty strong on this sunny but cold February morning—is the usual mix of Park Slope churchgoing types: a smattering of journalists, a few artists, a handful of old ladies, some rambunctious children. Continue reading →
Judging by the number of phrases that relate to the human body – and there are more of them than of virtually any other topic – we may be just a touch just self-centered. Here’s a select list, with their meanings and origins:
One of the Republican Party’s biggest donors — a Florida real estate developer who apparently is facing a federal investigation over the use of special tax districts for his retirement complex — hired a lobbyist in the last quarter of 2012 for the purpose of “contacting the federal government” about the districts.
The Villages, owned by developer H. Gary Morse and his family, had not previously hired a lobbyist at the federal level, according to OpenSecrets.org records. But the new lobbying report shows that it paid $30,000 during the quarter to Cardenas Partners, led by Al Cardenas, the Cuban-born two-time chairman of the Florida Republican Party. Cardenas has done state-level work in the past for the Villages.
A blogger who claimed to have found a way to defeat the “nude” body scanners at airports is the first person to challenge the NYPD’s testing of “terahertz” scanners to take guns off the streets.
Jonathan Corbett of Miami filed suit in Manhattan federal court a day after NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly predicted legal challenges to the anti-crime experiment because “New York is probably most litigious environment in the world.”
Corbett’s self-filed suit against the city says he fears being “violated” by the scanners and seeks a court order barring cops from using them without “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause.”
A group of Arizona Republicans are eager to pass House Bill 2467 which would require all public high school graduates to recite the following oath in order to graduate:
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
But what if you don’t believe in God? Too bad. Either ask something you don’t believe in to help you so you can graduate, or you lie. Which is creepy and wrong.
The Supreme Court justice was visiting Princeton University on Monday to discuss his latest book when a college freshman, who identifies as gay, asked Scalia about the comparison he has drawn between laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?” Scalia said in response to the question, according to The Daily Princetonian. “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.”
Scalia told Princeton student Duncan Hosie that he is not equating sodomy with bestiality or murder, but drawing parallels between the bans.