• Federal Judiciary,  Politics

    Senate Negotiations Over: Bring on the Filibusters

    Negotiations between the Democrats and GOP to avert filibusters on President Bush’s judicial appointments have broken off. Read the story in the Washington Post (free registration required) here:

    Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced yesterday that he and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had broken off negotiations aimed at averting a showdown over President Bush’s judicial nominees, moving the Senate to the brink of a constitutional confrontation and a battle that holds peril for both political parties and the White House.

    Reid, emerging from an afternoon meeting with Frist, declared that the two leaders had reached an impasse after weeks of talks. “Negotiations are over,” he said. “It’ll have to be decided on the Senate floor.”

    The fact is there never were any serious negotiations.

    Bring on the nominees (Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown) and if the Democrats filibuster, then change the Senate rules.

    Frist did not speak with reporters but issued a statement. “Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up and down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster,” he said, “and I hope Senator Reid and others know our door is always open to reasonable proposals for fair up or down votes for judicial nominees.”

    There is still a chance that a confrontation can be avoided, if a bipartisan group of senators finds support for a compromise. The group, led by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), had deferred to Frist and Reid. But now it plans to intensify discussions in hopes of attracting half a dozen colleagues from each party to agree to a deal that would block any change in the Senate rules while allowing for filibusters only in extraordinary circumstances. The White House has been encouraging key Republican senators to support a change in the rules.

    Don’t hold your breath!

    Frist will put up the nominees tomorrow – I hope!

    The confrontation has been brewing for weeks and could begin tomorrow, when Frist puts forward two judicial nominees, Janice Rogers Brown of California and Priscilla Owen of Texas. Democrats have vowed to filibuster both to prevent their confirmation.

    At some point this week or next week, Frist is expected to seek a change in Senate rules that would bar the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. That change has been dubbed the “nuclear option,” because of its potential to disrupt the Senate and shatter what little comity remains between Republicans and Democrats .

    It usually takes 60 votes to shut off debate in the Senate, but the change contemplated by the Republicans would allow a simple majority to stop a filibuster on judicial nominations. Republicans say Democrats have abused the filibuster to block judges who enjoy majority support; Democrats argue that changing the rules represents a drastic curtailment of the rights of the minority in the Senate.

    Read the rest of the article here.

    H/T Huffington Post

    It is like playing Poker – Let’s See the Cards Gentlemen!

  • Morons,  Politics

    El Presidente Vincente Fox – El Moron

    Moron of the week has to go to Vincente Fox, the President of Mexico. Read about it here:

    President Vicente Fox reversed course Monday and apologized for saying that Mexicans in the United States do the work that blacks won’t.

    Despite growing criticism that included a stern U.S. response, Fox had repeatedly refused to back away from the comments he made Friday, saying his remark had been misinterpreted.

    But in telephone conversations with the
    Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev.
    Al Sharpton, the president said he “regretted” the statement.

    “The president regretted any hurt feelings his statements may have caused,” the Foreign Relations Department said in a press statement. “He expressed the great respect he and his administration has for the African-American community in the United States.”

    Jackson told Fox that he was sure the president had no racist intent, and suggested the two meet to discuss joint strategies between blacks and immigrant groups in the United States, Aguilar said.

    Fox agreed to set up a visit to Mexico by Jackson, Sharpton and a group of American black leaders.

    Despite Fox’s latest comment, many Mexicans — stung by a new U.S. crackdown on illegal immigrants — didn’t see the remark as offensive. Blackface comedy is still considered funny here and many people hand out nicknames based on skin color.

    “The president was just telling the truth,” said Celedonio Gonzalez, a 35-year-old carpenter who worked illegally in Dallas for six months in 2001. “Mexicans go to the United States because they have to. Blacks want to earn better wages, and the Mexican — because he is illegal — takes what they pay him.”

    Earlier Fox’s spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Fox’s comments were in defense of Mexican migrants as they come under attack by new U.S. immigration measures that include a wall along the Mexico-California border, and were not meant to offend anybody.

    State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City had raised the issue with the Mexican government. “That’s a very insensitive and inappropriate way to phrase this and we would hope that (the Mexicans) would clarify the remarks,” Boucher said.

    Lisa Catanzarite, a sociologist at Washington State University, disputed Fox’s assertion. She said there is intense competition for lucrative working class jobs like construction and that employers usually prefer to hire immigrants who don’t know their rights.

    “What Vicente Fox called a willingness to work … translates into extreme exploitability,” she said.

    Fox made the comment Friday during a public appearance in Puerto Vallarta, saying: “There’s no doubt that Mexican men and women — full of dignity, willpower and a capacity for work — are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States.”

    The issue reflected Fox’s growing frustration with U.S. immigration policy and deteriorating relations between the two nations.

    The Mexican government was expected to send a diplomatic letter to the United States on Monday protesting recent measures that include requiring states to verify that people who apply for a driver’s license are in the country legally, making it harder for migrants to gain amnesty, and overriding environmental laws to build a barrier along the California border with Mexico.

    The measures have been widely criticized in Mexico, where residents increasingly see the United States as adopting anti-migrant policies.

    Even Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, the archbishop of Mexico City, criticized the U.S. policy as ridiculous and defended Fox’s comments, saying: “The declaration had nothing to do with racism. It is a reality in the United States that anyone can prove.”

    Gilberto Rincon, president of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination, said the statement was “unfortunate.” But, speaking after releasing a report on racism in Mexico, he said it reflected outdated language more than a racist attitude.

    Fox has championed the rights of minorities and the disabled and has led a successful campaign to amend the constitution to make discrimination a crime.

    While Mexico has a few, isolated black communities, the population is dominated by descendants of the country’s Spanish colonizers and its native Indians. Comments that would generally be considered openly racist in the United States generate little attention here.

    One afternoon television program regularly features a comedian in blackface chasing actresses in skimpy outfits, while an advertisement for a small, chocolate pastry called the “negrito” — the little black man — shows a white boy sprouting an afro as he eats the sweet. Many people hand out nicknames based on skin color.

    Victor Hugo Flores, a 30-year-old bond salesman, cringed when asked what he thought of Fox’s comment, but said it isn’t too different from popular sayings celebrating what Mexicans see as a strong work ethic among blacks.

    “It was bad, but it really isn’t racist,” he said. “Maybe the president shouldn’t have said it. But here we say things like, ‘He works like a black person,’ and it’s normal.”

    And President Bush wants to negotiate a guest-worker program with this moron.

    No way, Jose! I mean Vincente!

  • Education,  Politics

    Tom McClintock:The Public Schools We Pay For

    Tom McClintock, Flap’s California State Senator, has an excellent piece on public school finances here:

    The multimillion-dollar campaign paid by starving teachers unions has finally placed our sadly neglected schools at the center of the budget debate.

    Across California, children are bringing home notes warning of dire consequences if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s scorched-earth budget is approved — a budget that slashes Proposition 98 public-school spending from $42.2 billion this year all the way down to $44.7 billion next year.

    That should be proof enough that our math programs are suffering.

    As a public-school parent, I have given this crisis a great deal of thought and have a modest suggestion to help weather these dark days.

    Maybe — as a temporary measure only — we should spend our school dollars on our schools. I realize that this is a radical departure from current practice, but desperate times require desperate measures.

    The governor proposed spending $10,084 per student from all sources. Devoting all of this money to the classroom would require turning tens of thousands of school bureaucrats, consultants, advisers and specialists onto the streets with no means of support or marketable job skills, something that no enlightened social democracy should allow.

    So I will begin by excluding from this discussion the entire budget of the State Department of Education, as well as the pension system, debt service, special education, child care, nutrition programs and adult education. I also propose setting aside $3 billion to pay an additional 30,000 school bureaucrats $100,000 per year with the proviso that they stay away from the classroom and pay their own hotel bills at conferences.

    This leaves a mere $6,937 per student, which, for the duration of the funding crisis, I propose devoting to the classroom….

    Read the rest here.

    What Tom doesn’t mention are the hundreds of millions being spent through bonded indebtedness to finance new construction of schools and administrative buildings in the massive Los Angeles Unified School District. Of course, most of these facilities will be used to educate the thousands of children born from illegal Mexican immigrants.

    Go figure……

  • Federal Judiciary,  Politics

    Who Wants the Financial Disclosure Records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit) of Houston?

    Read Robert Novak’s Column here to find the answer:

    On May 5, the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington received a request from a Mike Rice of Oakland, Calif., for the financial disclosure records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit) of Houston. A 20-year veteran on the bench, Jones is a perennial possibility for the U.S. Supreme Court. The demand for her personal records is part of a major intelligence raid preceding momentous confirmation fights in the Senate.

    Jones was not alone as a target, and Rice is not just a nosy citizen. He and Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, are partners in a California political consulting firm. Their May 5 petition requested financial information on 30 appellate judges in all but one of the country’s judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities. Varoga & Rice’s client: NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    Nobody can recall any previous mass request for such disclosures by federal judges. This intelligence raid is financed by the abortion lobby, but it looks to Republicans like a front for Reid and other senators who will consider President Bush’s appointments for Supreme Court nominations. But Reid told me that he had heard nothing about this, adding: “It’s ridiculous. What do we have Senate committees for?”

    Varoga, a former communications director for Reid, was national field director for Gen. Wesley Clark’s 2004 presidential campaign. While Rice bills himself as an “expert” on “state public-records laws,” his special field has been negative research probing the background of political foes. Varoga & Rice promises “public records research” that “can help you win elections, contracts and lawsuits.” But compiling financial profiles of judicial nominees plows new ground…

    Guess who?

    Yes….. the Pro-Abortion folks and the Senate Minority Leader.

    There is nothing wrong with opposition research.

    However, let this be a lesson to the Right…… these peeps are playing for keeps .

    Read more about Judge Jones here.

    Read what Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarter’s has to say about this here.

  • Media

    New York Times to Charge for On-line Content

    The New York Times has announced it will start charging $49.95 a year to access all of its newspaper content and archives beginning in September.

    Read the story here:

    The New York Times Co. on Monday said that, starting in September, access to Op-Ed and certain of its top news columnists on the paper’s NYTimes.com Web site will only be available through a fee of $49.95 a year. The service, known as TimesSelect, will also allow access to The Times’s online archives, early access to select articles on the site, and other features. Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive the service, the NYT said.

    I suppose the large MSM press has to recoup some fees from their declining subscriber base.

    But, it seems with so many sources of content in the on-line communities, including the blogosphere, that the NYT may be narrowing their base with a concomitant loss of revenue.

    This is probably not a wise business decision.

    H/T Huffington Post

    Update #1

    The details of the TimeSelect subscription service can be found here:

    The new, premium level of membership will be called TimesSelect, and participants will have exclusive access to Op-Ed and news columnists on NYTimes.com, easy and in-depth access to the paper’s online archives, and early access to certain articles on the site, among other features.

    Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive TimesSelect membership. For non-subscribers, it will cost $49.95. Most news, features, and multimedia on the Times site will remain free.

    “This is a great offering,” Martin Nisenholtz, senior vice president of digital operations, said in a statement. “TimesSelect combines the insights and ideas of distinctive voices from The Times and IHT with seamless access to our archives in an unprecedented way and at a terrific price point. At the same time, by keeping the majority of the site free, we will continue to scale the business through strong advertising growth.”

    TimesSelect features will include:

    • Exclusive access to columnists including David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas Kristof, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, John Tierney, Dave Anderson, Peter Applebome, Harvey Araton, Dan Barry, Clyde Haberman, Gretchen Morgenson, Joe Nocera, Floyd Norris, Joyce Purnick, William Rhoden, Selena Roberts, George Vescey, Roger Cohen, and John Vinocur.

    • TimesPast: Access to The Times’s extensive archives.

    • Exclusive multimedia offerings for TimesSelect subscribers including audio and photo essays, video, and podcasts.

    • TimesFile: A new tool that helps readers tag and organize articles from The Times.

    • Ahead of The Times: Early access to articles that will appear in sections such as Real Estate, The New York Times Magazine, Travel, and Sunday Arts.

    • TimesNewstracker: E-mail alerts to track important news topics. This service is currently sold separately but will be included as part of the TimesSelect benefits.

  • Politics

    Cheney for President?

    Paul Woodward from the Washington Post has mentioned a darkhorse Presidential candidacy for Vice President Dick Cheney in 2008.

    Read the story here:

    A trial balloon for a Cheney for President run in 2008 is being launched by a surprising source, Washington Post star reporter (and White House insider) Bob Woodward.

    Appearing on Chris Matthews’ NBC talk show on Sunday, Woodward labeled Vice President Cheney “a serious dark horse candidate.” He said that with “a number of people” going for the GOP nomination, “a guy named George Bush might come out and say ‘What about Dick?’”

    Woodward observed that “there’s a serious vacuum right now,” with Senators Frist, Brownback, and Allen leading the field, some say.

    There may be a precedent for this. Cheney, who was put in charge of finding a suitable VP candidate in 2000, ended up getting the nod himself.

    Nobody in government has more knowledge, experience or stature than the Vice President.

    Flap would endorse him without reservation should he wish the Presidency.