A glimpse inside the U.S.Supreme Court

The Federalist Society presents:

Analyzing the Decisions of the
2006-07 Supreme Court       

 In this live video webcast, a panel of experts will analyze the decisions of the 2006-07 Supreme Court.  The speakers will examine the most significant cases and what they mean for lower courts and for American law.         

        The program will examine such cases as Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (to be decided), Morse v. Frederick, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., Gonzales v. Carhart,Wilkie v. Robbins and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

Panelists:

Prof. Nelson R. Lund, George Mason University School of Law Prof.

Neomi Rao, George Mason University School of Law

Mr. David B. Rivkin, Baker Hostetler

Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Winston & Strawn LLP Prof.

Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law

TODAY  Thursday, June 28, 2007
9:00am - 11:00 am Phoenix time
A link to the webcast can be found  HERE. 

Are enough of them listening?

You’ve made your calls, now it’s time to pray.

Fox News reports the fragile immigration reform bill crafted in the Senate faces sudden death Thursday when a second vote is scheduled to shut down a filibuster. If supporters don’t get the 60 votes they need to end debate, then the bill is dead since the Senate schedule does not allow any more time to revive the legislation.

In an unusual admission, two leadership aides — one Democrat, one Republican — told FOX News that they have no idea how the vote will go. Vote-counting is something that is normally down to a science in the Senate chamber. The vote to end debate, called “cloture,” is expected at 7:30 a.m. Thursday, Phoenix time.

McCain: Dropping like a rock and still plays hooky

The Tucson Citizen reports Sen. John McCain has missed nearly 50% of senate votes; 117 as of Tuesday.

Although the Senate has addressed some weighty issues while he has been absent, McCain says he has never missed a vote where his participation would have affected the outcome. Here is a snapshot of votes McCain has missed and where he was that day. Among the significant votes McCain has missed this year:

 —Feb. 17 — The Senate refused on a Saturday to advance a nonbinding resolution disapproving of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq. McCain was campaigning in Iowa, saying that the symbolic measures are “insulting to the public and the soldiers.”

—March 13 — McCain missed a vote to approve a new homeland security measure so he could attend a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for his campaign in Beverly Hills, Calif. —March 15 — McCain missed a failed vote to require a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin within 120 days. He was on the “Straight Talk Express” in Iowa.

—March 20 — McCain missed three votes mid-day, including one to end the attorney general’s authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. McCain was in Pennsylvania, Alabama and Florida. In Florida, he attended a $2,300-per-person fundraiser in Coral Gables that raised $200,000.

—April 18 — McCain missed a vote to let the government negotiate Medicare drug prices. He was campaigning in South Carolina, joking about bombing Iran.

—April 26 — While the Senate voted to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, McCain was campaigning in South Carolina. He decried the timetable even though he wasn’t present to vote on it.

—May 7 — The Senate voted to require U.S. officials to certify the safety and effectiveness of prescription medicines imported from foreign countries. McCain was in Iowa.

—May 16 — The Senate rejected an effort to cut off money for the Iraq war. McCain was at his daughter’s graduation from Columbia University.

—May 22 — McCain missed the vote on a new temporary worker program. He was campaigning in Texas.

A must see video on immigration:

 This is guaranteed to keep you Seeing Red!

The Sun, a London Newspaper, gets an accurate quote from President Bush

In an exclusive interview with The Sun, it was revealed that George Bush thinks he’s inarticulate. What a revelation!

Along with admitting that he urged outgoing British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to stay on until he (Bush) finished his own term, Bush acknowledged he can’t communicate. This is a fact of which we are all painfully aware. He should have added that he doesn’t listen, either.

As quoted in the Sun: Mr Bush said Mr Blair is blessed with a world-class ability to communicate. He went on: “Tony’s great skill, and I wish I had it, is that he’s very articulate.“I wish I was a better speaker. This guy can really . . . he can talk.” “He’s given some really good speeches here on US soil. He’s a very good writer, obviously, and a very good speaker too.”“We have different speaking styles, of course,” he added.

Dems: Breathing New Life Into the Fairness Doctrine

Ready to bid Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Liddy & Hill goodbye?

Democrats appear poised to sink their fangs into talk radio. Long the bane of liberals, their desire to squelch opposition has become more formidable now that they are in the majority. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) couldn’t have made his opinion more clear when he said, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”Could Sen. Durbin be unaware that the mainstream electronic outlets and print media are dominated by liberal views and innuendo?Sen. Diane Feinstein (D - CA), speaking this week on Fox News Sunday, said she is “looking at” the possibility of reviving the doctrine for U.S. broadcasters. Why exempt print media and the alphabet networks? They’re not in need of such imposed “fairness” since they all lean left.The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to present differing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to that, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith,” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.Rep. Mike Pence (R - IN), whose career as a syndicated talk radio host began in 1992 before winning election to the House, is the main sponsor of legislation to codify the FCC’s abandonment of the doctrine. He is working with Rep. Greg Walden (R - Ore.), a radio station owner, on the bill.

“Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation,” Pence wrote. “Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine.”

Supporters of controls seem unable to comprehend the myriad ways in which broadcasting has changed over the decades. With the proliferation of informational resources and technological advances, public broadcast outlets have increased significantly. Such an environment makes it difficult to fathom why the federal government would deem it necessary to monitor the airwaves to ensure differing views be heard. The result of a reinstituted Fairness Doctrine would be anything but fair. Actually, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations discourage broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats could refer to as “unbalanced” views.

The true agenda of liberals, experiencing difficulties competing in the marketplace of ideas, is to shut down conservative talk radio. Unable to draw a consistent audience, left leaning Air America filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, mega-millions in debt. When liberals speak of “fairness” as guests at your dinner table, it’s time to count the silverware.

Enforce the Law

Mark Krikorian of National Review is also Seeing Red:

The White House has issued a fact sheet entitled “Only Enforcing Our Ineffective Current Law Leaves the Nation Vulnerable,” online here. I’m guessing it was in response to my piece in the current issue of the magazine listing a few of the things the administration could have been doing over the past six years — under current law — if they were actually interested in enforcement.

Some of the fact sheet’s claims are so disingenuous as to be amusing. It says that if the amnesty bill passes, the employer fines for hiring illegals will go up. Well, that’s great, except that this administration has all but stopped fining employers, so who cares what the size of the never-issued fines are? It also says that under the Senate bill, the punishment for illegals caught re-entering the country would be more severe; again, that’s just peachy, except that U.S. Attorney offices seldom prosecute people even for the felony of re-entry after deportation — what difference would stiffer penalties make when no one is prosecuted?

I actually feel sorry for the folks at the White House press office for having to put out this sort of drivel.

Just in: Vote on Immigration (S 1639)

Turns out Seeing Red AZ is indeed appropriately named

On this, the senate’s second attempt to ram through an amnesty/immigration bill, success was assured. Of course, both Arizona senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, blatantly disregarding the voices of their constituents, voted for passage.

With 60 aye votes needed, the final count was :

Ayes     64

Nays     35

The previous effort failed on a procedural vote. Only a limited number of amendments agreed to in backroom negotiations, will be now allowed.  Sen. Harry Reid’s  so-called Clay Pigeon will then be brought to the floor, with passage assured.

Clearly, Sen. Kyl is no longer representing Arizona’s working citizens and seniors who have lobbied him tirelessly on this issue.  We have long known that it was a needless waste of effort to attempt to change McCain’s mind when it came to this  disastrous legislation.

Reid: Senate Won’t Know Amendments Before Tomorrow’s Vote

National Review Online’s Jim Geraghty gives us the latest news from Harry Reid:

Harry Reid has sent the following letter to Republican Senators who earlier today expressed their objection to the return of the immigration bill to the Senate floor:

Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint:

Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my efforts to bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the Senate floor. 

As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated efforts to call up further amendments to the bill.  Following the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter, came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a large number of additional amendments could become pending to the bill.  

The so-called “clay pigeon” procedure is unusual, and I would not have considered employing it in this instance without the full support of Senator McConnell.  It seems to me appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow the full Senate to debate an important national issue like immigration.  The White House made clear that it also favors such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of President Bush’s top priorities.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend to “shut off the debate” and that the procedure in question will “silence amendments instead of facilitate their debate.”  On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill.  In contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as few as five amendments during the earlier debate.  The American people can see clearly who wants to debate immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate. 

Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate amendments which I “hand select” is plainly untrue.  The dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not by me. 

In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter but consider them misplaced.  Senator McConnell and I have worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by President Bush.

                                                                       Sincerely,

                                                                        Harry Reid

This is a very big deal, because it means that several senators on the fence, who had felt that their amendments were the make-or-break factor in the bill, won’t know whether their amendments are in the ones approved by McConnell.

It’s either vote no, and never know whether your amendment to fix the bill would have made it through, or vote yes, and hope that yours is one of the dozen or so

Just in from Don Goldwater: S. 1639 The bill formerly known as S. 1348

The Senate’s Second Secret Immigration Bill
by The Heritage Foundation

For weeks, Americans were told that there are only two options for dealing with the nation’s illegal immigration problem: stay with the status quo or accept a “grand bargain”–a tenuous behind-closed-doors deal, first made public by The Heritage Foundation, which contained nearly 800 pages of flawed policies. In the face of overwhelming criticism from all sides, this legislation was withdrawn from the Senate.

Now, an altogether new bill (S. 1639) has been introduced by Senators Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter. For more information on the new bill click HERE.