tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55573487522406222932024-03-12T20:25:37.218-05:00LegiSlateA Blog on Legislation and Statutory Interpretation for the Chicago-Kent CommunityRuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00256587374733604459noreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-59228976345891143382011-04-25T15:45:00.002-05:002011-04-25T15:55:40.240-05:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week TwelveWe have two winners for the final week of the contest. The first is Laurence Tooth for this <span style="font-style: italic;">Chicago Tribune</span> story about <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-usreport-us-arizonatre73i0d8-20110419,0,5858025.story">Gov. Jan Brewer's decision</a> to veto two bills recently passed by the Arizona legislature -- the "birther" bill featured in last week's contest and a bill that would have authorized open carry of firearms on college campuses in the state (similar to the Texas bill we discussed earlier in the semester).<br /><br />The second winner is Teresa Becvar for this story from <span style="font-style: italic;">The Onion</span> about the predicament that GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney finds himself in, as a result of the <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/mitt-romney-haunted-by-past-of-trying-to-help-unin,20097/">health care reforms </a>that he carried through when he was governor of Massachusetts. <br /><br />Congratulations to Laurence and Teresa. All of the semester's winners will now be entered in a drawing for four Chicago Cubs tickets. The outcome will be announced in class on Tuesday.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-60511923581021389872011-04-25T15:27:00.002-05:002011-04-25T15:45:23.088-05:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week ElevenWe have four winners this week. First, from Erica Bernstein and Jen Wood, are a pair of stories on the Arizona legislature's passage of <a href="http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/15/arizona-legislature-oks-presidential-birther-bill/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C56225">a "birther" bill</a> -- legislation that responds to (unfounded) skepticism that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States (a constitutional qualification to be President), and that requires that presidential candidates submit their birth certificates or other documentation in order to appear on the ballot. <br /><br />Second, Ahbi Singh submitted a story about the Ninth Circuit's decision to continue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of another controversial Arizona law, which seeks to crack down on <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,5038397.story">illegal immigration</a>. The decision signals that the appeals court is likely to rule that the law is invalid because it interferes with the federal government's own efforts to regulate immigration. <br /><br />Finally, Nadia Makki sent <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/in_elaborate_prank_oregon_lawmakers_rickroll_the_s.php">this story (with video) </a>about an elaborate prank by which Oregon lawmakers "rickrolled) the state legislature:<br /><br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fZi4JxbTwPo" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe><br /><br /><br />Who says that bipartisanship is dead?<br /><br />Congratulations to this week's winners!sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-22553783341416549202011-04-09T10:05:00.004-05:002011-04-09T10:24:39.065-05:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week TenGregory Forfa and Kyle Gillen are the winners this week for stories about the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in <span style="font-style: italic;">American Christian Student Tuition Organization v. Winn</span>. As the <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/us/05scotus.html?_r=1&src=mv">reports, </a>the Court upheld an<br /><blockquote><p> Arizona program [that] gives taxpayers there a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit of up to $500 for donations to private “student tuition organizations.” The organizations are permitted to limit the scholarships they offer to schools of a given religion, and many of them do. </p><p> The usual rule is that plaintiffs who merely object to how the government spends their taxes do not have standing because they have not suffered a sufficiently direct injury. But the Supreme Court made an exception for religious spending by the government in 1968 in <span style="font-style: italic;">Flast v. Cohen. </span></p><p> The issue that divided the majority and the dissenters on Monday was whether granting a tax credit was the functional equivalent of collecting and spending tax money. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the two things were very different. </p><p> “Awarding some citizens a tax credit allows other citizens to retain control over their own funds in accordance with their own consciences,” Justice Kennedy wrote for himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Samuel A. Alito Jr." class="meta-per"></a> </p><p> * * * * *<br /></p><p> In her dissent * * * , Justice Kagan said the majority’s position was an elevation of form over substance. “Taxpayers experience the same injury for standing purposes,” she wrote, “whether government subsidization of religion takes the form of a cash grant or a tax measure.”<br /></p></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>In this way, Kagan argued, <blockquote>the majority had laid waste to the doctrine of “taxpayer standing” * * * “The court’s opinion,” Justice Kagan wrote, “offers a road map — more truly, just a one-step instruction — to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge.” </blockquote>The Court's opinion may be found <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-987.pdf">here</a>. The decision is interesting both because of the particular kind of legislation that it upholds and because it is a striking instance of the Court using the doctrine of standing to avoid the need to decide a constitutional issue. In this way, the standing doctrine resembles the canon of constitutional avoidance that we discussed on Tuesday.<br /><br />Congratulations to Gregory and Kyle. The next contest deadline is Friday, April 15, at 9 a.m.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-4602648558314611342011-04-07T13:33:00.003-05:002011-04-07T13:51:30.398-05:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week NineOnce again we have three winners this week. Karlin Sangdahl submitted this <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/03/business-rights-groups-praise-new-disability-regs-implementing-2008-law.html">post</a> from the Blog of the Legal Times, which reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued new regulations to implement a 2008 statute that amended the Americans with Disabilities Act. The post explains that the new law<br /><blockquote><p>overturned several Supreme Court decisions narrowing the definition of “disability” in the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, individuals with cancer, diabetes or epilepsy were denied coverage under the law.</p><p>* * * * *<br /></p>The 2008 statute and the new regulations keep the definition of “disability” in the original ADA: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record (or past history) of such an impairment, or being regarded as having a disability. But the 2008 law made significant changes in how those terms are interpreted, according to the EEOC, and the regulations implement those changes. <p>For example, the regulations clarify that the term “major life activities” includes “major bodily functions,” such as functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, and brain, neurological and endocrine functions. They also make clear that, as under the original ADA, not every impairment will constitute a disability. The regulations include examples of impairments that should easily be concluded to be disabilities, such as HIV infection, diabetes, epilepsy and bipolar disorder. </p></blockquote>In an article submitted by Emily Acosta, the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.smudailymustang.com/?p=39137">SMU Daily Mustang</a> </span></span>reports that the Texas legislature is likely to pass a law permitting those 21 years of age or older to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. Private colleges would be able to opt out, but public institutions would not.<br /><br />Finally, Sam Mustain submitted this <a href="http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Supreme_Court_Issues_Quick_Opinion_in_Wal_Mart_Class_Action_Case_9045.html">story</a> from BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, which reports that the Supreme Court has issued a lightning-fast decision in the Walmart class action case. This story is appropriately datelined April 1. <br /><br />Congratulations to this week's winners. Submissions for the next contest are due by Friday, April 8, at 9 a.m.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-43937196782377542912011-04-07T13:14:00.004-05:002011-04-07T13:33:46.908-05:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week EightWe have three winning stories this week. The first two relate to President Obama's decision to authorize U.S. military force against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. This <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/congress-the-president-and-war-powers-under-the-constitution/">blog post</a> submitted by Aaron Zaluzec contains an excellent discussion of whether the President's action exceeded his war powers under the Constitution and whether it violated the War Powers Act of 1973. And this <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/libya-house-defund-bill_n_839688.html">Huffington Post article</a> submitted by Kathryn Wheeler talks about several ways in which Congress could respond to the action.<br /><br />The final winner this week is a <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0323-court-business-20110322,0,86149.story"><span style="font-style: italic;">Los Angeles Times</span> article</a> sent in by Christina Sepulveda which describes an important Supreme Court decision on statutory interpretation -- <span style="font-style: italic;">Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.</span> (March 22, 2001). The Court ruled that the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937, which protects workers who "file any complaint" about violations of the Act, applies to oral as well as to written complaints. Justice Breyer wrote an opinion for the six-Justice majority, while Justice Scalia wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan was recused. The opinions in the case can be found <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-834.pdf">here</a>.<br /><br />Congratulations to Aaron, Kathryn, and Christina.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-11375543793647362682011-03-11T11:58:00.005-06:002011-03-11T12:08:51.556-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week SevenOne of the biggest legislation stories this week was the decision of Gov. Pat Quinn to sign a bill abolishing the death penalty in Illinois. As the <em>New York Times </em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10illinois.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1299866060-9utVx2800Pp5LzQaF2tCEA">reported</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Illinois became the 16th state to ban capital punishment as Gov. Pat Quinn on Wednesday signed an abolition bill that the state legislature passed in January. </p><p>“Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it,” Mr. Quinn said in a statement. </p><p>* * * * *</p><p>Illinois joins a wave of states that have reconsidered capital punishment. New Jersey abolished the practice in 2007. The New Mexico Legislature ended the death penalty in 2009. New Mexico’s newly elected governor, Susana Martinez, a Republican, has asked the Legislature to reinstate it, though bills to do so have stalled. The Connecticut legislature voted to abolish the penalty last year, but the governor at the time, M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, vetoed the measure.</p></blockquote>Congratulations to Max Barack for submitting the winning story.<br /><br />With spring break coming up next week, the next deadline for contest submissions will be 9 am on the Friday after we get back: Friday, March 25. Any story that is published before that date is eligible.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-13469598982057006632011-03-06T15:03:00.004-06:002011-03-06T15:21:00.940-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week SixContinuing an earlier theme, this week's winner is Erin Mayer for a story on an anti-union bill in the Ohio legislature. As Salon.com <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/03/us_ohio_union_fight">reports</a>:<br /><blockquote><p>While much of the nation's attention remains focused on a stalled proposal in Wisconsin to restrict collective bargaining rights for public workers, an Ohio measure that in some ways is tougher and broader is speeding toward reality. </p><p>A Senate panel and then the full chamber approved the Ohio measure Wednesday amid jeers from onlookers. The bill would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees, while Wisconsin's would affect about 175,000 workers and exempt police and firefighters. </p><p>"For as far-reaching this thing is and how many lives it will affect, I can't believe how fast it moved," said Columbus Police Sgt. Shaun Laird, who wanted lawmakers to spend more time debating the changes. </p><p>Wisconsin's bill remains in limbo after Democrats hightailed it for the Illinois border on the day the Senate was to adopt the bill. Their absence left the chamber one member short of the quorum needed for a vote. </p><p>In contrast, the Ohio bill could go as early as next week to House committee hearings. Republicans hold a 59-40 majority in the House, where the measure is likely to receive strong support. </p></blockquote>Members of the class also submitted stories about two recent Supreme Court decisions: <span style="font-style: italic;">Michigan v. Bryant</span>, which allowed a murder victim's dying words to be <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01scotus.html?_r=1">admitted into evidence</a> at trial, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Snyder v. Phelps</span>, which held that the First Amendment protects the right of members of the Westboro Baptist Church <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?iref=allsearch">to picket near the funeral</a> of a soldier who was killed in Iraq. These are both extremely interesting cases, but they largely fall outside the scope of the contest because they do not involve statutes: <span style="font-style: italic;">Bryant </span>is a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause case, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Snyder </span>holds that the First Amendment preempts a common law tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.<br /><br />Entries for this week's contest are due on Friday, March 11, at 9 a.m.<br /><blockquote></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-69235712632221093122011-02-25T09:36:00.005-06:002011-02-25T10:44:58.355-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week FiveThis week I received a bumper crop of great pieces about legislation and statutory interpretation, including an ABC News story about a vote in the House of Representatives to <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-votes-strip-planned-parenthood-federal-funding/story?id=12951080">ban government funding for Planned Parenthood</a>; a <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times </span>story about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21witness.html?_r=1">an upcoming Supreme Court argument</a> over the meaning of the federal law that allows the government to detain individuals who are suspected of terrorism as "material witnesses"; a <span style="font-style: italic;">Times </span>editorial on whether Title VII applies to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20sun2.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1298318401-c/JBdInWgKAadLXk75rqQg">discrimination against the unemployed</a>; pieces from <a href="https://webmail.kentlaw.edu/exchange/Sheyman/Inbox/Legislation%20in%20the%20News/Article%20Submission.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_Commerce%20Clause.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/Commerce%20Clause.pdf?attach=1">Bloomberg BusinessWeek</a> and the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164431455822902.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond"><span style="font-style: italic;">Wall Street Journal</span></a> on the constitutional challenges to the Obama health care reform law; and an NPR story about a Supreme Court argument over the scope of Congress's power to <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/02/22/133946067/constitutional-questions-arise-in-chemicals-case">enact criminal laws to implement international treaties</a>.<br /><br />The winning submissions this week focus on the announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department will no longer defend the provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages that are recognized by the state in which the couple lives. Here is an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-administration-drops-legal-defense-marriage-act/story?id=12981242">ABC News report</a> on the announcement. The Administration's legal reasoning is laid out in a letter from the Attorney General to Speaker John Boehner, which can be found <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Congratulations to Alex Banzhaf, Tommy Moore, and Christina Carvalho, who submitted the winning entries. Submissions for next week's contest are due next Friday, March 4, at 9:00 a.m.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-49910870740334886312011-02-24T12:57:00.002-06:002011-02-24T13:09:53.504-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week FourThis week's winning entries focus on the Battle of Madison. In this story submitted by Kylin Fisher, NPR <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote">reports</a>:<br /><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p></p><blockquote><p>A group of Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin blocked passage of a sweeping anti-union bill [supported by nearly elected Gov. Scott Walker] Thursday by ignoring orders to attend a vote. Instead, they left the state to force Republicans to negotiate over the proposal.</p> <p>As ever-growing throngs of protesters filled the Capitol for a third day, the 14 Democrats disappeared from the grounds. They were not in their offices, and aides said they did not know where any of them had gone. A state police search is under way.</p> <p>* * * * * </p> <p>As Republicans tried to begin Senate business Thursday, observers in the gallery screamed "Freedom! Democracy! Unions!" Opponents of the bill cheered when a legislative leader announced that there were not enough senators present to proceed.</p> <p>* * * * </p> <p>The proposal marks a dramatic shift for Wisconsin, which passed a comprehensive collective bargaining law in 1959 and was the birthplace of the national union representing all nonfederal public employees.</p> <p>In addition to eliminating collective bargaining rights, the legislation also would make public workers pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage, increases Walker calls "modest" compared with those in the private sector.</p></blockquote><p></p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmYLLqkrSO4">This YouTube video</a>, which was submitted by Alex Kreisman and made by his brother Dave, vividly depicts the events at the state capitol that day.<br /><br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TmYLLqkrSO4" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><br />Congratulations to Kylin and Alex.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;"><span style=""></span></span></span>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-38808537996560235502011-02-11T16:20:00.003-06:002011-02-11T16:29:13.897-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week ThreeThanks for all the great stories that were submitted this week. The winner this time around is Trish Abbott for this <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-07/news/ct-met-burge-pension-lawsuit-20110207_1_pension-board-jon-burge-pension-payments"><em>Chicago Tribune </em>story </a>on the lawsuit that Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed to prevent former police commander John Burge from receiving his pension after he was convicted of committing perjury in a civil suit brought by victims of police torture:<br /><blockquote><p>Disgraced former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge's pension is once again in jeopardy, just days after the city's police pension board allowed him to continue to collect the $3,039 a month in spite of his criminal conviction.</p><p>The board's controversial decision led Attorney General Lisa Madigan to sue Monday to block Burge from pocketing further pension payments, saying "the public should never have to pay for the retirement of a corrupt public official."</p><p>The vote by the board of directors of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago came shortly after Burge was sentenced last month to 41/2 years in prison for lying about the torture and abuse of criminal suspects decades earlier. The decision sparked outrage by Burge's accusers.</p><p>* * * * *</p><p>At issue is a state law barring a police officer from receiving a pension if he was convicted of a felony "relating to or arising out of or in connection" with his job.<br />The board members who favored Burge contended his federal conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice was not related to his job because he had been fired from the force about a decade before he lied in a civil lawsuit about the torture of suspects. But Madigan's lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, maintained that Burge's denials in the 2003 lawsuit were directly related to his work as a police officer.</p></blockquote><br />Keep those cards and letters -- and emails -- coming! The deadline for next week's contest is Friday, February 18 at 9 a.m.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-67125663210824595302011-02-04T09:22:00.002-06:002011-02-04T09:31:56.106-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week TwoThanks for all the great stories that you submitted. The winning stories this week are about the decision by a federal district judge in Pensacola, Florida, that declared that the health care reform law passed last year is unconstitutional in its entirety. As the <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span> story <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01ruling.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimespolitics">reported</a>:<br /><blockquote>A second federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact a health care law that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance, evening the score at 2 to 2 in the lower courts as conflicting opinions begin their path to the Supreme Court. </blockquote> <blockquote><p> But unlike a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that the insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound” to other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law. </p> <p> “The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote. </p></blockquote>This story was submitted by Ryan Thoma, while Benjamin Coate and Kyle Gillen submitted interesting coverage from <a href="http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/health-care-reform-struck-down-florida"><span style="font-style: italic;">Slate </span></a>and the <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird">Wall Street Journal</a>. </span>Congratulations to all three. <br /><br />Entries for next week's contest are due by Friday, February 11, at 9 a.m.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-22119364934416091912011-01-29T08:28:00.004-06:002011-01-29T08:57:23.098-06:00Legislation in the News Contest -- Week OneThanks to everyone who submitted news stories to Professor Heyman's Legislation in the News contest for the first week. A lot of great stories were submitted, covering topics from new laws to help the families of autistic children, to a bill to legalize Sunday hunting in Virginia, to a post that argued that Apple Computers, Inc., should have a duty to disclose information about Steve Jobs's health as "material information" under the federal securities laws because of its impact on the value of Apple's stock. <br /><br />This week we have two co-winners. Marc Minarich submitted the best legislative process story of the week, an <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_senate_filibusters">Associated Press story</a> about how efforts to restrict the filibuster were largely rejected by the Senate this week. As the story reports:<br /><br /><blockquote>The filibuster lives on. The Senate voted overwhelmingly late Thursday to reject efforts to change its rules to restrict the blockades that have sewn gridlock and discord in recent years on Capitol Hill. <br /><br />Instead, senators settled on a more modest measure to prevent single lawmakers from anonymously holding up legislation and nominations, and the parties' Senate leaders announced a handshake deal to conduct business in a more efficient and civilized way. <br /><br />* * * * *<br /><br />Senators were emphatic in their votes against limiting the filibuster, a treasured right of minorities trying to prevent majorities from running roughshod over them. Many Democrats, while now in the majority, envisioned a day, perhaps as early as after the 2012 election, when they would return to the minority.</blockquote>The full story can be found <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_senate_filibusters">here. </a><br /><br />Bridget Maul submitted the best statutory interpretation story -- a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/19/scotus.personal.corporations/index.html">CNN.com story</a> about whether the Freedom of Information Act' s protections for "personal privacy" apply to corporations. This issue is now before the Supreme Court in a case called <span style="font-style: italic;">FCC v. ATT, </span>and the story reports on the oral argument in the case:<br /><br /><blockquote>The interpretation of complex legal verbiage is the Supreme Court's bailiwick, but sometimes the outcome of a case falls upon the meaning of single word. The magic word in an appeal argued Wednesday was "personal," and whether it extends beyond humans to "artificial" entities like corporations. </blockquote><blockquote>Telecom giant AT&T wants "personal privacy" protections applied to businesses, just as they have long been granted to individuals. </blockquote><blockquote>At issue is whether corporate "personhood" extends to the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts the public release of government documents that invade personal privacy. The company wants material gathered by a federal agency during a consumer investigation to be kept secret. </blockquote>The full story can be found <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/19/scotus.personal.corporations/index.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Thanks again to everyone who submitted stories this week, and congratulations to Marc and Bridget. Submissions for the coming week's contest are due by 9 a.m. on Friday, February 5.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-43769147619998012512011-01-28T14:20:00.002-06:002011-01-28T14:29:25.656-06:00Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Emanuel's ResidencyOn Thursday evening, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Rahm Emanuel satisfies the residency requirement to run for mayor of Chicago. In an opinion by Justice Thomas, five members of the Court insisted that the law of residency in Illinois had been settled for almost 150 years and sharply criticized the appellate court for devising a new standard of its own creation. In a separate opinion, Justices Freeman and Burke disagreed that the law was as clear or settled as the majority claimed, but they agreed that Emanuel had not lost his residency status simply because he had rented out his house while served as White House Chief of Staff in Washington, D.C.<br /><br />A Chicago Tribune story about the case can be found <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-chicago-mayor-race-0128-rahm-20110127,0,5327749.story">here</a>, and the Supreme Court opinions can be found <a href="http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf">here</a>.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-6517854380355640342010-04-27T06:56:00.002-05:002010-04-27T07:03:57.338-05:00G.O.P. Blocks Debate on Financial Oversight BillFrom the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27regulate.html?hpw"><span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span></a>:<blockquote>Senate Republicans, united in opposition to the Democrats’ legislation to tighten regulation of the financial system, voted on Monday to block the bill from reaching the floor for debate. As both sides dug in, the battle has huge ramifications for the economy and for their political prospects in this year’s midterm elections. <p> Republicans said they were intent on winning substantive changes to the bill and accused the Democrats of rushing the most far-reaching overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression. Both sides say they expect the overhaul eventually will be approved. </p> <p> Democrats charged that Republicans were leaving the country at risk of another financial calamity and siding with wealthy corporate interests. The chief executive of one such firm, Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street powerhouse accused of fraud by federal regulators, is to testify Tuesday before a Senate committee. </p> <p> Sensing political momentum at a time of deep public anger at Wall Street, Democratic leaders said they would keep the regulatory bill on the floor — and delay the rest of their busy legislative agenda — to ratchet up the pressure on the Republicans. </p></blockquote>For a good roundup of political analysis on the financial reform battle, see this <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/27/political-wisdom-the-power-of-41-votes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29">post</a> on the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire. As usual, the latest news bulletins can be found on the TalkingPointsMemo <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/financial-reform-wire/?ref=fpblg">Financial Reform Wire</a>.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-16826391997858003742010-04-26T17:59:00.001-05:002010-04-26T18:01:12.928-05:00Poll Shows Most Americans Support Stricter Financial RegulationFrom the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/04/most_back_stricter_financial_r.html?hpid=topnews"><span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span></a>:<blockquote><p>About two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.</p> <p>Majorities also back two main components of legislation congressional Democrats plan to bring to a vote in the Senate this week: greater federal oversight of consumer loans and a company-paid fund that would cover the costs of dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy at risk.</p> <p>A third pillar of the reform effort draws a more even split: 43 percent support federal regulation of the derivatives market; 41 percent are opposed. Nearly one in five - 17 percent - express no opinion on this complicated topic.</p> <p>President Obama, who traveled to New York last week to deliver his case for sweeping changes to the financial system gets an even-up review of his performance on the issue, with 48 percent of those polled approving of his handling of financial regulation and 48 percent disapproving.</p> <p>But compared with congressional Republicans, Obama has a clear advantage. A slim majority - 52 percent - of all Americans says they trust Obama over the GOP on the issue, while 35 percent favor the Republicans in Congress. Independents prefer Obama 47 to 35 percent, with 16 percent trusting neither side on the issue.</p></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-49335221598105848112010-04-26T14:08:00.002-05:002010-04-26T14:10:35.198-05:00An Interview with Senator DoddIn the <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span>, Ezra Klein has a fascinating <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/sen_chris_dodd_its_not_size_we.html?hpid=topnews">interview</a> with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), in which they discuss the causes of the financial crisis, how close the system came to a total meltdown, and how the Senate bill seeks to reimpose regulation on Wall Street.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-82631383448076678862010-04-26T07:02:00.002-05:002010-04-26T07:08:58.470-05:00Democrats, Pressuring G.O.P., Unite on Finance BillFrom the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/business/26regulate.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1272283333-T/TvD5DdLVAR2Xww3oJbbQ"><span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span></a>:<blockquote>Senate Democrats said Sunday that they had bridged internal party differences and coalesced around a plan to tighten regulation of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were a major factor in the 2008 economic crisis. <p> The proposed derivatives rules are an important part of the effort to strengthen regulation of the nation’s financial system, and seem certain to anger some of Wall Street’s biggest players. </p> <p> The agreement among Democrats would combine overlapping proposals on derivatives by the banking and agriculture committees, and it raised the pressure on Senate Republicans, who said that they were still fighting for changes to the bill and planned to block the start of floor debate in a first procedural vote on Monday. </p></blockquote>For more on this afternoon's showdown over financial reform, see this item from the <span style="font-style: italic;">Times</span>'s Caucus <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/senate-braces-for-financial-showdown/">blog</a> and this story from <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042501755.html">The Washington Post</a>. </span>TalkingPointsMemo will be following all of the day's developments on its <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/financial-reform-wire/?ref=fpb">Financial Reform Wire</a>.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-6122752943738284902010-04-25T13:28:00.001-05:002010-04-25T13:30:38.730-05:00Financial Reform Deal: Close But No Cigar (Yet)TalkingPointsMemo <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/no-deal-yet-but-dems-and-gop-sound-hopeful-on-sunday-shows.php">reports</a>:<blockquote><p>Despite round-the-clock talks between Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby there's no bipartisan deal on financial regulatory reform, but leaders on both sides said Sunday they are hopeful they can come together.</p> <p>In a sharp contrast from the rancorous tone on last week's Sunday shows, Republicans and Democrats alike said today there is good momentum to agree on legislation soon, even though everyone agreed they aren't there "yet."</p></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-59989403700164828752010-04-25T13:20:00.002-05:002010-04-25T13:24:16.115-05:00Sens. Schumer and McConnell Go Head-to-Head in Filibuster Reform FightFrom <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/93755--schumer-mcconnell-go-head-to-head-in-fight-over-filibuster-reform"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Hill</span></a>:<blockquote>Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Thursday launched a high-profile fight in a committee hearing on changing the Senate's filibuster rules.<br /><br />Schumer opened a scheduled hearing on the 200-year history of the legislative tactic by serving notice that he intends to strongly consider some kind of change to the chamber's rules in order to prevent legislation continuing to be blocked by small numbers of senators.<br /><br />"The filibuster used to be the exception to the rule. In today’s Senate, it’s becoming a straightjacket," Schumer said. "The truth is, both parties have had a love-hate relationship with the filibuster, depending on if you are in the majority or the minority at the time. But this is not healthy for the Senate as an institution."<br /><br />McConnell was resistant, saying that Democrats are simply frustrated they cannot amass 60 votes to move legislation, and blaming Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for the situation by blocking Republicans from offering amendments.<br /><br />“I submit that the effort to change the rules is not about democracy. It is not about doing what a majority of the American people want. It is about power,” McConnell said.<br /></blockquote>For more on the issue of Senate reform, see this <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023495.php">post</a> from <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Monthly</span>.sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-31432391710555858412010-04-24T09:32:00.002-05:002010-04-24T09:33:16.988-05:00Democratic Governor Vetoes Two Oklahoma Abortion BillsThe Associated Press <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/oklahoma-abortion-bills-v_n_550418.html">reports</a>:<blockquote>Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed two abortion bills Friday that he said are an unconstitutional attempt by the Legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of citizens. <p>One measure would have required women to undergo an intrusive ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting abortions. Henry said that legislation is flawed because it does not allow rape and incest victims to be exempted.</p> <p>Lawmakers who supported the vetoed measures promised an override vote in the House and Senate as early as next week. A national abortion rights group has said the ultrasound bill would have been among the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country if it had been signed into law.</p></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-77400579266052569862010-04-23T16:31:00.002-05:002010-04-23T16:36:17.992-05:00U.S.’s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona, Sparking Bitter DebateFrom the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?hp"><span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span></a>:<blockquote>Gov. <a title="Jan Brewer’s Web site" href="http://www.governor.state.az.us/"></a>Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country on Friday, aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants. The governor’s move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally. <p> Even before Governor Brewer signed the law at a 4:30 p.m. news conference here, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama." class="meta-per"></a>President Obama strongly criticized it. </p> <p> * * * * *<br /></p><p> The law, which opponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in the country in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime. It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have decried it as an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status. </p> <p> The political debate leading up to Governor Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally. </p></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-81475078607918223982010-04-23T10:43:00.004-05:002010-04-23T11:02:25.412-05:00Obama Criticizes Wall Street in Push for ReformFrom the <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/business/economy/23obama.html?hpw">New York Times</a></em>: <blockquote><p>President Obama took his rhetoric of reform on Thursday to the nation’s financial capital in a high-profile foray to chide Wall Street bankers for their “reckless practices” and to press for tighter regulations meant to avert another financial crisis. </p><p>Addressing leaders of New York’s financial giants, <span>including Goldman Sachs, Mr. Obama described himself as a champion of change battling “battalions of financial industry lobbyists” and the “withering forces” of the economic elite. With his poll numbers sagging, the choreographed confrontation seemed aimed at tapping the nation’s antiestablishment mood as well as muscling financial regulation le</span>gislation through Congress. </p><p>But the president also struck a note of conciliation with an industry that has contributed generously to his party, beseeching bankers to work with him to forge a new regulatory structure. While he spoke, his Democratic allies in Washington moved to force a showdown in the Senate on Monday, scheduling a procedural vote that will test the prospects for bipartisan compromise and Republican resolve to block the president’s plans. </p></blockquote><br />On Thursday, Senate Republicans <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/business/economy/23regulate.html?hpw">blocked</a> a Democratic effort to begin debate on the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on Monday at 5:15 p.m. on whether to take up the measure. In the meantime, the two sides are negotiating to see whether it is possible to come up with a bipartisan agreement.<br /><br />Here is video of the President's speech; a transcript can be found <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-wall-street-reform">here</a>.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player.swf"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="bgcolor" value="282828"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="flashvars" value="file=http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/2010/April/042210_NewYorkNY.m4v&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player&skin=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/skins/EOP_skin.swf&captions_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/av_closedcaption/04222010_President_Obama_Tells_Wall_Street_to_Back_Reform.srt&image=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/audio-video/video_thumbnail/P042210SA-0216-2.jpg&controlbar=bottom&frontcolor=AAAAAA&plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/privacy/privacy,http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/hat/hat,http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/share/share,http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/captions/captions&captions.file=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/av_closedcaption/04222010_President_Obama_Tells_Wall_Street_to_Back_Reform.srt"><embed src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="300" flashvars="file=http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/2010/April/042210_NewYorkNY.m4v&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player&skin=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/skins/EOP_skin.swf&captions_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/av_closedcaption/04222010_President_Obama_Tells_Wall_Street_to_Back_Reform.srt&image=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/audio-video/video_thumbnail/P042210SA-0216-2.jpg&controlbar=bottom&frontcolor=AAAAAA&plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/privacy/privacy,http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/hat/hat,http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/share/share,http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins/captions/captions&captions.file=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/av_closedcaption/04222010_President_Obama_Tells_Wall_Street_to_Back_Reform.srt&stretching=fill&menu=false"></embed></object>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-67016981271427367642010-04-22T06:36:00.003-05:002010-04-22T07:10:44.503-05:00Financial Reform Bill Advances in SenateFrom the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/22regulate.html?th&emc=th"><span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span></a>:<blockquote>Senate Republicans and Democrats predicted on Wednesday that Congress would soon pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system, indicating a potentially swift resolution of the latest partisan firefight on Capitol Hill. <p> But the sides offered starkly different reasons for their optimism. Republicans said that they had forced Democrats back to the bargaining table to negotiate a bipartisan accord, while Democrats said that Republicans were hastily abandoning their opposition in fear of a public outcry. </p> <p> With President Obama headed to New York City on Thursday to press the case for tougher rules for Wall Street, a first crack appeared in the Republican wall of opposition. </p> <p> Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, voted with Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee in favor of imposing tougher rules for derivatives, the complex securities that were at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis. </p> <p> The Agriculture Committee, which deals with derivatives because it oversees commodities futures trading, voted 13 to 8 to approve the bill, which was sponsored by Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, the panel’s chairwoman. The bill is expected to be part of the wider regulatory overhaul put forward by the banking committee, though Democrats are still figuring out how to combine the proposals.<br /></p> </blockquote>TalkingPointsMemo has an <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/why-the-gop-suddenly-let-up-on-financial-reform.php?ref=fpa">account</a> on what led to the breakthrough and the likelihood of a deal.<br /><blockquote><br /></blockquote>sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-88559367837786850562010-04-21T13:11:00.003-05:002010-04-21T13:22:33.124-05:00Is a Breakthrough Close on Financial Reform?TalkingPointsMemo<a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/shelby-says-deal-is-close-will-get-substantial-gop-support.php?ref=fpa"> reports</a>:<blockquote><p>Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee who's been in financial reform talks with chairman Chris Dodd, tells TPMDC's Brian Beutler that an agreement is close at hand. </p> <p>"We're very close to a deal and there will be a substantial number of Republicans that go along with it," Shelby said. </p> <p>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he expects to bring the bill to the Senate floor at the end of this week or early next week. </p> <p>Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), another financial reform negotiator who had dinner last night with Shelby, said today he expects all 100 senators to vote to begin debate on the bill. Corker guessed the final bill would be able to pass with 70 or 80 votes. </p> <p>Another component to reform, a derivatives regulation bill, was approved by the Agriculture Committee this afternoon [by a vote of 13 to 8, with the support of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa] and will be integrated into the banking bill. </p></blockquote>Similarly, a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042005311.html?wprss=rss_politics/congress">story</a> in this morning's <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span> reports that "[k]ey Senate Republicans * * * [have begun] to back away from their sharp criticism of proposed new financial regulations and [have] expressed optimism that a bipartisan deal on a bill that would drastically change the way Wall Street operates could emerge in the coming days."sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5557348752240622293.post-32390509082690240662010-04-20T19:54:00.002-05:002010-04-20T19:58:18.893-05:00White House: Obama Won't Make Cautious Court Pick Because GOP Will Oppose Whoever He NominatesTalkingPointsMemo <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/wh-gops-recent-obstruction-liberating-for-obama-to-make-supreme-court-choice-without-bending-to-repu.php?ref=fpa">reports</a>:<blockquote><p>President Obama thinks Republicans will engage in a full battle over his Supreme Court nominee regardless of the person's ideological leanings, and in some ways "that realization is liberating for the president" to choose whomever he pleases, an administration official told TPMDC.</p> <p>In comments that are at odds with the conventional wisdom about what Obama needs to do to make sure the Senate confirms his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens, a White House official involved in the confirmation process tells TPMDC that the President isn't taking a cautious approach to selecting a nominee. Despite having one less Democrat in the Senate than when Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed last year, the administration isn't limiting itself to reviewing only centrist candidates for the court vacancy, the official said. </p> <p>"It doesn't matter who he chooses, there is going to be a big 'ol fight over it. So he doesn't have to get sidetracked by those sorts of concerns," the official told me. The GOP has attempted to obstruct "anything of consequence" put forth by the Obama administration since he took office, the official said. "The president is making this decision with a pretty clear view that whoever he chooses is going to provoke a strong reaction on the right," the official added.</p></blockquote>According to <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/93419-obama-to-make-supreme-court-pick-by-may-26"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Hill</span></a>, Obama will make his nomination by May 26 (the day that he nominated Sonia Sotomayor last year), and probably "well before that."sjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563461232980593112noreply@blogger.com0