Mediaboss Marketing

Im not sure who decided that the Democratic critique of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch would be that he doesnt side with the little guy. Its a truly terrible idea. Like other liberals, Im still shocked and upset that Judge Merrick Garland never got the vote he deserved after his nomination by President Barack Obama, and Id rather have a progressive justice join the court. But the thing is, siding with workers against employers isnt a jurisprudential position. Its a political stance. And justices -- including progressive justices -- shouldnt decide cases based on who the parties are. They should decide cases based on their beliefs about how the law should be interpreted.

Lets start at the beginning. Way back in the beginning, in fact. The Hebrew Bible, which sides with the little guy a great deal, has something to say about parties to a case. Specifically, Deuteronomy 16:19 says judges shouldnt respect persons, which is the King James Versions translation of the Hebrew phrase that literally means recognize faces. Justice -- which is mentioned in the famous next verse (Justice, justice shalt thou pursue) -- requires judges to decide cases under the law, not based on preferences for individuals.

QuickTake U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

If the Bible doesnt convince you, consider the whole point of a rule-of-law system: It establishes rules so that people can be confident in advance of how decisions are made. That creates regularity and predictability. And in the long run, it protects the little guy a lot better than a system rigged to favor one side, because such systems will naturally tend to favor the rich and powerful, not the poor and downtrodden.

Assuring that the rule of law is followed is in fact the specific role of appellate judges, like Gorsuch. Trial judges find facts and also interpret the law. Appellate judges arent supposed to revisit facts determined by the trial court. Theyre supposed to make sure the legal rules are applied consistently.

Looking at the Gorsuch decisions that the Democrats have made into their touchstones demonstrates how misguided their strategy is, legally speaking.

One of them, TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, involved the agencys determination that a trucker had been wrongfully fired after refusing to stay with his truck on a cold winter night as directed by a dispatcher. The majority of the panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the agency on highly creative grounds. The relevant law said the driver couldnt be fired for refusing to operate his vehicle under the conditions set by the trucking company. The judges held that the driver, who drove away in his cab, had arguably refused to operate the vehicle -- because the term operate in the statute was vague.

Gorsuch dissented. The panel had relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine, a special bugaboo of Gorsuchs, in which judges defer to agencies interpretations of unclear laws. Gorsuch said the law wasnt ambiguous as required by Chevron, because the driver was fired for failing to stay with his truck full of cargo, not for driving away.

Im not sure Gorsuch was right -- but his view was perfectly defensible, and it certainly didnt seem to be driven by dislike of the driver. Rather, Gorsuch followed his preference for reading the law on its own terms and against Chevron. Theres nothing troubling about it.

Another case that progressives are citing involved denial of state funding for placement of an autistic child under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Gorsuch wrote the opinion, reasoning that under binding Supreme Court precedent, the boys existing school placement was legally sufficient because he was making progress.

As it happens, the law regarding the proper standard to apply in such cases is uncertain -- so much so that the Supreme Court is considering it this term. The 10th Circuit standard, which Gorsuch helped craft, may be too narrow; I certainly think so. But its a plausible reading of the existing precedent.

It would be nice if Gorsuch had pushed for a more inclusive, and arguably more progressive, standard. But it doesnt show a lack of sympathy for autistic kids -- especially when you consider that wealthier parents are better placed to go to court and challenge state determinations of what resources should go to their disabled kids.

The last case being mentioned, Hwang v. Kansas State University, raised the question of whether its a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act to stay out of work beyond the term of six months leave granted by the employer. Grace Hwang, a professor at KSU, got the universitys maximum of six months leave as she underwent cancer treatment. She was about to return to work when a flu epidemic hit the campus. Concerned that she might get sick while immunocompromised, she requested further leave as a reasonable accommodation.

Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous panel that staying out of work beyond the six months wasnt an accommodation at all, because accommodation requires you to do the job, and not coming to work isnt doing the job. He reasoned that she could go on disability leave. As he put it, Ms. Hwangs is a terrible problem, one in no way of her own making, but its a problem other forms of social security aim to address.

That may sound somewhat harsh, but legally speaking, it isnt shocking -- and it might even be correct. Accommodation isnt an endlessly flexible standard and, at some point, inability to work becomes a basis for disability. The statute could require longer sick leave but, as written, it doesnt.

Its perfectly fine to resist Gorsuch for not adhering to a progressive jurisprudence that takes seriously the governments duty to regulate the market. But it isnt fine to say he should side with workers against employers or parents against school districts. The rule of law isnt liberal or conservative -- and it shouldnt be.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

Read the rest here:
Democrats' Misguided Argument Against Gorsuch - Bloomberg

Democratic lawmakers made the case Tuesday that there are two causes for Mississippis budget woes: the first a struggling economy, the other, tax cuts and lots of them. Wochit

Mississippi State Capitol(Photo: File photo/The Clarion-Ledger)

Democratic lawmakers made the case Tuesday that there are two causes for Mississippis budget woes: the first a struggling economy, the other, tax cuts and lots of them.

In recent years, the Legislature has doled out some 43 tax cuts or breaks, nearly half of which were for sales taxes.

During a news conference at the Capitol, leaders of Mississippis Black and Democratic Caucuses sharing figures from the state Department of Revenue. The agency estimated that corporate tax cuts had resulted in the loss of $350 million for the current fiscal year. The figure could be higher, however, as the department was not able to determine the impact for several tax credit programs.

Citing the states burdened infrastructure and underfunding of schools, Sen. Bill Stone of Holly Springs, who chairsthe Senate Democratic Caucus, postured, we dont have enough money to fund the core and basic functions of government.

SEE ALSO: MS tax cutswhat do we really know about them?

"At the end of the day, we are rearranging chairs on a sinking ship, he said.

So far, revenue in fiscal year 2018 has not meteconomists projections, leading to three rounds of budget cuts.

The shortfall has put lawmakers in a crunch as they work to finalize the states budget in the waning weeks of the session. Many of the states agencies are likely to lose funding in the upcoming fiscal year, according to an FY 2018 Action vs FY 2017 report.

And though theres been much handwringing over the size of the revenue pie lawmakers have to divvy up, Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman David Baria of Bay St. Louis said the lack of acknowledgment by Republican leadership of the loss of revenue resulting from tax cuts remains the elephant in the room.

He pointed out that the House has passed tax breaks this session.

One of those proposals, House Bill 1601, is on its way to the governor. On Tuesday, senators approved the measure, which would give certain tax exemptionsto first-time homebuyers.

The states largest tax cut, a more than $415 million package that includes the phasing out of Mississippis corporate franchise tax, is set to start in 2018.

Baria said the caucuses will champion the postponement of the cuts through talks with legislative leadership. The likelihood is slim the efforts would secure the blessing of House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, or Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves.

"Legislative leadership will not allow input on the budget process," Democrats said in a news release.

"Democrats in Mississippi are trying to impress their liberal counterparts in D.C. by fighting for higher taxes and bigger government, while my Republican colleagues and I work to lower taxpayers' burden and reduce the overall size of government," Reeves said in a statement Tuesday. "Republicans believe individuals know best how to spend their money more than any government agency ever will."

Still, the party is ready to push for a delay, possibly through the use of amendments.

Legislators are crafting a more than $6 billion budget for fiscal year 2018. Wednesday is the deadline for lawmakers to pass revenue and appropriations bills originating in the other house.

ContactBracey Harrisat 601-961-7248 orbharris2@gannett.com.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read or Share this story: http://on.thec-l.com/2nleQ8g

Read the original here:
Democrats sound alarm on Mississippi's 'financial crisis' - Jackson Clarion Ledger

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (left) looked on as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke to reporters during a new conference on the GOP health care bill.

After railing against Republicans for years for being the party of no, Democrats these days are proudly wearing that label -- and members of the Democratic grassroots are demanding their leaders keep saying it.

And so it is. No to repealing Obamacare. No to practically everyDonald TrumpCabinet nominee. No to Trumps Supreme Court nominee. No to Trumps travel ban and whatever changes he makes to it. Over the weekend former US attorneyPreet Bhararaof New Yorkwas even praised by liberals because he said no, hewouldn't stop working for Trump.

Advertisement

Democrats are united around no. Politically, no is an easy organizing principle. It is certainly easier than getting more people to say yes.

Just consider Obamacare. It was easy for Republicans to unite in opposition toit for years. (It was even difficult to get enough Democrats to pass the bill at the time.) It is much harder for Republicans now to craft a replacement bill that will have enough in their party saying yes.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.

In fact, Democrats have little choice but to be the party of "no." First, they have no power in Washington to enact anything anyway. Second, the Democratic Party has become decentralized, without a major leader or a key issue to push. In other words, there is no consensus on what Democrats should say yes to, much less any power to do anything about it if they did.

So, "no" it is.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats wear the 'Party of No' label proudly (not that they really have a choice) - The Boston Globe

To quote an excerpt from author Michael J. Knowles new book, the main reason to vote for a Democrat is .

The above is not a typo.

Knowles tome, Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide, is 266 pages of absolutely nothing. Clean, blank, snow-white pages. And as of Thursday morning, it occupied the No. 4 slot on Amazon.com's "Best Sellers" list.

Whats really great about this book, you can go cover-to-cover in about 15, 20 seconds, Knowles told Fox & Friends on Thursday.

Billed as the most exhaustively researched and coherently argued Democrat Party apologia to date, the spoof book was Knowles' attempt to razz the party for a lack of direction. The conservative journalist released it last month and the book was listed at $9.99 on Amazon -- but you can pick up a paperback on sale for $7.08.

The project does, curiously, contain an extensivebibliography and a table of contents. But nothing else.

It took a very long time to research this book, Knowles said Thursday. Ive been observing the Democratic Party for at least 10 years now and when I observed their record and reasons to vote for them on reasons of economics or foreign policy or homeland security or civil rights and so on I realized it was probably best to just leave all the pages blank.

A chapter on civil rights? Blank. Values? Nothing there.

When I started researching the book and going through this exhaustive study process, at first I turned to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and it turned out they were deciding whether or not to include God in their party platform, Knowles said. And the Democrats booed God. Thats not good. So I decided probably if Im going to make a good case to vote for Democrats, probably just leave that chapter blank.

Or maybe the pages are just supposed to be filled with the thoughts in the reader's head? John Cage would like that.

Go here to read the rest:
Amazon best-seller 'Reasons to Vote for Democrats' book is ...

During the hour-long meeting, sources said Trump chastised the groups -- including Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots -- for calling the House GOP proposal "Obamacare lite," warning the tea party activists, "you are helping the other side."

In true Trump fashion, the President jumped into salesman mode, sources at the meeting said.

"This is going to be great. You're going to make it even greater," the President told the group. "I'm going to work hard to get it done."

The meeting between Trump and the conservative leaders also included White House senior advisers Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway and Marc Short, as well as other top West Wing staff.

Sources at the meeting said White House aides showed some openness to one aspect of the House GOP plan that has become an irritant to tea party aligned groups: the provision that pushes back an overhaul of the expansion Obamacare Medicaid funding until 2020.

The conservative groups at the meeting asked that the date be moved up to January 1, 2018. White House aides said they were "open to discussing" it, sources said.

Concerns were also raised about the tax credits in the House GOP plan which allow lower-income Americans to buy health insurance, financial assistance that tea party groups see as subsidies.

"They counter-punched hard on that," a source at the meeting said of the White House response.

Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, gave an impassioned defense of the tax credits, a display that surprised attendees from the conservative groups.

"He was very defensive about it," one attendee said about Mulvaney.

Confident that the health care plan will pass the House, Trump laid out his strategy for winning passage in the Senate, telling the meeting he will campaign heavily in red states featuring vulnerable Democrats up for re-election.

"Trump said he will have football stadium events in states where he won by 10-12 points and he is going to dare people to vote against him," a source at the meeting said.

As for prominent Republican opponents of the health care plan, Trump sounded optimistic.

On Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the President was effusive about his one-time primary rival.

"I love him. He's a friend. He's going to end up voting for it," the President told the group.

A source at the meeting was astonished as to how White House staff could have been so blindsided by the initial conservative opposition to the GOP plan.

"We telegraphed it for weeks," one tea party official at the meeting said.

A WH official at the meeting said: "It was a legit policy meeting -- real discussion about specifics."

"The president expressed that he was open to things that could improve the bill, but was also clear that this is the vehicle -- this is the chance to repeal and replace."

More here:
Trump to GOP leaders: If this plan fails, I'll blame Democrats