Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is further distancing himself from the prospect of serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that while he was honored to be mentioned by President Donald Trump as a potential justice, the high court is not where I want to serve.

Its not the desire of my heart, the Republican senator said over the weekend on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures. I want to be in the political fight. I want to stay fighting right where I am in the U.S. Senate.

Asked point-blank if he wanted a job on the Supreme Court, Cruz didnt hesitate.

I dont, he said.

Cruz still didnt explicitly say that he would turn down the opportunity if offered.

But his comments on Fox News pointed to a far stronger level of disinterest in the gig than he had initially indicated last week, when Trump included him on a list of 20 additional potential justices he would nominate in a second term if any Supreme Court spots came open.

At that time, Cruz said only that he looked forward to continuing to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Trump last week unveiled the slate of potential Supreme Court justices as a way to fire up conservatives heading into the November election. He deployed a similar tactic in 2016, pitching a focus on the federal judiciary that helped solidify his standing with the Republican base.

Cruz, while better known these days as a politician, has a lengthy legal rsum.

He clerked for the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1995. He then served as Texas' solicitor general, with Texas Sen. John Cornyn calling him one of the premier appellate lawyers in the state, if not the nation.

Cruz also has a new book coming out on the Supreme Court.

But Democrats in Texas and beyond were quick to dismiss Cruz as a potential justice, in part because of the partisan record hes developed in the Senate. The Texan has also made clear his ambition to run again for the White House after nearly winning the GOP nomination in 2016.

Read more from the original source:
Does Ted Cruz want to be Donald Trumps future Supreme Court pick? I dont, the Texan says - The Dallas Morning News

Although the 2020 election cycle has been dominated by the covid-19 pandemic and widespread social justice movements, the election will have profound implications for U.S. trade policy and particularly, for our state. Texas exports totaled $330 billion dollars in 2019, roughly 20% of total U.S. exports, and account for more than 30% of the states GDP. Where do the presidential candidates stand on trade? There are some key differences.

Donald Trump ran in 2016 on a populist, anti-globalization platform promising to put America first and get tough on trade partners like China. Since taking office, he has followed through on many of his goals, announcing U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (proposed but not ratified under the Obama Administration), renegotiating several aspects of NAFTA to produce the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and engaging China in a trade war, putting tariffs on many of its products.

These policies help some segments of the population but hurt others. Some manufacturing workers in industries that compete with Chinese imports benefit, as do workers in industries that have chosen to keep production in the U.S. because of new local content requirements in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

But all tariffs create higher prices for consumers, as importers within the U.S. pay tax revenue to the government and must adjust their prices to offset those costs. And many exporters, such as farmers in Midwest states like Iowa, Illinois, or Wisconsin, have been hurt by retaliatory tariffs from China.

Finally, job loss in some sectors of the U.S. economy are driven by larger, long-term structural forces that tariffs cant address, such as automation in manufacturing.

The Trump Administration has also rejected multilateral governance of trade, opting to operate outside of the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Mechanism a court of sorts for resolving trade disputes. In fact, the U.S. has now effectively paralyzed the mechanism by refusing to approve the appointment of new appellate judges. This has undermined the ability of other countries to seek redress for allegations of unfair trading practices.

As for Joe Biden, he comes from a tradition of centrist, pragmatic democrats that generally embrace free trade. Yet he has also been supportive of labor protections, and may seek to do more to compensate those displaced by foreign competition, especially with pressure from the far left of the Democratic Party.

He has criticized many of Donald Trumps trade policies as overly erratic, which may undermine U.S. credibility. He has also argued for a tough stance on China, but in the past supported multilateral initiatives like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have positioned the U.S. as an alternative trade partner to China for many Asian countries.

Biden has been critical of the Trump Administrations negotiations with China, arguing that China has been let off easy. It is likely that a Biden Presidential Administration would seek to repair many of the frayed relations with traditional U.S. trading partners, while seeking greater multilateral cooperation to push back against Chinas growing economic influence.

Biden would also most likely seek to restore American leadership within international institutions, such as the Word Trade Organization. As a senator and later as Vice President, Biden was known for his foreign policy expertise. He views a robust U.S. presence in the world as critical to U.S. power and prosperity, and one way the U.S. has helped maintain a liberal order since 1945 is by wielding its power through institutions. The Obama Administration attempted to utilize the Dispute Settlement Mechanism to put pressure on China, filing multiple disputes that resulted in several policy concessions.

The candidates pose a stark contrast on many issues, including their approach to international trade policy. Their only point of agreement would seem to be confronting China, although they differ on the approach. The choice will be an important one for Texas, given the size of its export sector.

Terrence Chapman is an associate professor of government at The University of Texas at Austin.

A version of this op-ed appeared in the San Antonio Express News.

See the original post:
Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump on US Trade Policy - UT News - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday named U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as a potential nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump included Cruz among 20 possible picks for the high court if Trump wins a second term in November and a seat later becomes open. The 20 new names come in addition to a group of prospective justices that Trump named during the 2016 campaign and has since drawn from to fill two vacancies on the court.

Cruz's name has come up before as a potential Supreme Court appointee, and he has said he isn't interested. In a statement released moments after Trump's announcement, Cruz was noncommittal and seemed to suggest he was satisfied with serving in the Senate.

"It's humbling and an immense honor to be considered for the Supreme Court," Cruz said. "In the Senate, I have been blessed to lead the fight to preserve our constitutional liberties every day, to defend the rights of 29 million Texans and I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come.

Trump also added a second Texan, James Ho, to his list of potential Supreme Court picks. Ho is a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and former Texas solicitor general.

Since Trump locked down the GOP nomination in 2016, Cruz has occasionally fielded questions about the possibility of serving on the Supreme Court, given his background in constitutional law. He usually denies interest and says he is more interested in shaping the court as a U.S. senator and politician.

Four years ago, Trump's commitment to naming the justices he could appoint to the court was one of the reasons that Cruz endorsed him after their bitter primary battle.

Ho, who succeeded Cruz as Texas solicitor general, has earned a reputation as one of Trump's most hard-line picks for the federal appellate courts.

Ho has been pivotal in inching the 5th Circuit, already one of the country's most conservative federal appellate courts, further right. He wrote that the Second Amendment has been treated as a "'second-class' right."

In his very first writing for the court, Ho panned campaign donation limits, writing, "if there is too much money in politics, it's because there's too much government." He suggested a long-serving federal judge had shown bias in allowing a subpoena of a religious group in a lawsuit over the handling fetal remains, decrying "the moral tragedy of abortion." In March 2019, he misgendered a transgender plaintiff.

Another 5th Circuit judge with Texas ties, Kyle Duncan, is also on the list. Duncan, who is from Louisiana, is a former assistant Texas solicitor general.

Emma Platoff contributed reporting.

Visit link:
Ted Cruz is on Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks - The Texas Tribune

Nine pharmaceutical giants pledge to uphold scientific and ethical standards rather than rush a coronavirus vaccine

Sep 12th 2020

THE WORLDS 7.5bn people want a vaccine for covid-19 as soon as possible. One person needs it by November 3rd. As President Donald Trump limps towards election day, he wants to report real medical progress against the disease. Earlier this year it seemed possible that one or two pharmaceutical firms might be able to obtain some sort of limited approval by the time Americans cast their ballots. That may still be possible. It is certainly desirable, given the pandemics toll on lives and livelihoods. But on September 8th, in an unprecedented move, nine global drugmakers, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi, announced a pledge to uphold scientific and ethical standards in the search for a coronavirus vaccine.

The message is intended to reassure the public that the companies will not bow to mounting political pressure from the White House to rush through a vaccine without the proper safety and efficacy tests. But it is also a rebuke to the president, who has been politicising the drug-approval processand eroding public confidence in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This could undermine trust in any vaccine that arrives, as sooner or later one almost certainly will.

Mr Trump has already successfully harried the FDA to authorise drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, with no scientific evidence for their efficacy. He has accused the regulator (unfairly) of being part of a deep state effort to try to slow down vaccine development until after the election. It looked like part of a strategy to get the regulator to hurry up.

Big pharma is clearly worried. Drug firms stand to lose a great deal if their products are seen as being waved through prematurely. The industry relies on the FDA to make business possible. In the same way that people fly because they trust the aviation regulator, they take medicines because these are believed to be safe and effective. Take away the trust and the medicines makers would suffer.

So would investment in research. Pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to develop better drugs if they can simply claim a new product is superior without having to prove it. When Mr Trump came into office, some in his entourage lobbied him to install as head of the FDA someone with a more relaxed approach to efficacy standards. Doctors and patients immediately raised the alarm. But so did drugmakers, who pushed for a more serious candidate to assume the position.

The industry statement makes it clear that vaccine development will move at the pace of science, not politics. More evidence of this came the same day, when AstraZeneca halted clinical trials around the world after one participant showed an adverse reaction. This may slow down vaccine development. But it is also par for the course. Indeed, AstraZenecas decision shows that the system is working. Not so much deep state as deep science.

Editors note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our hub

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Strong medicine"

See the original post here:
Why drugmakers are telling Donald Trump to cool his heels - The Economist

Welcome to theFiercePharmapolitical roundup, where each Monday well highlight developments in Washington, D.C., and elsewherethat could affect drug pricing and howdrugmakersoperate.

After toutinga series ofexecutive orders on drug pricing in late July, President Donald Trump has now unveiledthe most significant among theman order tying Medicare's drug prices to much lower costs in other developedcountries. Thebiopharmaindustry pushed back hard, and its unclear exactly when or how the changes would be implemented.

Theexecutive order, released Sunday, saysMedicare should not buycertainPart B or Part D drugs unless at prices paid byat a minimum, the lowest price atwhich the manufacturer sells that drug to any other developed nation.In Part D, the plan would apply where insufficient competition exists and where seniors are faced with prices" higher thanthose in other developed nations.

ESMO Post Show: Highlights from the Virtual Conference

Cancer experts and pharma execs will break down the headline-making data from ESMO, sharing their insights and analysis around the conferences most closely watched studies. This discussion will examine how groundbreaking research unveiled over the weekend will change clinical practice and prime drugs for key new indications, and panelists will fill you in on the need-to-know takeaways from oncologys hottest fields. Register today.

Under the order,HHS secretary Alex Azaristo begin developing payment plans and working throughtherulemakingprocess.Experts said the order wont be immediately implementable.

Sundaysorder does not by itself do anything, Kaiser Family Foundationexecutive vice president of health policyLarry Levittwroteon Twitter. It has to be followed up by regulations, which will take time.

Trump has a history of bold talk on drug prices, only to pull back when it comes to putting actual regulations in place, he said.

But by expanding the order toinclude drugs in MedicarePart D, the policy would apply much more broadly than any policy change we've seen so far from the administration, and is an exciting new development, drug pricing expert Rachel Sachswroteon Twitter.

RELATED:Trump's drug pricing executive orders won't bring real change: experts

The biopharma industry responded swiftly, with both major trade groups calling the order reckless.BIO threatened legal action.

PhRMA is committed to working through drug pricing issues with the government, CEO Stephen Ubl said in a statement.Butthe administration has doubled down on a reckless attack on the very companies working around the clock to beat COVID-19," he said.

The order isan irresponsible and unworkable policy that will give foreign governments a say in how America provides access to treatments and cures for seniors and people struggling with devastating diseases, Ubl said.

BIO CEOMichelle McMurry-Heathechoed the sentiment. Amid the pandemic,its simply dumbfounding that the Trump administration would move forward with its threat to import foreign price controls and the inevitable delays to innovation that will follow, she said.

This reckless scheme will eliminate hope for vulnerable seniors and other patients waiting for new treatments by drastically reducing investment in cutting-edge scientific research and development, she added. That is why we will use every tool availableincluding legal action if necessaryto fight this risky foreign price control scheme.

RELATED:Pharma execs, upset by Trump's drug pricing executive orders, refuse White House meeting

The order follows a series of others unveiled in late July that center on creating discountsfor insulin and epinephrine, eliminating rebates andallowing drug imports. The Trump administration said it gave the pharma industry time to negotiate on the favored-nations clause, but those talks didnt yield an acceptable alternative, White House deputy press secretary said, asquotedby CNN.

See the original post:
FiercePharmaPoliticsTrump unveils favored-nation drug pricing executive order, and pharma hits back - FiercePharma