Mediaboss Marketing

Not much really changed when the Senate dropped this bomb, and Democrats know now theres no point in playing nice anymore.

So the Senate, as expected, went nuclear Thursday, and from this point forwardstarting Friday, and thereafter forever afterSupreme Court nominees will need only 51 votes to get on the Court.

I hate seeing Neil Gorsuch rammed through, which will happen Friday, as much as the next liberal. I suspect hes seriously right wing and will be a nightmare to have on the Court for three decades or more. (Now heres a grim thought: I will die with that man on the Court.) But he looks nice enough. Its terrible that in our day and age everything basically comes down to how a guy looks and presents. Somebody can be as right wing as Atilla the Hun, but if he doesnt look the caricatureif he literally doesnt have wild eyes and bushy eyebrows and a handlebar moustache that he twirls while answering senators questionshell skate through.

And yet, I say to my fellow liberals that all is not lost. People worry about two things here: one, the demise of a Senate tradition; two, the fact that now President Trump can nominate any kind of crazy right-winger to the Court, and he or she can be confirmed with 51 votes. Lets break those worries down.

On the first point, I say sod the Senates traditions. The Senates traditions stink. The Senates traditions are reactionary and have been used time and time again in our history to block progressive change. The Senate was a compromise in the first place between small states and large states, and the Connecticut Compromise that created our bicameral legislature passed by just one vote. Small states have always had too much representation, and in the main, they tend to be more conservative states.

Then you have this filibuster, which arose in the 1820s and as you probably know was rarely usedonly to block civil-rights billsuntil the 1970s and 1980s. Its a terrible rule because it makes an effective majority out of 41 no-voting senators. Like the guy from the Broadway show said in Federalist 22: To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) isto subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. He added that such a provision would destroy the energy of government, handing outsized power to an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto.

So now the minority side wont be able to filibuster a High Court nominee. The legislative filibuster remains in place (and in a better world, Id like to see the legislative filibuster go too, but were not in that world right now). But in truth, the filibuster has been rarely used for Supreme Court nomineesjust four times in the last half-century. The Democrats didnt even filibuster Clarence Thomas. Times were still different back then. Bet theyd like that one back.

All this leads to the second point, which is indeed more problematic. Trump could nominate anyone, and all theyd need is 51 votes. I dont know if Sebastian Gorka has a jurisprudential brother, but Trump could nominate him, fascist chest pin and all, and the Republican majority would confirm him in a flash. Or any of the actually-existing radicals. Roy Moore. Janice Rogers Brown. If you dont know these people, read about them. Theyre some of the greatest minds of the sixteenth century.

Thats something to worry about. Three current justices might not make it to 2021. Who knows what that bench could look like. Its a terrifying thought, and there isnt much we can do about it.

But two points. First, there wasnt much we could do about it before. If Mitch McConnell didnt go nuclear over Gorsuch, he was going to do it the next time, maybe over somebody even worse. So theres no way to stop the Republicans putting Roy Moore on the Court if they want to. But there wasnt any way to stop it last week, either. On that front, nothing really changed this week.

Second, inevitably in these matters, what goes around comes around. Those three justices might not hang on. But then again they might. And by 2021, God willing, the man who was (not) told by Elijah Cummings that hes destined for true greatness will be back on 57th Street.

Then, the Democrats can push through liberal nominees with 51 votes. And, possibly, by 2024, the Court will consist of a 5-4 liberal majority, with young liberal justices like this man, whom I wanted Obama to nominate last year after Scalia died, and the Court will no longer be a cog in [the Republicans] political machine, as E.J. Dionne put it in a bracing column today.

Excerpt from:
Dont Cry for the Filibuster, My Fellow Liberals - Daily Beast

President Trump's pick to head the Labor Department, former assistant attorney general for civil rights Alexander Acosta, is heading toward a relatively easy confirmation when he gets a vote in the full Senate this month.

Acosta has solid Republican support, and while few liberal groups are backing his nomination, their response has been muted and nothing like their opposition to Trump's previous pick for the Cabinet post, fast-food businessman Andrew Puzder.

The vote is expected later this month and "no trouble" is expected, according to a Republican source who requested anonymity.

"It's been eerily quiet about Acosta, on both the Left and Right," said Matt Patterson, executive director of the Center for Worker Freedom, an arm of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. Others involved in lobbying for Acosta's confirmation report the same thing. Labor and liberal groups with an interest in the department didn't respond to requests for comment.

The Senate fight over placing Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court has pushed everything else to the side for now, said a lobbyist backing Acosta who requested anonymity. That has had the effect of diverting attention from other administration nominees. "We haven't heard anything about Acosta's nomination facing a fight on the Senate floor," the source said.

That's a sharp contrast to Puzder's nomination, which drew fierce opposition from the Left. They mounted a sustained, and ultimately successful, PR campaign against Puzder, an outspoken conservative and CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns the Hardee's and Carl's Jr franchises.

Acosta, the dean of Florida International University Law School, has not drawn anywhere near that level of opposition. He even has the support of some major unions, including the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America and the International Association of Fire Fighters. All praised his record of public service in the two previous presidential administrations and said they expected he would fairly apply the law as labor secretary. In addition to being at the Justice Department, Acosta was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, the main federal labor law enforcement agency from 2002 to 2003.

The success of the anti-Puzder campaign appears to have largely satiated liberal groups' need to make a stand. Many still make a point of touting Puzder's defeat even when discussing Acosta's nomination.

In a Huffington Post article Thursday, Gail Rogers, an activist with Fight for $15, a union-run minimum wage activist group, indicated that they didn't have the ammunition against Acosta. "Mr. Puzder made his views on workers very clear, but Mr. Acosta, an attorney and law school dean from my home state, doesn't have the same outspoken record," Rogers said.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Derek Kan is general manager for Lyft's Southern California region.

04/06/17 9:41 PM

It still is likely to be a partisan vote. Acosta frustrated many Senate Democrats with his refusal at a hearing last month to commit to backing Obama-era rule changes at the Labor Department. The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, said it "raised serious questions."

See the original post:
Liberals largely quiet on Acosta bid for labor secretary - Washington Examiner

After months of controversy about its fundraising practices, the Liberal Party says it will publicly advertise all events attended by the prime minister and other ministersand report on the attendees.

As announced by the party on Thursday morning, fundraising events will now be listed on the party's website, including the required donation amount to attend. According to the Liberals, events will be posted at least three days in advance. A list of attendees will be posted no more than 45 days after each event.

The party says fundraisers will be held in "publicly available spaces"and itis offering to "facilitate" media coverage of events.

Opposition parties repeatedly questioned the attendance of the prime minister and other ministers at fundraising events, at least one of which requireda $1,500 donation to attend. That is close to the annual contribution limit for political donations.

Such events were in contrast with ethics guidelines committed to by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which suggest, "There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties."

In January, the Liberals committed to introducing legislation that would require similar reporting requirements for events attended by ministers, opposition party leaders and leadership candidates.

NDP critic Nathan Cullen was unpersuaded by the Liberal party's new measures.

"This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors from the Liberals. They will continue offering access to ministers in exchange for Liberal Party donations even though Trudeau literally wrote rules against holding these cash for access fundraisers," Cullen said in a statement. "Instead of ending this unethical practice, the Liberals have decided to dress it up a little differently."

The NDP has proposed legislation that would put new restrictions on who a minister could raise funds from.

Here is the original post:
Liberals announce new reporting on ministers' fundraising - CBC.ca

General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, pictured in Calgary, Alberta, in 2014, told employees last week that GE believes climate change is real and the science is well accepted.

Mike Sturk/Reuters

This story originally appeared on the New Republic and has been republished here with permission.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last weekthat aims to unravel former President Barack Obamas environmental legacy and may torpedo Americas promises under the Paris Agreement to help reduce global warming. In an implicit rebuke of Trump, some of the countrys richest companies issuedstatements reaffirming their commitment to fighting climate change.

Anodyne statements about climate change are a cheap and easy public-relations victory.

We believe climate change is real and the science is well accepted,General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt wrote in a blog post to his employees.Climate change is one of our most significant global challenges and strong action is critical to meeting the serious threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions, declared a coalition of tech giants.Nestl, the worlds largest food company, noted (correctly) that the impacts of global warming could threaten its profits:Our companys success ultimately depends on our ability to reliably source high-quality crops and other raw materials. General Mills said that moving away from coal and investing in clean energy would be key to unlocking new business growth potential for the US and around the world.

Prominent environmentalists rejoiced on Twitter.

To some on the left, nothing is more satisfying than hearing a bunch of billion-dollar corporations tell Trump that hes wrongand for good reason. While Trump has boasted that his executive order will help the U.S. economy, some of the economys biggest players say it makes more sense for businesses to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy. The White House claims its not even aware that climate change poses a threat to businesses.

But liberals should check their glee. Anodyne statements about climate change are a cheap and easy public-relations victory. None of the above corporations indicated that they would fight Trumps order; none even mentioned Trump or his executive order at all. They merely said theyd continue their own attempts to reduce carbon emissions, because its good for business. Such rhetoric isnt new. As the New York Timesnotes: Corporations, especially those with strong consumer brands, have been increasingly responsive to customer and shareholder concerns about climate change. Over the years, these businesses have signed pledge after pledge to reduce carbon emissions; some have even filed amicus briefs in court to defend Obamas Clean Power Plan.

Moreover, not all of these companies are environmental heroes in their own right. Amazon, for instance, has been widely criticized by environmental groups for avoiding transparency about its own carbon emissions. It is currently the largest U.S. company by market value to refuse to disclose its carbon footprint to the CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project. According to the Seattle Times, Amazon hasnt responded to CDPs inquiries since 2010. By contrast, Amazons biggest tech competitors are all disclosing their energy consumption levels, and doing a pretty good jobGoogle, Microsoft, and Apple all received A grades in 2015 for making strong actions to mitigate climate change. Amazon received an F.The companys fast-expanding warehouse and logistics operations, as well as its power-hungry data centers, could become growing sources of carbon emissions, the Seattle Times wrote.

Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

Nestl is the largest bottled water company in the world. As it pontificates about the importance of environmental stewardship, it continues to fight environmental groups in court over its practice of extracting millions of gallons of water from drought-stricken regions of California.Nestlalso still employs Peter Brabeck, a climate denier, as its chairman. Climate change is an intrinsic part of the development of the world, he said in 2014. Since the world has existed we have had climate changes and we will have climate change as long as the world exists. For me the issue is more about what can we do in order to adapt to climate change and perhaps to try to gain more time.

Duke Energy, a veritable coal giant, raised some eyebrows when it vowed to continue to move forward in reducing carbon emissions despite Trumps executive order. But this is the same company thats constantly being cited for violating environmental regulations, thats been fighting tooth and nail against accusations of polluting drinking water in North Carolina, and that has made six-figure contributions to ensure that Republicans who deny climate change maintain their Senate majority.

Many of these companies are making important strides to reduce their environmental footprints.Nestlhas some frankly aggressive goals to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, as does General Electric.Amazon is taking steps to power many of its data centers with renewable energy.Google says it will reach100 percent renewable energy for its global operations this year.Apple CEO Tim Cook has openly said climate change deniers who disagree with his strategy to cut carbon emissions should disinvest from the company.

But such steps dont make these companies moral heroes. They are acting in response to consumer pressure. For a decade, pollafterpoll has shown that Americans want to shop sustainably and that theyll pay more for products that market themselves that way. Consumers also hate waste and environmental abuse. One recent poll found that two-thirds of consumers will avoid a brand they perceive to be hurting the environment. So when companies release generic, politically timely statements about how much they care about climate change, theyre doing it less out of concern for the planet than for their bottom line. The good news is that this empowers consumers to vote with their dollars. Buy American, sure. But more importantly, buy from American companies whose press releases are backed up by their practices.

Continued here:
Stop Praising the Brands Knocking Trump. Corporations Still Prioritize Themselves. - Slate Magazine

CREDIT: AP/Manuel BalceCeneta

Michele Bachmann believes liberal opponents of Donald Trump could bring about the end of the worldby hastening the coming of the Antichrist.

According to Right Wing Watch and the Friendly Atheist, the Republican and former Minnesota congresswoman made the apocalyptic prediction last week during an appearance on a Last Days radio program. The shows host, Jan Markell, asked Bachmann about globalists, a group she says includes American liberals who want a one world system and no borders. Markell said the group lost big time after the election of Donald Trump, sparking Bachman to compare them to the builders of the biblical Tower of Babel.

There has always been two competing ideologies: one that wants to follow the truth of the Lord God, and those who want to rebel against the creator God, Bachmann said, explaining that those who rebel want a manmade, one-world system.

Bachmann then announced that modern-day supporters of a what she called a borderless world she name-checked G-28Davos-types[and] billionairesare setting the stage for the end of the world.

Scripture tells us that in the End Times, that is what [the] Antichrist will behe will be a part of a one-world system, she said. There are people who reject Judeo-Christian truth and instead want to insert and usurp control of all of our lives with a global, economic and political government.

Bachmann, an evangelical Christian, is well known for spouting right-wing theological positions, some of which are common among conservative people of faith (e.g., that homosexuality is part of Satan) and others that are decidedly fringe (e.g., that September 11 terrorist attacks were the result of God punishing America). She is also a longtime supporter of Trump: Bachmann served on Trumps Evangelical Executive Advisory Board during the 2016 campaign, and spoke as a surrogate at his rallies.

But while its unclear what Bachmann and Markell mean by a borderless world, their theological views appear to be out-of-step with the pro-immigrant slant of most religious Americans. Majorities of every major faith group in the country support some form of comprehensive immigration reform according to PRRI, with most backing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Meanwhile, faith groups have also been staunch opponents of Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric, and a record number of worship communities have pledged to offer sanctuary to undocumented immigrants at risk of deportation by his administration. Religious groups have also overwhelmingly opposed both iterations of Trumps now-stalled Muslim ban, which prohibits refugees and immigration from six (previously seven) Muslim-majority countries.

Excerpt from:
Michele Bachmann: Liberals are letting the Antichrist come to power - ThinkProgress