Mediaboss Marketing

Let me stipulate some important things at the outset.

First, Judge Neil Gorsuch, from every indication, is a fine man, a fine judge, and would be a fine colleague for the eight Justices now on the Court. Jack Goldsmith of Harvard, a man of terrific judgment, tweeted last night that Neil Gorsuch is immensely qualified for the Supreme Court -- an outstanding lawyer, and judge, and person. Gorsuch is, on the question of qualification, nearly as good an appointment as was Judge Merrick Garland. So stipulated.

Americas Long History of Excluding Immigrants for Being Poor

Let me stipulate something else: the Gorsuch nomination breaks the emerging Trump pattern of appointments in a welcome way. Most of Trumps important appointments have gone to scary haters like Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions, or to flagrant incompetents like Ben Carsons, Betsy Devos, and Rick Perry. A nomination that fit that pattern would have begun at the level of William Pryor and possibly moved down to the level of Peter Thiel or even to some wretched shyster who has spent his career screwing drywall contractors out of monies owed them by the Trump Organization. In this one area, thus far, grownups seem to be in charge.

Third, I disagree with his judicial philosophy. On issues like reproductive rights and choice, the proper role of religion in law, the environment, his presence on the bench would help propel this country in a retreat from freedom and liberty we cannot afford to make. Any progressive (no matter how mild his or her inclination) has ample evidence to, and should, oppose this nomination on the merits. The groups issuing anguished criticisms of his nomination have every reason to worry that his vote may move the Court to violate treasured constitutional values. (In particular, Gorsuchs views on the individuals bodily autonomyin reproductive choice and contraception and in end-of-life issuesare alarming and need to be aired thoroughly during a confirmation.)

Fourth, the vacancy that Gorsuch is being appointed to fill was procured by constitutional malfeasance of the worst kind. Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassleyand all those senators who enabled them by silencedishonored their constitutional oaths in a serious way. Worse yet, they persuaded the gullible that Article II 2 cl. 3, setting out the duty to offer advice and consent, means nothing more than nonny nonny boo boo. This was shameful, and has done lasting damage to the Constitution that will take decades to repairif repair is possible. Democratic Senators want revenge, and they have every reason to want it. So stipulated.

Finally, let me say this: each of the above considerations is of huge importance. But one issue stands above them all: the fate of democracy.

This nomination comes at a moment of unprecedented danger for the United States. After less than a month in office, President Trump has pushed executive authority far beyond its already broad boundaries. He shows little sign of slowing down. The Trump administration may be on the verge of taking our republic to what for lack of a better term we will call full banana.

That means that the fight against dictatorship should be our main focus now. No cause that progressives valuenot reproductive rights, not voting rights, not the environment, not public health and health carewill survive if the cabal in the White House achieves the power they covet. Even though the endgame is almost certainly going to be confirmation of Gorsuch, the Democratic and progressive effort against the nomination needs to use the battleas drawn-out as possibleto focus the national mind on the danger of crypto-fascism. That fight isnt advanced if the effort is framed as vengeance for Garland. If it is used to lay down clear markers for acceptable behavior by the administration, it may be an important chapter in the fight.

So heres an initial suggestion of some areas Senators should prepare to question Gorsuch onaggressively.

What are the limits of executive power in the context of immigration and the treatment of non-citizens? How long can immigrants be detained without bail hearings? What is the role of courts in supervising the conditions of detention of those who are allegedly undocumented or removable? When can lawful permanent residents and visa holders be excluded from return to the United States? What is the role of racial or religious classification in immigration policy? Do the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply to immigrants in the United States? Does the Equal Protection Clause cover classifications by religion?

Under what circumstances can the executiveor the executive and Congress togethersuspend the writ of habeas corpus? When can citizens be detained without trial? Without counsel?

What are the requirements of free speech and free press in time of crisis? What protection can the law allow against bullying by powerful politicians to silence voices of dissent?

What are the dimensions of the right to vote? How far can legislative efforts to regulate voting go before they become vote suppression? What role does voting play in keeping the country free?

What are the dimensions of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment? What about naturalized citizenship? Could the President, or President and Congress, under the Constitution as it is, pass a statuteor even create an administrative mechanism--to strip citizenship from disfavored individuals or groups?

What are the limits of the governments ability to use electronic surveillance on citizens? On other residents of this country? What role should the courts play in confining this to its lawful bounds? How far can Congress go in authorizing warrantless surveillance?

Is torture ever permitted under the Constitution? Can the executive instruct national-security personnel to ignore legislative limits like the Torture Victim Prevention Act?

When may officials of the governmenteven high officials who make policybe held accountable in court to citizens whose rights are injured by those policies? What protection in the courts should be afforded to citizens abroad? How extensive should the constitutional remedy be for violations of constitutional rights by federal agents, whether of Homeland Security, Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, or the Defense Department?

When if ever may the executive, with or without Congress, respond to emergencies by suspending the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and of statutes, or by claiming the power to insulate its decisions from judicial review?

Lastly, Judge, no fooling around: What is democracy to you? Do citizens have a right to dignity, to sexual and other autonomy, to racial and sexual equalitynot formal equality but real equality worthy of the name?

This list is far from exhaustive. But this class of questionsbasically, Judge Gorsuch, can and will you stand up to your benefactor Trump by voting to keep American a free country?is central.

I am no political strategist, and so I cant say what course of action will most benefit the Democratic Party. Should Democrats filibuster this nomination? Should they filibuster for a while, or try to use the filibuster to kill the nomination?

I dont know. But I do think this. Gorsuch should not be allowed to go on the Court until he has answered the kind of questions above. The standard dodgeI am sorry, Senator, but that issue may come before mecannot be allowed to cut it in 2017.

This will not be politicizing the Court. The politicizationthe demonstration that the Court is now simply an arm of the majority party, with qualification and merit wholly subordinated to the partisan imperativewas completed by McConnell and Grassley in 2016. Trump pushed the politicization further by suggesting that the Court vacancy was created by the assassination of Justice Antonin Scalia, by publishing his judicial list before the voting precisely to make the names campaign issues, and by proclaiming an anti-choice litmus test for any nominees. Remember his boast that Maureen Scalia, the justices widow, had a Trump sign on her lawn?

Politicization is where the Garland fight should come home to roost. You made this bed of nails, Republicans. Now lie in it.

If Senate Republicans can refuse to consider a nominee for political reasons, Democrats can refuse to confirm a nominee if he doesnt answer these fair questions.

There are no more rules: the Republicans shredded them.

Judge Gorsuch, you seem like a great guy, bless your heart, love you to death, we purely do.

Have a seat now and tell us how you feel about authoritarian government. Then well see about a vote.

Read more from the original source:
The Most Important Questions for Trump's Justice Are About Democracy - The Atlantic

As a new administration takes office in Washington, it is fitting that this months poll centers on democracy

Welcome to the 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll for February 2017. As a new administration takes office in Washington, it is fitting that this months poll centers on democracy. In Greece, where democracy was conceived, its literal translation was rule of the commoners but it may have been defined most succinctly by Abraham Lincoln as, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Americans have had a ringside seat for the last six years as a divided Congress and executive branch have largely talked past each other. This may be due to change as one party now has majorities in both houses of Congress as well as the White House for the first time since President Obamas first two years in office. As the Congress begins to collaborate on doing the peoples business they might refer to these words by Martin Luther King, Jr., Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. If you could make one change in the way American democracy works, what would it be? We look forward to your answers to this and many other questions. And now the results...

If they had to explain to someone from another country how democracy works in the United States, nearly four out of 10 Americans said they would describe their overall tone as being hopeful. Twenty-eight percent said their tone would reflect pride, 12 percent said embarrassment, 10 percent selected sarcasm and six percent chose disgust. Americans are almost always a hopeful and optimistic people and despite the rancor between our two major parties, two thirds of us still talk about our democracy with either hope or pride.

This one was surprisingly close. Forty-five percent of Americans said it would have been more surprising to our founding fathers that Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 and 42 percent said the election of Donald Trump in 2016 would have made them flip their wigs.

From the list provided, three out of 10 Americans think that seeing a complete history of a candidates tax returns would give them the most insight into whether or not to vote for someone for president followed by their emails 23 percent, websites theyve visited 13 percent, their medical records eight percent and one out of five said none of the above. These are mostly modern inventions and do not pertain to a majority of past presidents. For future presidents it is a cautionary tale of things to come. Considering what happened during our most recent election, it should come as no surprise that Republicans were more interested in emails (29 percent) and Democrats were more focused on tax returns (50 percent).

According to Americans, the greatest threats to democracy in the United States are money in politics 29 percent, uninformed voters 23 percent, people who dont vote 15 percent, poorly prepared candidates for office 10 percent, the size of the federal government nine percent, and the two-party system eight percent. Despite the systemic and financial challenges noted, the surest way to preserve, protect and defend our democracy is through education. In his farewell interview on 60 Minutes, President Obama lamented the existence of fractious divisions between Americans and pointed at cable shows from both sides of the aisle as having slanted points of view that only support and affirm what their followers want to hear. Nobody said it better than Thomas Jefferson when he declared that the foundation of Democracy rests on an educated citizenry.

If they had to choose between the two options, two out of three Americans said it is more important for the United States to have freedom and democracy and one out of four said having security and prosperity was more important. Security and prosperity are very important to Americans, especially in times of turmoil and uncertainty, but Americans have never wavered in their devotion to our countrys bedrock values when it comes to freedom and democracy. JFK summed it up this way, the cost of freedom has always been high, but Americans have always paid it.

More than half of Americans find the rights enumerated in the First Amendment to be the most important to them personally including freedom of speech 31 percent, freedom of religion 20 percent and freedom of assembly three percent. Eighteen percent took a shot at the right to bear arms, 17 percent cast a ballot for the right to vote and nine percent said all of the above. Nothing is more important to Americans than their hard earned and cherished rights especially those found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is another right expressly granted in the First Amendment that is very important to many including everyone at 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair...the freedom of the press.

If you could make one change in the way American democracy works, what would it be?

This months featured question sparked a lot of interesting ideas and opinions. If Americans could make one change in the way American democracy works, many people said they would like to see term limits implemented and the Electoral College abolished in favor of the popular vote. Many others wanted to stop or curtail the corrosive effects of money in politics with emphasis on limiting lobbying and striking down the Citizens United decision. Many would like to shorten the election cycle and set time limits for campaigning. Finally, some would like to make voters take an IQ test before they vote while others said they would like to see Americans be required to vote.

This poll was conducted by telephone from November 30-December 4, 2016 among a random sample of 1,011 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones.Read more about this poll.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Continued here:
60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll: Democracy - CBS News

Tibetans were once fabled warriors. Their empire, at the summit of its power in the eighth century, extended to northern India, western China and central Asia. The Arabs, making inroads into central Asia, were in awe of them. And China, according to an inscription commissioned to memorialise Tibets conquest of the Tang Chinese capital of Changan in 763, shivered with fear at their mention. But the Tibet annexed by Mao Zedong in the 20th century bore no trace of its imperial past.

When the Peoples Liberation Army struck in 1950, Tibet, having metamorphosed over a millennium into a reclusive hagiarchy, possessed neither the vocabulary to parley with the communists nor the strength to resist them. Its response to this worldly threat was to retreat into ritual. A 15-year-old boy called Tenzin Gyatso, identified some years before as the 14th Dalai Lama, was hastily confirmed as Tibets supreme ruler. His delegation to Beijing the following year signed away Tibets sovereignty without consulting him. What ensued was a protracted act of gratuitous savagery. Mao called it liberation. Monasteries were razed, monks executed, thousands of nonviolent protesters massacred, and many thousands more detained, starved, tortured, uprooted and carted away to communes to toil in conditions so severe that some resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, facing imminent capture, escaped to India.

At no point in their history, the influential Tibetan author Tragya, who publishes under the pen name Shokdung (wake-up call), writes in The Division of Heaven and Earth, were Tibetans made to endure such sustained misery. Swiftly banned by the Chinese Communist party when it was first published in Tibet in 2008, the book is now available for the first time in English. It is a haunting indictment of Chinas colonial project in Tibet, and if the charges contained in it are so bruising for Beijing, it is because the person making them was not long ago regarded by the CCP as a fellow traveller. Shokdung attained notoriety in the 1990s for his attacks on Tibets religious tumour of ignorance. Beijing immediately sought to co-opt him.

The uprising of 2008, when thousands of Tibetans streamed into the streets demanding an end to Chinese occupation and the return of the Dalai Lama, upended Shokdungs world. China expelled journalists from Tibet and set its military loose on the protesters. It was a bloodbath. Witnessing the crackdown with increasing self-revulsion from his office in a state-run publishing house, Shokdung arrived at the conclusion that what Tibetans lacked was not the will but a political philosophy suited to their conditions. Here, he advances Gandhi as the model for Tibetan resistance.

Shokdung makes a powerful case. But can Gandhi really save Tibet? George Orwell once disappointed pacifists by saying that Gandhian tactics of nonviolent non-cooperation would not have worked against the Soviet Union. The same is true of China. As Shokdung himself concedes, The British rulers of India had some degree of moral conscience. Gandhi had tea with George V. The Dalai Lama had to flee Mao in heavy disguise.

Tibet today enjoys virtually no meaningful external support. The liberal assumption that the West was more likely to influence China by making concessions to its rulers has proved to be a self-wounding fantasy. Far from moulding Chinas behaviour, it is the West that has incrementally surrendered to Beijing. Today, western authors self-censor for the tawdry privilege of being published in China; Hollywood modifies its films to placate the CCP, and governments that never tire of puffing their chests at the Middle Easts tinpot tyrannies abase themselves before Beijing.

China, emboldened by the display of deference, continues remorselessly to disfigure the hypnotically beautiful plateau. In official documents, Tibet, a source of prized minerals and hydrocarbons, is classified as Water Tower Number One. More than 140 Tibetans have immolated their own bodies in protest at Chinas plunder of their natural resources. No government has the moral courage to mourn them.

Shokdung recognises the isolated position of Tibetans. His Gandhian prescription, whether it succeeds or not, has the merit of being self-reliant. Shokdung has been jailed for defying the CCP. His family continues to be harassed. Meanwhile, copies of his book circulate underground in Tibet. Tibets overlords are evidently terrified. If Shokdung, an intellectual moulded by Chinas ideological schools, can turn so abruptly hostile, what hope does Beijing have of controlling others?

This remarkable book, written to fortify the Tibetan spirit against the assaults of colonialism, has already performed an important service by exposing the fragility of Chinas hold on the Tibetan mind.

View post:
Will non-violent resistance ever work against communism? - Spectator.co.uk

Romanias prime minister has refused to repeal decrees that critics say will free corrupt officials from jail early and shield others from conviction, despite international condemnation and the biggest popular protests since the fall of communism.

We took a decision in the government and we are going to press ahead, Sorin Grindeanu said after a meeting of his ruling leftwing Social Democrats (PSD). The party leader, Liviu Dragnea, blamed an ongoing campaign of lies and disinformation for opposition to the decrees.

The PSD won elections [in December] with a huge vote. The governments power is legitimate, Dragnea said, labelling the centre-right president, Klaus Iohannis, the moral author of last nights violence.

Iohannis has threatened to take the ordinance to the constitutional court, the last legal resort to stop the emergency decrees passing into law. He said on Thursday he was impressed by the protests, adding that Romanians had clearly what they want: the rule of law.

The European commission vice-president, Frans Timmermans, urged the government to urgently reconsider, saying that Romanias EU funding could be at risk.

In a separate statement, the US, Germany, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands and France said the government had undermined progress on rule of law and the fight against corruption over the past 10 years.

Clashes broke out in Bucharest after hundreds of thousands demonstrated across Romania in a second night of protests. Bottles and firecrackers were hurled at police in the capital, who responded with teargas. Twenty people were arrested and eight injured, authorities said.

In the largest demonstrations since the fall of communist dictator Nicolae Ceauescu in 1989, up to 300,000 people braved subzero temperatures to participate in protests across 50 towns and cities, including 150,000 in the capital. There were shouts of Thieves and calls for politicians to be locked up.

On Tuesday night the government passed an emergency ordinance that would, among other things, decriminalise cases of official misconduct in which the financial damage is less than 200,000 lei (38,000). The decree is due to take effect in a little over a week.

The government says the order and another draft bill on jail pardons are needed to ease prison overcrowding and bring the criminal code into line with recent constitutional court rulings.

But many worry the changes will reverse an anti-corruption push in Romania that saw the then prime minister Victor Ponta go on trial in 2015 over alleged tax evasion and money laundering charges he denies. Prosecutors are currently investigating 2,150 cases of alleged abuse of power.

On Wednesday opposition parties filed a no-confidence motion against the government, which is led by the PSD and has only been in office a few weeks. The PSD bounced back in elections on 11 December, barely a year since mass protests forced it from office.

Dragnea is currently on trial for alleged abuse of power and is already barred from office because of a two-year suspended jail sentence for electoral fraud handed down last year. He denies any wrongdoing in relation to the latest charges.

Business minister Florin Jianu announced his resignation on Thursday, saying he disagreed with the governments stance, while PSDs deputy chair, Mihai Chirica, called on the government to scrap the decree and send it to parliament for debate.

Jianu said on Facebook: I dont want to have to tell my child that I was a coward and I agreed to something that I dont believe in ... This is what my conscience tells me to do.

The British embassy in Bucharest said it would be concerned if the decree were to shrink the scope of corruption offences and was concerned by the very limited nature of consultations with all relevant stakeholders.

Justice minister Florin Iordache, who has come under fire for publishing the decrees, will temporarily hand his duties over to a subordinate in the ministry, spokeswoman Carmen Lita said. She said it was because he had a heavy workload preparing this years budget.

The protests on Tuesday and Wednesday follow a demonstration last Sunday that drew 40,000 people, including 20,000 in the capital, and another a week earlier involving more than 15,000. More protests are expected later on Thursday.

The size of the protests and the range of protesters is hugely significant and shows the depth and breadth of anger, said Dan Brett, an associate professor at the Open University. However, [those] who [might] benefit from the law have no interest in backing down. They are working on the assumption that as with most protests they will soon fizzle out and so can be ignored.

Link:
Romanian PM to 'press ahead' with corruption decrees as protests grow - The Guardian

Riot police stand guard as demonstrators gather in front of the government headquarters in Bucharest, on Feb. 1.

The largest protests since the collapse of communism failed to persuade Romanias government to reverselegislative changes that undermine a clampdown on corruption and have enraged the public.

Keep up with the best of Bloomberg Politics.

Get our newsletter daily.

We took a decision and were going forward, Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu told a news conference with party leader Liviu Dragnea on Thursday. The party assured me we have its full support to continue our activity and proceed with the governing plan.

Source: Romanian Government

The Social Democrats face the largest backlash since the 1989uprising that ousted dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Romanias third government in two years incurred the wrath of the public andPresident Klaus Iohannis by unexpectedly easing punishments for officials who abuse their positions and seeking to free others from prison. The protestersin the European Union and NATO member back the anti-graft drive thats ensnared top officials, including an ex-Social Democrat premier.

The turmoil sent the leu 1 percent weakeragainst the euro on Wednesday,the steepest decline in more than two years and one that erased all of its 2017 gains. It had rebounded by 0.4 percent as of 5:59 p.m. Thursday in Bucharest. S&P Global Ratings said risks to Romanias investment-grade status are currently balanced.

The government wants to pardon prisoners serving sentences shorter than five years, excluding rapists and repeat offenders, and decriminalize abuse-of-office offenses for sums of less than 200,000 lei ($48,000). While it says its trying to ease prisonovercrowding, its actions would free hundreds ofex-officials and halt probes into others.

They include an investigation into Dragnea, whos seeking a retrial after receiving a suspended sentence for electoral fraud. He denies wrongdoing and on Thursday blamed the protests on a misinformation campaign and encouragement from the president.

The Social Democrats strategy is to shield current and past party politicians from corruption probes, and make it practically impossible for serving politicians to be prosecuted for corruption, James Sawyer, a London-based researcher at Eurasia Group, said in an e-mailed note.

For an explainer on the protests in Romania, click here

Iohannis, whos challenging the governments actions in theConstitutional Court, said the only way to end the unrest is to repeal the steps. Hes seeking talks with Grindeanu next week. Prosecutors said theyll investigate the process through which the cabinet approved the measures.

The controversy in Romania comes amid concern that other regional governments are undermining the rule of law. The EU has reprimanded Poland and Hungary for state encroachment on thejudiciary and the media. The government in Warsaw backed away from plans to tighten abortion rules after mass protests.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker criticized Romanias actions, saying the fight against corruption needs to be advanced, not undone. Six embassies, including those of the U.S. and Germany, said they hope the government will reverse this unhelpful course.

Anti-graft prosecutors are working on more than 2,000abuse-of-office cases. In the past two years, theyve sent more than 1,000 people to trial, seeking to recover damages in excess of 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion). The country of 19 million people ranks fourth-worst for graft in the EU, according to Berlin-based Transparency International.

Ill come here every single day until they reverse all the measures and then leave, Ionut Balcescu, a 34-year-old small-business owner,said Wednesday evening in Bucharest. They take us for fools.

See the original post:
Minister Quits as Biggest Post-Communist Protests Rock Romania ... - Bloomberg