Mediaboss Marketing

Jim Hartman Courtesy Photo

Judge Amy Barrett will overturn the Affordable Care Act. So declared Vice President Kamala Harris last fall.More from Harris then:President Trump made it clear that he had a litmus test for Supreme Court justices destroy the Affordable Care Acts protection for people with preexisting conditions and overturn our right to make our own health care decisions.... Republicans are desperate to get Judge Barrett confirmed and millions of Americans will suffer for their power play.Joe Bidens official statement on the Supreme Court nomination of Barrett last year mentioned her name once . It mentioned Roe vs. Wade once. It had eight sentences alluding to the pending case on the Affordable Care Act claiming Americans would lose their health insurance.There were other similar false demagogic messages, including from Sen. Chuck Schumer that Barrett clearly said shed strike down the Affordable Care Act.Nancy Pelosi charged that Barretts nomination threatens destruction of life-saving protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions together with every other benefit and protection of the ACA.Progressive zealot , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, opined: Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.All wrong totally wrong. Will all the Democratic Party luminaries who claimed Barretts confirmation would mean the end of ObamaCare now apologize?Democrats actually knew last year that ObamaCare was in no real threat of being overturned.On June 17, Barrett very predictably joined the U. S. Supreme Courts 7-2 majority upholding the law.During Barretts confirmation hearings, Democrats absurdly claimed that placing her on the court was to assure that the ACA would be invalidated. But Barretts record, in addition to her answers to Senate Judiciary Committee questions, made it a near certainty that she would not vote to toss out the statute.Two important lessons should be learned never underestimate Democratic Party politicians cynicism, and, that conservative justices dont decide cases based on their policy preferences.Texas and 17 other states with Republican attorneys general, along with two individual plaintiffs, in California vs. Texas, challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, after Congress zeroed out the penalty for not carrying health insurance in the 2017 tax reform.Plaintiffs dubious argument was that the entire ACA became unconstitutional when Congress zeroed out the individual mandate the mandate having been the basis on which the court in 2012 had earlier upheld the statute. Most judicial experts expected plaintiffs to lose.As a matter of law, the plaintiffs contention that the mandate was not severable from the rest of the ACA, therefore invalidating the entire voluminous statute, was untenable. In addition, plaintiffs did not have standing to raise their claims.In the end , six (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett) joined Justice Breyers opinion in declining even to reach the merits and held instead that plaintiffs lacked standing.Under court precedents, plaintiffs must suffer an injury in fact, The courts seven vote majority found that neither the individuals nor the states could show they would be harmed by the zeroed-out penalty. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.The decision underscored that the court, even with recent additions of more conservative justices, is still able to find broad coalitions supporting middle-ground outcomes in controversial cases.Progressives treat the Supreme Court as just another policy-making body and court justices as politicians. They claimed Barretts confirmation would result is a series of far-right legal victories. But the conservative justices are demonstrating a diversity of legal views that are neither uniform nor radical.Health-care policy needs to be addressed, but that remains a task for Congress. The Roberts Court, with a now stronger conservative majority, intends to defer to Congress.It should never be the Supreme Courts responsibility to re-write health care law.Jim Hartman is an attorney residing in Genoa. Email lawdocman1@aol.com.

Continued here:
Jim Hartman: Democrats' 'Obamascare' proven wrong | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

Democrats are poised to move forward with a probe into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack after Republicans stonewalled an independent commission.

The House is set to vote this week before leaving for a three-week July 4 break on establishing a select committee to investigate the attack.

Jan. 6 was one of the darkest days in our nation's history ... it is imperative that we establish the truth of that day and ensure that an attack of that kind cannot happen and that we root out the causes of it all, Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPhotos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Wallace has contentious interview with GOP lawmaker: Aren't you the ones defunding the police? MORE (D-Calif.)told reporters late last week.

The decision comes after the Senate, which has started a two-week recess, failed to break a 60-vote legislative filibuster on legislation to establish an evenly divided commission of outside experts. Six Republicans voted for the bill establishing the commission and a seventh, Sen. Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyBlack women look to build upon gains in coming elections Watch live: GOP senators present new infrastructure proposal Sasse rebuked by Nebraska Republican Party over impeachment vote MORE (Pa.), said he would have voted for it but missed the vote.

House Democrats have been chewing over multiple options for how to probe the attack, where a mob of former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' NY prosecutors give Trump Org lawyers Monday deadline: report MOREs supporters breached the Capitol as lawmakers and then-Vice President Pence were counting the Electoral College vote.

Some Democrats had pushed for the House Homeland Security Committee, an already established panel, to take the lead on an investigation given that Chairman Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonDemocrats to create select committee to probe Jan. 6 attack DHS considering asylum for migrants whose cases were terminated under Trump Democratic clamor grows for select committee on Jan. 6 attack MORE (D-Miss.) and Rep. John KatkoJohn Michael KatkoJan. 6 probe poised to spill into 2022, with no complaints from Democrats Democrats to create select committee to probe Jan. 6 attack Bipartisan lawmakers highlight COVID-19 impact on mental health, addiction MORE (N.Y.), a moderate Republican, negotiated the deal on the legislation for the independent commission.

But a select committee would empower Democratic leaders to dictate the ground rules of the investigation, including the scope, the numerical composition of members, the parameters surrounding the panel's subpoena powers and the timeline for ending the probe.

Sources told The Hill last week that Pelosi was mulling tapping Thompson to lead the select committee.

Infrastructure

President BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE is working to save a bipartisan infrastructure deal after he caused a GOP firestorm by suggesting late last week, just hours after the agreement was announced, that he wouldnt sign it unless it was accompanied by a larger, multitrillion-dollar Democratic-only bill.

Biden tried to clean up his previous statement over the weekend, saying that it was not his intent to suggest he would veto the bipartisan agreement.

But Biden also tried to balance his competing pressure points, arguing that Republicans shouldn't oppose the bipartisan deal just because Democrats, as theyve been telegraphing for weeks, are going to try to pass a second larger bill under reconciliation that allows them to bypass the 60-vote legislative filibuster. He also argued that progressives shouldnt vote against the bipartisan deal just because it doesnt go as far as they want.

I will ask Leader [Charles] Schumer to schedule both the infrastructure plan and the reconciliation bill for action in the Senate. I expect both to go to the House, where I will work with Speaker Pelosi on the path forward after Senate action. Ultimately, I am confident that Congress will get both to my desk, so I can sign each bill promptly, Biden said.

Bidens remarks appeared to appease Republicans in the core negotiating group, who remained supportive of the agreement during appearances on the Sunday shows.

Sen. Rob PortmanRobert (Rob) Jones PortmanHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Biden adviser on president signing bill: 'I don't think it's a yes-or-no question' Barasso says Biden must do more to reassure GOP MORE (R-Ohio) said he was blindsided by Bidens remarks, but added that he was very glad to see the president clarify his remarks because it was inconsistent with everything that we had been told all along the way. We were all blindsided by the comments the previous day.

I'm glad they've now been de-linked and it's very clear that we can move forward with a bipartisan bill that's broadly popular, Portman told ABCs This Week.

Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyPhotos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog Biden adviser on president signing bill: 'I don't think it's a yes-or-no question' Barasso says Biden must do more to reassure GOP MORE (R-Utah) said he trusted Biden before signaling that he accepted the presidents clarification.

I do trust the president and, he made very clear in the much larger statement that came out over the weekend, the carefully crafted and thought through piece by piece, as that if the infrastructure bill reaches his desk, and it comes alone, he will sign it, Romney said during an interview with CNNs State of the Union.

But it remains to be seen if Bidens remarks are enough to quell the larger GOP furor, after Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Biden adviser on president signing bill: 'I don't think it's a yes-or-no question' MORE (R-Ky.) panned Bidens rhetoric and two Republicans in the larger gang of 21 Sens. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGreen groups shift energy to reconciliation package Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Barasso says Biden must do more to reassure GOP MORE (S.C.) and Jerry MoranGerald (Jerry) MoranBipartisan senators ask CDC, TSA when they will update mask guidance for travelers Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Senate Republicans urge CDC to lift public transportation mask mandate MORE (Kan.) threatened to pull their support.

Biden will have to balance any overture to Republicans with the challenge of also keeping progressives on board amid worry from the left that the two-track system could cause centrists to boot priorities like expanding Medicare and climate change.

Let me be clear: There will not be a bipartisan infrastructure deal without a reconciliation bill that substantially improves the lives of working families and combats the existential threat of climate change. No reconciliation bill, no deal. We need transformative change NOW, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersPolitical campaigns worry they're next for ransomware hits Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight How Biden can reframe and reclaim patriotism, faith, freedom, and equality MORE (I-Vt.) tweeted on Sunday.

Amid the wrangling over Bidens plan, the House will vote this week on a $547 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill to invest in roads, bridges, transit and rail.

Confederate statues

The House will vote on legislation to remove statues of people who served the Confederacy or otherwise worked to uphold slavery that are currently displayed in the Capitol.

Among the provisions in the bill is language that would replace a bust of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that Black people did not have the rights of citizens and couldn't sue in federal courts, with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court justice.

In addition to statues of figures related to the Confederacy, the bill would also require the removal of the statues of Charles Brantley, a former North Carolina governor who espoused white supremacy; John Caldwell Calhoun, who defended slavery; and James Paul Clarke, a former governor and senator that Arkansas has already announced it will replace.

Iraq War

The House is set to vote to repeal the1991 Iraq War authorization, giving a big boost to a years-long effort to roll back the authorization for the use of military force.

The Houses vote comes as efforts to rein in the executive branchs war authority are ramping up in a shift from Congresss increasingly hands-off approach.The chamber already voted earlierthis month to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to advance legislation from Sens. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Infrastructure breakthrough marks victory for political center Democrats hit wall on voting rights push MORE (D-Va.) and Todd YoungTodd Christopher YoungThe Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden helps negotiate bipartisan infrastructure deal Overnight Defense: Joint Chiefs warn against sweeping reform to military justice system | Senate panel plans July briefing on war authorization repeal | National Guard may have 'training issues' if not reimbursed Senate panel plans July briefing on war authorization repeal MORE (R-Ind.) that would repeal both the 2002 and 1991 Iraq War-related authorizations.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerThe Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy Infrastructure deal: Major climate win that tees up more in reconciliation bill Democrats seek to calm nervous left MORE (D-N.Y.) announced earlier this month that he supports repealing the authorization and is committed to bringing it up for a vote on the Senate floor this year.

The Iraq War has been over for nearly a decade and authorization passed in 2002 is no longer necessary in 2021. ... It no longer serves a vital purpose in our fight against violent extremists, Schumer said from the Senate floor.

I strongly and fully support repealing the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, he said. It is my intention as majority leader to bring this matter to a floor vote this year."

Read the original post:
This week: Democrats move forward with Jan. 6 probe | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON A push by Democrats to enact the most expansive voting rights legislation in generations is set to collapse in the Senate on Tuesday, when Republicans are expected to use a filibuster to block a measure that President Biden and his allies in Congress have called a vital step to protect democracy.

Despite solid Republican opposition, Democrats plan to bring the voting rights fight to a head on the Senate floor, by calling a test vote to try to advance the broad federal elections overhaul, known as the For the People Act. As Republican-led states rush to enact restrictive new voting laws, Democrats have presented the legislation as the partys best chance to undo them, expand ballot access from coast to coast and limit the effect of special interests on the political process.

We can argue what should be done to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy, but dont you think we should be able to debate the issue? Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Monday in a last-ditch appeal to Republicans to let the debate proceed.

But in the hours before the vote, Democrats conceded they were facing defeat at least for now. Even if they succeeded in securing the votes of all 50 senators in the Democratic caucus, party leaders were expected to fall well short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and begin debating the bill.

Instead, they focused on Monday on rallying the party around a more limited alternative proposed by Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who had been the only Democratic holdout on the voting rights measure. Both the White House and former President Barack Obama said his suggestions would address many of the most urgent issues. President Biden and Mr. Manchin also spoke directly about the need to find a legislative solution, according to an official familiar with their conversation who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Leaders hope that, given the support for his proposal, Mr. Manchin will vote with the rest of the Senates Democrats and Democratic-aligned independents to allow the debate to proceed, allowing his party to present a unified front on the bill.

What we are measuring, I think, is, is the Democratic Party united? We werent as of a couple of weeks ago, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said before acknowledging the vote would fail.

Mr. Obama offered a tepid endorsement, saying it would address many of his concerns about elections, but doesnt have everything Id like to see in a voting rights bill.

Regardless, Mr. Schumer appeared to have only one remaining option to try to pass the legislation: eliminating or altering the Senate rule that sets a 60-vote threshold for breaking a legislative filibuster. Progressives have clamored to do so since Democrats won a narrow majority in January, and argued before Tuesdays vote that it would help make their case. Yet a handful of key moderates led by Mr. Manchin insist they will never go along.

One of them, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, dug in further Monday night on the eve of the vote, warning her party in an op-ed in The Washington Post that it would lose much more than we gain by eliminating the 60-vote threshold.

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority? Ms. Sinema wrote.

With the path forward so murky, top Democrats began framing Tuesdays vote as a moral victory, and potentially a crucial step in building consensus around eventually blowing up the filibuster.

The outcome, Ms. Psaki said, may change the conversation on the Hill around the filibuster, but she offered no clear next steps.

After former President Donald J. Trump returned in recent months to making false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him,Republican lawmakers in many states have marched aheadto pass laws making it harder to vote and change how elections are run, frustrating Democrats and even some election officials in their own party.

Mr. Manchin had opposed key planks in the original For the People Act as too intrusive into the rights of states to regulate their own elections. His proposal would eliminate a provision neutering state voter identification laws and strip out a public campaign financing program.

But it preserves other key measures, like an end to partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts and the creation of tough new ethics rules. It would also expand early voting, make Election Day a federal holiday and make it easier to vote by mail.

A Monmouth University Poll released on Monday indicated that Mr. Manchins position may be more in line with public sentiment, particularly his support for some kinds of voter identification requirements.

The poll found, for instance, that seven in 10 Americans supported making early in person voting easier and were in favor of the federal government creating national guidelines for mail-in and early in person voting. But eight in 10 said they generally supported voter identification requirements that the For the People Act would effectively neuter.

Republicans are united in their opposition both to Democrats original bill and to Mr. Manchins changes, describing them as overly prescriptive and geared toward giving their own party an advantage in future elections.

The real driving force behind S. 1 is the desire to rig the rules of American elections permanently permanently in Democrats favor, said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, referring to the legislation by its bill number. Thats why the Senate will give this disastrous proposal no quarter.

Reid J. Epstein and Catie Edmondson contributed reporting.

Excerpt from:
Democrats Unite Behind Voting Rights Bill as It Faces a Senate Roadblock - The New York Times

WASHINGTONDemocrats face a daunting task: turning years of talking about raising taxes on corporations and high-income Americans into legislation that can get through razor-thin congressional majorities and onto President Bidens desk.

As top Democrats design a roughly $1 trillion infrastructure deal, and a second, broader antipoverty package in coming months, they need to resolve differences over the amount of spending, how much must be paid for, and which of Mr. Bidens proposed tax increases should advance. After meeting with senior administration officials on Thursday, the tax committee chairmen in Congress said lawmakers would make those decisions over the next several weeks.

Were going to build the plan, figure out what people want, what theyre willing to pay for, but also not to be deterred, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D., Mass.), said in an interview Friday. Theres this moment, when were talking about Great Society achievements and were talking about New Deal achievements. This is it.

Democrats raised taxes each of the last two times they controlled the governmentin 1993 and 2010after bruising political battles that drew objections from moderates inside the party.

Now, some Democrats are convinced that tax politics have changed and public concern about inequality and corporate tax avoidance make the issue less toxic. The goal: approach 1990s levels of taxes, as a share of the economy, without reversing middle-class tax cuts enacted since then or raising taxes directly on households making under $400,000, a level that covers all but 2% of Americans.

Read more:
Democrats Focus on Turning Tax Talk Into Action - The Wall Street Journal

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia offered an analogy to the "Peanuts" comic strip on Monday, comparing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to the character "Lucy" who always yanks a football away from "Charlie Brown" at the last second.

"It's not unlike him to sometimes pull the football out when the kicker is just about to kick it. I've seen him do that before," Kaine told Politico. "And I know that that's sometimes more frustrating for the Republicans than it is for the Dems. He's pretty inscrutable."

Republicans have sometimes been accused of trying to pull a bait-and-switch with Democrats on immigration and infrastructure, promising backing for bipartisan measures that ultimately never materializes.

Kaine also told reporters that Democrats are starting to assemble an up to $6 trillion party-line package which will move through Congress using an arduous path called budget reconciliation. That allows Democrats to muscle through a separate package focused on childcare, climate change, and healthcare without Republican votes.

On Monday, McConnell demanded that President Joe Biden ensure Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi follow his lead and sever any link between the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal and the reconciliation package. The latter measure can clear the Senate with a simple majority.

"The President cannot let congressional Democrats hold a bipartisan bill hostage over a separate and partisan process," he said in a statement.

Democrats are likely to trigger the party-line process in mid-July once they return from a two-week recess. But they're clashing on both price tag and scope. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said on Sunday he would support up to a $2 trillion economic package that's fully paid for and doesn't grow the national debt.

Manchin's position will likely frustrate progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They're pressing for a huge spending package that includes aggressive measures to combat climate change, tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy, along with Medicare expansion.

"I think the key for progressives is as long as Dems are willing to act by reconciliation for the pieces we couldn't get, that's great," Kaine told reporters on Thursday, adding that a range of climate and immigration provisions could end up in a Democratic-only package.

Excerpt from:
Democratic senator says Mitch McConnell may 'pull the football out' from Democrats on infrastructure - Business Insider