Grassley Proposes Eliminating 3 Seats On Powerful Court To Keep Obama From Filling Them

As ThinkProgress has previously explained, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is the second most powerful court in the country. It’s also a bastion of right-wing jurisprudence thanks in no small part to Senate Republican filibusters. Two George W. Bush appointees on this court recently struck down clean air regulations that would have prevented “between 13,000 and 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits and 1.8 million days of missed work or school for each year.” Three conservative members of the court handed down a decision earlier this year that would make much of American labor law completely unenforceable, and render an important agency created to check Wall Street impotent to boot. At least two of the Court’s judges believe that all business, workplace or Wall Street regulation is constitutionally suspect.

Time, however, is a harsh mistress, and several of the court’s older Republican appointees have taken partial retirement in the last several years. As a result, this court that once boasted one of the most lopsided lineups in the country now is split 4-3 between Democratic and Republican appointees. Moreover, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on the nomination of Sri Srinivasan to the DC Circuit, a nominee so brimming with conservative endorsers and past jobs working for Republican judges and administrations, that his nomination is practically an act of trolling by President Obama. If Srinivasan is confirmed, Republican-appointees will no longer have a majority among the active judges on the nation’s second-highest court. If another Obama nominee is confirmed to one of the three remaining vacancies, Republican-appointees will be in the minority.

Which explains why Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) used Srinivasan’s hearing to introduce legislation ensuring that this won’t happen:

I would like to spend a couple minutes discussing the D.C. Circuit. As most of my colleagues know, the D.C. Circuit is the least busy circuit in the country. In fact, it ranks last or almost last in nearly every category that measures workload.

Based on the 2012 statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the D.C. Circuit has the fewest number of appeals filed per authorized judgeship, with 108. By way of comparison, the 11th Circuit ranks first with over 5 times as many appeals filed per authorized judgeship, with 583. . . . Given this imbalance in workload, today I am introducing the Court Efficiency Act. A number of my colleagues are co-sponsoring the legislation, including Senators Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz and Flake.

This legislation is straightforward. It would add a seat to the Second and the Eleventh Circuits. At the same time, it would reduce the number of authorized judgeships for the D.C. Circuit from 11 to 8.

While it is true that the DC Circuit’s caseload is relatively small in terms of raw numbers, Grassley’s statistics are highly misleading. Unlike other federal courts of appeal, the DC Circuit hears an unusually large number of major regulatory and national security cases, many of which require very specialized legal research, involve intensely long records, and take more time for a judge to process than four or five normal cases of the kinds heard in other circuits. The caseloads outside of the DC Circuit include many routine sentencing, immigration and other cases of the kinds that are often dispatched with in brief orders drafted by staff attorneys (who then have these orders approved by judges). The DC Circuit, by contrast, hears far fewer of these easy cases that require very little work on the part of judges.

Indeed, it’s likely that even Chuck Grassley understands that Chuck Grassley’s numbers are misleading. In 2005, Grassley voted to confirm Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a Bush appointee to the DC Circuit. Brown was the tenth active judge on the DC Circuit when she took her seat. Shortly thereafter, Grassley voted to confirm Judge Thomas Griffith. Griffith was the eleventh active judge on the DC Circuit at the time of his confirmation.

Now that President Obama is naming judges, however, Grassley suddenly thinks the DC Circuit is so underworked that it needs just eight judges. This isn’t credible. If Grassley tries to use this excuse in the future to block an Obama nominee to the DC Circuit, Senate Democrats can respond by nuking the filibuster and making Grassley’s transparently self-serving views irrelevant.

View the original article here

FDA proposes tightening rules for heart defibrillators

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

*FDA proposes tightening rules for heart defibrillators

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

India panel proposes to regulate prices of patented medicines

By Kaustubh Kulkarni

MUMBAI, Feb 26 (Reuters) - An Indian government panel has proposed that prices of patented medicines be based on the country's per capita income, a move that would substantially reduce prices of costly drugs made by global pharmaceutical firms.

The proposal, which seeks the input of other government agencies as well as industry groups, could provoke the ire of Big Pharma, which has clashed with India over protection of intellectual property, price regulations for generic drugs, and compulsory licenses for costly medicines.

A panel formed under the ministry of chemicals and fertilizers has recommended setting up a committee to negotiate with drugmakers to fix prices of costly drugs used to treat deadly diseases such as cancer, HIV and hepatitis.

The proposal is the latest in a series of measures taken by India to make medicines more affordable for the country's 1.2 billion population.

"If we compare the per-capita income with the prices of patented medicines in countries like Australia or France, prices in India are comparatively high and hence, they need to be regulated," a senior ministry official told Reuters, declining to be identified because he was not authorised to speak with media.

Generic medicines account for more than 90 percent of India's $13 billion pharmaceuticals market. U.S.-based Abbott Laboratories has the largest share of the overall Indian drug market followed by India's Cipla .

The proposal, posted late on Monday on the ministry website, cites as an example the lung-cancer drug erlotinib HCL, sold by Roche Holding AG as Tarceva. In India, it costs 35,450 rupees ($660) for one month of 100 mg tablets, equivalent to 121,085 rupees in France and 121,650 rupees in Australia.

Based on per-capita gross national incomes, if the drug costs 35,450 rupees in India, its respective cost would be just 11,643 rupees in France and 10,309 rupees in Australia based on per capita income in the respective countries, the report said.

The Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, which represents foreign drugmakers in India, did not reply to questions from Reuters.

"If stringent price regulations are enforced then latest drugs will not be made available in India," said Ameet Hariani, managing partner at Hariani & Co, a Mumbai-based law firm that advises drugmakers and other companies.

($1 = 53.89 rupees)

(Editing by Tony Munroe and Louise Heavens)

((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: INDIA PHARMA/PRICES

View the original article here

Scott Walker Proposes Budget That Cuts Taxes While Reducing Funding For Public Schools

Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) is proposing a budget that would fund a variety of right-wing priorities by slashing support for public services and local communities, according to an outline of the plan given in Walker’s “State of the State” address Wednesday night. Walker, who had already cut taxes significantly in his first term, proposed an additional $630 million in cuts (about half of which come from income taxes):

With this in mind, I am pleased to announce an income tax cut of $343 million. You, the hardworking taxpayers of this state helped to create the budget surplus, so it is only right that we put more money back into your hands. Over the next decade, this will lower income taxes $1.7 billion…Overall, our budget includes more than $630 million in tax cuts.

Walker touted the tax cuts as a way to boost Wisconsin’s economy, but they give relatively little money back to middle-class families, limiting their stimulative effect. A four-person family with a total yearly income of $80,000 would only see an extra $8 per month under Walker’s plans. But even tax cuts with limited effects cost the government money — $1.7 billion over the next decade, according to Walker. And while he says it will be paid for a projected surplus, that’s the same thing former President George W. Bush said about his budget busting tax cuts.

Moreover, Walker’s budget proposes several dangerous changes and cuts to critical public services that could hurt the economy. Despite the fact that “a decade of research has shown no academic benefit from sending students to voucher schools,” Walker proposes a significant expansion of voucher funding, which will come at the expense of public schools. He also plans to freeze state financial support for municipal and city level programs. A similar move in Ohio caused problems for localities when it came to funding fire and police departments.

Walker also doubled down on his refusal to accept Obamacare Medicaid support, a move too irresponsible even for Florida’s hard-right Governor Rick Scott. Walker’s proposed budget also contains provisions requiring “non-elderly, able-bodied adults” on food stamps to attend job training programs in order to get food support.

View the original article here

Indiana Lawmaker Proposes Unconstitutional Bill To Take Away Voting Rights From Out-Of-State College Students

In 1977, the Supreme Court upheld a decision holding that it is unconstitutional to treat college students any differently than other voters in terms of residency requirements to vote. Three and a half decades later, some Republican lawmakers are still trying to prevent college students from voting.

The latest instance is in Indiana, where a state lawmaker just introduced legislation that would prevent students from considering their campus address as their place of residency. Instead, the bill would only allow students to claim the address where they grew up.

The Indianapolis Star has more:

Under House Bill 1311, students who pay out-of-state tuition would not be able to vote in Indiana.

Rep. Peggy Mayfield, the Martinsville Republican who filed the bill, said she’s trying to resolve an issue about determining who is an Indiana resident.

“We’re having people who are not necessarily residents voting in our elections,” she said.

Indiana’s constitution only requires that a voter establish residency for 30 days prior to an election in order to be eligible. Passing a bill that would impose a unique requirement on college students clearly violates the constitutional protections affirmed in Symm v. United States.

Over the past few years, Republicans have made a habit of trying to disenfranchise college students. In Maine, then-Secretary of State Charlie Summers sent a threatening letter to hundreds of college students in 2011 implying that many of them were illegally registered to vote simply because they had grown up out of state. The same year, then-New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien tried to discourage students from casting a ballot because he feared they’d vote “liberal.”

One Indiana Republican is already speaking out against Mayfield’s bill. State Rep. Randy Truitt (R) opposed the measure on the grounds that it would depress turnout among students. “We worked so hard on making the students a part of our community,” Truitt said. “And whether they’re there for a short period of time or not, from my perspective, they’re part of our community, and I’m just not in favor of disenfranchising them.”

Indeed, young Americans already vote at lower rates than the rest of the electorate. Even if this bill weren’t unconstitutional, it’s primary effect would be to drive down turnout among students.

View the original article here

Arizona Gov. Proposes Tax Hike on Hospitals

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoTue 22 Jan 13 | 04:46 PM ET Arizona Governor Jan Brewer proposed a tax hike on hospitals to pay for Obamacare. Caroline Heldman, Occidental College Associate Professor of Politics and Paul Howard, Manhattan Institute, weigh in.

View the original article here