Conservative Groups Dominate Efforts To Convince Supreme Court To Hear Cases

The Cato Institute's National Headquarters

According to a study by appellate attorney Adam Chandler, conservative groups utterly dominate the game of seeking to influence which cases the Supreme Court hears. Although the Supreme Court receives about 9,000-10,000 petitions a year seeking their review of a case, only a tiny fraction of these petitions are granted — this year, for example, the Court will only hear 77 cases with full briefing and oral argument. So often the most decision the justices make in a case is the decision to hear it in the first place. There are many views that five justices would support if forced to express their opinion, but that is no guarantee that those views will someday make their way into a Supreme Court opinion.

In light of this fact, conservative organizations have clearly made a significant investment in trying to make sure cases that favor their views catch the justices eye. Eight of the ten most frequent filers of amicus briefs seeking to influence which cases are heard by the Court are solidly on the right:

Three of the top ten groups — the Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Businesses — are Republican-aligned business lobbies. DRI represents attorneys who themselves represent big business. Cato is an anti-government think tank that believes Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. Pacific Legal Foundation, Washington Legal Foundation and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence are all right-wing litigation shops, the later of which was founded by one of America’s leading anti-gay attorneys.

Only one group in the top ten, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), is arguably a left-leaning organization — but even this organization works closely with conservative legal groups to reduce “overcriminalization” of activities approved of by conservatives. In any event, while eliminating unnecessary crimes, promoting sensible sentencing and similar goals are certainly important, NACDL’s work on behalf of the criminal defense bar is narrowly focused on goals related to criminal justice — and thus they can hardly provide a counterbalance to the Chamber’s corporate advocacy or to Cato’s efforts to destroy the health care safety net.

There are a number of possible explanations for why conservatives completely dominate this area of Supreme Court litigation, the most obvious of which is that massive corporations and right-wing billionaires simply have more money to throw at hiring lawyers with the skills and influence to convince the justices to take a case. Even relatively prosperous left-of-center groups, however, likely stay out of this game because of the Roberts Court’s conservatism. Indeed, the Chamber isn’t just the top filer of amicus briefs asking the Court to hear cases, the corporate lobbying group is also one of the most successful litigants — if not the most successful litigant — before the Supreme Court.

View the original article here

GOP Congresswoman: I Opposed Domestic Violence Bill Because It Protected Too Many Groups

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Monday openly admitted that she opposed the latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) because it included protections for LGBT, Native American, and undocumented victims of domestic violence.

In an appearance on MSNBC, Blackburn pointed out that the latest iteration of the law protects “different groups” and thus dilutes funding for straight, non-Native American women with the proper documentation:

When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.

Watch it:

Domestic violence is domestic violence, period. And there is no way to justify Blackburn’s suggestion that some victims of this violence are more deserving than others. The reauthorized VAWA allows programs targeting LGBT victims of domestic violence to compete on equal footing for grant money with other groups serving underserved populations, and it ensures that LGBT victims will not be turned away from shelters and other services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These victims of violence deserve the same protections as anyone else caught in domestic abuse.

Additionally, the reauthorized VAWA includes provisions to prevent serial rapists and similar abusers from preying on Native American women. If Blackburn considers Native American women a “different group,” then it’s one she should be most concerned about: Three out of every five Native American women has been assaulted by an intimate partner.

View the original article here

Faith Groups Add Their Voices To The ‘Forward on Climate’ Chorus

Sojourners and Young Evangelicals for Climate Action at the rally. Credit: Sojourners

By Catherine Woodiwiss

Eighteen months after the first major protests in DC against the Keystone XL pipeline made headlines for weeks and saw hundreds of protestors arrested, Sunday’s”Forward on Climate” rally gathered the “NO XL” faithful for what organizers called the “biggest climate rally by far in history.”

And as with anti-Keystone protests past, faith groups lent visible support; their banners, prayers, and chants joining the estimated 40,000 peaceful protestors calling on President Obama to show climate leadership in his new term by vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline.

Kevin Mason, a young man with The Catholic Worker hospitality house in DC, saw protesting the pipeline as a matter of justice and solidarity. “One person is hurt, we all are hurt,” he said over chants of “That’s not kosher!” from the assembled crowd. “Charity and resistance go hand in hand. There’s a huge need to get back to the Genesis idea of stewardship and beloved community.”

Faith groups have grown bolder in their pro-environment positions, and are gaining some momentum in joining and helping shape protests against fracking and tar sands removal. The shift hasn’t been easy — climate change is still a challenging conversation in many faithful communities, and remains completely off the radar in others.

Yet in the last year alone, several new groups and initiatives like Young Evangelicals for Climate Action and the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate have sprung up, major faith mobilizers like Sojourners have more publicly stepped in, and longstanding interfaith climate organizing networks like Interfaith Power and Light have redoubled their efforts.

“It’s great to see this interfaith energy,” said George Hoguet, a former Catholic now part of The Stillworkers, an engaged Buddhist community in Pittsburgh. “It’s great — there needs to be more.”

Tim Kumfer, representing Interfaith Power & Light at the rally, expressed hope for the direction of faith involvement. “I’ve seen, even today – there are more and more young people here who are publicly identifying with faith, connecting it to this issue,” he said, noting a common disparity between young climate organizers and older interfaith activists. Increasingly at climate actions, Kumfer noted, “there’s all ages and denominations joining in.”

In 2011, Keystone XL protests helped prompt a delay from the Administration on pipeline construction. This time, protestors want a full stop, and took their message directly to the man they see as the ultimate decider: the newly re-elected President.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, issued a challenge to thunderous applause from the crowd. If the President were to veto the pipeline, he would, in McKibben’s words, “become the first leader in history to veto legislation because it was bad for the climate. And he can put an end to that with a single stroke of his pen.”

Van Jones, President of Rebuild the Dream, echoed McKibben’s charge. “Today, I direct my message to [the President]: all the good you’ve done, everything you’ve fought for…will be wiped out if you fail to act now. The decision is in your hands.”

He added, “If the pipeline is built, the first thing it runs over… will be your credibility.”

This stern charge came just days after 48 XL protestors were arrested in front of the White House, and President Obama’s State of the Union speech featured climate change as a pressing issue for his second term.

That the rally occurred over President’s Day weekend was no coincidence. “We’re showing [the President] visible support for his efforts,” said one woman in the faith march, identifying as Unitarian. “He needs it more than Congress. We need to show him we agree and want him to keep going.”

Reverend Lennox Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus and a host for the Forward on Climate rally, urged the crowd to remember the values that unite the climate movement.

Citing the influence of money and power in Washington, Lennox said, “We have other currencies to work with: passion, spirit, creativity. A love for the future is what brought us here today.”

On Sunday, protestors made it clear they are looking to the President to demonstrate his share in these values and veto the pipeline.

Catherine Woodiwiss is a special assistant on the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Green groups rally on climate, urge Obama to reject Keystone project

Environmental groups gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Sunday and marched on the White House for a climate change rally largely aimed at pressuring President Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

Organizers said 35,000 activists attended the rally, where speakers portrayed the battle over the pipeline as a struggle between grassroots green groups and deep-pocketed special interests.

“They’ve got the lobbyists. They’ve got the super-PACs. They made the campaign contributions. They’ve got this town in their pockets — they have got the situation under control. And then you show up. And then we show up. And we change the game,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told the crowd not long before it marched on the White House.

Obama will decide whether the project goes forward because it crosses national boundaries.

More from The Hill:
• States join battle over drone flights
• Privacy advocates: Cybersecurity bill faces tough odds
• Press corps: 'Frustration' over lack of access to Obama
• Graham: Hagel disavowed remark on Israel, State Dept.
• Defense industry focuses on minimizing sequester damage
• Dems hold fire on climate change votes

The pipeline would bring fossil fuels from Canadian tar sands fields to the Gulf Coast. Environmentalists are painting Obama’s upcoming decision as the litmus test for whether he plans to make good on recent comments about tackling climate change.

Activists at Sunday’s rally said approving the pipeline would taint Obama’s record on climate change. They said they hoped the demonstration would give the president the will to nix Keystone, even when a majority of both the House and the Senate want it built.

“His heart is there. The question is can we change the politics enough so he can do what he knows is right. And I believe that he will,” Van Jones, a former Obama adviser, told The Hill.

Courtesy of Shadia Fayne Wood | Project Survival Media | 350.org

The politics surrounding the project are formidable.

Blocking Keystone would play into Republican assertions that the president is scuttling a project that could enhance energy security and create thousands of jobs to appease environmental supporters. They have pressed the White House to green-light the pipeline.

Oil-and-gas groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute, have helped lead a lobbying effort to get Keystone built.

Canada also has tried to sway the administration into approving the pipeline, as it would benefit that nation's oil sands industry.

Obama also has his own base to consider, as several union groups are eager for the jobs Keystone would bring to their members. The AFL-CIO’s building and construction trades division has endorsed the pipeline, and that department’s leader expects the full labor federation to lend its support.

But there is no time to delay when it comes to climate change, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) international program, told The Hill.

“There is no deal to be done,” she said. “We need to do everything we can on every front.”

That is why NRDC and other green groups also want Obama to pursue more stringent carbon emissions standards.

The environmental community is pushing the White House to set emissions standards for existing power plants to build on proposed rules in Obama's first term that effectively barred construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Courtesy of Joshua Lopez | Project Survival Media | 350.org

Greens also want Obama to forge ahead with clean-energy research and deployment on federal lands, measures to boost energy efficiency in homes, buildings and manufacturing and efforts to make coastal towns and cities more storm resilient.

The green groups are focusing their pressure on Obama because of gloomy prospects for passing climate bills this Congress. Republicans will not accept fees on carbon emissions — the same goes for some conservative Democrats.

In an interview with The Hill, Whitehouse said killing Keystone and pushing ahead with stronger regulations could jolt polluting industries into working on climate legislation.

“That’s what’s going to bring them to the table very quickly,” Whitehouse said. “And as soon as the polluters want it, then obviously the Republicans are right there with them.”

View Comments

View the original article here

Small Business Groups Praise Obama’s Climate Stance, Call For Regulation Of Existing Power Plants

A coalition of groups representing over 150,000 American businesses and $9.5 trillion in collective assets signed a letter yesterday praising President Obama for his strong stance on climate policy in the State of the Union address.

In the letter, the business organizations Environmental Entrepreneurs, the American Sustainable Business Council, Ceres, and Green America Coming Together endorsed Obama’s new energy efficient and renewable power targets, as well as his commitment to “reduce carbon pollution, absent Congressional action, through existing federal authorities.” They also advocated for the executive branch to regulate carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants under the auspices of the Clean Air Act:

We understand the importance of certainty and clear market signals and believe national standards to reduce carbon pollution from new and existing power plants will clarify risks and opportunities for U.S. businesses, while also leading to technological innovation and investment in the domestic clean energy market… Ultimately, investing in cleaner technologies and more efficient resources can be a pathway to profit and prosperity, boosting economic growth and creating jobs while also providing competitive returns to investors.

We believe that the Clean Air Act currently presents the best option for reducing carbon pollution from power plants. We hope this Administration will quickly finalize the proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants and, as required by the Clean Air Act, move forward to propose a carbon reduction program for existing power plants.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions should it determine they’re a danger to public health and the environment. The EPA reached that conclusion in 2009, and is already close to finalizing rules to regulate carbon pollution from new power plants. What’s lacking are rules for already existing power plants, but there are signs of movement in that direction.

In the State of the Union, Obama called for the United States to double the amount of renewable electricity it produces by 2020, and to double its energy efficiency by 2030. He also urged Congress to pass a market-style solution to climate change, such as the cap-and-trade bill put together by former Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) several years ago.

Obama did not explicitly call for extending the EPA’s reach to existing power plants in the speech, but he did bluntly state, “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

The letter from the business groups comes on the heels of another letter from the Small Business Majority expressing similar support: “Our polling found 87 percent of small business owners believe improving innovation and energy efficiency are highly effective ways to increase prosperity for small businesses.”

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Specialty Groups Back IPAB Repeal

A coalition of medical specialties said Tuesday that it supports a bill to repeal the controversial cost-control board in President Obama's signature healthcare law.

The Alliance of Specialty Medicine — a coalition of specialty groups including brain surgeons, plastic surgeons and heart doctors — said it wants Congress to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The IPAB is one of the most controversial pieces of the Affordable Care Act, and it has never been popular with doctors. The panel would have the authority to make targeted cuts in Medicare's payments to doctors if the program's overall costs rise faster than a certain rate.

"The Alliance understands and appreciates concerns with the rising costs of health care," the group wrote in a letter to lawmakers Tuesday. "However, the process and structure of the IPAB is fraught with potential unintended consequences and the IPAB lacks the clinical expertise and the research capacity to examine the national and regional effects of proposed recommendations to ensure patients are not unduly impacted."

Reps. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) and Alyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) recently reintroduced their bill to repeal the IPAB. It could easily pass the House, but likely would not get a vote in the Senate on its own. The Alliance wrote to Roe and Schwartz to express its support for the measure.

Although the IPAB technically makes recommendations to Congress, its power is vast. The healthcare law requires Congress to take up the IPAB's recommendations quickly, and lawmakers can only stop the panel's cuts from taking effect by passing equivalent cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

"The Alliance strongly opposes the IPAB or any other board resulting in an inappropriate delegation of Congress’ oversight responsibilities," the Alliance letter said. "Significant health care decisions must not be made by a group of unelected, unaccountable individuals with little or no clinical expertise or the oversight required to protect access to care for America’s seniors."

House Republicans' rules for the 113th Congress, though, said they will not abide by the law's timing constraints, meaning IPAB cuts won't move as swiftly through Congress as intended. And Obama has yet to nominate anyone to the board. It's hard to find willing nominees, and anyone selected for the polarizing panel would likely face deep opposition from Senate Republicans.

View Comments

View the original article here

Virginia Lawmakers Approve Bill Forcing Universities To Fund Student Groups That Discriminate

The Virginia House of Delegates voted 80-19 today to approve HB1617, a bill that would invite any religious or political university student group to discriminate as they please and still require the campus to providing them funding and access to campus facilities. This would make LGBT students particularly vulnerable to discrimination because universities’ protections for sexual orientation are not enforceable under Virginia law. Under this bill, though, even a KKK chapter could hypothetically form, use campus resources, and openly discriminate against non-white and non-Christian students on campus.

Here’s the text of the bill:

To the extent allowed by state and federal law:

1. A religious or political student organization may determine that ordering the organization’s internal affairs, selecting the organization’s leaders and members, defining the organization’s doctrines, and resolving the organization’s disputes are in furtherance of the organization’s religious or political mission and that only persons committed to that mission should conduct such activities; and

2. No public institution of higher education that has granted recognition of and access to any student organization or group shall discriminate against any such student organization or group that exercises its rights pursuant to subdivision 1.

On most college campuses, student organizations must maintain a constitution that conforms to the university’s procedures, including its nondiscrimination policies. For example, James Madison University requires that all organizations obey the “policies, rules, regulations, and standards of the university,” such as its nondiscrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation. The College of William & Mary offers similar protections and requires student groups be open to all students.

Such policies are key because student organizations receive funding and use campus resources (like meeting spaces) that are funded by fees that all students pay; thus, all students deserve equal access to those campus clubs. Nondiscrimination policies have become a source of contention for conservative Christian student groups, like at Tennessee’s Vanderbilt University and New York’s University of Buffalo, who wish to exclude gay students from membership. In the 2010 case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly answered this question in favor of nondiscrimination policies, ruling that “all-comers” policies are viewpoint neutral, and thus are no more unfair to Christian groups than any other student groups.

Conservatives have argued, however that nondiscrimination policies allow for “hostile takeovers“ — in which students with opposing views infiltrate and assume power in the organization — but there’s no evidence to suggest that this is plausible, let alone that it ever happened. Members of an organization are still allowed to vote for their group’s leaders, even with discriminatory intent, if all students remain eligible. Any student group that can’t persist on its own merits probably doesn’t warrant use of student fees in the first place.

All 19 votes against the bill were cast by Democrats. It now advances to the Senate for committee consideration.

View the original article here

U.S. food, animal health groups petition FDA on ractopamine

* Action comes after Russia rejects feed additive in meat

* Groups want FDA to study long-term impacts, restrict use

Dec 20 (Reuters) - Food safety and animal welfare groups on Thursday filed a legal petition against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking limits on an animal feed additive that is the subject of concerns about human and animal health.

Russia said earlier this month that it was requiring meat it imports to be tested and certified free of the feed additive ractopamine, a move jeopardizing the more than $500 million a year in exports of U.S. beef and pork to that country.

U.S. trade authorities have taken a stand against Russia's sudden decision to require that meat imports be documented as free of ractopamine and have urged Russia to suspend such measures.

Ractopamine is fed to animals to accelerate growth and make their meat leaner, but countries such as China have banned its use amid concerns the additive may be harmful to the animals and that traces of the drug could persist in meat products.

In their petition to the FDA, the Center for Food Safety and the Animal Legal Defense Fund called for an immediate reduction in the allowable levels of ractopamine and asked FDA to study the long-term effect of human consumption and the impacts on animals associated with ractopamine.

"FDA's approval for ractopamine relied primarily on safety studies conducted by the drug-maker, Elanco," the groups said in a statement. "A review of available evidence collected from FDA and the European Food Safety Authority calls FDA's approvals into question."

The groups said that ractopamine is fed to an estimated 60 to 80 percent of U.S. pigs, and has resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market. Ractopamine effects may include toxicity and other exposure risks, such as behavioral changes and cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, reproductive, and endocrine problems, the groups said.

About 160 countries ban or restrict ractopamine, including all the nations of the European Union, China, Taiwan, and Russia, the groups said.

The FDA had no immediate comment.

View the original article here