HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » n2doc » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 1191 Next »

n2doc

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Current location: Georgia
Member since: Tue Feb 10, 2004, 12:08 PM
Number of posts: 38,301

About Me

Environmental Scientist

Journal Archives

Constituents to Senators: Reject Fast Track, or Don't Come Home

Senate expected to take up trade legislation on Tuesday, but labor federation warns: 'Fast Track has gotten even worse since the House got its hands on it.'
Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--June 22, 2015
By: Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

With the U.S. Senate expected to take up Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority, on Tuesday, the stakes are high for progressives who oppose pro-corporate trade deals.

Last week, the House passed a Fast Track bill that—unlike the Senate version passed in May—was decoupled from Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation. To move Fast Track to President Barack Obama's desk, thereby enabling him to ram through Congress mammoth international pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Senate must pass its own standalone Fast Track bill.

With votes scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, anti-Fast Trackers are being urged to call their senators, while activists are also organized the #SenatorDontComeHome Twitter storm for Monday afternoon at 1 pm EDT, in which they told lawmakers to block Fast Track or risk alienating constituents.

The Senate is scheduled to take a cloture vote on that legislation on Tuesday, requiring 60 votes to advance the bill for debate. If that vote is successful, the subsequent vote, to actually pass Fast Track, would require a simple majority and is expected to come Wednesday.

more

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/latest-national-news/62255-constituents-to-senators-reject-fast-track-or-don-t-come-home.html

Justice Sotomayor Hides Good News For Abortion Clinics In An Obscure Case About Hotels

Los Angeles v. Patel was not a particularly closely watched decision this Supreme Court term, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion for the Court may prove to be one of the seminal precedents civil libertarians cite to ward off government invasions of personal privacy. The most surprising aspect of Sotomayor’s opinion, however, is that it may also give a boost to abortion clinics that are fighting for their life in states such as Texas. Sotomayor — in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the one justice pro-choice groups typically must sway to win a case in the Supreme Court — includes language in her Patel opinion that is inconsistent with a recent lower court opinion upholding Texas’s efforts to restrict access to abortion.

Patel concerns a Los Angeles ordinance that requires hotel operators to keep certain records, such as the names and addresses of their guests, and which provides that those records “shall be made available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection.” Hotel operators who refuse to do so face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The Court, in a 5-4 decision that includes the four left-of-center justices plus Kennedy, holds that this ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures because it does not afford these hotel operators “an opportunity to obtain precompliance review before a neutral decision maker.”

The most significant aspect of Sotomayor’s opinion, however, is the Court’s holding that the plaintiffs in this case may bring what is known as a “facial” challenge to the Los Angeles ordinance. Generally speaking, facial challenges seek to invalidate a law altogether, while less potent “as-applied” challenges merely seek a decision holding that a particular law cannot be applied to a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. Prior to Patel, the Court’s precedents were not especially clear regarding when facial challenges are appropriate, and one seminal case indicated that, to bring such a challenge, “the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”

Patel clarifies this rule, and it relies on one of the Court’s most important abortion decisions to do so. When assessing if a facial challenge is proper, Sotomayor explains, “the Court has considered only applications of the statute in which it actually authorizes or prohibits conduct.” Thus, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the only major abortion case where Justice Kennedy cast a pro choice vote,


the Court struck down a provision of Pennsylvania’s abortion law that required a woman to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. Those defending the statute argued that facial relief was inappropriate because most women voluntarily notify their husbands about a planned abortion and for them the law would not impose an undue burden. The Court rejected this argument, explaining: The “Legislation is measured for consistency with the Constitution by its impact on those whose conduct it affects. . . . The proper focus of the constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant.”

more
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/22/3672394/justice-sotomayor-hides-good-news-abortion-clinics-obscure-case-hotels/

White House Takes Huge Step Forward In Fight Over Marijuana Research

WASHINGTON -- The White House took a major step forward on Monday to support research into the medical properties of marijuana, lifting a much-maligned bureaucratic requirement that had long stifled scientific research.

By eliminating the Public Health Service review requirement, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), also known as the drug czar's office, will help facilitate research into the drug.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers had called for the requirement to be lifted.

The requirement had long outgrown today's marijuana politics. Even opponents of legalization have called for it to be lifted. As HuffPost's Matt Ferner reported earlier:

Currently, marijuana research that is not funded by the government must go through a Public Health Service review -- a process established in 1999 by the federal government after a 1998 Institute of Medicine report called for more scientific research into the medical value of marijuana.
It's a process that no other substance classified by the government as Schedule I is subject to and one that researchers and lawmakers alike have criticized.
Under the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. has five categories for drugs and drug ingredients. Schedule I is reserved for what the DEA considers to have the highest potential for abuse and no medical value. Marijuana has been classified as Schedule I for decades, alongside other substances like heroin and LSD.


more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/public-health-service-review_n_7635760.html

Monday Toon Roundup 4- The Rest

The Issue









GOP






Money








TPA





Conservatives




Monday Toon Roundup 3-Francis vs. Repubs

























Monday Toon Roundup 2-2016








































Monday Toon Roundup 1- Traitor Flag













Dem Strategist: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised if Sanders Beats Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire

June 21, 2015 10:20 am

Democratic strategist Maria Cardona posed the idea Sunday that frontrunner Hillary Clinton could lose critical early-state nomination races in Iowa and New Hampshire to socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

Cardona, a self-described Clinton supporter, said on ABC’s This Week that no one should be surprised if Sanders wins both races.

This could be a sign of just how worried Clinton’s camp is about Sanders, who has garnered huge enthusiasm among the left-wing base of the party.

Host Jonathan Karl teased the discussion with clips of Sanders supporters crowing about their man. He polled well in a recent survey of New Hampshire voters, just 10 points behind the woman expected to coast to the nomination.

“I don’t think we’ve seen more enthusiasm for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, than we’ve seen for Bernie Sanders,” Karl said. “Maria, what is going on … Hillary Clinton, supposed to be a coronation here. She now finds all the energy in the Democratic primary right now is with a 73-year-old self-described socialist from Vermont.”

more

http://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-strategist-we-shouldnt-be-surprised-if-sanders-beats-clinton-in-iowa-and-new-hampshire/

CEO pay more than 300 times average workers in 2014

The United States' chief executive officers made 303 times as much as the average worker in 2014, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute to be released Monday.

The report from the left-leaning think tank found that average CEO compensation for the largest firms was $16.3 million in 2014, an increase of 3.9% from last year and 54.3% since the end of the financial crisis in 2009.

But not only are CEOs making more money than the average worker, they're also making more money than other top wage earners. CEO compensation in 2013 was almost six times higher than others in the top 0.1% of earners, according to the report.

"The claim is that high CEO pay is a marker for talent," says Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute and co-author of the report, who disagrees with the notion that the extraordinarily high compensation of executives is proportional to the skill required to run a large, publicly traded company.

"This data would suggest that executives are not only 300 times more talented than the average worker, but also six times more talented and valuable than other people in the top one-thousandth of earners."

more

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/06/21/epi-report-ceo-pay-303-times-average-2014/29000333/

Toon: National Conversations

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 1191 Next »