Showing posts with label Sahil Kapur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sahil Kapur. Show all posts

Fair warning: when a gun-friendly senator or public figure claims to support stronger background checks for firearm purchases, they may not mean what you think they mean.


Pro-gun conservative lawmakers and a top National Rifle Association figure insist that they're open to background checks -- but that doesn't mean they want to close any loopholes for people to avoid criminal checks prior to obtaining a gun.


"Absolutely, I'm open to expanding background checks," Asa Hutchinson, a former government official now working for the National Rifle Association, told CNN on Tuesday. Many believed Hutchinson was breaking from the NRA's opposition to expanding the reach of criminal background checks. As it turns out, he wasn't.


There's a critical distinction to be made between universal background checks, a robust policy that would require criminal checks for virtually all gun purchases -- and a more milquetoast proposal to beef up mental health information in existing databases. The former is championed by gun control advocates and experts who say it would have a significant impact. The latter is supported by the NRA and does nothing to make it harder for criminals to buy firearms at private sales or gun shows, where background checks are not required by law.


Hutchinson clarified that he was referring to the latter. "He meant expanding it to include more people into the national instant check system," an NRA spokesman told CNN. "And by number of people, this is in reference to the quality of information within NICS."


A more revealing example of this rhetorical game-playing comes via Sen. Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) spokeswoman Genevieve Rozansky, in response to a query from TPM on whether the senator still supports background checks as he publicly said he did after the Newtown, Conn., shootings.


"Senator Flake has consistently opposed universal background checks," Rozansky wrote in an email. "He believes in stronger background checks, such as making sure mental health records are more efficiently integrated into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System."


Got that? In the same breath, Flake both opposes and supports background checks. What Flake actually supports is the NRA-backed policy of enhanced mental health reporting in existing background checks -- not closing loopholes for people to avoid gun checks.


Flake has cosponsored legislation to that effect, with NRA-friendly Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Mark Begich (D-AK), all three of whom are up for reelection in 2014. It allows these senators to say they support "background checks" without doing anything to upset the powerful gun industry lobby.


Other red state Democrats up for reelection in 2014, such as Sen. Kay Hagan (NC), are similarly caught between the NRA and a policy supported by nine of 10 Americans. Most say they're open to background checks but it's not clear in what form. They're leaving open an escape hatch to oppose the more robust policy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


The distinction is important but easy to obfuscate -- a clever way of appearing to side with 90 percent of the public while actually, or potentially, siding with the NRA.








via TPM News http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/background-checks-rhetorical-games.php
07:23

Marriage equality advocates are eyeing the vote of one of the country's most predictable enemies of liberalism in a blockbuster case about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.


His support is far from certain. But it's surprisingly plausible. Though he's often derided for, and defined by, his conspicuous silence during oral arguments, Thomas' fealty to ideological first principles is stronger and more consistent than any of the other conservative justices'. And in the DOMA case, a key question has become whether marriage should be the province of states, drawing upon a federalist principle at the core of conservative legal jurisprudence.


In this case, his storied record against federal power appears to line up neatly with an argument, backed by some conservative scholars, for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that denies federal benefits to married gay couples.


Randy Barnett, a libertarian Georgetown law professor who signed a brief with other federalist scholars seeking to overturn DOMA on states rights grounds, sees Thomas as winnable.


"It would certainly not surprise me if he became a sixth vote for a federalist repudiation of DOMA," Barnett told TPM, positing that Thomas may side with the four liberal justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy in such a decision. "But I can't predict what he'll do."


For DOMA, Thomas' vote isn't a gimme. Paul Clement, the GOP's superstar lawyer tasked with defending the 1996 law, dedicated a portion of his oral argument to advancing the view that it doesn't violate states' rights. His stance, which some court watchers believe will sway Thomas, was that Congress has the authority to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of providing federal benefits.


"This is a case where there are a lot of conservatives who are with federal power. There are arguments to be made on the other side," Barnett said. "I don't know that it's easy to predict what any person with a commitment to federalism will say [with regard to DOMA]."


Lyle Denniston, a longtime Supreme Court analyst who writes for the award-winning SCOTUSblog, doesn't believe Thomas is a winnable vote to strike down DOMA.


"I don't think he wants to endorse same sex marriage in any way," Denniston said, predicting that Thomas will conclude DOMA doesn't violate states rights or the Constitution's equal protection clause. "It might not be consistent with his view generally on power of the states but it would sustain the ban on same sex marriage and I think that's where his heart is."


Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, explained in an email that there's a constitutional basis for validating DOMA apart from states rights. "The argument," he wrote, "is that the federal government has a rational basis -- or a legitimate/compelling reason, if the Court applies heightened scrutiny -- for defining marriage as it does in DOMA."


In other words, justices could hew to the view that DOMA effectively serves as a bookkeeping mechanism for the government -- which after all must determine eligibility for federal benefits on some basis. But that argument isn't persuasive to committed federalists, because they don't believe that defining marriage is Congress' prerogative in the first place.


The amicus brief written by Barnett and other federalist scholars describes the law as "an unconstitutional and unprecedented incursion into States' police powers." They conclude that "the Constitution best protects liberty of same-sex marriage proponents and opponents by guaranteeing each State the right to decide for itself."


Thomas observed his customary silence during two days of oral arguments last week on DOMA and California's ban on gay marriage, so we aren't likely to determine his views until late June, when decisions are expected in both cases. But his opinion could be the biggest surprise in the winding legal fight for marriage equality.








via TPM News http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/clarence-thomas-doma.php
07:23

Even the most popular gun control measures seem to be going nowhere in the Senate.


Despite a concerted push from President Obama, Democratic leaders see no clear path to securing the 60 votes needed to break a promised Republican filibuster and ensure passage of legislation mandating background checks for gun purchases. Along with getting no help from Republicans, numerous Democrats facing re-election next year are skittish.


Twenty-one Democratic seats are being contested in the 2014 elections -- many of them in red states where the National Rifle Association, which opposes background checks, is a force to be reckoned with. Among them are Sens. Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Max Baucus (MT), who aren't prepared to support gun checks.


Politically, Democratic leaders are in a lose-lose predicament. If they somehow squeeze background checks through the Senate (it'll still have to pass the House), their vulnerable members will face the wrath of the NRA. If the legislation fails, leaders will anger and demoralize their liberal base, which is demanding meaningful action on guns.


Restrictions on assault weapons ban and high-capacity ammunition clips may receive separate votes but have been removed from the base bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has committed to bringing gun legislation to the floor but remains circumspect on background checks, although he insists the policy must be included in order for the reforms to be effective.


Reid can use a procedural option and open debate on the bill with 50 votes, thanks to a temporary provision in the bipartisan rules change enacted in January. That would guarantee Republicans two amendments, which they'll likely use to poison the legislation, but Democrats could defeat those amendments with 41 votes -- not a hard task. But even then, they'll need 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a final up-or-down vote on the legislation. And that's why Republicans are so confidently forecasting failure for the bill.


"I think that legislation is going nowhere," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told CNN on Sunday.


The same day on NBC, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) called the idea of mandatory background checks for gun purchases "a bridge too far" -- even as nine in 10 Americans say they support it.


One back door for Democrats would be to make their background checks bill palatable to the NRA, either by watering it down or making concessions elsewhere. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has reportedly been in talks with the group but hasn't announced any progress.


Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a strong supporter of gun reforms, hinted that a passable background checks proposal may need to satisfy critics of gun control.


"I called it 'the sweet spot' because it would do a whole lot of good and have a good chance of passing," Schumer told NBC Sunday. "I'm working very hard with both Democrats and Republicans, pro-NRA and anti-NRA people, to come up with a background check that will be acceptable to 60 senators and be very strong and get the job done. It's very hard and we're working hard and I'm very hopeful that we can get this passed."


President Obama isn't about to go down without a fight. Last week he made an impassioned plea for congressional action on gun violence, and he's continuing that push in Denver this Wednesday. And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is waging a $12 million ad blitz pushing for background checks in targeted states. Whether or not their efforts will sway fence-sitting senators remains to be seen. For the time being, it has had little perceptible impact other than swelling the ranks of Republicans vowing to filibuster the legislation.








via TPM News http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/gun-background-checks-senate.php
07:54

A battle between Karl Rove and the far right is the latest front in a growing civil war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and clarifies the contours of the struggle.


On one side are the establishment Republicans, who recognize the changing face of the American electorate and want their party to win elections in the future. In this battle, they are represented by Rove and his new Conservative Victory Project, unveiled this week, which is targeting unelectable (read: extremely conservative) candidates in Republican Senate primaries.


"There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected," Steven Law, who will run Rove's new effort, told the New York Times. "We don't view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win." Law is also president of the Rove-backed American Crossroads and CrossroadsGPS.


On the other side are the ultraconservatives, who believe the road to success involves full-fledged, uncompromising dedication to their tea party principles. These are right-wing groups like FreedomWorks and GOP Senate hopefuls like Reps. Paul Broun (GA) and Steve King (IA), who are the types of far-right candidates Rove is expected to target.


"The Conservative Victory Project represents the latest round in a fight that's been going on for decades," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. "Since the origins of the modern conservative movement in the mid-1950s, purists and pragmatists have been battling for dominance in the GOP."


The latest round began when Rove sent donors a fundraising plea aimed at opposing Senate primary candidates deemed unelectable. Rove-backed American Crossroads spent $300 million trying to help Republican candidates win elections in 2012 and came up empty, arguably sunk by "legitimate rape" and other utterances by conservative Senate nominees that damaged Republican candidates across the board.


The pushback against Rove's new PAC was fierce and swift from the right-wing apparatus.


"The Empire is striking back," warned Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks.


Tea party-backed former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) told TPM he'll start a super PAC to counter Rove's effort, declaring, "If Rove wants a fight for the soul of the Republican Party, bring it on."


In the Georgia Senate race, Congressman Broun vowed not to be "intimidated" by the establishment. In Iowa, Congressman King declared that "[n]obody can bully me out of running for the U.S. Senate, not even Karl Rove and his hefty war chest."


RedState's Erick Erickson wrote: "I dare say any candidate who gets this group's support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement."


Brent Bozell of the conservative Media Research Center slammed Rove's group, calling it "shamelessly" named, arguing that right-wing candidates like Ted Cruz (TX), Marco Rubio (FL), and Pat Toomey (PA) have won Senate seats. In response, Rove's spokesman Jonathan Collegio called Bozell a "hater."


That prompted a letter from a swath of tea party activists, social conservative leaders and right-wing talk radio hosts to demand that Collegio be fired. In the letter, these conservatives staked their claim to being the true Republican establishment, calling Bozell a "legacy" and citing his unimpeachable bloodlines:


He has devoted his life to the cause of American conservatism as did his father, Brent Bozell II, who wrote 'Conscience of a Conservative' for Barry Goldwater. Maybe you've heard of Brent's uncle, Bill Buckley, whose words you misquote and twist as the basis for your organization enough to falsely suggest you know something about him. You may have heard of his other uncle, Jim Buckley, a former U.S. Senator, or Brent's mother, Patricia Buckley Bozell--both important figures and writers in our conservative movement.

On Tuesday night, Rove defended his project against some of the criticism. "This is not tea party versus establishment," he said on Fox News. "I don't want a fight."


Other conservatives have reacted with concern about Rove's new project.


Longtime Republican operative Roger Stone told TPM that the Conservative Victory Project will divide the GOP and alienate conservatives. He dubbed it a "suicide PAC." CNS News editor-in-chief Terence Jeffrey questioned Rove's conservative credentials. Club For Growth's Chris Chocola criticized his logic to the New York Times, saying that it's "those pesky voters ... [who] get to decide who the nominee is." Donald Trump called Rove "a total loser."


The escalating battle comes amid a dramatic post-election shift among congressional Republicans away from ultraconservative orthodoxy. House GOP leaders have sidelined some of their most far-right members from key committees and are moving away from using the threat of crisis as a bargaining chip to achieve their ideological goals. They're even entertaining the prospect of stricter background checks for gun purchases and supporting normalizing the status of illegal immigrants -- both unthinkable just months ago.


Pitney said Republicans tend to agree in principle on nominating the most conservative candidate who can win, but purists believe that those who favor more moderate GOP candidates "underestimate the electability of strong conservatives."


"The GOP's current problem is that some conservative activists support the most conservative candidate even when that candidate is badly flawed," he said, "as with Sharron Angle in 2010 and Todd Akin in 2012."










via TPM News http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/karl-rove-conservative-victory-fund.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29
04:09

The Senate is fast-tracking its reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to a floor vote expected by next week, two Democratic aides tell TPM.


But House Republican leaders remain silent on how they intend to proceed, which suggests that there has not been a breakthrough since last year, when the bill fell prey to the House GOP's resistance to expand coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans who have suffered domestic abuse.


A Democratic leadership aide said the legislation, re-introduced last week by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and a bipartisan group of senators, is on tap for a floor vote after the chamber finalizes the confirmation of John Kerry as secretary of state and approves a measure to extend the debt ceiling. The aide said that could happen late this week at the earliest, but more likely early next week.


Leahy's spokesperson confirmed that the bill, which enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, would bypass committee and face a floor vote soon.


The move puts pressure on House Republicans to act on the widely popular measure, which expired in 2011 but has continued to receive funding through the appropriations process. House Democrats have introduced the same bill as the Senate. It eliminates a provision from last year's Senate-passed bill which raised revenue. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) cited that provision in declining to move on the bill. Revenue-raising measures must originate in the House, according to the Constitution. By stripping out that language, proponents hope to deny Boehner use of that procedural objection.


So far, House Republican leaders have been mum on the issue. Two House GOP leadership aides did not respond to requests for comment.






via TPM News http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/house-gop-silent-as-senate-plans-vote-on-violence-against-women-act.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29
03:38

House Republicans will not seek to shut down the government if Democrats don't agree to cut spending when funding expires at the end of March, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press. At the same time, Ryan predicted that the sequester's across-the-board spending cuts to domestic programs and defense are unlikely to be avoided.


Ryan, the House Budget chairman, signaled that even though Republicans will push hard for spending cuts, they are "more than happy" to continue spending at levels written into law if the alternative is a government shutdown.


"We're not interested in shutting the government down," Ryan said.


There are two looming budget deadlines. The sequester -- part of the August 2011 debt limit deal that tried to force the parties to reduce the deficit -- kicks in March 1. The continuing resolution on the budget, which keeps the government funded, expires on March 27.


"I think the sequester's going to happen, because that $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, we can't lose those spending cuts," Ryan said.


As for the expiration of the continuing budget resolution, some congressional Republicans have threatened to shut down the government by not approving a new one. But Ryan said that is not the course to take:


We are more than happy to keep spending at those levels going on into the future while we debate how to balance the budget. How to grow the economy. How to create economic opportunity. That's the kind of debate the country deserves.

The budget chair said Republicans have no interest in raising revenues, either via higher tax rates or reforming deductions and loopholes, insisting that spending is the problem.


The remarks by Ryan, the party's 2012 vice presidential candidate, represents a concession of sorts on how hard to push for the GOP's ideological priorities. His comments suggest that the House GOP will not threaten to withhold government funding as leverage to force Democrats to accede to lower spending. The strategic shift will disappoint conservatives who view runaway spending as an existential threat to the country and are hungry for a government shutdown standoff to make their point.


Still, crisis looms. The spending cuts under the sequester are draconian and indiscriminate and are expected to have serious impacts on the ability of the government to provide a wide range of public services and essential functions.






via TPM News http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/paul-ryan-no-government-shutdown-spending-cuts.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29
03:39
Copyright © 2015 johalputt | Designed by VeeThemes.com