There are a number of translations of the yiddish term “chutzpah.” Among the best-known is some variation on the following: chutzpah describes the gall of a person who murders his mother and father and argues that he’s entitled to the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.
The Trump administration may actually have gone that orphan one better.
A U.S. judge in California on Friday ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to pay the costs of reuniting immigrant parents with children separated from them by officials at the U.S.-Mexican border, rather than forcing the parents to pay…
“It doesn’t make any sense for any of the parents who have been separated to pay for anything,” U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, who last month ordered that the children be reunited with their parents by July 26, said at a hearing in San Diego…
A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued the administration over the family separations, said at the hearing that immigrant parents had been told by immigration officials they had to pay for their travel. One parent was initially asked to pay $1,900 to be reunited with a child, according to ACLU court papers. Trump administration lawyer Sarah Fabian called the judge’s order on paying for the reunifications “a huge ask on HHS,” referring to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Fabian said those decisions were handled at the field level, adding that HHS, which houses the detained children, had limited resources.
“The government will make it happen,” Sabraw responded.
So according to an administration lawyer, expecting the government to pay the costs of cleaning up an inhumane mess of its own making is “a huge ask.” As Ed Brayton commented, first they kidnapped these children, and now they want to charge a ransom for them.
Some of you who have been regular readers of this blog know that one of my sons is a web developer.
Recognizing that turnout is far and away the most important aspect of the upcoming midterms–and believing, as his mother does, that these will be the most consequential American elections in a very long time–he and a couple of friends have developed a very simple, free application that allows people to check their registration status (and register if necessary), find their polling place, preview their ballots and more.
Here’s his description:
The Just Go Vote! app makes it easy to find all the information you need to be able to vote. You can check your registration and register, download a calendar of important election related dates, find your polling place, see your upcoming ballot choices and get an absentee ballot, and view a list of your representatives. To protect your privacy, there is no account sign up for this app. You enter info only to find what you need to vote, and it will be deleted if you delete the app.
Liz, Greg and I have worked really hard over the past few weeks to make this a reality. We agree that there is nothing more important at this moment than the mid-term elections, and to that end we wanted to make something that would help the millions of people who are eligible to vote, but who for whatever reason were unable to last time.
Please download the app, use it, and share it far and wide. Democracy does not work without participation. The Republican strategy of making it ever more difficult for people to exercise their right to vote has been working quite well for them. This app is our attempt to fight back and make it as easy as possible for people to participate in our democracy. If we move even a small percentage of voters who did not vote last time, we can easily take back our government and change our world for the better.
The app will shortly be available in the iOS App Store and in the Google Play Store, and it is already available as both a website and a PWA (progressive web app, just add it to your home screen) by simply visiting our site at https://justgovote.org
Thanks!!
I think the best thing about this app is how absolutely SIMPLE it is to use, even for non-techie, easily confused old folks (like his mother) who didn’t grow up in a digital world. Take a look–and spread the word far and wide.
If this simple tool helps to motivate even a few people per precinct who didn’t vote in 2016, it could make a huge difference.
Commenters to this blog have widely varied opinions about the economy, education, the reasons Trump won, what each of us should be doing about the country’s perilous situation, and much else–but I think everyone agrees on the importance of turning out the millions of eligible citizens who didn’t bother voting in November of 2016.
Here’s one thing we can all agree to do, and my kid has made it easy: DISTRIBUTE JUST GO VOTE!
Much, if not most of the opposition to Brett Kavanaugh, revolves around his obvious antagonism to Roe v. Wade.
Most people’s arguments for and against Roe center on abortion. But that really isn’t what the ruling protects. The issue isn’t whether or not a woman should terminate a pregnancy–it is about who gets to make that decision. Judges who want to overrule Roe believe that government–not the pregnant woman– should have that authority, that the personal autonomy protected by the Bill of Rights can and should be limited when a majority of legislators see fit to substitute their judgment for that of the individual.
The implications of that position are what keep me up at night.
If you look carefully at the legal and philosophical arguments advanced by opponents of Roe (rather than the “pro-life” demonstrators who see it as simply a question of abortion, which they oppose) you will find a disquieting thread of authoritarianism. These are the judges and organizations who consistently favor the exercise of power–government over citizens, major corporations over consumers, the status quo over potential disruption.
That tendency to weigh in on the side of established authority is subject to one notable caveat: authority is only right when it is “their guys” who are wielding authority. (They are like the Christian theocrats who are critical of the Taliban, not because individuals should have the right to form and hold their own beliefs, but because the Taliban is imposing the “wrong” beliefs.)
(CNN)Judge Brett Kavanaugh two years ago expressed his desire to overturn a three-decade-old Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of an independent counsel, a comment bound to get renewed scrutiny in his confirmation proceedings to sit on the high court.
Speaking to a conservative group in 2016, Kavanaugh bluntly said he wanted to “put the final nail”in a 1988 Supreme Court ruling. That decision, known as Morrison v. Olson, upheld the constitutionality of provisions creating an independent counsel under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act — the same statute under which Ken Starr, for whom Kavanaugh worked, investigated President Bill Clinton. The law expired in 1999, when it was replaced by the more modest Justice Department regulation that governs special counsels like Robert Mueller.
Kavanaugh has often embraced the “unitary executive theory” beloved by Dick Cheney. An embrace of that theory by the Court would mean that an independent prosecutor–who is structurally part of the Executive Branch–would always serve only at the “pleasure of the President.”
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh once questioned the correctness of the 1974 high court decision that forced then-President Richard Nixon to turn over secret White House tape recordings and led to his resignation…..The 1974 United States v. Nixon ruling unanimously rejected the president’s claim that executive privilege protected him from having to release the tapes to a special prosecutor…
Kavanaugh said the president, not the attorney general, is the country’s “chief law enforcement officer.”
These views didn’t prevent him from relatively enthusiastic participation as a lawyer working with Ken Starr during Starr’s investigation of President Clinton. But then, Clinton was a Democrat.
This preference for an expansive view of Presidential power ( when Republicans are exercising that power) raises some fairly serious concerns. If government has the authority to overrule intensely private decisions about procreation, and if the President’s authority over that government cannot be subjected to independent investigation, what other decisions is the President free to impose on the citizenry? What happens to other important checks and balances? The rule of law?
Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board highlighted several of Kavanaugh’s previous rulings in an editorial warning that his confirmation would hamper government’s ability to protect citizens against corporate overreach and would further expand the gap between rich and poor.
In 2012, Judge Kavanaugh wrote an appeals court opinion striking down an Environmental Protection Agency rule that required upwind states to reduce power plant emissions that cause smog and soot pollution in downwind states, a decision that was later struck down by a 6-to-2 majority of the Supreme Court. And in 2016, he wrote an opinion that said the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional because Congress decided that the president could only fire its director for cause. The full appeals court reversed that portion of his decision in January.
The editorial had much more–and the more we learn, the worse Kavanaugh looks.
Despite the recovery, student loan debt continues to be a “drag” on the economy. As numerous economists have explained, Millennials have not been buying homes (and the furniture and appliances to fill them)at the same rates as preceding generations due to the significant student debt so many of them carry.
Repayment is burdensome enough when the student assuming the debt used it at a reputable institution of higher education, and graduated with a credential that led to employment. But that hasn’t always been the case. For-profit “colleges” making extravagant claims on which they are (knowingly) unable to deliver have ripped off thousands of low-income students–and ultimately, all of us, since those students subsequently default on their government loans.
And then there are the “private” loan servicers, who have gouged other students, and who are protected against loss by government guarantees.
The Obama administration had taken several steps to punish institutions and lenders who engaged in these practices, and to relieve the students who had been defrauded of all or part of their repayment obligations. But of course, the sympathies of the Trump administration and Betsy DeVos lie entirely with the perpetrators, not the victims.
The nation’s consumer watchdog agency is accusing the Education Department of impeding a lawsuit that could potentially bring financial relief to millions of student loan borrowers.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is suing Navient Solutions, alleging one of the nation’s largest student loan servicers violated consumer protection laws and in some cases caused students to pay back too much on their student loans. But in court filings, the CFPB says the Education Department is refusing to authorize Navient to turn over documents. Without that authorization the federal government, as well as several state attorneys general suing Navient, could find it difficult to show what type of damage the company’s alleged misbehavior caused to borrowers….
Under the Obama Administration, the Education Department and the CFPB agreed to share records and resources in cases of potential violations of student borrowing or consumer protection laws. But after Trump-appointee Betsy DeVos took over, the Education Department rescinded that agreement, calling the CFPB “overreaching and unaccountable” and saying the bureau had no authority to oversee federal student loan servicers.
Career Education Corporation is one of the companies no longer being investigated by the U.S. Education Department after members of an enforcement office tasked with investigating abuses by for-profit colleges were instructed to focus on other issues, the New York Times reported this week, citing current and former employees. Meanwhile, former executives and consultants from those for-profit institutions have been hired as top advisers to the Education Department under DeVos.
This isn’t a matter of being legitimately “pro-business.” A pro-business administration would help the entire business community by taking steps to reduce the excessive levels of student debt that are burdening economic activity generally, including weeding out the bad actors.
This is a “pro-crony” administration. And if the students suffer, well–they aren’t the political donors whose interests this administration serves.
A friend recently sent me a questionnaire he’d received from the NRA, along with a fundraising appeal warning that the November elections will “threaten your gun rights,” and explaining that the organization needs your money in order to protect its “pro-freedom” agenda. (I wonder when they’ll explain why that “pro-freedom agenda” required that they collaborate with Russian operatives…but I digress.)
The letter also disses all those polls showing widespread public support for background checks and other modest gun-control measures. (“Fake news!”)
If there is one thing academic researchers and legitimate political pollsters know, it is that the way you frame survey questions is critical: if you are trying to obtain an accurate reading of the public pulse, questions cannot be suggestive or loaded.
Of course, if political candidates and advocacy organizations were interested in accurate results, they’d hire a reputable pollster. The “surveys” and “polls” we all receive from various candidates and organizations are transparent efforts to separate us from our money; they are intended to push our buttons, not inquire about our opinions.
And the NRA has mastered the art of button-pushing. A few examples:
“Do you agree with the politicians and Hollywood elites who say the NRA is a terrorist organization?”
“Do you support a sweeping ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns?”
“Should law-abiding Americans be forced to undergo a background check?”
“Should the federal government limit your ability to defend yourself and your family by banning magazines with more than 10 rounds?”
“Should the federal government be able to register and track all firearms in the U.S. and retain personal information about those who lawfully possess them?”
“Would you ever knowingly vote for a candidate for Congress who supports new anti-gun restrictions as part of his or her agenda?”
There’s more, of course, but these “poll questions” should give you a flavor of the rest.
Before you laugh at the transparency of these formulations or dismiss the obviousness of the propaganda, it may be worth thinking about the political psychology behind the choice of words employed in what was an expensive mailing. Remember, these “polls” go to NRA members (including the friend who shared this), not to the general public–and although reputable surveys suggest that the majority of those members are far more reasonable than the organization’s leadership, they are still likely to be favorably disposed to the NRA’s mission.
They aren’t likely to be favorably disposed to “Hollywood elites.” They are very likely to resent being called a terrorist organization.
The framing of the support/no support questions is patently dishonest, but very effective. Do you favor a “sweeping” ban? Do you want the government “forcing” “law-abiding” citizens to do anything? Surely you are already worried that the surveillance state is keeping tabs on everyone, and you don’t want them “retaining your personal information.”
I’m sure you are leery of Congressional candidates who make gun control part of an (obviously nefarious) “agenda.”
The big problem with special interest organizations like the NRA isn’t that they represent majority opinion. They don’t–not even close. They are effective because their issues are so salient to the minority of people who do agree with them. (This is also true of anti-choice and other single-issue voters.)
