Polybius
Polybius's JournalPelosi will stay around to lead House Democrats through the next election -- and perhaps beyond
Source: CNN
(CNN)Speaker Nancy Pelosi will stay until at least after the midterm elections, extending her nearly 20-year run as the House's top Democrat after she turns 82 and, perhaps, beyond.
She is planning to file and run for reelection in her San Francisco district next year -- at least for now -- in keeping with her pattern of deciding about staying in Congress after the elections, when she likely will have won an 18th full term.
And sources familiar with Pelosi's thinking say she isn't ruling out the possibility of trying to stay in leadership after 2022, despite her original vow to leave as the top House Democrat. She'll devote much of next year to raising money for Democrats as they try to hold their narrow majority, those sources tell CNN, adding to the nearly $1 billion her office calculates she has already raised for Democrats in her time as leader.
The months of tortuous negotiations over President Joe Biden's legislative initiatives are inspiring a contradictory mix of emotions. Many House Democrats are more eager than ever to see the California Democrat go and give way to younger leadership. But even many of those same lawmakers are terrified that, without her, they will be consumed by squabbling instead of fighting back against House Republicans at a moment when the fundamentals of American democracy appear to be on the line.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/politics/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats-leadership-2022/index.html
Joe Madison is on day 34 of his hunger strike for voting rights
For those who don't know, he's a liberal radio host who went on the hunger strike on November 8th, and said he's not ending it until some form of a voting rights bill is passed. He is 72 years old. I'm really worried abut him, because I don't see him eating unless something passes and I don't think that's happening anytime son. 
How much longer can he realistically go?
https://twitter.com/MadisonSiriusXM/status/1457715613741223950
Hillary Clinton predicts Trump running again in 2024, calling it a 'make-or-break point'
Source: Today
Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump running for president again in 2024 could have a negative impact on the country.
The former Secretary of State and presidential candidate spoke frankly to Sunday TODAY's Willie Geist about what she believes would be the dire consequences for the nation if Trump reclaims the White House in three years.
"If I were a betting person right now, I’d say Trump is going to run again," she said in an excerpt of the interview shown on TODAY Friday. "But I want people to understand that this is a make-or-break point."
Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 election, believes America faces a clear choice.
Read more: https://www.today.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-predicts-trump-running-2024-calling-make-break-point-rcna8347
Public view on Biden's handling of Covid and the economy takes another hit, CNBC survey shows
Source: CNBC
Amid growing worries over Covid and the economy, President Joe Biden’s approval ratings in both areas took yet another hit while Americans’ preferences for congressional control swung sharply towards Republicans.
Results in the CNBC All-America Economic survey imply potentially large Democratic losses in the November election.
Biden’s overall approval rating stabilized at a low level of 41%, about the same level as former President Donald Trump’s, compared to 50% who disapprove.
His economic approval sank more deeply underwater, with 37% approving compared to 56% who disapprove, down from 40% approval to 54% in the second quarter survey.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/public-view-on-bidens-handling-of-covid-and-the-economy-takes-another-hit-cnbc-survey-shows.html
The Supreme Court Is Ready to Make Taxpayers Fund Religious Schools
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a case involving just 4,800 students in rural Maine. But because of the way the Court seems certain to rule, the case will affect everyone in America. The reason is a single word: discrimination.
On its face, the case, Carson v. Makin is an outlier. Maine has a unique system for students in far-flung rural areas: If there’s no public school available, then the state will pay around $11,000 to families toward private-school tuition, so long as the private school is not religious in nature. A consortium of right-wing organizations sued the state on behalf of two families who wanted to send their children to religious schools on the public dime. They argued that Maine’s policy amounts to anti-religious discrimination, a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. And based on today’s oral arguments, they will win.
This result would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Until quite recently, state funding of religious schools was understood to be unconstitutional. Then, over time, it became permissible in the context of school-choice programs. Then, in 2020, in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, it became mandatory in such programs, since, the Court held, if the program included secular private schools, it had to include religious ones.
And now it looks as though it will be mandatory even for public-school-replacement programs like Maine’s, even if the schools in question require students to attend chapel, discriminate against LGBTQ students (or bar them from attending), teach religious dogma, and present all subjects (such as evolution) from a religious point of view — as the schools in the Maine case do.
Read more...
Why Joe Manchin's answer on party switching may raise some eyebrows
Asked about the possibility of a party switch this week, Manchin responded this way:
"I'm caught between the two, but the bottom line is you have to be caucusing somewhere. ... If they asked me to leave, well, I'll just have to say, 'I guess I'll have to abide by your wishes.' ... I don't intend to leave. But I intend to be honest."
Um, OK?
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of him always staying in the Democratic Party, right?
Read more...
Manchin says he wouldn't defy parliamentarian on immigration
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Pivotal Sen. Joe Manchin said Wednesday he’d vote to uphold the Senate parliamentarian’s decision if she rules that immigration or other provisions should fall from Democrats’ huge social and environment bill, underscoring the party’s uphill fight to keep some top priorities in the legislation.
Elizabeth MacDonough, the chamber’s nonpartisan rules referee, is expected to decide shortly whether language letting millions of migrants remain temporarily in the U.S. can stay in the 10-year, roughly $2 trillion measure. She’s also considering the fate of other initiatives, including parts of Democrats’ plan to curb pharmaceutical prices.
MacDonough’s decisions can be ignored by whichever Democrat is presiding over the chamber during debate, but Republicans could force votes challenging that. Ultimately, Democrats would likely need all their votes to defeat such GOP moves in the 50-50 chamber, where Vice President Kamala Harris can break ties. All Republicans oppose the legislation.
The moderate Manchin, D-W.Va., has spent months forcing Democrats to reduce the size and scope of the legislation, which the House approved last month. The Senate is all but certain to make significant changes to the bill, one of President Joe Biden’s top domestic priorities. Party leaders hope Congress can approve a final version by Christmas.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/immigration-business-environment-joe-manchin-congress-714cd484d2c9511d512a7e834482a7e0
Trump was 'extremely put off' by Brett Kavanaugh's declarations that he 'liked beer' during his Supr
Trump was 'extremely put off' by Brett Kavanaugh's declarations that he 'liked beer' during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings: bookPresident Donald Trump was "extremely put off" when then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly declared that he "liked beer" during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, according to Mark Meadows' new book, "The Chief's Chief," which came out Tuesday.
"I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone," Kavanaugh said in his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27, 2018.
"We drank beer, and you know, so did, I think, the vast majority of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and still do. So whatever, you know," Kavanaugh said when grilled by senators about his past.
Meadows, then a North Carolina congressman and close Republican ally to Trump, writes in his new book that the president was "extremely put off" by Kavanaugh's comments about beer.
Read more...
US Supreme Court takes up case involving schools, money and religion
Source: Raw Story
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case that asks whether schools that make the bible an essential teaching tool and reject gay and transgender students can receive government funding.
The nine-judge court featuring six conservatives were considering a school aid program in the northeast state of Maine and will render a decision in the spring of next year.
As Maine is sparsely populated, more than half of its school districts have no publicly funded high schools. So families receive subsidies that allow them to send their kids to the school of their choice.
Parents can choose public or private schools, in Maine or another state, and even schools affiliated with religion, so long as the teaching there is not "sectarian."
Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/us-supreme-court-takes-up-case-involving-schools-money-and-religion/
US supreme court to hear case that could have dire consequences for death row inmates
Source: The Guardian
The US supreme court will hear arguments from two Arizona death row inmates on Wednesday in a case that could have devastating consequences for prisoners attempting to prove their innocence before they are sent to the execution chamber.
State officials in Arizona are asking the nation’s highest court to bar the two condemned prisoners – one with a strong claim of innocence, the other with a history of intellectual disability and family abuse – from presenting evidence in federal court that could save their lives.
The Arizona officials argue the prisoners should not be allowed to put forward the evidence because they failed to do so in state court at an earlier stage in their legal proceedings.
But the prisoners protest they had no chance of seeking redress at state level because the lawyers they were assigned by Arizona were so woefully incompetent at trial that they failed to uncover crucial evidence that could have spared them from death row. After conviction, they were assigned a second set of lawyers who were equally ineffective and who as a result made no challenge to the gross mishandling of their defense at trial.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/08/us-supreme-court-arizona-death-penalty-case
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHome country: United States
Member since: Thu Sep 28, 2017, 10:03 PM
Number of posts: 15,517
