Monday, June 29, 2015



News Clips For The Day


SUPREME COURT ACTIONS TODAY


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-use-of-drug-implicated-in-botched-executions/

Supreme Court upholds use of drug implicated in botched executions
CBS/AP
June 29, 2015

Photograph -- This Oct. 9, 2014 photo shows the execution chamber at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Okla. AP PHOTO/SUE OGROCKI, FILE VIA CBS AFFILIATE KFMB

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court upheld the use of a controversial drug in lethal injection executions Monday, as two dissenting justices said for the first time that they think it's "highly likely" that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 in a case from Oklahoma that the sedative midazolam can be used in executions without violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The drug was used in executions in Arizona, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2014 that took longer than usual and raised concerns that it did not perform its intended task of putting inmates into a coma-like sleep.

Justice Samuel Alito said for a conservative majority that arguments the drug could not be used effectively as a sedative in executions is speculative.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Under the court's new rule, it would not matter whether the state intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake."

Alito responded, saying "the dissent's resort to this outlandish rhetoric reveals the weakness of its legal arguments."

CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford said the case created a deep divide among the justices.

"I've covered the court for 21 years," Crawford told CBSN. "That argument in this case was the most contentious that I remember seeing."

In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the time has come for the court to debate whether the death penalty itself is constitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion.

"At a certain point in the near future, we're going to face head on another challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty," Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute told CBSN.

The Supreme Court's involvement in the case began in January with an unusually public disagreement among the justices over executions.

Then, the court refused to block Oklahoma inmate Charles Warner's execution over the objection of the four liberal justices. In a strongly worded dissent for the four, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "The questions before us are especially important now, given states' increasing reliance on new and scientifically untested methods of execution."

Eight days later, the justices agreed to hear the case of three other Oklahoma death-row prisoners. It takes just four votes among the nine justices to agree to hear a case, but five votes to place a hold on an execution.

When the case was argued in late April, the justices engaged in unusually combative exchanges about the Oklahoma case and impassioned debate about capital punishment more generally.

Among the conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito said death penalty opponents are waging a "guerrilla war" against executions by working to limit the supply of more effective drugs. On the other side, liberal Justice Elena Kagan contended that the way states carry out most executions amounts to having prisoners "burned alive from the inside."

In 2008, the court upheld Kentucky's use of a three-drug execution method that employed a barbiturate as the first drug, intended to render the inmate unconscious.

But because of problems obtaining drugs, no state uses the precise combination at issue in that earlier Supreme Court case.

Four states have used midazolam in executions: Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma. Also, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Virginia allow for midazolam, but they have not used it in executions.

Last April, Oklahoma botched the execution of inmate Clayton Lockett, who writhed and strained on the gurney before finally dying of a heart attack. It was later revealed that some of the three drugs used in the execution didn't enter Lockett's system because the vein they were injected into -- in his groin -- collapsed, and that failure wasn't noticed for 21 minutes. Lockett died after 43 minutes.

Executions in Arizona and Ohio that used midazolam also went on for longer than expected as the inmates gasped and made other noises before dying.

Meanwhile, the court challenge has prompted Oklahoma to approve nitrogen gas as an alternative death penalty method if lethal injections aren't possible, either because of a court ruling or a drug shortage.



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/oklahoma-death-penalty-gas-chamber-117156.html#.VZGHrPlViko

The Trouble with Oklahoma’s New Execution Technique
A more humane way to die? The history of American executions says don’t bet on it.
By AUSTIN SARAT
April 20, 2015

On Friday, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a law giving the state a new tool to use in executions: a chamber filled with nitrogen gas. If lethal injection—Oklahoma’s preferred execution method—is declared unconstitutional or becomes unavailable due to a drug shortage, the law would authorize use of a gas chamber that executes inmates by depleting the oxygen supply in their blood.

In her signing statement, Fallin reiterated both her support for the death penalty as well as her belief that nitrogen hypoxia would deliver death “effectively and without cruelty.” As Fallin put it, “The bill I signed today gives the state of Oklahoma another death penalty option that meets that standard” and insures that execution is painless and humane.

Oklahoma’s revival of the gas chamber is a response to the well-documented crisis now plaguing lethal injection, arising from drug shortages and a series of botched executions. Other states reliant on lethal injection have revived long-abandoned execution methods as well: Tennessee last year brought back the electric chair, and Utah recently reinstated the firing squad.

Compared to those, nitrogen seems humane. Coverage since Fallin’s announcement has focused on the fact that nitrogen is an inert gas that would be administered directly by having the condemned breathe it in through a device like those used when anesthesia is given before surgery, simply putting the inmate to sleep.

But we have been down this road before. Each new technology for execution used in the United States—the electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection—was introduced with claims and promises about its humanity. Lethal injection itself was adopted for its ease of administration, with claims that it would be “more humane relative to other methods.”

It has not worked out that way.

In fact, every method of capital punishment used in the United States has suffered from a significant failure rate. In recently completed research, I examined every American execution from 1890 to 2010 and found that, during that period of time, 3 percent of those executions were botched. In raw numbers that means that about 300 executions involved some kind of prolonged suffering or significant technological failure.

It might seem frivolous to worry about the humanity of capital punishment. After all, these offenders are handed the worst sentence our legal system can mete out. But the Constitution guarantees even criminals liberty from cruelty in punishment. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the legitimacy of capital punishment depends precisely on the belief that there is a way to insure that executions will be safe, reliable and humane.

Yet the long history of American executions suggests that no such magic bullet exists—and the gas chamber itself is an excellent illustration. What is now being said in Oklahoma about nitrogen gas has eerie parallels to what was said almost a century ago when the gas chamber first became part of America’s panoply of execution techniques. That occurred in 1921, when two Nevada Assemblymen, J.J. Hart and Harry Bartlett, introduced the so-called “Humane Execution Bill” to replace hanging with new gas-chamber technology. So convincing was the gas chamber’s promise of humane execution that the Hart/Barlett bill passed the state assembly almost unanimously, before being sent on to the Nevada Senate, where it was approved the very same day. Less than two weeks later, Governor Emmett Boyle, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, nonetheless signed the bill into law.

The Nevada law—in line with the most advanced thinking of its time—called for executions to take place while the condemned was asleep. Death row inmates were to be housed in air-tight, leak-proof cells, separate from other prisoners. On the day of the execution, valves would be opened that would fill the chamber with gas, killing the prisoner painlessly.

Around the same time that Nevada embraced the gas chamber, the Medical Society of Pennsylvania, reviewing that state’s execution methods, also focused its attention on gas as the most humane way to extinguish life. A Medical Society committee recommended that carbonic acid be used as the lethal agent in all Pennsylvania executions. At the time, a doctor named J. Chris Lange wrote in the Pennsylvania Medical Journal, “Death will happen quickly after the gas ascends to a level with the mouth and nose of the prisoner. To insure the absence of all punishment but death itself it is a necessity that the action of the heart be stilled during natural sleep. … Experiments on animals have convinced the committee that the gas does not act as a poison in the usual sense of the word; it merely deprives the animal of oxygen by displacement of the air, the consequent death being the result of an auto-intoxication, at least in large part. … It is a species of starvation which is fatal in from 3 to 8 minutes.”

Lange concluded that such a death—“without preliminaries” and “without the possibility of accidents”—would “leave the criminal little more to dread of the future than the common lot of all mankind.” While Pennsylvania did not end up adopting the gas chamber, 11 other states did so.

As it turned out, the actual practice of execution by lethal gas diverged substantially from the promises of its proponents. Many of those who died in the gas chamber did so neither quickly nor painlessly. Instead, they suffered grisly, prolonged, agonizing deaths as they slowly suffocated. By the close of the 20th century, my research shows, five out of every 100 executions by lethal gas had been botched, and the eventual demise of the gas chamber came as death penalty proponents, propelled in part by gruesome spectacles of the people dying by oxygen deprivation, sought new alternatives.

The lesson of this history is that, no matter their views about capital punishment, Americans should be wary of those who now would have us believe that nitrogen—or any execution method—will do what no other technology of execution has been able to do, namely insure that the deaths we impose are neither gruesome nor cruel. The American belief in scientific progress has helped to legitimate the death penalty, reassuring citizens that somewhere, behind the wall, a death is taking place that meets constitutional standards of punishment.

Sometimes it does. But it is statistically certain that sometimes it won’t—and that a policy of executing prisoners is simply inseparable from occasionally botching those executions. Despite the reassuring pronouncements of politicians like Fallin, the revival of the gas chamber reveals more about the lengths to which some states will go to retain the death penalty as a criminal punishment than about their concern to minimize the suffering of those we execute.

Austin Sarat, associate dean of the faculty and William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is author of Gruesome Spectacles: Botched executions and America’s Death Penalty.





CBS -- “The Supreme Court upheld the use of a controversial drug in lethal injection executions Monday, as two dissenting justices said for the first time that they think it's "highly likely" that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. The justices voted 5-4 in a case from Oklahoma that the sedative midazolam can be used in executions without violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The drug was used in executions in Arizona, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2014 that took longer than usual and raised concerns that it did not perform its intended task of putting inmates into a coma-like sleep. …. "At a certain point in the near future, we're going to face head on another challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty," Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute told CBSN. The Supreme Court's involvement in the case began in January with an unusually public disagreement among the justices over executions. Then, the court refused to block Oklahoma inmate Charles Warner's execution over the objection of the four liberal justices. In a strongly worded dissent for the four, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "The questions before us are especially important now, given states' increasing reliance on new and scientifically untested methods of execution." …. Among the conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito said death penalty opponents are waging a "guerrilla war" against executions by working to limit the supply of more effective drugs. …. Last April, Oklahoma botched the execution of inmate Clayton Lockett, who writhed and strained on the gurney before finally dying of a heart attack. It was later revealed that some of the three drugs used in the execution didn't enter Lockett's system because the vein they were injected into -- in his groin -- collapsed, and that failure wasn't noticed for 21 minutes. Lockett died after 43 minutes .… Meanwhile, the court challenge has prompted Oklahoma to approve nitrogen gas as an alternative death penalty method if lethal injections aren't possible, either because of a court ruling or a drug shortage.


POLITICO -- “On Friday, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a law giving the state a new tool to use in executions: a chamber filled with nitrogen gas. If le-thal injection—Oklahoma’s preferred execution method—is declared unconstitu-tional or becomes unavailable due to a drug shortage, the law would authorize use of a gas chamber that executes inmates by depleting the oxygen supply in their blood. …. Other states reliant on lethal injection have revived long-abandoned exe-cution methods as well: Tennessee last year brought back the electric chair, and Utah recently reinstated the firing squad. Compared to those, nitrogen seems hu-mane. …. In fact, every method of capital punishment used in the United States has suffered from a significant failure rate. In recently completed research, I examined every American execution from 1890 to 2010 and found that, during that period of time, 3 percent of those executions were botched. In raw numbers that means that about 300 executions involved some kind of prolonged suffering or significant tech-nological failure. …. That occurred in 1921, when two Nevada Assemblymen, J.J. Hart and Harry Bartlett, introduced the so-called “Humane Execution Bill” to re-place hanging with new gas-chamber technology. So convincing was the gas cham-ber’s promise of humane execution that the Hart/Barlett bill passed the state as-sembly almost unanimously, before being sent on to the Nevada Senate, where it was approved the very same day. Less than two weeks later, Governor Emmett Boyle, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, nonetheless signed the bill into law. The Nevada law—in line with the most advanced thinking of its time—called for executions to take place while the condemned was asleep. Death row inmates were to be housed in air-tight, leak-proof cells, separate from other prisoners. On the day of the execution, valves would be opened that would fill the chamber with gas, killing the prisoner painlessly. …. American belief in scientific progress has helped to legitimate the death penalty, reassuring citizens that somewhere, behind the wall, a death is taking place that meets constitutional standards of punishment. Sometimes it does. But it is statistically certain that sometimes it won’t—and that a policy of executing prisoners is simply inseparable from occasionally botching those executions.”

Jesus shamed a group of Jewish men into stopping an intended execution of a woman by stoning for the crime of adultery. Interestingly, nowadays it’s still a sin but it is not a crime, except in some Muslim countries. In the US of the 1600s under the tender mercies of the Pilgrims, heretics and “witches” were executed by piling huge stones upon their bodies until they were literally squashed to death – ruptured bones, organs and tissues, and probably a very slow death. In the 1600s in England the convicted criminal actually tipped the executioner so he would see to it that his axe blade would be sharp. Queen Anne Boleyn is said to have requested a French executioner who used a sword rather than an axe. (See the website www.spectator.co.uk/features/.../anne-boleyns-last-secret/) . Wikipedia has a detailed article under the heading “Hanging” on four different ways to proceed with a hanging, some of which are more humane than others.

Death is painful and not instantaneous in most cases. Personally, of all the methods I’ve heard about, the firing squad (blindfold and all) seems to me to be the most humane, because if a few good marksmen are involved in it, there should be a heart or head shot, either of which will usually kill within a few minutes, especially if the bullet enters the brain from behind at the bottom of the skull where the Medulla Oblongata lies. It is the center of the autonomic nervous system which controls the most basic bodily functions such as the heartbeat and breathing. One news article in the last few months said that some Tea Partier in a Western state has actually recommended that the firing squad be brought back as the method of choice.

I sometimes feel that a particular criminal has commit a crime so horrible that he should indeed receive the death penalty. Rapists, especially child rapists, who torture and then kill their victims are included in that list. They aren’t safe to walk the earth among ordinary and civilized people. I feel that this young idiot Roof who went into the Charleston church and summarily executed some dozen people who had just done him the honor of allowing him to pray among them certainly does that. He killed in cold blood, without remorse, because he thought the hallowed doctrine of White Supremacy needed to be impressed upon the minds of the US citizens. I feel sure he will be executed over that heartless act.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-will-reconsider-texas-affirmative-action-case/

Supreme Court will reconsider Texas affirmative action case
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
June 29, 2015

Photograph -- Attorney Bert Rein (L), speaks to the media while standing with plaintiff Abigail Noel Fisher (R), after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in her case on October 10, 2012 in Washington, D.C. MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will revisit a case regarding the contentious issue of affirmative action in school admissions.

The court first heard the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in 2013, but it effectively punted the issue that year, sending the case back to the lower courts. Now that it is hearing the case again, the court may limit affirmative action policies nationwide, or simply at UT Austin.

The case was brought to the court by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who applied to UT Austin as a high school senior in 2008. She filed suit against the school after she was rejected, arguing the university's consideration of race didn't meet standards previously set by the Supreme Court.

While the University of Texas defended its consideration of race, most students are accepted into UT Austin through the "Top 10 percent" law -- a program that doesn't consider race. The "Top 10" program grants automatic admission to the top students in every Texas high school. Fisher did not qualify for the program. In 2008, just 216 accepted students accepted outside of the "Top 10" program were black or Hispanic.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court used the wrong standards to evaluate the Texas college's admissions policies. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the Fifth Circuit should not have given UT Austin as much deference on the matter of whether its limited approach to racial considerations met the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2003. That year, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court rejected the use of racial quotas but said that schools could consider race as part of a "holistic" review of a student's application.

The next year, a federal appeals court panel once again upheld the UT Austin policy, so Fisher again appealed to the Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the actual issue of affirmative action in 2013, some justices tipped their hand in the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that she would affirm the Fifth Circuit's ruling that upheld the Texas program. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas suggested they would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger all together.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself the first time the case was heard because she had participated in the case as solicitor general while it was before the court of appeals. She will recuse herself once again. With just three of the four liberal justices on the case, it seems likely the court will rule in favor of some limits on affirmative action or more narrowly on the UT Austin policy.




The Supreme Court on Monday said it will revisit a case regarding the contentious issue of affirmative action in school admissions. The court first heard the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in 2013, but it effectively punt-ed the issue that year, sending the case back to the lower courts. Now that it is hear-ing the case again, the court may limit affirmative action policies nationwide, or simply at UT Austin. The case was brought to the court by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who applied to UT Austin as a high school senior in 2008. She filed suit against the school after she was rejected, arguing the university's consideration of race didn't meet standards previously set by the Supreme Court. .… The "Top 10" program grants automatic admission to the top students in every Texas high school. Fisher did not qualify for the program. In 2008, just 216 accepted students accepted outside of the "Top 10" program were black or Hispanic. …. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court used the wrong standards to evaluate the Texas college's admissions policies. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the Fifth Circuit should not have given UT Austin as much deference on the matter of whether its limited approach to racial considerations met the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2003. That year, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court rejected the use of racial quotas but said that schools could consider race as part of a "holistic" review of a student's application.”

Personally, I think that relative poverty in their growing years should be used to the same purpose as race and Hispanic culture. A child who does not grow up hearing a fairly high level of vocabulary in English used in the house is at a disadvantage when it comes to reading and composing in that language, and that sets them behind in all their other courses. Also, if the father and mother didn’t learn a reasonable amount about history, science, philosophy, and other academic subjects, it is unlikely that they will be able to aid the children in their studies and homework tasks. However, if the parents both insist (without physical punishment and shaming, of course) that the child will do his homework every night before bed and read all those extra books that the school recommends, it is my belief that a normally intelligent kid can do pretty well in High School. After all, we aren’t talking about Harvard or Yale.

Of course, if they go out and run the neighborhood every day after school, or sneak out the window every night to meet their boyfriend and do drugs like some do, their chances aren’t good. Most often the kids who do those things will be poor, perhaps with both parents holding more than one job and therefore unable to supervise them. In a certain percentage of the time, however, the kids who don’t study are “the popular kids” and well-to-do. They simply are not disciplined by the parents for much of anything and they learn to be “wild” kids. I am interested in this particular new article to know what the background of the white girl who filed the lawsuit over not being admitted was. The article didn’t’ say. If she was well-to-do she has no excuse in my opinion for failing to study, which is apparent enough from the fact that her grades were not in the top 10% of her class. She should have made it into the state college with no problem. Of course, in reality, this is just a test case to try to knock black and Hispanic kids out of receiving the help that some of them do need. “Conservatives” have fought every attempt since the 1950s to intervene in their behalf on any issue. Otherwise how could those states make laws requiring blacks to read a page from the Constitution to prove they have the right to vote in elections??




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-going-for-the-grassroots/

Bernie Sanders' challenge - how much will the grassroots do for him?
By HANNAH FRASER-CHANPONG CBS NEWS
June 29, 2015

Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, addresses a town hall meeting in Henniker, New Hampshire, June 27, 2015. CBS/HANNAH FRASER-CHANPONG

Manchester, New Hampshire -- Bernie Sanders is eliciting some effusive responses from voters: one man called him the "penicillin" that the country needs, while another compared him to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The independent Vermont senator drew crowds of hundreds this weekend in New Hampshire and, with them, a host of compliments. But Sanders often cut those comments short.

"This is not about me," he would say. "It's about you."

Sanders repeatedly asked voters during his seven-stop, two-day swing to take his vision to their friends and neighbors, even those who are Republican.

5 things to know about Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders: Enough is enough

There have been stories written about Sanders closing in on frontrunner Hillary Clinton, and one reporter in Rochester, New Hampshire, asked him about the fact that he doesn't bring up the tightening polls. Sanders responded, "We'll let the reality speak for itself...You saw the turnout: 500 people in Nashua yesterday. I think we're doing pretty well."


Play VIDEO
Bernie Sanders explains why he’s different from Hillary Clinton

Sanders has surprised many, even his closest aides, as hundreds, sometimes thousands, of voters have turned out to see him speak in recent weeks.

But in order to take his presidential campaign to the next level, Sanders and his aides will need to turn the crowds' interest in him into something more meaningful.

"The biggest challenge in this campaign," Phil Fiermonte, Sanders' field director, told CBS News on Sunday, "is taking these 200,000 people who want to help Bernie and getting them to be doing constructive activities that are going to help get him elected."

And that means he'll need more than just their votes.

Sanders has a talent, Fiermonte said, for connecting with ordinary voters. Throughout his latest swing through the Granite State, Sanders consistently delivered fiery speeches dotted with wry, witty moments. When one questioner at a stop at a high school in Durham mentioned President Obama, Sanders joked dryly, "Yeah, I've heard of him." But Sanders is mostly serious as he lays out his populist vision.

"He's talking about the issues that are affecting families and seniors and children," said Jane Lang, a senior activist from Salem who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 and had expected to support Clinton in this election. "When I hear Bernie speak, I hear him speaking for the people."

Lang said she's still "shopping" for a candidate to support, but she seemed to be in the minority at Sanders' events.

"My mind is very much made up," said Patrick Duffy, a car salesman from Nashua who attended Sanders' town hall there. "I know I'm not even going to consider any other candidate. I've heard it all before from the other candidates."

But one of those other Democratic candidates has a distinct advantage in New Hampshire. While Sanders was driving from town to town Saturday, volunteers who support Clinton were fanning out statewide for the campaign's first "Day of Action," which brought dozens of volunteers together to knock on doors and lock in commitments to vote for Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner.

Sanders' campaign is just picking up the keys to its first office in New Hampshire this week, in Concord, and it will soon open its doors to voters who want to learn more, volunteer their time and host house parties or canvass. In Iowa, Sanders has a bigger presence. His campaign announced last Monday that he hired five new Iowa-based staff to help organize and communicate with his supporters there.

"He's riding the wave," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. "That's fun to do, but ultimately you have to grind it out on the ground. Right now, Clinton's in a better place to do that."

Fiermonte couldn't say how soon the campaign's ground operation in New Hampshire would be up and running, but Sanders said that he will do "his best to run a 50-state campaign."

"We're going to win because we're going to do politics the very, very old fashioned way, the way I always do it," Sanders said to a crowd of 300 in Henniker, N.H. "You win it the old fashioned way: talking to people, knocking on doors, talking on the phone. In order to do that, we need a strong grassroots movement."

Beyond manpower, Scala said that Sanders also needs to prove that he is electable. As President Obama's second term comes to an end, Democratic activists in New Hampshire now have their first chance in years to explore all of the directions that the party could take.

"It's one thing to say you like Sanders' ideas now, in June," Scala said. "It's another thing to be able to say in December and January that Sanders has a legitimate path to not only the nomination, but also to defeat a Republican come 2016."

Bonnie Wright, a supporter from Salem, N.H., said she broke her own rule when she sent Sanders a donation on the day he announced.

"I was concerned at first," she said, "but as I'm looking at the growing momentum I think maybe he can [win]."

Lang said she was torn.

"Then again," Lang said, "I look back at 2008. Everybody said Hillary was a shoo-in and look what happened. We all started working for Obama and we got him in."

Sanders, for his part, seems to be prepared for the long haul. Even with a tight schedule and the next event more than an hour drive away, Sanders lingered at his campaign stops to take question after question from attendees.

"That's his personality," Fiermonte said. "He's a long distance runner, not a sprinter. He runs circles around the 20-year-old folks in the Senate office."




"He's talking about the issues that are affecting families and seniors and children," said Jane Lang, a senior activist from Salem who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 and had expected to support Clinton in this election. "When I hear Bernie speak, I hear him speaking for the people." Lang said she's still "shopping" for a candidate to support, but she seemed to be in the minority at Sanders' events. "My mind is very much made up," said Patrick Duffy, a car salesman from Nashua who attended Sanders' town hall there. "I know I'm not even going to consider any other candidate. I've heard it all before from the other candidates." …. "He's rid-ing the wave," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. "That's fun to do, but ultimately you have to grind it out on the ground. Right now, Clinton's in a better place to do that." …. "We're going to win because we're going to do politics the very, very old fashioned way, the way I always do it," Sanders said to a crowd of 300 in Henniker, N.H. "You win it the old fashioned way: talking to people, knocking on doors, talking on the phone. In order to do that, we need a strong grassroots movement." Beyond manpower, Scala said that Sanders also needs to prove that he is electable. …. Bonnie Wright, a supporter from Salem, N.H., said she broke her own rule when she sent Sanders a donation on the day he announced. "I was concerned at first," she said, "but as I'm looking at the growing momentum I think maybe he can [win]." Lang said she was torn. "Then again," Lang said, "I look back at 2008. Everybody said Hillary was a shoo-in and look what happened. We all started working for Obama and we got him in."…. . Even with a tight schedule and the next event more than an hour drive away, Sanders lingered at his campaign stops to take question after question from attendees. "That's his personality," Fiermonte said. "He's a long distance runner, not a sprinter. He runs circles around the 20-year-old folks in the Senate office."

When I first read the bold and visionary things he has said I felt cheered, as though a real economic liberal was in the race. When I heard him on two news talk shows I was impressed with his delivery, depth of thought and eloquence. Now I see a description of his campaign style. I am planning to vote for him, especially since I haven’t see another Democrat as capable. When the time gets closer I will try to send him a small monthly amount on my credit card, and maybe do some door to door contacts or telephone calls here in Jacksonville for his campaign. I’m beginning to get excited already!





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-to-univision-employees-youre-banned/

Donald Trump to Univision employees: You're banned!
By AMANDA MIKELBERG CBS NEWS
June 26, 2015

Photograph -- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally, Tuesday, June 16, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump isn't waiting to be elected to start building borders.

Trump, whose Miss USA pageant was dropped from the Univision network following his remarks about Latinos during a campaign address, has already threatened to sue the station for hundreds of millions of dollars, and now has escalated the conflict to ban all Univision employees from his Trump Doral Miami golf course.

Earlier this week Trump lost Univision's support to air the pageant on July 12 after the mogul said that Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists." On Friday, the pageant's planned host, actress Roselyn Sanchez, resigned as Trump's employee, remarking that it would be "inconceivable" to go on hosting the show.

In his letter Trump promised that if he becomes president he would erect a "meaningful border ... not the laughing stock that it currently is," reported TMZ, and is apparently beginning with establishing strict border control at his golf course.

In response to banning Univision employees from playing golf on his 800-acre golf course and resort, the network sent a memo to all of its employees to avoid patronizing any Trump properties, anywhere.

"As part of this decision, UCI employees should not stay at Trump properties while on company business or hold event/activities there," the company directive stated.




“Trump, whose Miss USA pageant was dropped from the Univision network follow-ing his remarks about Latinos during a campaign address, has already threatened to sue the station for hundreds of millions of dollars, and now has escalated the conflict to ban all Univision employees from his Trump Doral Miami golf course. …. In his letter Trump promised that if he becomes president he would erect a "meaningful border ... not the laughing stock that it currently is," reported TMZ, and is apparently beginning with establishing strict border control at his golf course. In response to banning Univision employees from playing golf on his 800-acre golf course and resort, the network sent a memo to all of its employees to avoid patronizing any Trump properties, anywhere.

I would say how I feel about Donald Trump, but it would take too long. I will simp-ly say that I feel certain he hasn’t a chance in a million to win the presidency.




http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/29/418557691/supreme-court-blocks-obama-administration-plan-on-power-plant-emissions

Supreme Court Blocks Obama Administration Plan On Power Plant Emissions
Brian Naylor
June 29, 2015

The Supreme court has ruled against an Obama administration effort to limit toxic mercury emissions from power plants, saying the costs of compliance with regulation should be taken into account.

In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with industry and 23 states that challenged the Environmental Protection Agency over the rules for oil- and coal-fired utilities, which the EPA estimated would cost $9.6 billion dollars annually. The states and industry groups said the cost estimate far outweighed the benefits the rules would produce, estimated at $4 million to $6 million per year.

The courts majority agreed, saying the EPA interpreted the regulation "unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants."

NPR's Nina Totenberg has this background on the case, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency:

"The regulations have been in the works for nearly two decades. Work on them began in the Clinton administration, got derailed in the George W. Bush administration, and then were revived and adopted in the Obama administration.

"The regulations were subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., last year.

"They stem from 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to expedite limits on power plant emissions of mercury and 188 other dangerous air pollutants.

"Mercury is considered one of the most toxic pollutants because studies show that when it falls from the atmosphere, it readily passes from fish and other sources to a pregnant woman's unborn fetus and the fetal brain, causing neurological abnormalities and delays in children. The EPA estimated that 7 percent of American women of childbearing age — millions of women — were being exposed to the pollutant in dangerous amounts."




“The Supreme court has ruled against an Obama administration effort to limit toxic mercury emissions from power plants, saying the costs of compliance with regulation should be taken into account. In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with industry and 23 states that challenged the Environmental Protection Agency over the rules for oil- and coal-fired utilities, which the EPA estimated would cost $9.6 billion dollars annually. The states and industry groups said the cost estimate far outweighed the benefits the rules would produce, estimated at $4 million to $6 million per year. The courts majority agreed, saying the EPA interpreted the regulation "unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants." …. "The regulations have been in the works for nearly two decades. Work on them began in the Clinton administration, got derailed in the George W. Bush administration, and then were revived and adopted in the Obama administration. "The regulations were subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., last year. They stem from 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to expedite limits on power plant emissions of mercury and 188 other dangerous air pollutants.”

“The EPA estimated that 7 percent of American women of childbearing age — mil-lions of women — were being exposed to the pollutant in dangerous amounts."

There are a frightening number of babies and also adults being poisoned by environmental chemicals. The case of asbestos-caused illnesses is still a problem, though supposedly it is no longer in use in construction and other industrial activities. I saw a law office’s advertisement for potential patients just recently. When I think of the number of times that we kids would go running out to see the DDT truck that came down the streets on summer nights, I am appalled. As far as I know I haven’t been injured, however. The truth is that life in an industrialized society has its advantages and its dangers.





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/29/418521823/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-redistricting-commission-targeting-gridlock

Supreme Court Backs Arizona's Redistricting Commission Targeting Gridlock
Bill Chappell
June 29, 2015

U.S. states' efforts to counter extreme gerrymandering won a victory Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bipartisan Arizona panel that draws the state's districts. The court's vote was 5-4; Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which her citations included James Madison writing in The Federalist Papers.

"The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering," Ginsberg wrote, "and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have 'an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.' "

Ginsberg continued, quoting a 2005 gerrymandering case: "In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' "

Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission was formed 15 years ago, after the state's voters approved Proposition 106 and amended the state's constitution to take redistricting power away from the Legislature (which later filed suit).

In his dissent, Roberts said that the majority's position "has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court."

Saying that if the people of Arizona want to change the electoral process, they should focus on passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Roberts concluded, "Unfortunately, today's decision will only discourage this democratic method of change."

As for the effects Arizona's commission has had, here's what Arizona Public Media reports:

"The independent commission drew boundaries after the 2000 census and again after the 2010 census. In the 2012 election, five Democrats and four Republicans were elected to Congress in Arizona. In 2014, five Republicans and four Democrats were elected."
The case could have effects far beyond Arizona; more than a dozen other states, including California, have adopted similar processes as they try to break up partisan gridlock that results from drawing polarized districts.

Today's ruling has been hotly anticipated, particularly ahead of the 2016 election cycle. The ruling "could affect as many as one-third of congressional districts," NPR's Jessica Taylor writes for It's All Politics.

A large part of the debate over the case hinged on one word: "legislature."

From the Constitution's clause on elections:

"The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."

The two sides have argued over whether "legislature" in the clause can be interpreted to refer to voters who enact a law via ballot initiative.

When the case was argued back in March, the Arizona Legislature's lawyer, Paul Clement, said, "The whole idea of the Constitution was that we're going to form a republican government, that we can't have direct democracy."

The Constitution, Clement said, gave authority over elections to elected officials, not to the public. But Ginsberg and the rest of the majority disagreed, mentioning not only the efforts to combat gerrymandering but also dozens of voter initiatives that shape how Americans vote, such as mail-in ballots and voter ID laws.

But Chief Justice Roberts did not agree — and he cited the 1913 shift in how U.S. senators are chosen to show his disapproval. He wrote:

"Just over a century ago, Arizona became the second State in the Union to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment. That Amendment transferred power to choose United States Senators from the Legislature' of each State, Art. I, §3, to 'the people thereof.' The Amendment resulted from an arduous, decades-long campaign in which reformers across the country worked hard to garner approval from Congress and three-quarters of the States.

"What chumps! Didn't they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term 'the Legislature' to mean 'the people'? The Court today performs just such a magic trick with the Elections Clause."

Here's how NPR's Nina Totenberg described the case back in March:

"In a state with 35 percent registered Republicans, 35 percent Independents, and 30 percent Democrats, the congressional map the commission drew had four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, and three competitive districts.

"Infuriated Republican state legislators wanted a bigger slice of the pie, however, and after the Arizona Supreme Court frustrated their effort to fire the commission's chair, they challenged the commission as unconstitutional, appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."




“U.S. states' efforts to counter extreme gerrymandering won a victory Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a bipartisan Arizona panel that draws the state's districts. …. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which her citations included James Madison writing in The Federalist Papers. "The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering," Ginsberg wrote, "and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have 'an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.' "Ginsberg continued, quoting a 2005 gerrymandering case: "In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' " …. Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission was formed 15 years ago, after the state's voters approved Proposition 106 and amended the state's constitution to take redistricting power away from the Legislature (which later filed suit). …. The case could have effects far beyond Arizona; more than a dozen other states, including California, have adopted similar processes as they try to break up partisan gridlock that results from drawing polarized districts. Today's ruling has been hotly anticipated, particularly ahead of the 2016 election cycle. The ruling "could affect as many as one-third of congressional districts," NPR's Jessica Taylor writes for It's All Politics. …. The two sides have argued over whether "legislature" in the clause can be interpreted to refer to voters who enact a law via ballot initiative. When the case was argued back in March, the Arizona Legislature's lawyer, Paul Clement, said, "The whole idea of the Constitution was that we're going to form a republican government, that we can't have direct democracy." The Constitution, Clement said, gave authority over elections to elected officials, not to the public. But Ginsberg and the rest of the majority disagreed, mentioning not only the efforts to combat gerrymandering but also dozens of voter initiatives that shape how Americans vote, such as mail-in ballots and voter ID laws.”

This case may lead the way to Florida and others moving to stop the silly Gerrymandering and picture ID requirements. Republicans absolutely do not want to play fair. Of course, I don’t want to see Democrats caught playing dirty pool, taking bribes, etc. either.