February 16 Through 20, 2016


News Clips For The Day


DEMOCRATIC GLADIATORS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/19/hillary-clinton-no-good-very-bad-terrible-answer-on-telling-the-truth/

Hillary Clinton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad answer on whether she’s ever lied
By Chris Cillizza
February 19 at 11:34 AM

Photograph -- Hillary Clinton (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)


CBS’s Scott Pelley interviewed Hillary Clinton on Thursday night. One exchange tells you everything you need to know about Clinton's struggles in the Democratic primary race so far and why she continues to be dogged by questions about her honesty and trustworthiness. Here it is:

PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, “I will not lie to you.”

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, “I will never lie to you.”

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, “Have I ever?” I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.

I mean, what? W-H-A-T? "I've always tried to" tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?

The answer, of course, is on no planet. While I am less familiar with politics on Mars than I am with those on Earth, I am pretty sure that being unable to simply say, "Yes, I have always been truthful with the public," would be a problem on the Red Planet, too.

This a double whammy of bad for Clinton.

First, it does nothing at all to quell concerns about her ability to be honest and straightforward. In the New Hampshire exit poll, more than one in three (34 percent) of all Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Bernie Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.

That's broadly in keeping with national polling over the last year, which has consistently shown large majorities of voters voicing skepticism about Clinton's trustworthiness. Her answer to that criticism has, to date, been to blame it on a Republican Party obsessed with her and willing to say or do anything to tarnish her reputation. There's truth in that, but, as the New Hampshire exit numbers suggest, the problem is bigger than just Republicans out to get her.

Once considered a firewall for Hillary Clinton, Nevada has sharply turned into a tight and unpredictable contest for the former secretary of state as senator Bernie Sanders steadily gains support from critical voting blocs. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)
Second, the answer from Clinton on honesty reinforces a perception that the former secretary of state tries to play with words, giving a heavily couched response when a simple one would — and should — do. You can imagine people rolling their eyes or saying, "Why doesn't she just answer the question?" while watching that painful response by Clinton.

I think I understand why she answered the way she did. She knows she has been in public life for a long time and that she has said lots and lots of things. Because of that, it's possible that at some point in the future, someone will unearth a statement in which it could be construed that she wasn't telling the whole truth. Clinton is protecting against the damage incurred by such a revelation.

But when you have the problems regarding honesty and trustworthiness that Clinton does, the only right answer to Pelley's question is: "Yes, I have always been truthful. Of course." That Clinton didn't give that simple answer suggests she is either (a) unaware of or doubts the depth of voters' concerns with her ability to be honest, or (b) she is so naturally cautious as to get herself in trouble even on a question she has to know is coming.

Either way, Clinton just made things harder for herself with that answer to Pelley.


Clinton just doesn’t have a perfectly clean record, and is seen, correctly I think, as a party insider. Clinton has a very cute photograph with this article. She is doing what we used to call a moue. Unfortunately it looks as though she is trying to think up a good answer, which isn't good for her. Sanders is known to “think outside the box.” That means to me that he is intelligent, creative, courageous, and likely to be able to meet a foreign leader when he needs to. He can even make important decisions, yes, at 3:00 AM when that phone rings. He is also proving himself to be surprisingly viable with voters as well, Democratic Socialist or not!



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jewish-and-seventh-day-adventist-voters-left-out-of-nevada-democratic-caucuses/

Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist voters left out of Nevada Democratic caucuses
By SHAYNA FREISLEBEN CBS NEWS
February 20, 2016, 9:09 AM

Play VIDEO -- Clinton, Sanders battle for minority voters in Nevada


With Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton engaged in a final push to woo voters ahead of Saturday's Democratic caucus in Nevada, two religious groups will be sidelined on caucus day.

Religious Jews and Seventh-day Adventists both observe the Sabbath, a holy day of rest, on Saturdays.

Members of Nevada's Jewish community call the timing of Saturday's caucus "disappointing," as the 11 a.m. start time precludes observant Jews from participating. Sabbath is observed from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday.

"I believe everyone should be counted," Rabbi Shea Harlig of Chabad of Southern Nevada said. "They don't want to go through the effort to make the accommodations."

In 2012, Republicans also caucused on a Saturday, yet an alternate time was arranged after sundown. Harlig noted that Las Vegas-based casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major GOP donor, possibly influenced state Republicans' decision to accommodate observant Jews. Republicans will caucus on Tuesday. State Democrats, Harlig suggested, possibly lack an individual with comparable wealth or clout to spur a time change.

Rabbi Bradley Tecktiel, the community relations council chairman at the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas, criticized the "insensitive response" of the state Democratic party. Alternate arrangements were proposed to state Democrats, he said, yet those requests were rebuffed.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a secular Jew, while Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist.

"This is the democratic process," Tecktiel said. "Jews take it very seriously that we can participate in this country."

The Nevada Democratic caucuses: How do they work?

According to the Nevada secretary of state's website, absentee voting is not permitted during a contest; one must be physically present at a caucus location.

In a statement released last week, the Orthodox Union, among the U.S.' largest Orthodox Jewish groups, asked Nevada Democratic officials to "ensure that all Nevadans can participate in the important presidential caucus." The statement continued: "We must protect religious freedom."

By Friday evening, a spokesperson for Nevada's Democratic party had not returned CBS News' calls or emails for comment.



"I believe everyone should be counted," Rabbi Shea Harlig of Chabad of Southern Nevada said. "They don't want to go through the effort to make the accommodations." …. Rabbi Bradley Tecktiel, the community relations council chairman at the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas, criticized the "insensitive response" of the state Democratic party. Alternate arrangements were proposed to state Democrats, he said, yet those requests were rebuffed. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a secular Jew, while Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. …. In a statement released last week, the Orthodox Union, among the U.S.' largest Orthodox Jewish groups, asked Nevada Democratic officials to "ensure that all Nevadans can participate in the important presidential caucus." The statement continued: "We must protect religious freedom."


Not only is this Democratic decision disrespectful to the important religious minorities mentioned here; it will preempt their voting, and if anything is more important than donations in these things it is good solid votes. All our great party had to do was move the time up past sundown on Saturday. It’s my understanding that lots of Jewish people vote for the Democratic Party. I have to call this stupid.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-ethan-couch-victims-affluenza-is-no-defense/

For Ethan Couch's victims, "affluenza" is no defense
By DAVID BEGNAUD CBS NEWS
February 19, 2016, 7:04 PM

Play VIDEO -- "Affluenza" teen case to moved to adult court
Photograph -- Alex Lemus, right, grasps his brother Sergio Molina's hand, front, as they gather with their mother Maria Lemus, center left, Tim McLaughlin, center, and his son Isaiah McLaughlin after a juvenile court hearing for Ethan Couch Feb. 19, 2016, in Fort Worth, Texas. Sergio Molina and Isaiah McLaughlin were injured in an accident caused by Couch.


FORT WORTH, Texas -- A judge in Texas ruled Friday Ethan Couch will be in an adult court when he turns 19 in April. Couch is accused of violating probation after a deadly drunk driving accident.

For Mara Lemus, every moment she cares for her son Sergio Molina, she feels pain.

The 18-year-old was left a quadriplegic after riding in a truck driven by Ethan Couch. Couch crashed the truck into a stranded vehicle. Molina was thrown out.

"It's not easy to see Sergio this way when he was a player, a soccer player," Lemus told CBS News. "And now, you see him in one place. It's not easy."

Outings are rare but Friday, Lemus wanted Couch to see her son in a wheelchair. So she took him to Couch's hearing.

Alex is her older son.

"Can you try to smile and tell them that, no matter what happens, you're still here?" Alex asked his brother. "That you still have dreams of playing soccer, man?"

It appeared Molina lifted his leg. The family insists he was trying to speak for himself.

"I just want him back," Lemus said, crying. "I don't care about money, I don't care about anything -- I just want my son back."

The sheriff said Friday he's noticed that ever since Couch was transported to an adult jail, the seriousness of the situation and what he did to his victims seems more real to Couch now.


“A judge in Texas ruled Friday Ethan Couch will be in an adult court when he turns 19 in April. Couch is accused of violating probation after a deadly drunk driving accident. …. The 18-year-old was left a quadriplegic after riding in a truck driven by Ethan Couch. Couch crashed the truck into a stranded vehicle. Molina was thrown out. …. The sheriff said Friday he's noticed that ever since Couch was transported to an adult jail, the seriousness of the situation and what he did to his victims seems more real to Couch now.”


A good boy running with a bad boy is an old story, but usually the Hispanic and relatively poor boy is likely to be the bad one. That’s not the case here, however. I am glad to see that Couch has begun to take his crime seriously. I couldn’t stand to see those smug photos of him, and his mom running around trying to make everything totally painless for him. It really isn’t just affluenza, but very bad parenting. Now if Couch will just attend AA meetings in prison, maybe something really good can happen in his life.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1289793/Dont-mention-mockingbird-Meet-Harper-Lee-reclusive-novelist-wrote-classic-novel-mesmerised-40-million-readers.html

Don't mention the mockingbird! The reclusive novelist who wrote the classic novel that mesmerised 40 million readers
By Sharon Churcher
UPDATED: 19:30 EST, 26 June 2010

Photograph -- Unhappy: The reclusive Harper Lee with child actress Mary Badham, who played Scout in the film of Mockingbird
Photograph -- Secretive: Harper Lee in Monroeville, where she refuses to discuss her famous novel
Photograph -- peck peters, Oscar-winning: Gregory Peck as Atticus with co-star Brock Peters in the film of 'To kill a mockingbird'
Photograph -- mockingbird, Harper Lee's book has sold more than 40 million copies worldwide


In the 50 years since Harper Lee published her classic novel that mesmerised 40million readers, she has barely written another word – and turned into an almost total recluse.
So when her friends agreed to give our reporter an introduction, it was on one strict condition...Don’t mention the Mockingbird.

Despite the thick, black sunglasses, there is something familiar about the frail 84-year-old woman as she is helped falteringly towards the lake shore.

A delighted smile flickers across her face as ducks and Canada geese flock round to feed on the scraps of bread brought from the care home where she lives in a modest apartment.

Dressed in a clean but faded T-shirt and loosely fitting gingham slacks, she attracts barely a glance from passers-by.

Yet hers is the face which has stared from the cover of a book that has hypnotised more than 40 million readers around the world, one that has frequently been rated as one of the ten most important books published in the past century.

She is Harper Lee, whose only book, To Kill A Mockingbird, won the Pulitzer Prize, is translated into nearly 50 languages and was turned into the Oscar-winning 1962 film starring Gregory Peck. It also made Harper into a multi-millionairess.

To kill a mockingbird has been rated as one of the ten most important books published in the past century.

Nervously, I approach the novelist, carrying the best box of chocolates I could find in the small Alabama town of Monroeville, a Hershey’s selection costing a few dollars. I start to apologise that I hadn’t brought more but a beaming Nelle – as her friends and family call her – extends her hand.

‘Thank you so much,’ she told me. ‘You are most kind. We’re just going to feed the ducks but call me the next time you are here. We have a lot of history here. You will enjoy it.’

It was the most fleeting of conversations, but that is hardly surprising. Harper has said precious little in public since the publication of Mockingbird 50 years ago next month. She has written nothing else since, save a few short stories in the early Sixties.

Yet on the July 11 anniversary, thousands of Mockingbird Groupies, as her fans are called, will converge on Monroeville for a three-day festival in celebration of her work.

No one expects Harper to give a welcoming address. Indeed, she has spent the past five decades living in almost total seclusion.

Even when she travelled to the White House to receive an award from President George W. Bush three years ago, she did so under the strict condition that she would answer no questions and make no acceptance speech.

Nobody knows what she does with her wealth. Her friends say material goods are unimportant to her and that if she gives to charity, she does so anonymously.
harper lee

For much of the past 50 years, she has shunned the formality and racism of her native Alabama to make her home in a tiny flat on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

Only now, towards the end of her days, has Harper returned to live in a sheltered housing complex in her childhood home town of Monroeville.

I went to Alabama in an attempt to answer the great mystery of why she – like that other American literary legend J. D. Salinger, who died in January – should have spent almost half a century in silence.

Why did Harper Lee, like J.D.Salinger choose to spend almost half a century in silence?
Her friends agree to introduce me to her on one condition: that I make no mention of ‘The Book’, as people here refer to it.

Based on a few gnomic utterances over the years, many literary commentators have attributed Harper’s solitary life and subsequent failure to publish another book to her alarm at the tidal wave of praise for her Mockingbird, in which the racial bigotry of the South is witnessed through the eyes of a little girl, Scout.

Others have suggested that perhaps she only had one great book in her, and that she knew that every subsequent attempt would be regarded as a disappointment.

But according to confidants, many of whom have known her since childhood, what Harper has really found a burden is her enduring sadness about the book’s underlying themes.

They say that while To Kill A Mockingbird is ostensibly a courtroom thriller – in which Scout’s compassionate and principled lawyer father Atticus Finch defends a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman – Harper drew on deeply painful family secrets to create her protagonists.

Furthermore, her liberal views on race were extremely unpopular in her native Deep South. Indeed many in her own family were unhappy with the tone of her book.

‘I’m not a psychologist, but there’s a lot of Nelle in that book,’ said 87-year-old George Thomas Jones, a retired businessman who has known Harper and her family since she was a girl.

‘People say the publicity the book got turned her into a recluse but publicity didn’t ruin her life: I don’t think Nelle’s ever been a real happy person.’

Mr Jones said that Harper’s father Amasa Coleman Lee, a former newspaper editor, lawyer and state senator who was clearly the model for Atticus Finch, was ‘a real genteel man, who listened more than he talked . . . but he sure didn’t show much affection.

'I used to caddy for him on the local golf course. He was so formal that he would wear a heavy three-piece suit, shirt, tie and stout shoes to play golf, even in the heat of the summer.’

In an episode that foreshadows the compassionate and fiercely moral hero Atticus, played by Gregory Peck in the movie, Harper’s father had defended two black men charged with murder in a celebrated case in 1919.

After they were convicted and hanged, he never practised again. But unlike the fictional Finch, Mr Lee was a staunch segregationist who supported the harsh ‘Jim Crow’ laws of the American South.

In the novel, Scout lives in fear of a ‘malevolent phantom’, a psychologically disturbed neighbour called Boo Radley, who ultimately saves her life.

While it is clear that the character is in part based on a reclusive neighbour, in reality, it was Harper’s mother Frances who was the source of much terror and unhappiness.

Suffering from depression and violent mood swings, friends in the close-knit Alabama town say that Frances allegedly twice tried to drown her daughter in the bath. As a result, perhaps, the young Harper was regarded as a difficult and aggressive child who would think nothing of punching other children who annoyed her.

‘When you passed by the Lee house, Mrs Lee would be sitting in a swing with just a stone face,’ said Mr Jones, ‘looking dead ahead, emotionless.’

Other neighbours recalled she would sometimes shout nonsensical invective at passers-by.

Mr Jones added: ‘Nelle always seemed to be on the defensive when she was a little girl. The book didn’t make matters any better. People here recognised it was based on her life.

'My late wife was her golfing partner and she knew never to ask her about it. It’s not just something she didn’t want to talk about – it’s a subject you wouldn’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

‘I don’t think Nelle is lonely, necessarily. This is just the life she has chosen to lead. She could afford a lot better, but maybe this is what makes her feel safe after a life starved of affection.’

‘She touched the hearts of readers but I don’t think she knew much about her own heart.’

Harper’s biographer, the American academic Charles Shields, said that her mother Frances was descended from slave-owners who had farmed cotton around Monroeville, where they built a stately plantation house.

In her younger days, Frances was considered a brilliant pianist, but by the time Harper was born in 1926, she seemed to have lost all interest in life due to depression.

Harper’s older sister, Alice – who, remarkably at 98, still practises law in an office above a Monroeville bank – said: ‘My mother was a highly nervous person but it was no problem. There was nothing abnormal.’

Alice is still close to Harper and helps handle her financial affairs. I asked whether her sister ever regretted writing the book. ‘I don’t think she has any regrets,’ Alice replied with a frown. ‘But we talk about the book only in relation to business.’

The young Harper once dreamed of becoming a lawyer like both her father and sister. But she was diverted from that path by her lifelong friendship with Truman Capote, the author of Breakfast At Tiffany’s and In Cold Blood, who was a childhood neighbour much like Dill, Scout’s best friend in Mockingbird.

The young Capote had already begun to work on stories. ‘I convinced [Harper] she ought to write too,’ he said later. ‘She didn’t really want to but I held her to it.’

Writing did not come easily to Harper. Sometimes she would labour for a dozen hours before finishing a single page. But it was her only life.

Her mannish haircuts and hatred of make-up led to speculation that she was a lesbian. However, Mr Shields believes she was just shy and, like Charlotte Bronte, had an unrequited crush on a married man, her literary agent Maurice Crain.

She wrote short stories about racial prejudice in college and moved to New York in the mid-Fifties. There she rented a cheap apartment and attempted to earn enough money to write by working as a reservation clerk with the BOAC airline.

To Kill A Mockingbird began its existence as a series of anecdotes drawn from her childhood. However, Harper was either so naive or so traumatised that she seems to have failed to recognise its semi-autobiographical nature until after it was published.

Writing did not come easily to Harper. Sometimes she would labour for a dozen hours before finishing a single page. But it was her only life.

Mr Shields said: ‘She touched the hearts of readers but I don’t think she knew much about her own heart.’

In Monroeville, there was sharp criticism as the book became a bestseller. ‘People recognised people they knew in the book. She got hate mail,’ said Mr Shields. The critics included her other sister, Louise. ‘She felt it was too much dirty laundry,’ added Mr Shields.

Initially, there was talk of more books. Harper assured her agent in the early Sixties that she had started a new novel with the working title The Long Goodbye. It never appeared. According to Alice, the reason is that the manuscript was stolen by a ‘burglar’.

Others, however, claim that by the mid-Sixties, Harper was drinking, some would say excessively. Mr Shields said: ‘I think she drank to overcome her shyness and because her support group, small to begin with, had eroded. Maurice Crain was dying of cancer.

Truman Capote had drifted off into a sea of alcohol and drugs, while her editor Tay Hohoff, who had spent two-and-a-half years working with her on Mockingbird, had died suddenly.

Early in her career, the military academy West Point, the American equivalent of Sandhurst, dispatched two officers to meet Harper in the hope of persuading her to address cadets.

One of the pair, Brigadier Jack Capps, said last week: ‘It was mid-morning when we arrived at her little apartment and she said, “Would you like a drink?’’ and she mixed a martini and then she said, ‘‘Let’s go to lunch.’’ She had another Martini before lunch and she agreed to speak.’

A friend of Harper’s said: ‘Nelle was not an alcoholic but she enjoyed a drink. She didn’t flaunt it but Monroeville is Bible Belt and her sister, Alice, did not approve.

Nelle finally gave it up when her health began to fail. She decided to move back to Monroeville only after she had suffered a stroke about five years ago.’

She initially moved in with Alice, but now lives in sheltered accommodation after suffering further health problems. Despite her illness, or perhaps because of it, she seems finally at peace with herself. But ‘The Book’ is still taboo.

Harper Lee is credited by many with playing a big part in a sea-change in attitudes in the Deep South – not least in Monroeville.

However, even today the old prejudices refuse to die. ‘We have wonderful coloured help,’ one contemporary of Harper told me as three black maids bustled around his mansion.

I also learned that many white children are still being educated at private ‘segregation academies’ set up after the federal government enforced the integration of state schools.

At next month’s 50th Anniversary Celebration Weekend, however, black and white youngsters will stand side-by-side for a marathon reading of the book.

Harper has been invited to join them, but friends say, even now, hearing the words of Scout and Atticus read out loud will bring back too many painful memories.

Rather than confront the ghosts of her past yet again, Harper plans to spend the anniversary in her apartment.

There, with her desk, her computer and her comfortable armchair, she can muse on the great changes that she has helped to bring to the South, on her timeless novel and on the childhood trauma that shaped it.


“Furthermore, her liberal views on race were extremely unpopular in her native Deep South. Indeed many in her own family were unhappy with the tone of her book. ‘I’m not a psychologist, but there’s a lot of Nelle in that book,’ said 87-year-old George Thomas Jones, a retired businessman who has known Harper and her family since she was a girl. ‘People say the publicity the book got turned her into a recluse but publicity didn’t ruin her life: I don’t think Nelle’s ever been a real happy person.’”


I hate to say it, but a large proportion of writers are introverted. Such people spend lots of time within their own heads, and since it produces such creativity, I can’t say that’s a bad thing. They’re bright and they see the world through their own “filter” rather than through those of their family or their hometown folks. Above all, they don’t follow the herd in any way. In a Republican county they will vote Democrat. That’s what keeps them from being racist, anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic as well. I ran into all of those prejudices in my hometown in North Carolina. Saying “Nigger” wasn’t even criticized in most cases. When I look back I’m shocked by it. I’ve chosen to follow the opposite path in my adult life. If we’re walking toward racism we just can’t truthfully say “onward and upward,” can we?

Another article a day or so ago did speculate on whether or not Lee was gay. Her look is not particularly “feminine,” but I think non-conformist women, and men as well, were often considered gay if they didn’t marry. A lot of people are in fact heterosexual, but marriage is simply a living hell for them. It isn’t all about sex. It’s about men’s “rules” and men’s “rights,” or conversely, women who browbeat their husbands. Both are very bad, toxic situations. Some people simply get along much better with people of their own sex, like ‘enry ‘iggins and Col. Pickering. Of course we know now that lots of men, and women as well, are in fact bisexual, so they well may be married with children but have some level of interest in a gay interaction. It doesn’t offend me either way.

I am so glad that our Southern viewpoints are slowly but surely changing these days. We still have a long way to go, but that’s why I always vote for as liberal a Democrat as possible. Sure, we all have some pleasure in visiting our earlier haunts, but if we again run into things like rampant racism among those whom we most trusted and want to love warmly, it will still be disheartening and infuriating. It makes me think that when black people say that white society is innately corrupt, I unfortunately understand their point. It’s just that there is no way out of our societal predicament in this country except more and not less racial intermingling, better laws, better education (for both blacks and whites), and the Christian triad, hope, faith and charity. Charity, of course, is the King James word for Love. I hope that we don’t revert to a “race war” as some of those Militia members like to discuss. How could anybody take joy in something like that?



A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION WHICH I’VE NEVER HEARD ASKED BEFORE


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/17/466976937/is-it-time-to-reconsider-lifetime-appointments-to-the-supreme-court

Is It Time To Reconsider Lifetime Appointments To The Supreme Court?
CARRIE JOHNSON
Updated February 17, 20168:32 AM ET
Published February 17, 20166:00 AM ET

Photograph -- With the quick political reaction following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, legal scholars are wondering if having more frequent picks to the Supreme Court would reduce the rancor.
Jon Elswick/AP


The unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the looming face-off between the White House and the Senate over his replacement have revived proposals that would limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Legal scholars from both political parties renewed a call Tuesday to reconsider how much time justices spend on the high court. Many of them cited, with disapproval, a bruising and protracted clash building between President Obama and the GOP-controlled Senate over when and how to fill Scalia's vacancy.

"The point of life tenure is to keep justices insulated from politics," said George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr. "That didn't quite pan out."

For years now, lawyers have been floating proposals that future high-court justices spend no more than 18 years at a time on the Supreme Court bench. The plan would space out appointments, so presidents would make appointments every two years, supporters said. That would bring regular turnover and fresh thinking to the court — and align with the longer life spans of Americans since the nation's founding, they argue.

"It just sounds undemocratic," said Gabe Roth, executive director of an advocacy group called Fix the Court, about the lifetime court appointments. "There's definitely concern about the justices being out of touch. There have been a number of cases with modern technology, whether it be smartphones or bulk data collection or different types of ways of getting TV over the airwaves or over the Internet."

Thomas Merrill, a law professor at Columbia University and a former deputy U.S. solicitor general (1987-1990), said he's been "a little bit skeptical" of the idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices. But, Merrill said, his thinking has evolved.

"My current cautious endorsement of this is based on the perception that the whole issue of appointments to the Supreme Court has become incredibly contentious, partisan, political, almost to the point where the political system freezes up, as we're witnessing right now with the Scalia death," Merrill said. "It would be a good thing not to have the type of Armageddon it looks like we're about to have."

Term-limit supporters point to a 2015 poll by Reuters/Ipsos, after high-profile rulings on Obama's health care legislation and same-sex marriage, that suggested two-thirds of respondents would support a 10-year limit on tenure on the Supreme Court.

But actually changing the system could be remarkably difficult for a political system that's already near paralysis. Some lawyers said the change could be made by lawmakers, but others have concluded it would require amending the Constitution. To do that, the House and Senate would need to vote their support, and then three-quarters of the states would have to approve. Another path would be for two-thirds of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention.

"Not likely, but possible," Kerr of George Washington University said. "We'll see how this year goes. It may become unbearable with the president and the Senate duking it out every day."



“The unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the looming face-off between the White House and the Senate over his replacement have revived proposals that would limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices. Legal scholars from both political parties renewed a call Tuesday to reconsider how much time justices spend on the high court. Many of them cited, with disapproval, a bruising and protracted clash building between President Obama and the GOP-controlled Senate over when and how to fill Scalia's vacancy. "The point of life tenure is to keep justices insulated from politics," said George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr. "That didn't quite pan out." …. Thomas Merrill, a law professor at Columbia University and a former deputy U.S. solicitor general (1987-1990), said he's been "a little bit skeptical" of the idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices. But, Merrill said, his thinking has evolved. "My current cautious endorsement of this is based on the perception that the whole issue of appointments to the Supreme Court has become incredibly contentious, partisan, political, almost to the point where the political system freezes up…”


“Term-limit supporters point to a 2015 poll by Reuters/Ipsos, after high-profile rulings on Obama's health care legislation and same-sex marriage, that suggested two-thirds of respondents would support a 10-year limit on tenure on the Supreme Court.” I personally don’t like the prevalent gridlock, but more importantly I don’t like the stranglehold that some Supreme Court members tend to have around the neck of basic justice. I personally believe that there should be a term limit of LESS THAN 10 YEARS on all responsible governmental positions, including on the local level. The same old members of the school board with their hidebound thinking isn’t any good, either.

Wikipedia gives our current legislative term limits and the Vice President as “Federal term limits” at the website below, which when I think of those rightwingers who have been in the legislature since they were twenty years old, and who are now sixty or eighty, it’s really outrageous. Think Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

Maybe there is good reason for a Constitutional Convention, as several Republicans have been arguing for – to advance their own causes, of course -- which will be attended by a good representation of all parties – ten or fifteen of each -- who have as much as a 20% following in a nationwide special election. I would also add that the Supreme Court members should no longer be nominated, but elected at a special nationwide election from a group of three selected candidates. A little Presidential control and a little Democratic/Republican interaction – Dems and Reps can duke it out across the nation like a real democracy. See the article on term limits below.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

President -- Two Four Year Terms -- Limited to being elected to a total of 2 four-year terms (except that a president who has already completed more than two years of an unfinished term may be elected in his own right only once); becoming president by succession may happen to someone an unlimited number of times (for example, if he is vice president and the president dies or resigns).[23][24]

Vice President -- Unlimited four-year terms

House of Representatives -- Unlimited two-year terms

Senate -- Unlimited six-year terms
Supreme Court -- No term limits, appointed to serve "during good behavior"[25] (but can be impeached and removed from office for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"); in practice a Justice serves until death or stepping down (by retirement or resignation)



http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/michigan-governor-touts-flint-pipe-switch-mayor-pans-it-n520241

NEWS FLINT WATER CRISIS Michigan Governor Touts Flint Pipe Switch, But Mayor Pans It
by JON SCHUPPE
FEB 17 2016, 3:10 PM ET

Photograph -- Flint, Michigan Mayor Karen Weaver testifies before the House Democratic Steering & Policy Committee at a hearing titled, "The Flint Water Crisis: Lessons for Protecting America's Children" at the Capitol on Feb. 10, 2016 in Washington, D.C. House Democrats hold a hearing on the toxic lead water crisis in Flint, MI. Gabriella Demczuk / Getty Images, file
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed -- Flint's Mayor Launches Plan to Replace Residents' Lead Pipes 2:32
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed -- Michigan Governor Announces Infrastructure Study for Flint 1:45


Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder on Wednesday outlined a plan to replace pipes leaching lead into Flint's drinking water, a three-step process that the city's mayor criticized as too slow.

Snyder warned that moving too quickly could trigger more problems, but declined to say how long his replacement program would take.

"I believe we have common goals with the mayor to get that done," he said at an afternoon news conference.

But Mayor Karen Weaver had said earlier in the day that she was embarking on her own plan to begin switching out the pipes as early as next week — a project for which she's still seeking funding.

She dismissed Snyder's plan, which calls first for studying whether any pipes can be coated as a temporary means to get drinkable water flowing into city homes.

"I call on Governor Snyder to end that discussion, and to commit fully to getting the lead out of Flint," Weaver said, according to local NBC affiliate WEYI .

The dueling statements reflected the continued chaos over the response to Flint's water crisis, which was triggered by the city's 2014 cost-cutting decision — under the leadership of a Snyder-appointed emergency fiscal manager — to being drawing water from the Flint River.

Not long after that switch, Flint residents began complaining about the water's taste and appearance. Studies later confirmed that the water wasn't properly treated, causing it to corrode pipes and fixtures, which then leaked lead.

By then, Flint children were turning up with dangerously high levels of lead in the blood, a condition that can cause brain damage.

Since the crisis exploded into public view late last year, Snyder, along with the Environmental Protection Agency, have been criticized for not moving fast enough to stem the contamination.

Officials still have not been able guarantee the water is safe to drink, and residents have been relying on bottled water and filters.


Snyder held his news conference Wednesday to tout an agreement with a Flint-based engineering firm to help study which pipes needed to be replaced first. His administration says it isn't clear which of the city's thousands of pipes contain lead. The state has enlisted residents to check their own pipes using magnets.



“Snyder warned that moving too quickly could trigger more problems, but declined to say how long his replacement program would take. "I believe we have common goals with the mayor to get that done," he said at an afternoon news conference. But Mayor Karen Weaver had said earlier in the day that she was embarking on her own plan to begin switching out the pipes as early as next week — a project for which she's still seeking funding. …. Officials still have not been able guarantee the water is safe to drink, and residents have been relying on bottled water and filters. Snyder held his news conference Wednesday to tout an agreement with a Flint-based engineering firm to help study which pipes needed to be replaced first. His administration says it isn't clear which of the city's thousands of pipes contain lead. The state has enlisted residents to check their own pipes using magnets.”


Using magnets?? Just follow the commonsensical advice of the Mayor. Her female intuition is better than that Republican male’s thickheaded beating around the bush. Get it done!!



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/18/467220097/pope-suggests-contraception-use-may-be-lesser-evil-for-those-fearing-zika

Pope Suggests Contraception Use May Be 'Lesser Evil' For Those Fearing Zika
CAMILA DOMONOSKE
Updated February 18, 20161:42 PM ET
Published February 18, 201612:41 PM ET

Photograph -- Pope Francis speaks to journalists Thursday aboard a flight from Mexico to Italy. Alessandro Di Meo/AFP/Getty Images


In wide-ranging comments aboard the papal plane, Pope Francis suggested to reporters that it might be acceptable for those fearing the Zika virus to use contraception.

The pope did not explicitly approve the use of contraception as he spoke during the flight from Mexico to Rome. But he drew a distinction between the use of abortion to respond to the threat of Zika — which he categorically opposed — and the hypothetical use of contraception.

There are concerns that the Zika virus, currently raging across Latin America, may be linked to cases of microcephaly, a severe birth defect.

A reporter on the plane had asked the pope how he felt about advice from some authorities that women at risk of Zika have abortions, and whether contraception would be the lesser of two evils, The Associated Press reports.

"Abortion is not a lesser evil. It is a crime. It is killing one person to save another. It is what the Mafia does," Francis said, according to an AP translation. "It is a crime. It is an absolute evil."

But contraception is different, the pope said, noting that "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil," the AP writes.

The Vatican press office described the pope's remarks on contraception: "Using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy can be acceptable in difficult situations, he said, noting that Pope Paul VI authorized nuns in Africa to do the same half a century ago when they were threatened with rape."

That exceptional dispensation from Paul VI was not publicized at the time, the AP writes, and little is known about it.

In his remarks, Pope Francis also said that while he wasn't personally familiar with presidential candidate Donald Trump's plans for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, anyone who proposed such a wall "is not Christian."

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel," the pope said, according to the Catholic News Agency.

Trump has responded, saying in a statement, "If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened."

He also called it "disgraceful" for the pope to question his faith.


“In wide-ranging comments aboard the papal plane, Pope Francis suggested to reporters that it might be acceptable for those fearing the Zika virus to use contraception. The pope did not explicitly approve the use of contraception as he spoke during the flight from Mexico to Rome. But he drew a distinction between the use of abortion to respond to the threat of Zika — which he categorically opposed — and the hypothetical use of contraception. …. "Using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy can be acceptable in difficult situations, he said, noting that Pope Paul VI authorized nuns in Africa to do the same half a century ago when they were threatened with rape." That exceptional dispensation from Paul VI was not publicized at the time, the AP writes, and little is known about it.”


I’m not going to get into Trump’s input about the Pope’s anti-Christian comment being “disgraceful.” It is dogmatic on the Pope’s part, but well within my views on Christianity, and no more dogmatic than the Baptists, etc. I am more interested in the fact that some fifty years ago another Pope allowed the nuns to prevent pregnancy if they should be raped, and I’m glad to see it. My greatest complaint about the Catholic Church is its’ stubbornness on issues that, in my view, hold us back from being a more rational society than we could be.


SANDERS VS DEMOCRATIC PARTY


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/17/467087858/top-wonks-take-aim-at-sanders-economic-plans

Top Wonks Take Aim At Sanders Economic Estimates
Danielle Kurtzleben
Updated February 17, 20163:58 PM ET
Published February 17, 20163:05 PM ET

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders' economic proposals are facing new criticism. Will voters care? Prince Williams/WireImage

Recent claims about Bernie Sanders' economic proposals are hurting the Democratic Party, say four former White House economists.

In an "open letter" posted Wednesday morning, former Council of Economic Advisers chairs blast a recent analysis from UMass-Amherst economics professor Gerald Friedman that the Sanders camp has praised in recent weeks. The economists take aim at Friedman's estimates that Sanders' economic plans would create 3.8 percent unemployment and boost median incomes by $22,000, as CNN reported. It would also boost GDP by 5.3 percent — far more than Jeb Bush's 4 percent growth promise (which many commentators, this one included, said looked overly optimistic).

"We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders's economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence," wrote Austan Goolsbee, Alan Krueger, Christina Romer and Laura D'Andrea Tyson. The first three were CEA chairs under Obama. Tyson served under Bill Clinton. Romer and Krueger were listed as advisers to the Clinton campaign last year.

"These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates," they added.

The Sanders campaign says that it didn't commission Friedman's analysis, but policy director Warren Gunnels did tell the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette days ago that he wished it would get more attention.

In January, Friedman also estimated that Sanders' single-payer "Medicare for all" plan would cost nearly $13.8 trillion over 10 years.

This is the second blow to the Sanders campaign this week from liberal economists. Goolsbee and other left-leaning economists, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Jared Bernstein, also questioned the Sanders agenda in a New York Times story.

The feasibility of Sanders' plans also came up in the last Democratic debate, when moderator Judy Woodruff asked Sanders if there would be "any limit to the size of government" under his administration. Clinton also took the opportunity to attack his single-payer, "Medicare for all" health care plan.

The good news for Sanders: it's hard to see the economics-wonks' opinions swaying broad swaths of voters. Or, as Vox's Matt Yglesias put it Wednesday morning:

Bernie losing the Former CEA Chair primary really badly. This is usually decisive in Nevada. https://t.co/UJOkHmpsvL
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 17, 2016
Fair enough. So do attacks like this matter at all?

To a certain degree, the increased scrutiny is a good sign for Sanders, said Hans Noel, a professor in Georgetown University's government department. In the "discovery-scrutiny-decline" cycle that political scientists like John Sides and Lynn Vavreck say candidates follow, more scrutiny means that more people are looking at Sanders and taking him seriously.

Scrutiny increases pressure on a campaign and the candidate. It's also a sign of where Sanders can expect his biggest trouble to come from, Noel adds.

"They're going to be part of a signal of where the conversation can go in the party in the future, especially if Sanders seems to do well," Noel said.

Long story short: it's easy to see a GOP candidate hitting Sanders with this in a general-election debate: Even LIBERAL economists have doubts about your programs.

That, of course, is fire the Clinton campaign would love to fan. And these sorts of substantive criticisms add fuel to that fire, Noel adds.

"This suggests there is a number of people who are not against Sanders merely because the party is for Clinton ... but because they actually see flaws in his candidacy," Noel said.

But then, these aren't just any economists; they're former White House economists, one of whom served under Clinton's husband. And because of that, the Sanders campaign is using these criticisms to maintain its outsider message.

Gunnels told NPR these four economists are "the establishment of the establishment" and added that his campaign has 130 people — a list that includes academics but also employees of nursing organizations — who have endorsed Sanders' healthcare plan.

As for whether he was worried about these sorts of criticisms hurting the campaign in the future, he said no.

"That does not bother us at all," he said. "What bothers us is the fact that the U.S. has more kids living in poverty than nearly any major country on earth."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Economic_Advisers

Council of Economic Advisers

The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is an agency within the Executive Office of the President that advises the President of the United States on economic policy.[2] The CEA provides much of the objective empirical research for the White House and prepares the annual Economic Report of the President.

Organization[edit]

The current Chairman of the CEA is Jason Furman, who was appointed by President Obama on June 10, 2013.[3] The two current Members are Jay Shambaugh and Sandra Black.

The council's Chairman is nominated by the president and approved by the United States Senate. The Members are appointed by the president. The staff of the council consists of a Chief of Staff as well as about 20 academic economists, plus three permanent economic statisticians.

History

The council was established by the Employment Act of 1946 to provide presidents with objective economic analysis and advice on the development and implementation of a wide range of domestic and international economic policy issues. In its first seven years the CEA made five technical advances in policy making, including the replacement of a "cyclical model" of the economy by a "growth model," the setting of quantitative targets for the economy, use of the theories of fiscal drag and full-employment budget, recognition of the need for greater flexibility in taxation, and replacement of the notion of unemployment as a structural problem by a realization of a low aggregate demand.[4]

In 1949 a dispute broke out between Chairman Edwin Nourse and member Leon Keyserling. Nourse believed a choice had to be made between "guns or butter" but Keyserling argued that an expanding economy permitted large defense expenditures without sacrificing an increased standard of living. In 1949 Keyserling gained support from powerful Truman advisors Dean Acheson and Clark Clifford. Nourse resigned as chairman, warning about the dangers of budget deficits and increased funding of "wasteful" defense costs. Keyserling succeeded to the chairmanship and influenced Truman's Fair Deal proposals and the economic sections of National Security Council Resolution 68 that, in April 1950, asserted that the larger armed forces America needed would not affect living standards or risk the "transformation of the free character of our economy."[5]

During the 1953–54 recession, the CEA, headed by Arthur Burns deployed non-traditional neo-keynesian interventions, which provided results later called the "steady fifties" wherein many families stayed in the economic "middleclass" with just one family wage-earner. The Eisenhower Administration supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a possible bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby.[6]

The 1978 Humphrey–Hawkins Act required each administration to move toward full employment and reasonable price stability within a specific time period. It has made CEA's annual economic report highly political in nature, as well as highly unreliable and inaccurate over the standard two or five year projection periods.[7]


NPR -- In an "open letter" posted Wednesday morning, former Council of Economic Advisers chairs blast a recent analysis from UMass-Amherst economics professor Gerald Friedman that the Sanders camp has praised in recent weeks. The economists take aim at Friedman's estimates that Sanders' economic plans would create 3.8 percent unemployment and boost median incomes by $22,000, as CNN reported. It would also boost GDP by 5.3 percent — far more than Jeb Bush's 4 percent growth promise (which many commentators, this one included, said looked overly optimistic). …. The Sanders campaign says that it didn't commission Friedman's analysis, but policy director Warren Gunnels did tell the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette days ago that he wished it would get more attention. …. In the "discovery-scrutiny-decline" cycle that political scientists like John Sides and Lynn Vavreck say candidates follow, more scrutiny means that more people are looking at Sanders and taking him seriously. …. But then, these aren't just any economists; they're former White House economists, one of whom served under Clinton's husband. And because of that, the Sanders campaign is using these criticisms to maintain its outsider message. Gunnels told NPR these four economists are "the establishment of the establishment" and added that his campaign has 130 people — a list that includes academics but also employees of nursing organizations — who have endorsed Sanders' healthcare plan. As for whether he was worried about these sorts of criticisms hurting the campaign in the future, he said no. "That does not bother us at all," he said. "What bothers us is the fact that the U.S. has more kids living in poverty than nearly any major country on earth."


First, look at the Wikipedia article above, especially the history of the CEA. The same political/philosophical arguments were being used in the 1950’s as they are today. Nothing has changed. It made me laugh to read it. Economics is one of those subjects that likes to call itself “a science.” I think it’s actually a dogma, a hardline set of philosophical beliefs, instead, that students who are too young to know any better pick up from rightwing thinkers in well-known college business departments around the country. They almost exclusively learn the old original “trickle down” or Supply Side economic theory as “the truth,” everything else as un-American and try to apply it to national problems. Naturally they get jobs in our government and lead our presidents and legislature astray.

I personally think that the main cause of the high medical bills, for instance, that we have these days is due to a collusion between doctors, hospitals, Big Pharma, and insurance companies. We need a government body to simply cut the top out of those really outrageously high bills that specialists charge, and to restrain insurance companies from constantly raising their rates on patients -- and on doctors for their malpractice insurance as well. I really don’t think a pure “Free Market” system is fair, or very functional either. That’s the cause of those periodic depressions/recessions – businesses cut back on salaries and even lay off workers, with the result that people en masse can’t pay for goods and services that the businesses want to sell them. So we end up into a “depression.”

Because professional economists tend to be Republicans, they grovel before their god of intellectual unanimity, believe everything they are taught and try to kill all thought that is Keynesian in trend or otherwise "outside the box." The very interesting fact that a Republican, Eisenhower, used a modified Keynesian theory (see Wikipedia above), which brought our country into an even greater period of prosperity than the Roosevelt years had created with WWII, just proves to me that the less restrictive policies have all along proven better for the rank and file American workers. I think it’s time for the wealthy to pay much more for their stocks and bonds and other non-wage income, also, and for the poor to have a greater Earned Income boost and a nationwide $10 to $15 minimum wage. We also need those good old Unions back. They kept the wheels greased when I was young. We also need JOBS which do NOT require a college education. Blacks aren’t the only citizens who often have no college credits. Most whites don’t either. We are a woefully ignorant country, and proud of it! That, of course, should be changed, but in the meantime, some good old factory jobs would be good.

As for requiring college for employment, a degree like a 4 year English major is only good for writing or teaching, or certain other workplaces such as offices and libraries. Nowadays we need computer science, law school, med school, economics (okay, okay, I know.) In order to create those hundreds of thousands of extra jobs for our ever increasing population, we need to change the tax laws of the last 20 years or so, that have made it so profitable for big businesses to move their operations overseas. Every time I get one of those Bombay voices on the line when I call for tech support, it maddens me. I have solved my main problem with them, however, by saying to them over and over “talk SLOWER, not necessarily louder.” But enough about the way the world is going downhill – I am an elderly person, after all, so I have every right to say things like that -- and on to the subject of this article, Bernie Sanders.

I trust Bernie to keep us from “going broke” as a nation, and to put us on a new path toward better single payer healthcare, good wages and free state college educations. I think he’s intelligent, educated, compassionate, practical, creative and strong. He should make a good president. I will vote for Hillary if she is the chosen one, but she’s not my preference.