March 15, 2016


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-rose-lawyer-disputes-he-endorsed-donald-trump/

Pete Rose's lawyer denies Rose endorsed Donald Trump
CBS NEWS
March 15, 2016, 11:27 AM


Pete Rose may still be persona non grata to Major League Baseball, having recently been denied reinstatement by the league (again) over his past gambling scandal. But Ohio still loves the Cincinnati native for his long career with its home team. Donald Trump attempted to capitalize on that affection Monday with a tweet suggesting that he had the support of the baseball legend.

Pete Rose to be inducted into Reds hall of fame

While the tweet doesn't explicitly say that Rose endorsed Trump, the candidate did use a picture of a baseball signed by Rose that reads, "Mr. Trump, Please make America great again. [Signed] Pete Rose."

Donald Trump is locked in a tight race for Ohio with its Gov. John Kasich. A win in Ohio for Trump could put the delegate lead out of reach for every other Republican candidate, so Trump has been working hard to win over voters there.

But Rose's lawyers told The Washington Post on Monday there has been no official endorsement by the baseball legend.

"We do not know how Mr. Trump got the ball," attorney Ray Genco said.

Earlier, Genco had sent media outlets a statement.

"Pete has made a point not to 'endorse' any particular presidential candidate. Though he respects everyone who works hard for our country -- any outlet that misinterpreted a signed baseball for an endorsement was wrong. Pete did not send any candidate a baseball or a note of endorsement," Genco's statement read. "That said, through my discussions with Pete about this cycle, I've learned that he believes that who to vote for is a decision each voter should decide for him or herself. Pete knows and has impressed upon me that, above politics, it's leadership and teamwork [that] make all the difference. Both the left and right are Baseball fans -- and it is those institutions and their people that make America exceptional."

And, after Trump took to Twitter with the picture, several other social media took the opportunity to point out that Rose will sign almost anything you ask on a baseball for a price.



"We do not know how Mr. Trump got the ball," attorney Ray Genco said. Earlier, Genco had sent media outlets a statement. "Pete has made a point not to 'endorse' any particular presidential candidate. Though he respects everyone who works hard for our country -- any outlet that misinterpreted a signed baseball for an endorsement was wrong. Pete did not send any candidate a baseball or a note of endorsement," Genco's statement read.”


Sounds like another Trump fib to me. I wonder if anyone really believes what he says. Maybe his followers just want a good show, and don’t care about his personal decency or rational judgment.




http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2016/03/10/sen-lindsey-graham-warns-gop-obstruction-judges-cuts-both-ways/81588940/

Sen. Lindsey Graham warns obstruction on judges cuts both ways
Paul Singer and Mary Troyan, USA Today 4:02 p.m. EST
March 10, 2016

Photograph -- Lindsey Graham, Photo: Susan Walsh, AP

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Thursday ruefully endorsed his party's refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee offered by President Obama, saying that while he understands the political reality, he believes the Senate's own precedents are being destroyed.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, senators of both parties returned to the talking points they have batted back and forth since the moments after the Feb. 13 death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans, led by chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said there is no point having a hearing on any Obama nominee because, during the current presidential election cycle, there is no way a nominee would be confirmed.

"A Supreme Court nomination in the middle of a presidential campaign would be all politics, and no Constitution," Grassley said.

Democrats argued that this is a violation of the constitutional principle that the Senate must advise and consent on nominees, and there is no excuse for a delay.

Only Graham, having recently dropped his own presidential bid, veered off script.

"We are setting a precedent here today — Republicans are," Graham said, and henceforth no president will be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year. "That's going to be the new rule."

USA TODAY

GOP is betraying Constitution on Supreme Court nomination fight, Obama says

"This is where we find ourselves," Graham said. "I am saddened by the fact the Senate has gone down the road we've gone. I'm very much supportive of what you're doing Mr. Chairman. I don't think you are doing anything wrong." At this moment in the Senate, he said, playing politics with judges appears to be appropriate strategy on both sides of the aisle.

But Graham also warned that Republicans are in danger of losing the 2016 presidential election to Hillary Clinton, and that if she becomes president, she will likely nominate someone more liberal than Obama would offer. "And I am going to vote for that person if I think they are qualified," Graham said, because he believes "the president of the United States deserves the right to pick judges of their philosophy. That goes with winning the White House."

Some conservatives back in South Carolina were furious that Graham voted to confirm Obama's Supreme Court nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, but he won re-election in 2014 anyway. He also helped negotiate a bipartisan deal in 2005 that allowed some of former President George W. Bush's judicial nominees to win confirmation without a major change in Senate rules.

USA TODAY

Bork fight still still haunts Supreme Court confirmation process

Graham said those days of compromise may be lost if each party nominates judges from the far left or far right because Democrats changed the rules for lower court appointments in 2013 so they only need a majority vote. The party in power no longer needs a few votes from the other side to confirm lower-court judges.

"Over time the judiciary will be more ideologically driven," Graham said. "It's just a matter of time before the Senate becomes the House when it comes to judges and I really hate that."


“Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Thursday ruefully endorsed his party's refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee offered by President Obama, saying that while he understands the political reality, he believes the Senate's own precedents are being destroyed. …. But Graham also warned that Republicans are in danger of losing the 2016 presidential election to Hillary Clinton, and that if she becomes president, she will likely nominate someone more liberal than Obama would offer. "And I am going to vote for that person if I think they are qualified," Graham said, because he believes "the president of the United States deserves the right to pick judges of their philosophy. That goes with winning the White House." …. The party in power no longer needs a few votes from the other side to confirm lower-court judges. "Over time the judiciary will be more ideologically driven," Graham said. "It's just a matter of time before the Senate becomes the House when it comes to judges and I really hate that."


It would be interesting if a specified number of appellate judges from each state should convene whenever there is a Supreme Court vacancy and vote on the next Supreme Court member, just like the Pope is elected from the College of Cardinals. If a proper Senate oversight becomes, over time, untenable due to human sinfulness or sheer stupidity, which is the path we seem to be following, we will need a group who are less politically involved than the Senate now are to make that decision.

I also, while I’m reforming our Constitution, would like to see both the Senatorial and Congressional members elected for no more than two terms of three years, similar to the President. I’m one of those who wants a clean sweep from time to time, but not all to be elected from one party, of course, which would only lead to a dictatorship. No more Strom Thurmonds or Jesse Helms sitting in the Senate for decades holding back the course of justice and progress.

In addition, perhaps we could have multiple political parties so that it doesn’t become one huge gladiatorial battle, but rather a number of choices for voters to consider. I would also like for any history at all of -- racist, gender-biased, sexually derogatory, anti-religious speech or actions, such as KKK membership or the advocation of a declared and mandatory state religion which would turn this nation into a theocracy, thus eliminating the freedom to worship or not worship as a citizen pleases -- to cause any candidate to any office in the US to be ineligible to run or serve. Likewise, unethical or illegal financial actions should force him/her out of the race. While I’m at it, I plan to totally eliminate the silly Electoral College and decide all elections and important issues such as laws and constitutional amendments by plebiscite.

Our process is much too complex and therefore impedes progress. It isn’t as though our magnificent computer systems can’t handle that. Each local polling place should simply compile the total votes and send them on to a state or federal collection place, not sorted by political party. The final counting of the votes will be done at the highest level, and the results will be announced the next day at noon.

The way we currently do things also gives the House and Senate members too much personal power. We all think when we elect them that they will listen to all the voices from their locality and follow “the will of the people,” but instead they only listen to their own party and the Koch Brothers – De Bruder Koch. That means that so many laws or changes that I would like to see simply are never even heard on the floor. It seems to me that it would be better if legislators were to write the laws – thus requiring that each must have a law degree – while the public decides whether or not to vote them in. We wouldn’t even have to go to the polls. We could do it on the Internet with our own individual ID number which is precleared for voting status.

As a law is put into action, which is a form of testing of course, those citizens who wish to contest parts of the law should be able to sue for his view to be heard by the lowest court even without a personal grievance, and then up the line as now with complaints. If a socially biased baker refuses a gay couple’s business, the pair can sue, with the final decision going to the Supreme Court. Likewise, any citizen who views the new law to be unfair or ineffective, could start a petition on a special government Internet site to amend the letter of the law as they see fit.

That would not automatically effect the change, but it would be brought to the legislators’ attention in the raw form, published in summary for public viewing, and then the legislative results published on the petition Internet site. The petition results should also on network news channels at a certain hour, so we will know when to watch for it. The present situation in which the President will consider a petition if there are enough signers is similar. My purpose in proposing that is to see to it that Congress/Senate will be directly responsive to the citizens on all kinds of issues. It’s a step better than a “town meeting.” The way our lawmakers behave now is to stand around in the halls talking and doing photo ops after conferring on the real business together in the gym, then staging a filibuster in the public eye.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-blasts-vicious-atmosphere-in-2016-politics/

President Obama blasts "vicious atmosphere" in 2016 politics
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS
March 15, 2016, 2:02 PM

Photograph -- U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks on divisiveness in U.S. politics at the annual Friends of Ireland Luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington March 15, 2016. JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS
Play VIDEO -- Escalation of an angry political tone


In a clear reference to the violence and chaos surrounding GOP front-runner Donald Trump's campaign recently, President Obama on Tuesday blasted the "vicious atmosphere in our politics" at a luncheon on Capitol Hill and called for lawmakers to help change the tone of the 2016 race.

"I know that I'm not the only one in this room who may be more than a little dismayed about what's happening on the campaign trail lately," he told a room of lawmakers at the Friends of Ireland lunch, hosted by House Speaker Paul Ryan. "We have heard vulgar and divisive rhetoric aimed at women and minorities, at Americans who don't look like us or pray like us, or vote like we do."

"We've seen misguided attempts to shut down that speech. However offensive it may be--we live in a country where free speech is one of the most important rights that we hold," Mr. Obama continued. "In response to those attempts, we've seen actual violence and we've heard silence from too many of our leaders."

The president, who did not mention Trump by name but whose intent was clear, cautioned against accepting the current state of the political world as the "new normal," noting that it helps "undermine our democracy and our society and even our economy."

"I suspect that all of us can recall some intemperate words that we regret. Certainly I can," he said. "And while some may be more to blame than others for the current climate, all of us are responsible for reversing it. For it is a cycle that is not an accurate reflection of America. And it has to stop."

Mr. Obama's comments come as Republicans scramble to figure out how to respond to the increased violence at Trump rallies and events across the country, a situation which reached new levels last weekend. Ryan, asked about the issue in a local radio interview Monday, said the violence is "very concerning" and candidates should "take responsibility for the environment at their rallies."

"When we leave this lunch I think we have a choice," Mr. Obama said. "We can condone this race to the bottom or accept it as the way things are and sink further--or we can roundly reject this kind of behavior, whether we see it in the other party or more importantly, when we see it in our own party, and set a better example for our children and the rest of the country to follow."

Mr. Obama addressed himself directly to Ryan toward the end of his remarks, saying he and the Speaker are proof people can disagree on serious policy issues without "turning on one another."

"Speaker Ryan, you and I don't agree on a lot of policy, but I know you are a great father and a great husband and I know you want what's best for America," he said. "...The point is, we can have political debates without turning on one another, we can disagree without assuming that it's motivated by malice."



"I know that I'm not the only one in this room who may be more than a little dismayed about what's happening on the campaign trail lately," he told a room of lawmakers at the Friends of Ireland lunch, hosted by House Speaker Paul Ryan. "We have heard vulgar and divisive rhetoric aimed at women and minorities, at Americans who don't look like us or pray like us, or vote like we do." "We've seen misguided attempts to shut down that speech. However offensive it may be--we live in a country where free speech is one of the most important rights that we hold," Mr. Obama continued. "In response to those attempts, we've seen actual violence and we've heard silence from too many of our leaders." The president, who did not mention Trump by name but whose intent was clear, cautioned against accepting the current state of the political world as the "new normal," noting that it helps "undermine our democracy and our society and even our economy." …. Mr. Obama's comments come as Republicans scramble to figure out how to respond to the increased violence at Trump rallies and events across the country, a situation which reached new levels last weekend. Ryan, asked about the issue in a local radio interview Monday, said the violence is "very concerning" and candidates should "take responsibility for the environment at their rallies."


“… we've heard silence from too many of our leaders." Just as in the Muslim communities around the world there are many who are moderate rather than fundamentalist and warlike; and in our Senate and Congress, we have reasonable legislators of both parties, but a new group of rabble rousers called the Tea Party presently hold sway among Republicans. Their only goal is to push out the moderates and enact laws that will turn back the clock to 1865 or earlier.

That is unacceptable. Donald Trump, while in my opinion not really holding such a view, as evidenced by the fact that his comments down through time have included some that are somewhat more moderate than Ted Cruz’s for instance. On the other hand, he was one of the first people to taunt President Obama about his place of birth, claiming it to be Africa thus making him “unqualified” to be President. He also made the two incorrigible remarks about our Hispanic people all being criminals on one occasion and, on another, about allowing NO more Islamic people into this country “on a temporary basis.” I think he doesn’t hold any clear-cut philosophical views, actually, but rather is a pragmatic and opportunistic individual who is always out to get the blue collar white vote.

His horrid statements please the “angry old men” and have fueled their hatred to the point that it is now out of control. As a result, folks come to his rallies ready to riot. He keeps saying that his statements haven’t caused the disorder, but of course they do. Unfortunately, that group of people are prone to disorder, and he just brings it out into the open. I don’t believe that most people in this country would allow him to become the president, but in case it is possible I am praying for a change and for the Dems to win in 2016, whoever the candidate will be.