Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
democrats
Senator Cornyn, Republicans Continue to Stammer on Immigration Reform
01 year ago
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Photo by musicFIRSTcoalition.
The official Republican response to the State of the Union address may have been delivered by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), but the immigration response came from Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn who fired off an editorial questioning the President’s commitment to border security and immigration reform. While the Administration has certainly heard Sen. Cornyn’s accusations before, his mixed messaging on border security and reform efforts seem indicative of a larger Republican problem—one in which words don’t quite match up with deeds.
Despite the fact that President Obama articulated the need to “take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration,” requesting that Congress make a bi-partisan effort to protect our borders, enforce our laws, address the millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. and stop deporting talented youth, Sen. Cornyn argued that the President has “never seriously engaged Congress on immigration reform.” Nor is the Senator “optimistic about a credible immigration reform proposal coming from this White House” this year.
Which begs the question—what exactly is a “credible immigration reform proposal” in Republican eyes? Was the proposal offered by Sens. Menendez, Schumer, and Gutierrez not credible? Was the DREAM Act proposal that the Senate failed to pass last fall also unacceptable? Why must the proposal come from the White House and not Congress?
Democrats have expended resources more on border security in the past few years, including engineering a $600 million boost to southwest border funding. Perhaps that’s why Senator Cornyn sent a mixed message about progress on border security. He wrote:
In the last fiscal year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection saw an increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Yemen. They detained more than a dozen each from Iran and Iraq. Some of these nations harbor terrorists. Washington’s failure to secure our border puts local residents at risk and jeopardizes national security.
So which is it? Is the Obama administration failing to secure the border or are they making progress? Either way, the Senator’s editorial doesn’t really signal what he is for or how he hopes to move forward on other aspects of reform. Ironically, when he does talk comprehensive reform, he sounds quite a bit like the President he is criticizing:
Despite the challenges, immigration reform remains a federal responsibility and a national imperative. We must find a credible and compassionate solution to the 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country. We must address the millions who come here legally but overstay their visas. We must honor those who have played by the rules of our broken system.
Actions speak louder than words for both parties, and particularly for Senator Cornyn who has repeatedly voted against genuine immigration reform, including the DREAM Act. Rather than continue to point fingers, Republicans and conservative Democrats need to take the President up on his offer to make this the year that we all agree to start fixing the broken immigration system. There are plenty of “what if’s” and “should haves” to go around for the 111th Congress, but now that Republicans control the House, they will have to start shouldering both the responsibility and the blame for our broken system. Senator Cornyn can choose to point fingers or roll up his sleeves. For the sake of the country, let’s hope he chooses the latter.
Why the DREAM Act Just Makes Sense
01 year ago
The pieces may just be starting to fall together for passage of the DREAM Act as more and more high profile figures lend their support with one simple message—the DREAM Act just makes sense. After ten long years, the House looks poised to take up DREAM next week. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has declared that the Democrats believe they have the necessary votes to pass the legislation—and passage in the House could go a long way to creating the momentum needed for 60 votes in the Senate. The most obvious signal that DREAM might actually pass, however, is the increasingly desperate tone of anti-immigration groups, who are basically urging the public to call Congress and say that DREAM allows undocumented students to steal college slots, public benefits and jobs from Americans. Not only is this the same argument they trot out for every immigration issue, but it has been contradicted by so many sources that it sounds like an increasingly shrill cry of desperation.
Despite the growing momentum, no one should think they can sit back and wait for a vote to happen. That’s why this week has seen such a huge escalation of high profile public statements, press conferences and other gatherings. With time running out for the 111th Congress, the White House, in particular, has thrown its weight behind DREAM with daily events including presentations by Cabinet Members, Napolitano, Solis, Duncan and Locke. The Pentagon has been out there too as have plenty of other groups—university presidents, Republican and Democratic Leaders, economists, students, educators, faith leaders, and advocates—all touting the moral, economic and military benefits of the DREAM Act to the U.S.
Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report scoring the latest version of the DREAM Act (S. 3992)—as introduced on November 30, 2010—and found that it “would reduce deficits by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period.” Other economic studies come to similar conclusions—putting talented undocumented students on a path toward legal status will not only keep the best and the brightest in the country, but provide a boon to our economy, universities and workforce.
In addition to White House support, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Napolitano spoke out yesterday noting that the DREAM Act would ‘strengthen the economy and it’s military and allow DHS to focus its enforcement resources on removing “dangerous criminal aliens” from the country.’ Even the Department of Defense recommended the passage of the DREAM Act in their FY2010-12 Strategic Plan, calling it a “smart way” to “sustain quality assurance” when recruiting an all volunteer force.
Conservative voices have also publically supported the DREAM Act. Back in September, former Secretary of State and retired General, Colin Powell, went on Meet the Press to make an economic case for the DREAM Act and to urge Republicans to stop throwing progressive legislation under the bus in the name of politics. Other conservatives—like Senator Lugar (R-IN) (who introduced DREAM three times in the Senate), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Former Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez—have all pledged support for DREAM.
Critics, meanwhile, are busy spinning myths and misinformation, falsely labeling the DREAM Act as “amnesty” and claiming the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens. Even more upsetting, however, are congressional leaders who paint potential DREAM students as criminals and gang members or pit DREAM students against U.S. citizen children. In fact, these DREAM students—who sit side by side with U.S. citizen students—are often at the top of their class. According to UCLA Chancellor Dr. Gene Block:
All of us [educators] recognize what a resource these students are for the U.S. They will be leaders in their community one day. It’s critical for all of us who work with these students to speak up. Faculties who work with undocumented youth in both rural and urban universities are finding the same thing—they’re all highly motivated and talented individuals.
So as momentum on the ground continues to grow in support of the DREAM Act—and the restrictionists’ narrative weakens—lawmakers have their work cut out of them. Looking ahead to next week, it appears likely that the House will take the first crack at passing DREAM. Some had hoped the vote would happen this week, but pressing business made it impractical to take a vote before House Members left for the weekend. And given how much sense the DREAM Act makes, it is likely they will hear from their constituents that the time to act is now.
Photo by Shreyans Bhansali.
Polls Show Latinos and Republicans Still Drifting Apart
01 year ago
As Congress’ attention to lawmaking wanes in place of politicking and mid-term elections, a string of new polls are emerging that further depict the strained relationship between Latinos and Republicans. The GOP strategy of alienating the fastest growing demographic through harsh rhetoric and the blockage of immigration reform is starting to reap results. Much like polls that emerged after the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, Latinos are steadily edging away from the GOP.
One example comes from the Los Angeles Times, whose recent poll shows that California Latinos strongly approve of Obama’s performance and have a high voting enthusiasm. According to the L.A. Times/USC Poll conducted this month, Latinos clearly support the Democratic candidates over their opponents in the state’s Senate race, particularly when it comes to the issue of immigration (24 points higher). Latinos also favor the Democratic candidate for Governor and believe he will be better on the issue of immigration than his opponent (23 points higher).
According to Latino Decisions:
Latinos are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Republican Party, following three weeks of data from the Latino Decisions weekly national tracking poll of Latino registered voters, though Democrats have not yet surged ahead in the 2010 congressional vote. 65% of Latinos now say they are less excited about the Republican Party as compared to one year ago, up from 60% who were less excited as of August 30th. Further, when it comes to immigration, 74% of Latinos say the Republican Party is either ignoring or blocking immigration reform, up from 70% as of August 30th.
According to America’s Voice, “Latino voters will punish Republicans who oppose immigration reform.” They cite LatinoMetrics polls which show that since the end of 2009, immigration has catapulted to the top issue of personal concern among 1 in 4 Latinos—tied with jobs and the economy. Also when asked, “With which political party do you most closely identify?” only 13% said “Republican.” The same poll also asked, “How do you think the immigration issue would impact how you feel about politicians and the parties they represent?” 68% said they would support candidates who favor immigration reform, while only 19% said they would be willing to support a candidate who opposed immigration reform.
Immigrants’ rights groups are already working to capitalize on this growing schism, particularly in hotly contested races. For example today, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Mi Familia Vota Civic Participation Campaign, and America’s Voice are launching Spanish-language radio ads in nine media markets across the country. The ads point to the Republican Party’s obstructionism on immigration reform, cite the GOP’s successful effort to block a vote on the DREAM Act last week, and encourage voters to support the candidates who “support our families, and make our dreams come true.”
Despite repeated warnings from GOP leaders, many in their party continue to ignore the Latino vote, and it looks like they are doing so at their own peril.
Photo by automata.
Will Immigration Get a Fair Fight on the Senate Floor?
01 year ago
With dizzying speed this week, immigration advocates went from gloomy to galvanized with the announcement that Senator Reid intended to bring the DREAM Act to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. To further add to the euphoria, Senator Menendez announced that he would introduce actual comprehensive immigration reform legislation sometime soon. President Obama made another speech in support of DREAM and broad reform, and met privately with Congressional Hispanic Caucus leaders to seal the deal on DREAM support. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who has been bluntly critical at times of the President’s actions on immigration, appeared delighted with the outcome:
“I think the White House, the Democrats, and the allies that support serious immigration reform are going on offense and the President is our quarterback,” Rep. Gutierrez said after the White House meeting Thursday. “I have been pushing hard to get us all pointing in the same direction on this issue and now with the White House standing with us and the Senate poised to act, I think we are seeing that effort begin to bear fruit.”
For a political movement starved for actual action, all this activity was like a shot of adrenaline. The well-organized coalition of DREAM activists quickly got themselves ready to march, pray, call, fax, and influence Congress in every way possible. And immigration restrictionists sent out numerous action alerts predicting both doom and collapse should the DREAM Act pass, but also trotting out the familiar epithet of amnesty in order to rally their forces as well.
Let’s hope they both get to have their fight. The intricacies of contemporary Senate procedure are such that there is still a long way to go before DREAM (as well as an amendment repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) get a vote on the floor. First, the Senate has to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, which translates into agreeing to end debate over whether or not to take up the bill. It used to be that this wasn’t much of an issue—by unanimous consent the Senators could agree to go directly to debate on a bill. In fact, in a rare bipartisan move, the Small Business bill which passed the Senate this week got to the floor by unanimous consent. Don’t count on that kind of consensus for the defense bill, however.
Republicans have vowed to block the bill, and thus a cloture vote will be necessary simply to get the bill to the floor. Only if Senator Reid can get 60 votes on his cloture motion—which is in doubt, many think—will the Senate even start debating the bill and accepting amendments on it. Senator Reid said yesterday that they would not finish debate on the bill until after the November election which, no matter what happens on DREAM Act, means that we won’t know for sure until late November or early December whether a successful vote on DREAM Act will translate into an actual law (and of course it has to get through the House as well).
But right now the battle is simply to get the defense bill to the floor. If the motion to proceed to debate fails next Tuesday, it’s back to the drawing board.
The vote next week shouldn’t fail, however, because all of the objections are essentially about style not substance. In this case, procedural wrangling keeps people from actually debating the merits of an issue, which means you don’t have to explain why you are opposed to helping students who could help this country become better. If you object to bringing the bill to the floor on the principle that you think the Senate leader is using it to score political points, you get to sound principled yourself without actually explaining to anyone why you oppose the DREAM Act or anything else.
One of the chief objections voiced by Republicans for keeping the defense bill off the floor is that Senator Reid is playing politics with our national security by adding controversial and irrelevant amendments to what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says should be a simple vote. And Senator McCain said the amendment is a “pure political act for Harry Reid, who is worried about his own re-election.” The folks working on the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell provision take issue with that characterization, throwing the idea of playing politics right back at the GOP, accusing Senator McCain of “playing politics with the lives of men and women in uniform.”
At some point, it just gets tiresome to hear everyone talking about playing politics. After all, this is politics, isn’t it?
The truth is, there are no simple votes, particularly in the 111th Congress, which will long be remembered for its bitter partisan squabbles that led, especially in the Senate, to political gridlock.
The truth is, good policy is rarely enough to motivate a vote on a controversial issue. If that were the case, Senator Reid wouldn’t have to maneuver like crazy just get important issues like immigration reform and fair treatment for the LGBTQ in the military onto the floor of the Senate.
And the truth is that, of course, this is political. The upcoming elections are a real incentive for showing voters where you stand. And generally, we only know where a politician stands when they actually have to vote on something.
So for once, it would be nice if the Senate could actually get to the heart of an immigration matter, debating it on its merits, rather than its procedural purity. Senators should be brave enough to take the issues up for their own sake rather than hide behind the increasingly oppressive use of the cloture vote, which seems to be the ultimate act of playing politics in the Senate.
Photo by jessejameswood.
The Politics of Immigration: Primaries Reveal Little About What’s to Come
01 year ago
It’s hard to pinpoint how exactly the issue of immigration impacted a range of primary races on Tuesday. In some cases, exploiting our broken immigration system may have helped candidates win elections—as in the case of Governor Jan Brewer. In other cases, talking tough about immigration may have cost politicians their race—like Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum, who turned off Latino Republican voters with his pledge to bring SB1070 style legislation to the Sunshine State. Senator John McCain and Meg Whitman beat out their more extreme anti-immigrant opponents in tight primary races, but they definitely weren’t singing the praises of immigration either. However, it’s hard to predict what will happen in November’s general election based on the primary results. Many Republicans like Sen. John McCain turned hard-right in order to get their party’s nomination, yet that will likely subside in the next several months as candidates gear up for the general election.
The consensus from previous general elections is that anti-immigrant messages don’t resonate with general election voters. For example, in 2008, 19 pro-reform candidates beat anti-immigrant hardliners in 21 House and Senate races.
In 2008, America’s Voice found:
…that Americans in the so-called “battleground” districts and states are tired of slogans and polarization that do nothing to solve our nation’s problems, and are rejecting candidates who espouse them. Voters in overwhelming numbers support candidates that call for a smart, fair, and practical approach to immigration reform, one that will bring the system under control by registering undocumented workers so they can get on the tax rolls and a path to citizenship; ensuring stronger enforcement against employers who exploit workers; and allowing a limited number of immigrants whose work is needed long-term to come to the U.S. legally rather than illegally.
On the leadership level, RNC Chairman Michael Steele argues that Republican attitudes on immigration are a mixed bag and calls for cooler heads to prevail. CBS reports a discussion Steele recently had on Spanish language network Univision where he said that Arizona’s SB1070 didn’t “reflect the beliefs of all Republicans.”
After coming out of this primary, Republican strategists and politicians may still not know whether the strategy of exploiting our broken immigration system is good politics, even if it wins elections. Clearly, many in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with how far their politicians have strayed to the right. And the elections of 2008 can provide a cautionary tale regarding the mindset of the electorate in a general election. Instead of using immigration as a political football, politicians on both sides should turn to good policy rather than politics to address our toughest problems, including immigration.
Photo by Big Dubya.
Jobs Available, Unemployment Remains High
01 year ago
Despite a stagnant economy and unemployment rate, Mark Whitehouse at the Wall Street Journal reports that some companies are still struggling to hire workers. As Whitehouse explains:
Since the economy bottomed out in mid-2009, the number of job openings has risen more than twice as fast as actual hires, a gap that didn’t appear until much later in the last recovery. The disparity is most notable in manufacturing, which has had among the biggest increases in openings. But it is also appearing in other areas, such as business services, education and health care.
Many of the employment sectors left unfilled are traditionally filled by foreign born workers, who are not in competition with native born U.S. citizens. At the site of the infamous Postville immigration raid, the newly reformed company, Agri Star, is struggling to both hire workers and to make a profit. The reality remains that part of the solution to our struggling economy must be comprehensive immigration reform which allows for legalization of the many workers who can fill these jobs, and programs that account for future flow of immigrants to fill other employment gaps.
Slate columnist Daniel Gross theorizes that the gap between unemployment and hiring may be caused by employers who simply are not offering workers enough benefits. Gross explains that:
In the past few decades, workers have generally lost ground against employers in negotiating terms of employment. Defined-benefit pension plans have been replaced by 401(K)s, and then employers sometimes cut the matching contributions. A smaller percentage of private-sector jobs today come with health insurance, while many workers who have insurance have to pay more for it.
Without question, the myriad economic issues we are to face in the next decade are complex, but passing comprehensive immigration reform would at the very least start to solve some of them. While Congress has been slow to realize this, the majority of the American public (including 61% of Democrats and Independents and 59% of Republicans) wants comprehensive immigration reform, now. Despite public support, Mark Penn summarizes the political problems facing immigration legislation:
This is an issue that can only be solved through a centrist effort that would bring together moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats into a grand bargain on all of the major issues. The left and the right would vote down any likely compromise, but there probably would be enough votes in the center to get it done in a common sense, non-partisan way. But that’s the rub – there is no political mechanism in today’s polarized environment for bringing together the kind of cross-caucus coalition necessary to pass a bill. And perhaps this illustrates exactly why the voters are so sour on Congress – they now perceive it as an institution that can’t overcome partisan divides to find solutions to today’s growing and intractable problems outside of the red/blue framework.
Both sides of Congress appear so afraid to lose before the November elections that a near-term solution looks unlikely. Maybe after that, they can put aside politics and pass an immigration bill that is good for citizens, immigrants, and the U.S. economy alike.
Photo by Kandyjaxx
The Immigration Debate Goes South: Politicians Make $600 Million Dollar Investment in their Political Futures
01 year ago
Today, after months of political wagering from both Republicans and Democrats, the Senate unanimously passed a $600 million dollar bill marked for border security which is now headed to President Obama’s desk for signature. While the sequence of events leading to this most recent capitulation to the enforcement-first crowd is a little dizzying, the bill’s unanimous passage was partly a product of a bluff called on the Senate floor. Although the substance of the bill could have been much worse, the mere fact that the only major immigration legislation passed thus far in the 111th Congress was another border bill shows how far we are from treating immigration as a serious issue, rather than a political game.
To recap: On August 5, in the last few hours before adjourning for recess, the Senate passed a state aid package. Claiming to call the Republican’s bluff (meaning that as much as they want more border security, Senate Republicans aren’t ever going to give the Democrats a victory on an immigration bill), Senate Democrats brought their version of a $600 million border bill to the floor—“fully funded” through fee increases to business visa categories. Instead of objecting, Senator McCain asked that he and Sen. Kyl be included as cosponsors of the bill. Senator Sessions came down to the floor to say that the bill isn’t enough, but a good start. In a Senate marked by the lack of unanimous consent, no one objected to the bill and it passed by a voice vote. The bill went back to the House for a vote mandated by jurisdictional funding issues, then back to the Senate where it was again passed by unanimous consent today.
Bluff called.
But governing isn’t about bluffing. In all of this heady back and forth and politicking and angling for election in November, the substantive issues of what must be done to fix our broken immigration system are once more lost. The irony is that some of the provisions in this mega-million border bill have strong bipartisan support—enhancing communications systems and creating forward operating bases for Border Patrol have long been championed by border legislators of both parties. For example, the bill:
- Provides more money for drug enforcement actions to ATF actually addressing some of the real problems along the border and, if used wisely, could help reduce trafficking and the flow of drugs and money back and forth along the border.
- Lacks some of the more controversial and questionable proposals such as funding for the fence or Operation Stonegarden (providing federal money to local law enforcement to conduct immigration enforcement).
- Provides more money to the judiciary and immigration courts, which is a sensible acknowledgment that you can’t increase enforcement and ignore the added costs of doing business for the judicial and administrative branches.
But any good that might come of this is likely to be cancelled out by the political points that anti-immigration folks will score with these actions. Immigration activists have come out swinging, accusing the Democrats of knuckling under and ignoring the strong public support for a more comprehensive answer. Political operatives continue to insist that it was essential for Democrats to have a vote on enforcement. Senator Reid’s decision to call for an immediate vote on the bill suggests that the politicians didn’t think they can have this hanging over their heads until September. In short, politicians have made a $600 million dollar investment in their political futures.
And the game continues. President Obama, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid have all issued statements claiming that this border security bill is a good first step towards securing comprehensive immigration reform. Yet true to form, Sens. Kyl and McCain, eyeing the cards on the table, claimed the bill, although welcomed, still wasn’t enough. It’s hard to imagine that this will be the last call for emergency funds on the border, as Congress loves to tell its constituents that they are being made safer by money well-spent on border security. This is the real bluff that needs to be called—the one Congress keeps using on all of us.
Photo by sbisson.
It’s the Constitution, Governors! Why Playing Politics with the DOJ’s Lawsuit is a Bad Idea
01 year ago
Republican and Democratic governors alike might need a tutorial on the concept of checks and balances, given the dismay they are expressing over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070. Democrats are purportedly worried that it will hurt their chances in tough state elections, while Republicans are calling the lawsuit hypocritical because the federal government is litigating instead of legislating immigration.
Let’s review. As the lawsuit very clearly and eloquently lays out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate immigration. The President and his executive branch carry out the laws (and are given the discretion regarding how to exercise them). And when the states pass laws that conflict with this scheme, the federal courts are the referee.
So when the executive branch determines that a state law fundamentally upsets this scheme—in other words, violates the Constitution—the government needs to act. Sorry that the timing stinks. Sorry that Congress hasn’t done its job. Sorry that this may not play out very well with some members of the public who don’t understand that maintaining checks and balances requires action. Sorry that this makes Arizona out to be the constitutional bully that its state legislature is trying so hard to be. But the federal government is defending its constitutional right to regulate immigration law.
You have to wonder if the critics have bothered to read United States v. Arizona, which unfolds like a primer on the structure of the federal/state relationship. The lawsuit is a crisp and detached analysis of federal constitutional obligations and responsibilities regarding immigration and a point by point analysis of the manner in which SB 1070 violates and undermines that scheme. Moreover, it makes the very compelling point that immigration is inherently a federal responsibility precisely because it engages many competing national interests:
In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce, welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside, responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the e treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad.
The suit argues that by enacting S.B. 1070, Arizona “attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the Unites States despite the fact that these are federal domains.” The suit notes that Arizona explicitly acknowledges that the intent of the law is attrition through enforcement (code for make the laws so harsh that people leave the state) which means that it is not taking into account any of the other vital immigration priorities and, in the process, undermines the federal scheme enacted by Congress.
Of course, under this analysis, the federal government has to fight back. As Maryland governor Martin O’Malley noted:
The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen. When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.
Ironically, that principled stand essentially means defending Congress’s right to pass federal law, even when it can’t or won’t do it. Rather than criticizing the President for moving forward on a crucial constitutional issue, Democrats should be kicking themselves for failing to be brave enough to take the issue on. And Republicans should stop throwing firebombs and start working on immigration reform.
Photo by jamess.
Judge Not: NJ Gov. Christie Ousts Lone Black Justice
01 year ago
New Jersey’s new governor is zealously spreading a conservative agenda across his state, all the way up to the courthouse door. Gov. Chris Christie has sparked outrage in his decision not to reappoint the one Black judge of the state Supreme Court, an unabashedly calculated move in a racially and politically polarized state.
Last month, he surprised critics by refusing to reappoint a key Democrat-affiliated justice, John E. Wallace, reportedly to restore partisan balance on the bench. Wallace, 68, was slated for mandatory retirement in 2012, but Christie’s decision not to reappoint him after one seven-year term—the first such move since the enactment of the state constitution in 1947—sends a strong message that the governor is seeking to remake the court in his image.
That image so far seems to be a reflection of a white conservative elite that Christie caters to with his attacks on unions and desire to downsize government.
Rutgers law professor Frank Askin told the AP, “I think it’s unfortunate that we no longer have an African-American on the court. I think it’s a vast step backward and an insult to African-Americans.”
In his jurisprudence, Wallace proved to be not a radical but a centrist. Yet his ouster has turned him into the fall guy for Christie’s play to the right. The nominee to replace Wallace is Anne M. Patterson, a 51 year-old white resident of Christie’s town, with a notable track record in corporate litigation and hefty GOP campaign contributions.
On Wednesday, the seven-member Judicial Advisory Panel, established under former Gov. John Corzine, decided they weren’t going to play that game. The entire panel resigned, calling Christie’s move “inconsistent with an independent judiciary.”
Yet Christie, who seems to relish ideological antagonism, may just be getting warmed up. The AP reports, “The governor will get three more Supreme Court picks during his first term, the next one coming in April when the court’s only Hispanic justice is up for reappointment.”
Not too hard to guess how that one will turn out.
Image: Creative Commons/Chuck Walker
Report: Young Voters Still Engaged, but Frustrated
01 year ago
There’s been a lot of talk about a newly released study by the Pew Center this week charting the political and social trends of young folks. According to the study, overall, folks in the 18-29 year old age bracket are confident, connected, and open to change.
But the jury’s still out on the most effective methods by which young people — particularly those of color — want to make that change happen.
First, some of the study’s more interesting findings: young women and people of color tend to be pro-government, but young people as a whole are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Democratic Party. not surprising.
With elected officials stalling, a generation that realized their political power during a time of unprecedented technological innovation are looking for other ways to who their political might — and those changes may not always translate at the ballot box or the next organized protest.
Despite the fact that young voters came out in record numbers to elect our current President, it was never a given that they would flock to the democratic party and electoral politics on some celebrity status hype. What did stick was a different approach to the political process altogether.
Which leads me to question what rallying for political change might look like in the future. There have already been fairly small, local efforts to hold power accountable in creative ways.
But what might that look like on a grand scale?