The Coming Liberal Disaster at the Supreme Court - The New Yorker

By Jeffrey Toobin

The conservatives on the Court are poised for a comeback. Credit Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty

The beleaguered liberals on the Supreme Court had a great deal to celebrate in the term that ended in June. Two epic cases, and even some lesser ones, went their way. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Justices ruled, five to four, that all fifty states must recognize same-sex marriages. And in King v. Burwell, the Court, by a vote of six to three, dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that might have, as a practical matter, destroyed the law. A surprising victory in a housing-discrimination case and another where the Court allowed limits on judges’ soliciting campaign contributions completed a major run of progressive victories.

Don’t expect the streak to last. The liberals’ big victories last term arose from a very particular set of circumstances. Justice Anthony Kennedy has displayed a consistent respect for the rights of gay people, which made his alliance with the four liberals (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) on same-sex marriage almost a foregone conclusion. In King v. Burwell, a group of conservative legal activists pushed such a transparently fraudulent claim about the text of the Obamacare law that Chief Justice John Roberts and Kennedy (who are no fans of the law) had to reject the claim.

But the conservatives on the Court are poised for a comeback, and the subjects before the Justices appear well suited for liberal defeats. Consider:

Affirmative action. The Chief Justice has been primed to get rid of any kind of racial preferences since he took office, a decade ago. In 2013, in Fisher v. University of Texas, the Justices essentially kicked the issue of affirmative action in college admissions down the road. Lower courts upheld the Texas plan, which allows an extremely limited use of racial diversity in admissions. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case a second time—an unusual step in itself. It’s hard to imagine that the Justices reached out for this case again simply to preserve the status quo. A decision limiting—or eliminating—racial preferences in admissions seems highly likely.

Abortion. After the Republican landslides in the 2010 midterm elections, more than a dozen states tightened their restrictions on abortion. No state banned abortion altogether, but several came close. Some have banned abortion after the twentieth week of pregnancy, and others have imposed requirements on clinics that make them virtually impossible to operate. (For example, the laws require that doctors who provide abortions must have admitting privileges at local hospitals; they also impose on clinics the building standards of ambulatory surgical centers.) In Texas, the new rules would require all but nine abortion providers in the state to close their doors. It’s true that, in June, five Justices (the liberals plus Kennedy) issued a stay, preventing the law from going into effect; but Kennedy has favored limits on abortion in recent years, and there is every reason to believe he will support these new ones, too.

Public-employee unions. At the end of June, the Justices agreed to decide Friedrichs v. California; it could sharply limit the power of public-employee unions, which have been bulwarks of support for Democratic office-holders. In states like California, public employees who choose not to join a union must still pay the equivalent of dues (“fair share” fees) when the union negotiates their contracts. If the challengers win this case, the unions may lose millions of dollars in revenue, with a consequent loss of power. Since public-employee unions have done so much better than private-sector unions in recent years, that would hurt the union movement as a whole in an especially vulnerable place. The campaign against fair-share fees has been a special crusade for Justice Samuel Alito, and he may kill them off for good this time.

There is not yet a major campaign-finance case before the Justices, but in an election year it would be no surprise to see one surface. The conservative majority, led in this case by Kennedy, has shown no sign of backing away from its Citizens United decision, from 2010, which said that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. On the rights of criminal suspects, especially those sentenced to death, the Court remains deeply conservative as well. It only underscores the magnitude of the liberal victories in 2015 to recognize that they may seem deeply aberrational in 2016.

The Coming Liberal Disaster at the Supreme Court - The New Yorker

GOP stays united, Dems fail to override Rauner veto – Illinois News Network

 

SPRINGFIELD — House Democrats on Wednesday came up three votes short in their attempt to override Gov. Bruce Rauner’s veto of the “no strike-no lockout” or interest arbitration bill.

Although knowing the attendance put him one Democrat shy of his full 71 members present — the same number of votes needed for a successful override attempt — House Speaker Michael Madigan let the vote roll forward.

Backers of Senate Bill 1229 put up 67 votes in the House when the bill originally passed.

On Wednesday, they gained two Democratic votes from members who were ill and not present for the original vote — Monique Davis of Chicago and Frank Mautino of Spring Valley. Also, Democratic Rep. Andre Thapedi of Chicago moved into the “Yes” column.

But Rep. Kenneth Dunkin, a Chicago Democrat, was absent, and Rep. Scott Drury, D-Highwood, who had previously voted for the bill decided to vote against an override.

That meant SB 1229 — which the Senate had already overridden — netted only one additional vote in the House, as none of the 47 House Republicans broke ranks.

The final tally was 68 in favor of override, 34 opposed, nine voting “present,” and seven members not voting.

While that unity effectively ended the bill’s life, it does put Republican members from areas with ties to organized labor on record as opposing or at least not supporting the labor-supported bill — something Democrats are sure to use in coming elections.

Rep. Mike Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, lead sponsor in the House, said he was disappointed by Wednesday’s outcome but still believed in the bill, which he said was intended to protect workers from the specter of a forced strike and to protect Illinoisans from a government shutdown caused by any public work stoppage.

In debate, the GOP went after the bill and Smiddy hard, painting the legislation as an unprecedented attempt to knock one Republican governor, Rauner, away from the bargaining table and hand the duties of the elected chief executive over to an un-elected arbiter.

“You’re changing the rules in midstream,” said House Republican Leader Jim Durkin of Westmont. I think this is the kind of thing we hear in the media happening overseas, and I think it’s unfair and it’s wrong.”

Rep. Peter Breen, R-Lombard, was more aggressive, coming right to the edge of calling Smiddy corrupt.

“It’s political payoff, pure and simple,” said Breen. “This bill is corrupt, so corrupt it would make Rod Blagojevich blush.”
Smiddy, a former state prisons employee and union member, stayed even-tempered.

“This a bill to protect the citizens of Illinois from being caught up in the middle of bitter contract dispute,” he said.

He dismissed the notion he was personally trying to bump Rauner from the picture.
“Last I checked, the governor hasn’t been in bargaining,” Smiddy said. “He puts somebody there for him.”

Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, didn’t care for some of the GOP characterizations and shouted his comments in support of the bill and of its sponsor.
“I stand with the middle class,” Bradley yelled. “I stand with working man, and I stand with state workers. I stand with common sense, and I stand with keeping this state open.”

Senate Bill 1229, would have allowed mandatory arbitration should either the state or its unionized employees declare a bargaining impasse in their continuing contract talks.

Once the binding arbitration hearing begins, a strike or lockout would be prohibited. In the end, a panel of arbitrators would pick from either the state’s or the union’s final offers on economic-interest items such as pay and benefits.

The GOP painted the bill as an expensive, taxpayer-funded gift to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — which represents some 35,000 state employees — and said it would take a tax increase to fund a $1.6 billion or larger raise for some of the country’s best-paid state employees.

Democrats, on the other hand, argued the bill only gave unionized workers a chance at equal footing with Rauner, whom they accuse of wanting to break public-sector unions, especially AFSCME.

“Sadly, I think there is no room for doubt as to how this governor views unions,” said Rep. Carol Sente, D-Vernon Hills.

After the vote, Rauner issued a statement thanking lawmakers who opposed the override.
“It is encouraging that many legislators recognized the dire financial impact this legislation would have had on our state,” the governor said.

“I hope today’s action marks the beginning of serious negotiations over how we can deliver needed structural reforms and a balanced budget,” he added.

About to drive home from Springfield, Smiddy said he wasn’t taking the rugged politicking personally.

“I worked in a state prison,” he said. “I’ve got a pretty thick skin.”

GOP stays united, Dems fail to override Rauner veto – Illinois News Network

Bid to override veto of arbitration bill fails in Illinois House - Yahoo News

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The Illinois House on Wednesday failed to override Governor Bruce Rauner's veto of a controversial bill to send collective bargaining impasses to arbitration, leaving open the possibility of a future strike or lockout of state workers.

The Democrat-controlled House fell three votes short of the 71 needed to make the bill law after the Senate, which also has a Democratic majority, overrode Rauner's veto last month.

Democratic lawmakers and the Republican governor have been locked in a struggle over a state budget and an agenda pushed by Rauner that includes legislative term limits and collective bargaining curbs. Illinois this week entered its third month without a budget for the fiscal year that started July 1.

House Speaker Michael Madigan told reporters after the vote that the bill was meant to buy labor peace by prohibiting strikes or lockouts. He also noted that Rauner "did talk in terms of the possibility of a government shutdown in order to achieve his goals."

Rauner had condemned the bill as an attempt to take away his power to negotiate worker contracts at a time the state is strapped for cash.

"It is encouraging that many legislators recognized the dire financial impact this legislation would have had on our state," the governor said in a statement.

He added that he hoped "serious negotiations" can begin on structural reforms and a balanced budget. Madigan also expressed hope that differences could be resolved, but Democrats are unlikely to embrace items on Rauner's agenda that would hurt unions or impair their party's power.

The state's biggest public labor union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said Rauner's attack on the arbitration bill "has now derailed the best hope of amicably settling union contracts that are fair to all."

While the contract expired June 30, the union, which represents 38,000 state workers, and the state have an agreement that expires Sept. 30 not to strike or lockout workers while negotiations continue.

(Reporting by Karen Pierog; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

Bid to override veto of arbitration bill fails in Illinois House - Yahoo News

Moody's warns Illinois lawmakers of budget stalemate impact - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

 

CHICAGO — A major credit rating agency is warning legislators and Gov. Bruce Rauner to reach a budget agreement by late September because it's linked to other massive financial problems.

Moody's Investors Service said Monday that the stalemate underscores "weak governance" and is symptomatic of other "severe" challenges like ballooning pension payments, debt costs and dwindling revenues as a 2011 temporary income tax increase rolls back.

Moody's says Illinois' projected budget hole is about $5 billion, and addressing it will become harder if lawmakers approach the September end of the fiscal quarter without a budget deal.

The Republican governor and Democratic-controlled legislature haven't agreed on a July 1 fiscal year budget. Money is still being spent, including through court orders.

Rating agencies have given Illinois the worst rating of any U.S. state.

Moody's warns Illinois lawmakers of budget stalemate impact - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

Facebook Hoax Claims Children Of Congress Members Don't Pay Back College Loans

 

Myths and untruths are passed around on Facebook every now and then, but it's still a surprise when thousands of people at a time fall for unverified statements posted by random users.

One of the latest cases of a questionable Facebook post going viral is a photo with a with a lengthy caption that claims Congress members' children do not have to pay back their college student loans.

Uploaded on Jan. 2 by a user who goes by the moniker "Actof Courage" (sic), the photo has more than 75,000 Likes and more than 280,000 shares on the social network.

Below the photo, Actof Courage claims that "the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it."

The post goes on to propose a 28th Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

A similar claim was posted -- and debunked -- on Facebook in 2011.

Politifact gave the claim a "Pants on Fire" rating on Jan. 7, 2011, after receiving a chain email about the alleged loan forgiveness. The fact-checking group contacted the U.S. Department of Education, which responded thus: "There are no provisions under Title IV (federal student aid programs) that provide loan forgiveness for Members of Congress or their families or staff (beyond what any other borrower would be eligible for)."

The Annenenbreg Public Policy Center also did a similar analysis of the claim in 2011 and rated it "Not true."

"Some congressional employees are eligible to have up to $60,000 of student loans repaid after several years — just like other federal workers. But that’s not the case for members of Congress or their families," the Center wrote.

Will Facebook users ever tire of sharing posts with friends before independently researching theories or outrageous claims? Not this month.

Facebook Hoax Claims Children Of Congress Members Don't Pay Back College Loans

How Trump could turn the presidency into a ‘litigation circus’

 

Kathleen Meese, an upstate New York schoolteacher, plunked down $25,000 five years ago for “Gold Elite” courses at Trump University — a for-profit educational outfit owned by Donald Trump that promised prospective students it would teach them how to “make a killing” in the real estate market.

But Meese later complained to New York state regulators she was conned. Her Trump University instructor — supposedly an “expert” who was “handpicked” by Trump — turned out to be a failed businessman who had filed for bankruptcy and was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, according to court records.

Her Trump University “mentors,” who she was told would counsel her about real estate deals, were unreachable; their phone numbers disconnected, she asserted. Even a promised photo session with Trump never materialized. What she got instead: a photo of herself with “a cardboard cutout” of Trump, she says.

“Donald Trump received $25,000 of my money,” Meese wrote in a sworn affidavit filed with the New York attorney general’s office, reviewed by Yahoo News. “For $25,000, I have a lifetime membership to nothing!”

Meese is one of more than 150 former Trump University students whose complaints are the basis for a $40 million lawsuit against Trump brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The number of complainants — all potential witnesses against Trump — has more than tripled since Schneiderman first brought the case two years ago, according to state officials. The suit, still active in the New York courts, accuses Trump of pocketing $5 million in profits while running “an unlicensed, illegal educational institution” that “intentionally” misled students and engaged in a “pattern of deceptions” that included false advertisements, “bait and switch tactics” and other “misrepresentations and fraudulent practices.”

The lawsuit filed by Schneiderman, a Democrat, is on top of two other class action claims that have been filed against Trump by former students in federal court in California — one of which accuses the billionaire real estate mogul of a “pattern of racketeering activities.”They are being vigorously contested by Trump and his army of lawyers, but threaten a continuous toll on his crowded schedule. Just last week, sources confirmed to Yahoo News, Trump was due to be deposed in one of the California cases, but the scheduled grilling was put off until the fall to give the plaintiffs’ lawyers more time to seek evidence.

“Mr. Trump has no concerns about testifying in this case, whether it is today, tomorrow or next year,” said Jeffrey Goldman, one of Trump’s lawyers, who is defending him in the case. “None of it is true. No one was defrauded,” adds Alan Garten — Trump Organization’s general counsel, who heads up the real estate mogul’s vast legal team — about the allegations in the lawsuits against Trump University. (After receiving warnings from the New York Education Department that it was not a licensed educational institution, the school was later renamed “the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative” and is no longer conducting any business.)

“The people that take these classes go into it with their eyes open,” said Garten. “A lot of people did very well with [Trump University.] A lot of people enjoyed it. But like everything else, if people don’t put the effort into it” they don’t succeed.

Read more:   How Trump could turn the presidency into a ‘litigation circus’

Fiat Chrysler CEO again pushes merger with GM

 

Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, is taking another swing at trying to promote the idea of a merger with General Motors.

Marchoinne, in a story published Sunday evening by Automotive News, asserts that a merger between the two automakers could generate up to $30 billion annually in earnings before taxes.

The idea isn't new, but Marchionne's estimates of potential profits and his forceful tone are. The outspoken CEO sent GM CEO Mary Barra an email earlier this year outlining his idea for a merger of the two automakers and the reasons it makes sense. Since then, Barra has said both publicly and privately the Detroit automaker has no interest in exploring the idea.

"We already have scale and we are leveraging that scale," Barra said in June. "When you look at the last several years we have been merging with ourselves."

By mid-summer, it appeared that Marchionne was backing away from the idea -- at least in the near future. But he took a more aggressive tone in an interview published by Automotive News..

"Look, the combined entity can make $30 billion a year in cash. Thirty. Just think about that [expletive] number," Marchionne told the publication. "In steady-state environments, it'll make me $28 to $30 billion," at a seasonally adjusted annual selling rate of 17 million new cars and trucks in the U.S.

Marchionne stopped short of saying he is pursuing a hostile deal with GM but said the automaker's board and executives cannot avoid a discussion of the potential cost savings.

"Not hostile," he told the publication. "There are varying degrees of hugs. I can hug you nicely, I can hug you tightly, I can hug you like a bear, I can really hug you. Everything starts with physical contact. Then it can degrade, but it starts with physical contact."

GM said it has already reviewed Marchionne's proposal.

"Our management and board are always working to maximize shareholder value. After we completed a thorough review of a possible merger with FCA, we concluded that executing our current plan is the best way to create value for GM stockholders," GM said in an emailed statement Sunday.

Fiat Chrysler CEO again pushes merger with GM