Michael Hayden Says Donald Trump’s Presidency Could Cause Mili…The former head of the NSA & CIA says Donald J. Trump‘s campaign promises could cause a military revolt.
Michael Hayden Says Donald Trump's Presidency Could Cause Mili...
The former head of the NSA & CIA says Donald J. Trump's campaign promises could cause a military revolt.Posted by HuffPost Politics on Monday, February 29, 2016
Guilty of being black? Students were booted from a Trump rally
30 black students were kicked out of a Trump rally at Valdosta State University for standing silently on the bleachers before Donald Trump even made an appearance.Posted by New York Post on Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Donald J. Trump rallies are becoming increasingly violent and racist. And it’s only getting worse.
Listen: Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has to say about black students at elite colleges.
It’s ironic that he’s being remembered during black history month, isn’t it?
Via www.cnn.com: Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday released audio of controversial comments made by Justice Antonin Scalia suggesting that some African-Americans might be better off at “less-advanced”universities, language that has caused a national uproar and spurred condemnation from elected officials including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. John Lewis.
“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia said Wednesday during oral arguments in a case involving a race-conscious college admissions plan. The 79-year-old justice, speaking to a hushed courtroom, then referenced a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas,” he said, “they come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”
Scalia said he wasn’t “impressed” that the University of Texas may have fewer African Americans. “Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some — you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less.”
Reid took to the Senate floor Thursday to condemn Scalia’s statements. Lewis, a civil rights icon who marched in Selma, released a statement saying he was “shocked and amazed” by Scalia. “His suggestion that African Americans would fare better at schools that are ‘less advanced’ or on a ‘slow track’ reminds me of the kind of prejudice that led to separate and unequal school systems—a policy the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional decades ago,” Lewis said.
“It’s so disappointing to hear that statement coming from a justice of the Supreme Court,” she told Politico. “It clearly shows a bias.”
Janai Nelson, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, was sitting in court when Scalia spoke.
“My first reaction was disbelief and disappointment,” Nelson said. “In a case with this much significance, for a Supreme Court justice to make comments that amplify the myth of racial inferiority, is deeply disheartening.”
Scalia’s comments have also spawned a protest Twitter hashtag, #StayMadAbby, where African-Americans have posted pictures of themselves celebrating their college graduations.
The court does not allow video into the room or any type of live broadcasts of oral arguments and only releases audio at the end of each argument week. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have pressured justices to permit live video, with no success.
While Scalia’s words reverberated outside the legal world, they were familiar to some of those who have been following the legal challenge to affirmative action in higher education.
One person who had no visible reaction to Scalia was Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks during oral arguments.
While Thomas and Scalia don’t agree on every case, they agree quite a bit.
Thomas, the only African American on the bench, has made clear that he thinks public universities should not take race into consideration. He dissented from a 2003 case that upheld the admissions program at the University of Michigan Law school.
And as for the lawyer who Scalia was addressing, Gregory S. Garre, he took the question in stride and was quick to respond forcefully. Garre, the former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, is defending the University of Texas against a challenge from Abigail Fisher, a white woman from Texas who is suing the university arguing she was denied admission based on her race.
“Frankly, I don’t think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they’re going to inferior schools,” Garre said in response to Scalia.
Garre has defended the university before the court on two separate occasions. Like others immersed in the affirmative action debate, he likely recognized that Scalia was referring to the controversial “mismatch” theory popularized by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. in their book, “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s intended to Help, and why Universities won’t admit it.” They filed a brief in the case, as did Gail Heriot of the University of San Diego School of Law.
“Research indicates that students who attend schools where their entering academic credentials put them towards the bottom of the class are less likely to succeed then similarly-credentialed students attending schools where their academic credentials more closely ‘match’ the typical student’s,” Heriot wrote.
Heriot was not in court to hear Scalia, but she read a transcript of arguments and she defends Scalia’s comments. “He was trying to articulate the extensive literature that shows race-preferential admission policies end up hurting rather than helping their intended beneficiaries, especially in the area of science and engineering,” she said afterwards.
“We do ourselves a great disservice when we jump all over people for failing to phrase a question in the best possible way,” Heriot added.
The first time the Fisher case was heard by the court in 2012 the justices issued a very narrow opinion and sent the case back down to the lower court to take another look.
In a concurring opinion, Thomas echoed the mismatch theory. “The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched,” Thomas wrote. “But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where underperformance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete” he said.
Thomas, and his other eight colleagues all attended elite universities, a point not lost on Nelson, who took Scalia’s comment to also be a dig at historically black colleges and universities.
“In additon to denigrating an entire group of students, he also denigrated many of the institutions that have successfully served African Americans when a majority of the institutions in this country would not,” she said.
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel,” Francis told reporters traveling with him back to the Vatican at the conclusion of a trip to Cuba and Mexico.
It’s not the first time Trump and the Pope have criticized the other through the media. Francis was responding to a reporter who asked about Trump’s recent comments that Francis is “very political” and that Mexico was using him to convince the U.S. to leave its southern border unsecured.
“Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ So at least I am a human person,” Francis said. “As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people.”
While Trump has promised to build a wall on the Mexican border (and get Mexico to pay for it) and called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, Francis has openly shown support for migrants who have died trying to reach the U.S. During his trip, he walked along the U.S.-Mexico border fenceand said immigration is spurred by a “humanitarian crisis” at a mass in Juarez, just 50 years from the U.S. border.
The reporter also asked whether American Catholics should vote for someone like Trump.
“I am not going to get involved in that,” he said. “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Just before the pope’s comments were made public, Trump had some nice things to say about him – even regarding his position on immigration.
“I heard the pope and I respect the pope and I love the pope in many ways. I love what he stands for and I like his attitude. He’s very independent and he’s very different,” he said in an interview on SiriusXM and Breitbart News Daily. “I really respect the fact that he sees both sides. You know a lot of people are inflexible – they won’t change.”
In the past, Trump has criticized the Pope for being “not Pope-like” by waiting to pay his own bill at the front desk of a hotel, but has otherwise been complimentary of the Holy See. In fact, he said Francis would be his first pick for his reality show, “Celebrity Apprentice,” if the person was guaranteed to say yes.
Via www.washingtonpost.com by Chris Cillizza
Within hours of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell drew a line in the sand: No new justice would be confirmed until after the presidential election.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
The reason for McConnell’s hard line isn’t tough to figure out. It’s the same reason everyone from Ted Cruz to Jeb Bush in the Republican presidential race called for the postponement of any nomination until a new president is elected in November: It’s what the GOP base wants.
The Republican base felt very strongly about the importance of judicial nominations before these past few years. But the Supreme Court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage and upholding the Affordable Care Act have convinced conservatives that the Court is out of control and needs to be reigned in by a Republican president committed to core principles.
Given that view, it would be political death for a Republican presidential candidate to advocate that President Obama be given the right to make a pick — and that pick be given a full and fair hearing in front of the Senate. Ditto McConnell, who is regarded as “too establishment” by some tea party types looking to make trouble for him in the Senate.
So I get why McConnell said what he said. I just think the way he went about it was a mistake — especially for a party desperately in need of proving to the public that it can be more than the anti-President Obama/pro-Donald Trump party.
Saying publicly — and on the same day that Scalia died — that replacing the justice was a non-starter, Senate Republicans sent a clear message to the American voters: We aren’t even going to make a show of playing ball on this one.
This exchange between “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd and Cruz on Sunday is telling on that point.
TODD: Okay, I understand that. But why not go through the process? Shouldn’t the United States Senate do its duty and go through the process? Reject it, Senator, but go through the process.
TED CRUZ: By the way, the Senate’s duty is to advise and consent. You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We’re advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court, that we’re going to have an election.
Yes, the Republican base probably agrees with Cruz. But it will be a much harder sell to the average center — or even center-right — voter. The “advise and consent” role for the Republican-controlled Senate means the chamber can and should ignore a presidential pick to serve on the country’s highest court? That’s not going to ring true for most people.
Here’s what McConnell, Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and other key Republican senators should have done.
Step 1: Say almost nothing about Obama picking someone to replace Scalia other than that the person will get a “fair hearing.”
Step 2: Convene the standard hearings on Judiciary for the nominee. Aggressively question him or her as you would any other nominee in Obama’s presidency.
Step 3: Never allow a vote on the nominee, using the 60-vote filibuster threshold as your best friend. (Fourteen Republicans would have to join the 46 Democrats and independents in the Senate to break said filibuster. That ain’t happening.)
That simple three-step process would get Republicans to the place where the base wants them to be — no Obama appointee to the Court — without looking like the kids who took their ball home — refusing to play the game because they didn’t like the rules. Obama proposed someone, the Republican majority in the Senate gave that person a chance and decided that he or she didn’t meet their standards. Case closed.
Would Obama and Democrats in the Senate, House and on the presidential campaign trail go ballistic about filibustering a court nominee? Sure, but it’s a much more defensible position for the center of the electorate who wants to believe the GOP can govern. Plus, do you really lose anything with the Republican base if you hold contentious and high-profile hearings where the GOP senators run the nominee through the ringer? Hard to see how.
With McConnell’s statement on Saturday night, the chance for Republicans to “win” on the court nomination becomes remote. Refusing to even take part in the process — even though that process could have easily yielded the GOP’s desired result — hands Obama and Senate Democrats a political cudgel to bash the GOP.
It’s an unforced error by Senate Republicans that will be difficult to mop up. And one that could cost them at the ballot box in November.
Scalia’s unexpected passing sets up a politically charged battle to replace him. Mere moments after his death was confirmed, Conn Carroll, a key staffer for Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), promised Republicans would block … If anything this will put a full stop to all Obama judicial nominees going forward.
The longest it has ever taken to confirm a Supreme Court nominee is 125 days. Obama has 361 days left in office