Texas state Rep. Jessica Farrar was fed up with men making laws restricting women’s reproductive choices and decided to get back at them. Farrar, a Democrat, introduced a bill on Friday that calls for a $100 fine on men who masturbate, and would place additional requirements on doctors prior to performing vasectomies and colonoscopies or prescribing Viagra. Under the proposed legislation, men would have to go through the same invasive scrutiny that women face today when seeking an abortion. House Bill 4260 would also allow doctors to refuse to perform a vasectomy and prescribe Viagra because of religious beliefs.

Farrar realizes that her bill, unfortunately, has very little chance of becoming law, but she said she hopes it will open up people’s minds–even though she admits this may be too much to ask of her fellow politicians. “What I would like to see is this make people stop and think,” she told The Texas Tribune. “Maybe my colleagues aren’t capable of that, but the people who voted for them, or the people that didn’t vote at all, I hope that it changes their mind and helps them to decide what the priorities are.”

#HB4260, “A Man’s Right to Know,” mirrors real TX laws and health care restrictions faced by TX women every #txlege session.

— Jessica Farrar (@JFarrarDist148) March 11, 2017

The new bill is named the “Man’s Right to Know Act.” Given that many male politicians cite the sanctity of life when fighting against abortion, Farrar said it’s only fair to view a man’s sperm as a contribution to that life and that it would be a shame to waste it. Therefore she proposed a bill that would require men to be responsible for their own actions–only allowing them to masturbate at a clinic where the sperm can be stored to fertilize a woman in the future.

Mirroring yet another law that currently affects women, the bill also calls for a 24-hour waiting period after a man’s first consultation for an elective vasectomy procedure or a Viagra prescription. This is a reality today for women seeking an abortion. Also, Farrar’s bill would require a rectal exam before a vasectomy or colonoscopy, even though it is not medically necessary. Today in Texas, women are required to have an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus before an abortion is performed, which is also medically unnecessary and, as Farrar says, “messes with women’s heads.”

Jessica Farrar, a Texas state Rep. from Houston, just filed a bill that trolls the entire Texas GOP. H/t @rossramsey https://t.co/PMNNQtmEje pic.twitter.com/IN9BvSHwdV

— Aman Batheja (@amanbatheja) March 11, 2017

It probably goes without saying that Farrar is an outspoken advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion, and she has long fought against Texas legislation that restricts access to abortions. Lately, a lot of bills have been filed in the state targeting women’s reproductive rights. A bill by Rep. Tony Tinderholt goes as far as charging women who have an abortion, and their abortion providers, with murder. In a statement responding to the “Man’s Right to Know Act,” Tinderholt said, “I’m embarrassed for Representative Farrar,” and suggested that she take a biology class, obviously missing the point Farrar was trying to make.

Another bill by Rep. Byron Cook requires Texas hospitals to bury or cremate all fetal remains rather than disposing of them as biological waste. Texas is only one of many states with pending legislation like this. Advocates say it’s inhumane to “throw the bodies of human beings into a landfill.” Opponents say this is an ideological viewpoint that the state shouldn’t impose on women and that it could affect the access to abortion by imposing additional costs on clinics and hospitals.

As expected, many men and conservatives attacked Farrar and the bill on social media, claiming that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. But most people got the joke and if the satirical bill could help people open their eyes to what women go through every day, that’s at least one step in the right direction.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Legislator Introduces Bill to Penalize Male Masturbation appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Betsy DeVos Called Historically Black Schools “Pioneers” of “School Choice”

Betsy DeVos hasn’t had an easy start to her new position as education secretary. Now she’s in hot water again for some off-base comments about historically black colleges and universities. She called the schools “pioneers” of “school choice” and wrote that their founders had identified that the school system wasn’t working and created their own solution. This peculiar statement was met with outrage on social media, where people wondered whether she was aware that HBCUs weren’t created by choice, but because black students literally were not allowed in white schools.

Betsy DeVos said HBCUs were about school choice. As if white/colored water fountains were about beverage options. pic.twitter.com/I3tNlER43n

— Resist Dystopia (@AynAyahSteenkur) February 28, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tom Perez, the former Secretary of Labor, was elected the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman today, beating Representative Keith Ellison in a second round of run off voting. In that second round, Perez garnered 235 votes to Ellison’s 200 to win.

Perez is the first Hispanic chair of the DNC, and was a speculated pick for Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee. In addition to Perez and Ellison, contenders included Jehmu Greene (a Democratic strategist from Texas), Jamie Harrison (chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party), Sally Boynton Brown (president of the Association of State Democratic Party Executive Directors and Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director), Peter Peckarsky (a Wisconsin lawyer), and Samuel Ronan (a 2016 candidate for the Ohio State House of Representatives). Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, dropped out before the voting began.

After Perez won, he appointed Ellison as his deputy during his acceptance speech, saying: “I would like to begin by making a motion, it is a motion that I have discussed with a good friend, and his name is Keith Ellison.” While the role is largely symbolic, it represented a nod to the close race between the two leaders.

Some saw the competition between Perez and Ellison as symbolic of the party’s internal struggle after losing the 2016 general election. The contentious primary battle between Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders left a sour taste in many Democrats’ mouths. In this DNC race, Perez represented the establishment. In contrast, Ellison represented the more left-wing side inspired by Sanders.

But, it’s important to note that Perez and Ellison were largely complimentary of each other in most public appearances, and stayed away from anything petty. And they made sure to note that they were friends–including when they got together for dinner 10 days before the vote.

We’re friends. It’s ok. https://t.co/xdllbgFN9S

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) February 16, 2017

Perez now has a hefty task before him–especially given the criticism and resignation of former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the 2016 primaries. As protests and activism against President Donald Trump’s rule continue to grow, Perez will be in charge of, at least in part, leading the Democratic Party forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Perez Elected DNC Chair Over Keith Ellison appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Finance Committee Republicans took matters into their own hands to confirm two of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In an effort to advance Trump’s nominees for Treasury secretary and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–Steven Mnuchin and Congressman Tom Price–the Republicans on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee voted in a surprise meeting on Wednesday morning to change the procedural rules that outlined that Democrats must be in attendance to vote on the nominees.  With this rule change, Mnuchin and Price were approved by the committee in a 14-0 vote, allowing for the nominations to go to the full Senate for approval.

Where are @SenateFinance Dems this morning? Standing with the ppl of OH and others hurt by the abusive practices of Mnuchin’s bank. pic.twitter.com/AvLpnxyJko

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 1, 2017

This move comes a day after Democrats on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee staged a boycott of Mnuchin and Price’s hearings, which presented an obstacle considering the standing rule was that at least one Democrat had to be present in order for any votes to take place. The boycott was led by Senators Sherrod Brown and Roy Wyden in an effort to push for more vetting of both Mnuchin and Price, both of whom the senators claim gave misleading testimonies and responses during the committee hearings about their investments and foreclosure practices, respectively.

.@sensherrodbrown on why Senate Dems boycotting Price and Mnuchin committee votes. https://t.co/qr5oT2gOHX

— Andrew Rafferty (@AndrewNBCNews) January 31, 2017

The Democratic senators outlined their concerns and request for further questioning in a letter sent to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, this morning.

Here are the questions @SenateFinance Democrats want answers to from Price & Mnuchin pic.twitter.com/jo2NOyq484

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) February 1, 2017

Talking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Hatch relayed his annoyance with the boycotting senators. “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap . . . This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said.

Even after the rule change and the approval of Trump’s two nominees, Hatch still took time to go after the committee’s Democrats for their boycott, telling reporters that the boycott was “unprecedented obstruction” and a “cheap political ploy.” However, the boycott might not be as unprecedented as Hatch claims it to be, considering, as many have pointed out, the Republicans boycotted in 2013 to block the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rule change and verbal sparring in the media between Finance Committee members just adds to the rising tension between members of Congress. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no on the confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, who is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife. Earlier today, things got contentious between Democratic Senator Al Franken and GOP Senator John Cornyn during a Judiciary Committee meeting when Cornyn took exception to Franken calling out absent GOP Senator Ted Cruz. In addition, Democratic senators on the Environmental and Public Works Committee–taking a cue from their colleagues on the Finance Committee–have staged a boycott of the vote to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Al Franken calls out absent Ted Cruz & Cruz’s GOP colleague John Cornyn objects. Franken: “Well, he should be here.” pic.twitter.com/zjMBDhshnJ

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 1, 2017

And this is only Day 12 of Trump’s presidency.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

All of the sudden, the streets in New York City were filled with chanting people while men and women in skyscrapers peeked down from their windows and tourists on buses snapped pictures. Wednesday night saw thousands of people in cities with largely Democratic populations take to the streets to protest the election of Donald Trump.

Masses of people protesting in Union Square in New York tonight.
Together, we are stronger. #LoveTrumpsHate #NotMyPresident pic.twitter.com/ubbGpBCAda

— PerfectWarrior (@SurvivorHealer) November 10, 2016

In Manhattan, estimates suggest that as many as 5,000 people worked their way uptown along Fifth Avenue and Broadway. At one point, the procession encountered a chain of police officers blocking Broadway going north, with speakers blaring out the message that the protesters were illegally blocking streets and would be arrested unless they moved onto the sidewalks. But no one listened–they just turned right and took the next street to move forward until they reached the Trump Tower.

Throughout the night there were no signs of violence or conflict, just people chanting “Not my president,” “My body, my choice,” and “Donald Trump, go away, racist, sexist, anti-gay.” Even some of the people who were stranded in their cars did not appear upset, but instead honked, cheered, and high-fived strangers through their car windows. The protests were massive, and all of the protestors united in their distrust and disapproval of a Trump presidency.

Protesting is democracy too. It shows those who feel marginalized that they are not alone. That’s important. #TrumpProtest

— Lana Huyen (@lanahuyen) November 10, 2016

The beautiful thing about Wednesday’s spontaneous demonstration was the diversity. More and more people joined from the sidewalks as they saw what was going on. People of all different skin colors, religions, and personalities. What they had in common was that most were young and all were disappointed with the election results.

According to preliminary exit poll numbers from CNN, Hillary Clinton won 54 percent of voters aged 18-29 on Tuesday night. But those margins indicate that she failed to spur young voters to turn out at a sufficient rate to win, a problem that she has had since the primary. In fact, in the primaries, her challenger Bernie Sanders earned nearly 30 percent more votes from Americans under the age of 30 than both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton combined. Many of those voters now feel hopeless.

The scene right now outside #TrumpTower. Never covered anything like this before @PIX11News pic.twitter.com/vy7q7bACTb

— Ayana Harry PIX11 (@AyanaHarry) November 10, 2016

Delivery truck driver (who couldn’t go anywhere if he tried) blowing his horn to cheering crowd, pumping fist pic.twitter.com/8IE9cKGHqe

— Steve Annear (@steveannear) November 10, 2016

CNN reports that similar protests went on in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. Also on Wednesday evening, a candlelight vigil for Clinton supporters was held in front of the White House. Organizers said about 2,600 watched online as supporters called out, “you are not alone.”

Trump supporters and conservatives expressed disgust at the protests on social media, saying that Democrats don’t respect democracy and only protest if they don’t get their way.

You’re literally protesting against free democratic elections. Go live in North Korea, you absolute trash.#TrumpProtest

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 10, 2016

But peaceful protesting and freedom of expression is also a part of democracy.

People aren’t upset about losing the election.

People are terrified for their safety and futures.

See the difference. #TrumpProtest

— Matthew Kick (@MatthewKick) November 10, 2016

This video shows just how many people were on the streets in Manhattan:

New York City protests against Donald Trump’s presidency. They haven’t stopped coming. pic.twitter.com/qwZlBe2i0L

— Phil McCausland (@PhilMcCausland_) November 10, 2016

Filmmaker Michael Moore happened to come across the demonstration in his cab and got out to join it. “We had all those big protests before the Iraq War and once the war started, everyone stopped protesting. […] This time, we keep it up and we don’t stop till he’s out of there,” he said to the Huffington post.

Michael Moore happened upon the protest tonight, calling for resistance and agitation. pic.twitter.com/LFiGaO1wfy

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) November 10, 2016

Stay strong, people.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Not My President’: Thousands Unite To Protest Trump Presidency appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday afternoon the internet went totally wild after finding out about one more leaked email that supposedly proved that John Podesta, and therefore the whole Clinton clan, are Satanists.

#SpiritCooking: Podesta has band-aid on middle finger, likely from a cut, just like Marina Abramovic suggest for a “Spirit Dinner” pic.twitter.com/4Edf1bdLqC

— MicroTurkeyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) November 4, 2016

The email in question was sent to John Podesta from his brother, asking if John could join him for a dinner at artist Marina Abramovic’s place. He included the forwarded email from Abramovic, in which she described the dinner as a “Spirit Cooking”. Because of that phrasing, right wing people online got all frenzied and started sharing their best conspiracy theories. The hashtag #SpiritCooking had over 500,000 tweets by late afternoon.

#SpiritCooking

It all makes sense now. The whole family is involved in this satanic cult. pic.twitter.com/KVV7FbOV6w

— Neil Turner (@NeilTurner_) November 4, 2016

The most disturbing thing about the whole #SpiritCooking Scandal is that NO DEMOCRATS are condemning it! Their silence speaks volumes!!!

— Joshua (@joshuakassemi) November 4, 2016

Despite the influx of conspiracy theories, it doesn’t seem likely that it was a real, blood-drinking orgy that took place. “Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” is the name of a cookbook that Abramovic created for a 1996 exhibition at the MoMA. It was accompanied by a piece of performance art in which she paints with blood and incorporates  a huge snake.

Wow. I just got to this video about #spiritcooking…skipping dinner this evening… https://t.co/Qahq8OGcav via @YouTube

— Hispanic4TrumpPence (@esgrimista73) November 4, 2016

The list of ingredients in the cookbook did call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights,” but the dinner she invited the Podestas to was more a normal one, with real food. “It was just a normal dinner,” she said to artnews.com on Friday afternoon. “There was no blood, no anything else. We just call things funny names, that’s all.” She told the website that John Podesta never made it to dinner and they have never met in real life. She called the right-wing attacks “absolutely outrageous and ridiculous.”

At least as President, Hellary could call the Vatican hotline & get the Pope to perforrm an exorcism #SpiritCooking

— Deplorabe Majority (@trolling4tuna) November 4, 2016

Thankfully all of this insane election mudslinging will be over soon.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet Thinks Podesta is a Satanist After Leaked #SpiritCooking Email appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account sent out a series of tweets describing the price hike on insulin from pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co. The tweets linked to a Washington Post article that details the increasing prices from the day insulin was discovered in 1921 until today. Sanders’ tweets attacked the drug industry, accusing the companies involved of corporate greed.

A bit of backstory is necessary: the researchers who discovered insulin debated whether to patent it at all since their main purpose was to help humanity. Their discovery made it possible for people to live with a disease that had previously meant a death sentence. Eventually they sold the patent for $3 to the University of Toronto.

Why has the price of Humalog insulin gone up 700% in 20 years? It’s simple. The drug industry’s greed. pic.twitter.com/SUeSbsr2Ka

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders’ tweets, which were not signed by him personally but sent out by staff members, caused Eli Lilly’s stock price to drop 2.4 percent. The price of $72.02 per share was the lowest it has been since March 31. Prices soon stabilized again, and Eli Lilly released a statement defending its pricing.

“A permanent solution that gives everyone who uses insulin reasonable access will require leadership and cooperation across many stakeholders, including manufacturers, (pharmacy benefit managers), payers, and policymakers. That’s because the answer itself isn’t simple.”

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk clearly care more about their profits than their patients. It’s time to end their greed. pic.twitter.com/MqCsHNjzcO

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

This year marks 75 years after the original patent on insulin expired and three companies in particular have made improvements to insulin that leads to the creation of more patents and garnered the owners billions of dollars. One of those companies is Eli Lilly; its insulin Humalog has gone up in price from $21 in 1996 to $255 today. That’s a 700 percent increase.

But why isn’t competition keeping the prices down? The pharmaceutical industry claims drug improvement raises prices, but experts question this and believe the changes to the drugs are only to cover up for price hikes as well as to create new patents. David Nathan from Harvard Medical School said to the Post:

I don’t think it takes a cynic such as myself to see most of these drugs are being developed to preserve patent protection. The truth is they are marginally different, and the clinical benefits of them over the older drugs have been zero.

Many people can’t even afford to get their insulin. Around six million Americans depend on it, and though many get it through health insurance, there are also many without insurance or in between insurance plans because of different life changes.

In the richest nation in the world, diabetes patients are being forced to decide between eating and paying for the drugs they need. pic.twitter.com/Mnq4NSgiPz

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders has targeted the drug industry before and influenced the stock market through his tweets about Ariad Pharmaceuticals’ high prices for a leukemia drug. Hillary Clinton is doing pretty well too–she has tweeted both at the industry in general, causing Nasdaq shares to fall last year, and about the EpiPen by Mylan NV, whose shares fell by 6.2 percent. If these progressive politicians keep it up, maybe things will change after all!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Insulin Brand’s Stock Plummets After Bernie Sanders Tweets About Price Hikes appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in nearly two decades, the state of Alabama might implement a lottery system in order to pay for basic services that it currently cannot afford.

In a video released yesterday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced, “the state of Alabama has not and cannot at this time pay for the most basic services that we must provide to our people.”

He continued, “the time has come for us to find a permanent solution. This solution will provide funding that we can count on year after year without ever having to raise your taxes or put one more Band-Aid on our state’s money problems.”

BREAKING:We need your help solving our funding crisis.I’m giving you the opportunity to vote on a Statewide Lottery. https://t.co/BLzE3bOXLP

— Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) July 27, 2016

The lottery could bring in $225 million annually, a steady revenue that would help alleviate the state’s reliance on borrowing money and using one-time money to fill the gap in Alabama’s dismal finances. Bentley said the revenue would be applied to General Fund programs like services for law enforcement, the mentally ill, children, and “those in the most need.”

State lawmakers have tried cutting “wasteful” spending, shifting the management of Medicaid to the private sector, and borrowing money, and a proposed, but rejected, tax plan–but those efforts have still not been enough to fix the financial problem.

Bentley said he wants the voters to decide whether or not a lottery should be implemented to fix Alabama’s financial situation, which means the issue would appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. However, in order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to approve the amendment by Aug. 24 with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate.

With less than a month until the date the amendment would have to be approved by, it doesn’t seem like the Alabama governor has made any plans to get the ball rolling. Though he just made the video announcement Wednesday, he has not provided any other details on a special session which would have to be called in order to create the amendment.

State representatives and senators from Alabama took to the proposal differently. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus, said he was disturbed that Bentley had not talked about the lottery proposal with him or anyone in the Caucus.

“It seems like everything that is being done now is being done behind closed doors,” Knight said.

Acting House Speaker Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) shared those sentiments, saying in a statement, “the governor has not outlined his plan to legislators in any detail, nor, to my knowledge, has he even set a concrete start date for the special session, so it is difficult to comment with so little information at hand.” He continued, “I hope that the governor reaches out to lawmakers over the next several weeks in order to seek their input on any lottery proposal that comes forward and to do the prep work that is necessary for any special session to be successful.”

Others, like Rep. Craig Ford, (D-Gadsden), leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama House of Representatives, do not believe Bentley’s plan will work.

“A lottery will do nothing for this year’s Medicaid shortfall, and at best will be nothing more than a band aid for the General Fund that will leave us right back where we are now in just a few years,” he said in a statement. “The lottery is a one-shot deal, and a lottery for the General Fund will become, as it has in other states, a victim to legislative shell games; it will become nothing more than a slush fund for legislators.”

.@RepCraigFord says his proposed lottery must fund scholarships, and will not save the state’s budgets: https://t.co/yxGV9vUygK #alpolitics

— AL Reporter (@ALReporter) July 27, 2016

Sen. Quinton Ross (D-Montgomery), minority leader in the Alabama Senate, agrees with Bentley’s lottery proposal.

“These gaming dollars can provide stability and long-term economic streams for many of our General Fund and Education Trust Fund needs.”

Until Bentley schedules a special session, it’s unclear whether or not the lottery will come to the Crimson Tide state.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding? appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.

It has been a long journey but today @POTUS has officially signed #TSCA into law! pic.twitter.com/jCNuVVH4Ll

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) June 22, 2016

The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.

“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.

“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”

In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passed in the House with a 403-12 vote.

“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”

The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.

But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.

The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), filibustered for over 14 hours last night, in an attempt to force the Senate to take action on gun control. Murphy’s filibuster, which was sparked by the recent mass shooting in Orlando, ended when the Senate leaders agreed to allow a vote on universal background checks and closing a recently-under-fire loophole that allows people on the terror watchlist to purchase guns.

I am prepared to stand on the Senate floor and talk about the need to prevent gun violence for as long as I can. I’ve had #Enough

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 15, 2016

Murphy’s monumental efforts–it was the 9th longest filibuster since 1900–were even joined by a few Republican Senators, specifically Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, along with 38 of Murphy’s fellow Democrats. Each of these senators asked Murphy “questions” to give him a break from talking, although he still wasn’t able to use the bathroom or sit down. Here’s the full list of senators who joined the cause:

*UPDATED*
List of Senators who joined @ChrisMurphyCT as of 01:00am ET#filibuster#holdthefloorpic.twitter.com/pbTqvs8EFI

— Kasia (@KasiaMikurda) June 16, 2016

Murphy and his colleagues stayed remarkably on message during the 14-hour filibuster, often telling the stories of victims of gun violence. Murphy repeatedly invoked the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook in his home state, Connecticut–he even ended his stand by telling the story of one of the little boys killed in shooting. Check out that powerful clip:

There are concerns from both sides over the ideas, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), that Murphy was advocating for. Not allowing people who are on the no-fly list to purchase guns gives more credence to that list, despite the fact that there’s a lot of criticism about how inaccurate it is. After all, we’ve all heard stories about kids who end up on the no-fly list because they share a name with a terrorist. And while a four-year-old certainly has no need for a gun, overall due process concerns are fair.

History may look back on Murphy’s stand as more of a political victory than a policy one. He took a strong, visible stand to advocate for a much-needed change to this nation’s gun policies–and got people talking in the process.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Chris Murphy’s Gun Control Filibuster Lasts for Over 14 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

The cacophony of disapproving mutterings and boos gave way to a sharp chant: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

No, this was not an NBA Finals game or even the response to a bad film. It was the House floor on Thursday when a handful of Republicans switched positions after time expired on a vote. The vote was on an amendment that Democrats say would have furthered protections for the LGBT community. What initially looked like a 217-206 “yea” vote for the measure–which was drafted by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)–became a 212-213 “nay” vote.

In an unusual move, GOP members were allowed to switch their votes after the clock expired, and without walking up to the front–where each member whose mind had changed would be identified. Instead, they were able to privately change their vote through electronic vote counters.

Maloney was irate about the “craven” and “ugly” episode, “It tells me talk is cheap, and all this happy nonsense about letting the House do its will is just that: nonsense,” he told The Hill.

His amendment would have essentially prevented federal funding from going to companies that claim religious freedom in the name of discriminating against LGBT workers, nullifying a provision in a defense bill passed by the House on Wednesday that critics say would have taxpayers funding discrimination against the LGBT community.

The National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year would effectively increase the salary of U.S. military personnel. But it also contained an amendment drafted by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma) that would ensure federal funding was not discriminatory toward companies with strong religious views. Critics contend that, if passed, the bill’s language would allow those companies to receive taxpayer money regardless of whether they discriminate against LGBT workers on the basis of their religious views.

The scene on the House floor was a he-said-she-said game involving leaders and rank and file members from both parties. Kevin McCarthy (R-California), the House Majority Leader, was the one who Democrats suspect led the vote change. Maloney’s account of an exchange with McCarthy exhibits the combative nature of a divided House, where each side is steadfast in its viewpoint while some members have reelection in their sights:

“I said, ‘What are you doing? You can let this go; your own members are supporting it,’ and he said, ‘Get back on your own side of the aisle.’ And I said to him, ‘What side of the aisle am I supposed to stand on to support equality?'”

Four of the Republicans who changed their vote will be up for re-election this year.

What does Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), Speaker of the House, think about this schoolyard kerfuffle? “I don’t know the answer. I don’t even know,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Democrats ‘Shame’ Republicans After Vote Change appeared first on Law Street.

In his State of the Union address last year, President Barack Obama acknowledged the need for an update to the nation’s overtime pay rules: “We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned,” he said. To the delight of Obama and perhaps millions of workers nationwide, but the chagrin of employer groups and some Republican lawmakers, this need has been addressed.

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced a severe adjustment to overtime pay rules on Wednesday, raising the salary threshold for those eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 per year to $47,476. The rule update–which goes into effect December 1–is designed to give 4.2 million Americans who previously did not qualify for overtime pay the money they earned from working hours beyond 40 per week. The DOL expects the new rules to generate $12 billion in wages over 10 years. The rules will be updated to reflect inflation every three years, starting in 2020.

“Increasing overtime protections is another step in the President’s effort to grow and strengthen the middle class by raising Americans’ wages. This extra income will not only mean a better life for American families impacted by overtime protections, but will boost our economy across the board as these families spend their hard-earned wages,” read the official statement from the White House released on Tuesday, a day before the new rules were announced.

In 2014, Obama issued a directive to the Secretary of Labor to “update and modernize” overtime pay regulations, suggesting a $50,440 threshold, which is slightly higher than the figure that was announced on Wednesday.

Critics of the newly designated threshold, which is nearly double the previous one, fear that it could lead to less jobs and less opportunity for upward mobility within a career. Citing an Oxford Economics study, the National Retail Federation (NRF), an advocate of the retail industry that opposes the new rules, sees a handful of hidden costs in raising the overtime pay threshold. While overtime pay would increase, they agree, base pay and hours worked would drop, leading to an overall decrease in take home pay. The study estimates a $745 million cost for retail and restaurant businesses.

“We would hope it would be a reasonable and responsible update and this final rule is not even close to that,” Lizzy Simmons, Senior Director of Government Relations at NRF said in an interview with Law Street. “[The new threshold] doesn’t reflect reality, the math is bad.”

She added that employers–in retail and other fields–will not have sufficient time to deal with the threshold increase (they have six months to adjust, Simmons said 12-18 months would be more realistic), and would have liked to see a less “reckless” increase in the new threshold.

And although both Democrats and Republicans see a need to overhaul overtime pay rules, Republicans in the House and Senate announced legislation–the Protecting Workplace Advancement and Opportunity Act–in an effort to preempt the DOL’s ruling. 

“The Obama administration’s decision to drastically redefine overtime will hurt our workforce and our employers. It will lead to reduced hours, confusion for job creators, and will limit growth opportunities for employees,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), a member of the Senate Labor Committee, one of the sponsors of the bill.

As the fight over the minimum wage rages on, the other issue middle class Americans hope will provide a boon to their bank account–overtime pay–has been settled for now. Exactly what that means for employees and employers remains to be seen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Labor Doubles Threshold for Overtime Pay appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve used the app Tinder, a match-making social app which allows you to “swipe right” on potential matches for a chance to chat with them, then you know there’s a fair share of duds. There are the people who can’t hold a conversation, ones who are too flaky to meet for a proper date, and ones who just blatantly want to get into your pants. Now, however, there may be a new Tinder plague, and it’s some Bernie Sanders supporters.

Tinder troll asks her matches to ‘Feel the Bern,’ gets banned https://t.co/8ZoazQ7MHM pic.twitter.com/S20SebyEiX

— Mashable (@mashable) February 5, 2016

That’s right–these ardent fans of Senator Sanders created Tinder profiles, and once they match with you, they bombard you with pro-Sanders arguments, and encourage you to vote for him in the primaries. Often, they’ll include a number to text “WORK” to, which donates $5 tacked onto a user’s phone bill to Sanders’ campaign. There’s even a Facebook page, called “Bernie Sanders’ Dank Tinder Convos” where fans share their ‘intellectual conversations’ with the unsuspecting (and single) public. “I won’t blow you, but Bernie Sanders will blow you away with his progressive policies” is one memorable rejoinder. One particularly jarring experience is seeing Bernie Sanders’ own face on a Tinder profile, as seen in this fake account created by a supporter.

Raleigh woman surprised by Bernie Sanders appearing on her Tinder app. He’s looking for votes, not a date. pic.twitter.com/oyW5q5nBrP

— Steve Daniels (@DanielsABC11) January 29, 2016

Some supporters are even paying up for the chance to spread the gospel of Sanders, by purchasing Tinder’s premium option. This lets them to choose alternate locations to ‘swipe’ in, allowing Sanders supporters all across the country to communicate to New Hampshirites. Curiously enough, I couldn’t find any examples of “Bernie Bros” doing this kind of canvassing, perhaps due to the fact that women get more ‘right swipes’ on Tinder, making their message-spreading more effective. Tinder is not so fond of this unlicensed marketing, as they’ve been banning users who abuse their service for political gains. That’s as it should be–Tinder is a safe space for matching with that kid from your high school calculus class ten years later, and should be reserved for such venerable acts.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Bernie Sanders And Chill”: Using Tinder as a Canvassing Tool appeared first on Law Street.

Well, it’s been a crazy year. Despite the fact that we will not vote for the next president of the United States until November of 2016, the primaries are in full swing, and Law Street’s been there to provide you coverage of every minute of it. ICYMI, check out our top 10 election posts from 2015.

#1 Top Five Funniest Hillary Clinton Emails from the Recent Release

Image courtesy of Paul Cohn/US Consulate Chennai via Flickr

Hillary Clinton’s emails have become a weird point of contention in the 2016 Presidential primaries. After it was discovered that she had sent emails from a private email address while serving as Secretary of State, many critics clamored for her to release them. Slowly, they’ve been declassified, and we’ve truly gotten to see some gems along the way. Check out the top five funniest Hillary Clinton emails from the most recent declassification here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Election Posts of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Public Policy Polling released a National Survey on GOP voters today. Many of the questions were expected, delving into the favorability or lack thereof of the many GOP presidential candidates. But PPP (the same firm that brought us results on Deez Nuts’ candidacy) also threw in a bit of a trick question “Would you support bombing Agrabah?” Thirty percent of the respondents said yes–and now the internet is having a bit of fun at their expense.

Agrabah, some of you may know, is the fictional land in “Aladdin.”

This poll should definitely be taken with quite a few grains of salt. It was certainly a “gotcha” question, sandwiched between many other, very legitimate, questions. PPP is well known for cheeky questions, and is often viewed as left-leaning. Additionally, Slate pointed out that Agrabah “sounds pretty similar to ‘Aleppo’ and ‘Raqqa,’ which are two Syrian cities that have been occupied by ISIS.” Moreover, a total 57 percent of the GOP respondents replied that they were not sure, indicating that they may have realized that it was a BS question.

This isn’t limited to the GOP though–19 percent of Democratic primary voters also answered that they would agree to bomb Agrabah, which is almost equally as embarrassing. On the full spread, 50 percent of respondents who identified as “somewhat liberal” said they were more likely to want to bomb Agrabah. So really, there’s just a lot of people across the political spectrum who either don’t know what Agrabah is, or really hate Aladdin, Jasmine, the Genie, and Jafar.

But, regardless of the actual validity of the poll, it incited a lot of fantastic internet reactions.

Everyone wants to go to Agrabah. Real men want to go to Mordor. https://t.co/1o9Z3mmYzF

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) December 18, 2015

In fairness, Agrabah’s leadership is clearly pretty sketchy — easily manipulated, reliant on magic… https://t.co/qrZHKdbOkp

— Bill Connelly (@SBN_BillC) December 18, 2015

I’ve literally had someone believe me when I said I’m from Agrabah. https://t.co/3DJJkvyu02

— Lily Bolourian (@LilyBolourian) December 18, 2015

A discussion over a poll on how many voters would support bombing a fictional country in Aladdin seems befitting of the 2016 campaign.

— Matt Viser (@mviser) December 18, 2015

Thanks, PPP for proving once again that stupidity is bipartisan.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PPP Says Scary Number of Voters Want to Bomb Aladdin’s Home, Internet Explodes appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Biden announced in a press conference in the White House’s Rose Garden today that he won’t seek the presidency. Flanked by President Obama and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, he announced that the door has closed for him to mount a successful campaign for President.

He pointed out that he won’t just be a quiet spectator however–he plans on weighing in on various national conversations as they unfold in the Democratic primary and general election.

“Unfortunately, I believe we’re out of time.” @VP Joe Biden won’t run for president https://t.co/Z8PnoAJ2Hn pic.twitter.com/rXnNv8eOYS

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) October 21, 2015

In his announcement, Biden spoke strongly about Obama’s legacy, of which he said he was proud to be a part, but also emphasized that he didn’t want anyone to back away from that legacy–clearly a shot at any Democrats who seek to distinguish themselves from Obama in a negative way.

Biden also highlighted many issues that the Democrats need to focus on moving forward. The bevy of issues he chose to highlight included a need to focus on helping the middle class, combatting the influx of money in politics, the need for affordable college education, upping the childcare tax credit, raising taxes on the very rich, accepting that we can’t be the world’s police, compromising with the Republican party, and seeking equality for different communities such as immigrants, women, minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ. He also spoke about an issue incredibly close to his heart–increasing funding for cancer and other medical research–a very understandable sentiment given the recent death of his son, Beau Biden, due to brain cancer.

Overall, the announcement focused more on Biden’s hopes and attempts to provide inspiration, rather than his choice not to join the race. He spoke of the central American belief of “possibilities,” and reaffirmed his focuses for the next 15 months he will remain in office.

This announcement comes as a huge surprise after political gossip earlier this week indicated that Biden was going to throw his hat into the ring. Top political reporters and news outlets, including Fox News’ Ed Henry who broke that story, reported that he’d be announcing his candidacy in the next couple days. Others, including freshman Congressman Brendan Boyle, echoed that sentiment. However, Biden’s decision not to run appears to be absolute.

The Democratic field will remain decidedly un-crowded, with the race appearing to boil down to frontrunner Hillary Clinton and her top challenger Bernie Sanders. While Biden may have a voice moving forward, he has spoken, and that word is final: he will not be running for President of the United States.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Just In: Joe Biden Won’t Be Joining the Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

Bernie Sanders is running arguably the most exciting and revolutionary campaign of the 2016 primary season. Nevertheless, he is still trailing Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton by a large margin. With that in mind, here are the top 10 (mostly serious) things Sanders should consider if he wants to win the Democratic nomination

1. Get more of the minority vote

In recent weeks, Bernie has been showing signs of improved polling among black voters, which is a great sign. But he is still trailing Hillary by a very wide margin, and is also having trouble with the Hispanic vote. His message of systematic change has the potential to be very attractive to minority voters, but Sanders needs to improve his recognition among these important Democratic blocs. But as long as he doesn’t try to do the Nae-Nae on television, he has a good chance of improving on this front.

2. Get better exposure on traditional media

This is a phrase you probably never thought you would hear uttered in the 2016 election cycle. If you frequently use social media, you could easily be under the impression that everyone in the country is rooting for Bernie to win the nomination, but this is not the case in polls. Bernie has to continue to get his message out, but in ways that don’t just reach young voters. That means he will have to use carrier pigeons, or whatever way old people get their information.

3. Convince Joe Biden to run

With Biden in the race, Bernie can let the other candidates fight each other in a failed attempt to prove that they have distinct visions for their presidencies. This will highlight the incredible pushes for reform that comprise Bernie’s platform.

4. Downplay the “democratic socialist” label

Even if it is accurate, it is important that Bernie downplays the “socialist” label, since the word is too loaded for an American audience. Instead he should stick to more acceptable terms like “progressive” or “radical left-wing nut.” It is also important that Bernie rebuffs the idea that he is the Democratic version of Donald Trump. He needs to continue to emphasize that his platform is composed of progressive attempts to save the middle class, not a series of rants that sound like the political satire on the “Colbert Report.”

5. Break his “no attack ad” policy

One thing Bernie is very proud of is the fact that he has never run a negative campaign, but he has hinted that this is a possibility for this race. As commendable as it is that he has tried to remain above the political pettiness, at the end of the day he has to convince a fickle, emotion-driven American population to vote for him. There’s a saying here: “you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.” Bernie would do well to keep that in mind.

6. Keep racking up the endorsements.

Endorsements send powerful signals to voters and being endorsed by labor unions, civil rights activist Cornell West, and the makers of Ben and Jerry’s are important steps for Bernie. Now if only Elizabeth Warren and Obama would throw their support behind Bernie…

7. Be even more fed up with the system

There are some people who don’t support Bernie Sanders because they just aren’t sure he really wants to change the American political system for the better. His history of dedication to the middle class, American labor, civil rights, climate change, and bipartisan action just isn’t convincing enough. I recommend he yells 10 percent louder in a 20 percent more exasperated tone at all subsequent rallies.

8. Fix his hair

We understand, Bernie was too busy fighting the partisan crap-fest that is Congress to ever have time for a comb or brush, but presidential candidates need to have tame hair. Remember, the presidential process is just a grand popularity contest, and all the cool kids have cool hair. I mean come on, there is no way that any candidate with crazy hair could ever win their party’s nomination, or lead in the polls.

9. Release his email record

Everyone is doing it, and I heard that it’s the only way the news media will cover a Democratic candidate.

10. Get Tom Brady to admit he deflated the footballs

We haven’t forgotten about that, have we people? He can’t just get away with that. Not in Bernie’s America.

At the end of the day, pundits and statisticians alike will continue to posit that Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination. But remember, they also said that there would never be fourth Pirates of the Caribbean and now they’re making a fifth, so anything can happen. The biggest must-do for Bernie’s campaign at this point is exposure. As more and more Americans hear his message, they are starting to #FeelTheBern. He’ll need the fever to keep spreading if he hopes to win the nomination.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 10 Things Bernie Sanders Needs to Do to Win the Democratic Nomination appeared first on Law Street.

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee formally announced his run for the Democratic presidential bid on Wednesday, June 3. Chafee joins a few other declared Democratic presidential candidates, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton garnering the most support thus far at 12.8 percent and 61.2 percent respectively. Given Chafee’s relative obscurity, however, he seems to be a bit of a long shot candidate.

Chafee’s moment of glory mainly comes from his work with Obama. Obama helped Chafee win the governorship in 2010 and then Chafee became one of Obama’s strongest supporters during his reelection campaign in 2012. Chafee seems to be mimicking some of Obama’s actions in the Democratic primary, especially Obama’s tactic of attacking the Iraq War vote to defeat Clinton in the 2008 race. Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and in the 2008 Democratic presidential race, he persistently attacked Clinton for her decisions regarding the Iraq war. This attack point helped Obama defeat Clinton, and Chafee appears to be capitalizing on the same thing. He has launched his campaign with a focus on his dissenting vote in the Senate regarding the Iraq War in 2002. Chafee is using this to separate himself from Clinton, which is not an awful tactic considering that it’s a weak spot for the Democratic frontrunner.

In this aspect, Chafee joins O’Malley in being the only other Democratic presidential candidate to play a little dirty instead of focusing on the issues and policy reforms. Which, considering neither Clinton nor Sanders has resorted to the same kind of tactics, could backfire for Chafee immediately.

According to Chafee’s website, his four main platform points are an aversion to foreign entanglements, building a strong middle class, improving environmental stewardship, and the protection of personal liberties. Chafee’s past is actually most interesting aspect of his presidential bid–he entered politics as a Republican and then became an independent until he joined the Democratic Party in 2013. But Chafee is not at all worried with how his party-switching history will affect his popularity in the primary. In fact, his response to this concern was:

I have not changed. My old liberal Republican stand on the issues does line up with the Democratic Party—women’s reproductive freedoms, support for working families. I have a 30-year record.

Another notable aspect of Chafee’s presidential bid is his insistence on switching the United States to the metric system. His reasoning for doing so is to become “an internationalist country.” He believes that by switching to the metric system, among other moves, the United States will be giving a symbolic message to the rest of the world that it is ready to integrate into the world system instead of taking a unilateral approach to foreign policy.

Chafee’s run is undoubtably a long shot. But the same buzz surrounded Bernie Sanders when he first announced, and he is the only Democratic candidate who has threatened Clinton’s standing, even if only marginally so. Chafee seems focused on his role as the underdog and feels America has a particularly soft spot for that kind of status. But the problem is that both O’Malley and to a lesser extend, Sanders, have been running on a similar platform. So the Democratic presidential bid is turning into a contest between the established Clinton dynasty, a progressive-socialist independent Sanders, little known O’Malley, and now Chafee, the new underdog.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lincoln Chafee: The Democratic Primary Welcomes a New Underdog appeared first on Law Street.

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters. 

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing  state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere. 

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond. 

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week. Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont and a self-identified “democratic-socialist,” will seek to represent the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party. While many view his bid for the Democratic nomination as a long shot, he presents the party’s first challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has garnered a significant amount of attention in the media and from her Republican challengers, indeed many headlines this week focused on her speech on criminal justice rather than on Sanders’ campaign announcement. However, having a serious challenger to Clinton in the Democratic primary is something that many party members support. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 72 percent of self identifying Democrats and independents think a primary challenger is good for the Democratic Party. While many may question Sanders’ ability to become a significant opponent to Clinton, he has repeatedly said he is “in it to win.”

Describing yourself as a socialist generally does not bode well in American politics, but many of Sanders’ core issues tend to resonate well with populists in the Democratic Party. Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and identifies economic inequality as one of the most important issues facing the United States. In his interview with the AP, Sanders said, “What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.”

His opposition to Wall Street and what he calls the “billionaire class” also extends to his desire for campaign finance reform. Sanders actively supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and move toward a public-funding system.

Sanders also has strong appeal among environmentalists as someone who recently voted against the Keystone XL Pipeline, and cosponsored a Senate resolution to acknowledge that climate change exists and is a result of human activity. He has also sponsored legislation that would call for a carbon tax and is a strong proponent of alternative energy. He has a 95 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which evaluates congressional members’ voting records on environmental issues.

As a self-identified socialist, Sanders stands politically to the left of Clinton and many establishment Democrats. He supports expanding medicare to develop a single-payer system for all Americans and has opposed several free trade agreements. He has vocally expressed his opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as giving the president fast-track authority to pass it without amendments from Congress. Although he supported President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which protects nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation, he has also said that guest workers may lead to greater unemployment of American low-wage workers.

On some issues, however, Sanders’ positions are in line with a large portion of Americans, particularly those within the Democratic Party. Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which Clinton initially voted for and later came to hurt her 2008 presidential bid. He is also a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage, an issue that has gained increasing public support and currently has a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court.

While many believe that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party’s nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sanders has shown that he intends to do more than force Clinton to discuss the issues that are important to left-leaning Democrats. That said, he is considerably behind in early polling numbers, campaign organization, and fundraising, which will all present important challenges as he tries to become a legitimate challenger. The 73 year old from Brooklyn says that he can appeal to a wide audience because of his role as the longest-serving Independent Senator in American history.

Sanders says, “I’ve run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independent Senator Bernie Sanders Running For President as Democrat appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama gave his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, and it’s being lauded as a great one. He laid out a long to-do list, including addressing net neutrality, his education plan, a minimum wage hike, a tax code overhaul, and a fight against ISIS, despite the fact that he enters this year having to stand against a Republican-controlled Congress. In fact, much of the speech seemed like a challenge to a Congress made up of the very people who have consistently tried to stall Obama’s polices for the last seven years. Whether or not they decide to play nice will be up to the Republicans.

The Republican response to the speech, of course, was rather negative. The main criticism seemed to be that Obama didn’t focus enough on the middle class. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who actually gave the Republican response to last year’s SOTU, commented:

You know, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that I didn’t hear more from the president as far as how we were going to help those middle-class families. I thought he painted a little rosy picture of how things are, at a time when people continue to see their wages actually shrink, take-home pay shrinking. Job opportunities are not enough.

That quote from McMorris Rodgers is pretty consistent with a lot of GOP responses to Obama’s SOTU speech last night–that he doesn’t understand the middle class and do enough to help the citizens who fall into that bracket. Most Democrats are insisting that the plans that Obama laid out–particularly those to give middle class families a tax break, as well as help ease the burden of college payments, are going to be great for these segment of the country.

As I sat here trying to work my way through all of the plans, all of the political rhetoric, all of the buzzwords that got thrown around last night, I had a realization. It’s not just that Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to agree on how to help the middle class. It might be that we can’t agree on what the “middle class” is. 

It sounds silly–we all know what the middle class is, right? It must be that chunk of the population between those in poverty, and those who live in mansions. Is it blue-collar workers, or white-collar workers, or a little bit of both? Or is it more of a heritage–are we middle class because of the values that are instilled in us? I honestly don’t know anymore.

What I do know is that pretty much everyone thinks they’re middle class. In a 2012 Gallup Poll, 42 percent of respondents said they were middle class. Another 13 percent said they were upper-middle class. Then another 31 percent said they were “working class,” which makes this entire thing even less clear, given that working class is sometimes viewed as middle class. Most importantly, there were a plurality of people in every income bracket from $30,000-$100,000 who defined themselves as “middle class.”

The concept of the middle class has long been hailed as a bedrock of American society, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But I think it does make it incredibly difficult to design policies for the “middle class” because when you’re talking about well over half the population, one size doesn’t even fit most. What I, as a 20-something living in Washington D.C., need, is significantly different than what a family in Iowa needs, which is different than someone about to retire in California needs, even if we all make about the same amount and identify as “middle class.”

To bring this back to last night’s speech, it’s that very definition problem that makes it easy for both the Democrats and the Republicans to point to their plans and say “look, it’s for the middle class.” For example, Obama’s statement last night:

That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time.

To me, that sounds like a tangible thing that would help the middle class. Given that it’s now pretty close to the norm for both men and women, even those married and/or with families, to work, ensuring that they both get fair pay seems like it would help the middle class to me. But then the Republicans see that Obama is also proposing a tax hike on the richest Americans, and will argue that that’s going to slow job growth, so paying men and women equally isn’t helpful if neither of them can find a job. It’s a messy, cyclical argument that’s more about politics than actually trying to help the middle class, no matter who we may be. And that’s a shame.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOTU All About the Middle Class, But Who Exactly is That? appeared first on Law Street.

My guess is that a lot of you out there — especially those of you in Washington — are suffering from what I call a “political hangover.” It’s a lot like a regular hangover–you wake up in the morning having indulged in a gratuitous amount of your vice (in this case politics), feel groggy and slightly ashamed, and now have to deal with the ramifications. Whether you had a good night or bad, the morning after midterms is bound to be a little rough.

So, here’s a handy-dandy guide to making it through your post-election political hangover. Fair warning, while many of these tips are bipartisan, some apply more directly to those suffering a painful-Democratic-defeat hangover right now.

• Imagine you’re somewhere else

We get to indulge in a pop-culture version of politics that is very different than what the political atmosphere actually looks like. Whether it’s the West Wing, Parks and Rec, House of Cards, or Scandal, maybe today’s the day to indulge in a little bit of fantasy.

Just an example.

• Look at dog videos. Or cats. Or babies? Really, whatever calms you down. 

There’s no better way to get over disappointment and/or exhaustion than by watching something cute to take your mind off of it for a bit. That’s definitely a scientific fact and not a theory that I use to excuse my frequent YouTube watching of puppies frolicking. Anyway, here’s my puppy video of the day for your enjoyment:

• Take a break

This is not me telling you to take a nap at your desk. Unless you work at one of those cool offices with nap pods or something. I mean more in the general sense–take a break from the political coverage. There are some recounts and run-offs, but for the most part nothing big is going to be happening for the next couple of days. Go outside. There are people there. And things to do. Stop refreshing your browser for the elections that have not been called yet.

Because as much as we all obsess over the news and politics, those real people are the reason that we do it. For each of us who sits here arguing over the minutia of education policy, there are countless kids for whom education is the only possible lifeline they might get. We parse quotes from politicians about the economy, and it’s easy to forget about the decent number of people who are unemployed or too demoralized to look for jobs. We obsess over the potential of a recount when a lot of people in our justice system don’t really get second chances.

This isn’t to say that people who follow politics don’t think about the people–I think the vast majority of the time that’s pretty far from the truth. But there is something to be said for the political sensationalism that our modern media allows. At the end of the day, politics and the media that covers it is an industry unto itself. Media outlets, pundits, observers, and sometimes even politicians make money off of their political brand. After the 24/7 media slam of  these elections, the most expensive midterm elections in the history of the U.S., and what will presumably be an exhausting 2016, I can’t imagine that a palate cleanser would be a bad thing.

• Ask, “What’s Next?” 

Many apologies for the double West Wing gif in this article, but I can’t help myself.

There’s a whole new crop of politicians coming to Washington, state capitals, and Governors’ mansions. And I think all that America wants is for them to do something. Granted, I probably won’t like what most of them do, but wow, do we all really need to do something. Partisan gridlock, government shutdowns, and petty politics are all useless.

I’m probably being overly optimistic here, but just remember this: there’s always more work to do. For those of us who were disappointed with what happened last night, we need to keep working. We can’t give up trying to make our voices heard. And for those who were pleased with the election results…show us you earned it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Deal with Your Political Hangover appeared first on Law Street.

A little while back, fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek wrote an excellent, handy-dandy guide entitled “How to Sue Your President: Obama Edition.” The inspiration for the guide was born out of the claim from Speaker of the House John Boehner that he was going to sue President Obama. The suit was intended to address what Speaker Boehner and House Republicans saw as failures to legally implement parts of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Boehner announced his plan in a letter to members of the House of Representatives that also read:

On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day. Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.

The guide that Marisa wrote was incredibly helpful. Speaker Boehner really should have checked it out, because as it turns out, the lawsuit hasn’t really gone anywhere. In fact, it’s been dropped twice by law firms who were working on the case for House Republicans. Interestingly enough, the House Republicans are blaming the fact that no one seems to be able to stay on their case on Democrats. A spokesperson for Speaker Boeher, Kevin Smith, stated:

The litigation remains on track, but we are examining the possibility of forgoing outside counsel and handling the litigation directly through the House, rather than through law firms that are susceptible to political pressure from wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients.

The idea of the House Republicans moving the suit in the actual House could be a smart one, given that currently, taxpayer money would be going to fund the payment of outside counsel. That being said, it doesn’t really look like there’s much action being taken.

In Marisa’s original “how to” piece she posed the question of whether or not this was a legitimate attempt by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans to bring a suit against the President, or whether it was all just a publicity stunt.

Right now, if the lawsuit can’t get off the ground, it seems like the latter may end up being true.

In the meantime, Speaker Boehner, and pretty much everyone else should check out “How to Sue Your President.” With the way that Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit is going, it couldn’t possibly hurt to get some guidance.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Not to Sue the President: No Progress for Speaker Boehner appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.

“We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” That must be what Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is thinking right now, after over 100 Republicans defected and offered their support to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis. The defectors are mainly moderate Republicans that have been bullied by Brownback and the Tea Party movement. This major political defection is their way of striking back. In the continuing war between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, this sends a powerful message–a centrist Democrat is closer to moderate Republican values than a Tea Partier is.

This defection comes partly as a form of political payback and partly from an actual belief that Paul Davis is the better choice for Kansas. Early in his governorship, Brownback led a charge to purge moderate Republicans from the state government. For example, Steve Morris, former president of the Kansas State Senate, was ousted by a primary challenger whose political beliefs fell further to the right. He has said that Brownback privately told him that he could have stopped the upset but chose not too, as Morris and Brownback often fought over policy. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Morris is now supporting Davis. In a recent interview, in reference to Brownback, Davis commented, “he essentially declared war with moderate Republicans during the last State Senate election. Many moderate Republicans saw that, and they are coming to support my campaign.”

Many of the other 100-odd defectors, including state legislators, mayors, and delegates to the Republican National Convention, broke from Brownback for ideological reasons. The list of reasons why is long, with many focusing on the consequences of Brownback’s extreme tax cuts. The tax cuts have caused an increase in deficit spending, massive cuts in education spending, a depletion of Kansas’s highway funds, and have offered none of the promised job creation. Other reasons for the defection include Brownback offering judgeships as political prizes and pushing extremely socially conservative legislation.

Even before this defection, Brownback faced a challenging reelection bid. Nate Silver’s  prediction on fivethirtyeight.com gave Brownback only a 60 percent chance of winning based on polling data. Though still favored, 60 percent was a relatively small margin for a state as red Kansas. Now with this defection, I have to imagine his chances have shrunken significantly.

In many ways this election is not a Republican versus a Democrat, nor is it an election where voters have to decide between traditional Republican or Democratic values. It is an election where voters have to choose between Tea Party values or very centrist values; a continuation of the war between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party.  Davis is setting himself up to win by opposing Brownback on hot issues such as taxes and spending on schools and highways, but has taken a more conservative view on issues that could rile up Brownback’s base–the religious right. For instance, Davis has said he would leave Kansas’ very strict abortion laws in place. This election is now about moderate Republicans striking back at the Tea Party, not a Democrat challenging a Republican.

Brownback would probably deny the moderate legitimacy of his challenger, saying voters do not know who Davis is, and that he is just an Obama-style Democrat. Brownback has said that voters will have to choose between a Reagan approach or an Obama approach to government. What Brownback may be failing to realize is that moderate Republicans would never abandon someone who governed like Reagan, but they may not fall in line with someone who governs like a Tea Partier.

As much as I would love to think that this will become a trend and we would see moderate Republicans defect across the country, that is probably not going to happen. Kansas had a perfect storm of conditions that led to this rebellion. One is that Kansas has a particularly inept governor that went out of his way to exile moderates and pass much-maligned laws. Another is that there was a very centrist Democratic candidate that already had a chance to win. This was important because it gave the Republican defection substance; it was not merely symbolic. It is unlikely that this would happen under any other conditions–we really shouldn’t expect moderates from either party to defect anywhere else, anytime soon. Which is unfortunate, because our country sure could use movement towards the center of the political spectrum like we are seeing in Kansas.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [mar is sea Y via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.

Jonathan Tobin, a writer for the Commentary, recently argued that ‘Liberals’ hold a contradictory stance regarding the rights of corporations, which has become evident with the Hobby Lobby and Mozilla cases. (To read more about Hobby Lobby’s attempt to overturn the contraception mandate of Obama care check out this article.)

So what are liberals saying about the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius? They point to historical precedence as the reason why Hobby Lobby’s argument fails. In the past, federal courts have ruled that corporations cannot avoid the law based on religious beliefs, for the simple reason of the bright line problem. Simply, how far can corporations go, in terms of ‘breaking’ the law, to uphold religious beliefs? NPR points out that,

The Justice Department says in its briefs that the government would be unable to function if religious beliefs could be the basis for corporations’ refusing to comply with generally applied laws — be they child labor laws, immunization laws, laws that mandate serving racially mixed groups [etc…]

This is a serious problem with the Hobby Lobby’s argument, because by similar logic and certain unreasonableness, it could entail phenomena like segregated service. (Which is by no coincidence being attempted in certain states with regards to gays.) Thus, liberals want to protect the ‘generally applied laws’, which in this case happens to be health care.

Tobin goes on to argue that by making this argument against Hobby Lobby, liberals clearly contradict themselves when they claim that Mozilla ought to fire Mr. Eich, for the simple reason that he donated $1000 to Proposition 8. (Mr. Eich has since resigned, however it is important to understand that people called for him to be fired). What might a liberal say about this? Someone who promotes intolerant policies should not be leading and representing such a powerful company like Mozilla.

Are these liberal stances in contradiction? Tobin argues yes. He claims that “a corporation ought not enforce its religious beliefs regarding abortion” and “a corporation ought enforce a tolerant belief system” are hypocritical stances. At first glance, it may appear that Tobin has a point. How can liberals contend that corporations should not enforce their religious beliefs, but yet enforce other beliefs, like the fact that Eich’s comments are unacceptable?

The problem with Tobin’s argument is that he is leaving out one critical distinction between the Mozilla and Hobby Lobby cases. Regarding the Hobby Lobby issue, liberals are contending that the company should not be granted legal privilege on the grounds of religion in order to enforce their beliefs. The force of the liberals’ argument here is agreeing with and enforcing the law, and thus, this can be seen as a form of legal pressure against Hobby Lobby. In the case of Mr. Eich at Mozilla, the liberal is simply expressing their opinion that a ‘respectable company’ would refrain from appointing CEO’s who contribute to — in their eyes — hateful and intolerant campaigns such as Proposition 8. The difference here, as compared to the Hobby Lobby case, is that the force of the liberal’s argument is an appeal to moral intuition, and this can be seen as social pressure.

The liberal stance regarding Mozilla and Hobby Lobby is not a hypocritical one as Tobin would have us believe. Once we make the distinction between legal pressure, in the case of Hobby Lobby, and social pressure in the case of Mozilla, it should be clear that the liberal’s position is quite tenable. Further more we should value the liberal’s distinct positions, as they represent the proper workings of a flourishing democracy. I am beginning to notice a frightening trend, that as our society continues to polarize, the parties may begin to try and legislate all of their view-points in order to have the ability to argue them with legal pressure. For instance, South Carolina’s attempt to expand their “Stand Your Ground” laws to fetuses, which in effect, would redefine the personhood status of fetuses. Instead of attempting to prevent something like abortion through social pressure, they will attempt to do so through legal pressure. Anybody who cares about freedom should be concerned about this trend.

[Commentary] [NPR] 

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of: [Flickr/Ken Teegarden]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What a Conservative Gets Wrong About Liberals appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate shot down debate on paycheck fairness 53-44 today. Sixty votes are necessary to overcome cloture on the matter. While Democrats and Republicans are using the issue as a political ploy for the midterm elections, there are American women who are waiting for their paychecks to become, if not equal to, as close as possible to the pay grade of their male counterparts. The actual act in question would have closed loopholes seen in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that aimed to close the gap between male and female wages in the first place. This issue has been contentious for that long, and is not a modern phenomena.

What Congress was attempting to do with this new bill is protect employees from being punished for sharing salary information with their peers, a practice some businesses employ in order to avoid workplace unrest. Such a situation gave way to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which resets the 180-day statute of limitations on gender discrimination with each paycheck given to the aggrieved employee. On top of not being allowed to stop their employees from sharing their salary information, businesses have to show that the pay disparity between two employees is due to performance, and not their gender. Critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act claim that this would open floodgates for lawyers to litigate a slew of discrimination cases. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Wednesday, “[T]his legislation would double down on job loss all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers.” Supporters may counter that the requirement for businesses to show the reasons behind pay disparity only clears up the situation and can strengthen the position of the employer.

While Congress is stuck debating paycheck fairness for women, the President took matters into his own hands yesterday with two executive orders. On the eve of news that New York City has a pay disparity of 88 cents for every dollar earned between women and men, President Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that federal contractors report salaries by gender. The other executive order would make it easy for other agencies or contractors to access this data. “Pay secrecy fosters discrimination, and we should not tolerate it, not in federal contracting or anywhere else,” the President said as he signed the orders. Currently, the sound bite being spread around by politicians is that the wage gap between women and men is 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. According to the Pew Research Center, this only accounts for full-time workers. When you account for full-time and part-time workers, the wage gap is more likely to be 84 percent of what men earn, and the gap narrows even more for young women – 93 percent.

As the rhetorical war over paycheck fairness continues, pay attention to the hand-picked figures used by both parties in a year when a lot of Congressional jobs are on the line. Despite the various attempts at closing the wage gap between the two genders, it will be a long time before we see serious progress. As the Pew Research Center points out, women will have to work more in order to cover the gap — yet this does not account for maternity leave or the specific types of labor that skew toward a male demographic, such as construction and other labor-intensive tasks. One thing is clear — the debate is not over, even if it was shot down in Congress.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Martijn Schornagel via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paycheck Fairness Act Fails in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, I have noticed with the talk of 2014 midterm elections, articles about minimum wage are starting to pop up more in my daily reading. The problem with these articles (one, two, and three) is no one completely gets the argument right. The problem is not that that the wealthy made more money, but that the rate at which they are making more money is increasing more quickly compared to other groups. Between 1979-2007, the ‘99%’ saw a 53% change in comprehensive income, while the top ‘1%’ had a 314% increase. The concern surrounding this trend has given rise to the hot political debate of a suggested federal minimum wage increase to $10.10. But, as we continue to discuss the validity of minimum wage legislation, we need to be clear on its effectiveness, purpose, and discuss more powerful alternatives like unionization and collective bargaining.

Why Conservatives Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

There is a very popular myth among conservatives that the minimum wage always hurts job growth and in fact leads to a decrease in available jobs. We need to realize that this not always the case, and in fact, significant amount of data suggests that increasing the minimum wage is a very practical thing to do because it provides needed benefits to workers with zero impact on employment levels. According to Madland and Bunker at the Center for American Progress, “at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage… find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels.” People often forget that an increase in the minimum wage does have benefits, and it seems these benefits prove to be very effective and helpful during times of high unemployment. A minimum wage increase results in ‘boosts in demand and reduction in turnover’.

Contrary to conservative doctrine, it is actually the consumer that keeps the economy going. This is for two reasons. First, when more people are buying products the economy grows faster. Second, people with less money, spend more money. Director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf notes that “increases in disposable income are likely to boost purchases more for lower-income than for higher-income households,” thus a minimum wage increase provides more money for these families and that results in more spending which boosts demand.

Turnover refers to the process of workers quitting and companies having to re-hire and re-train new employees, thus high levels of turnover create a very inefficient system. Some companies, such as Costco, have implemented ‘efficiency wages’ to avoid high turn-over among workers. Costco pays its employees $15.60 per hour, which is significantly over the minimum wage. Their philosophy is that a higher wage will yield more productivity with less turnover and retention of good workers. This model has been extremely successful. Consider their numbers in comparison to Wal-Mart, which pursues the path of cheap labor.

Why Liberals Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

What we need to understand is that liberals have two goals in mind with the minimum wage. The first is to create a level of income that constitutes a living wage. The second, and more philosophical reason, has to do with establishing a sense of equity in society. The United States is currently the third most unequal society among OECD nations. We have extremely low social and economic mobility, which means that the likelihood of someone moving from a low-income status to the middle class or from the middle class to a high-income status is extremely unlikely. I suggest that the protection and promotion of unions would be a more efficient policy for achieving both of the liberal’s goals — helping workers obtain a living wage and instilling equity in our society.

Unions and Living Wages

We find that unions, like the minimum wage, are effective in helping ensure workers are making a living wage. Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters of the Economic Policy Institute, complete a thorough analysis of data sets, and conclude that “unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20%.” However, one of the advantages of unions over the minimum wage, is that unions do more than just help provide workers with better compensation. Unionized workers are much more likely to receive benefits that many would consider fundamental to a stable economic status. Mishel and Walters also point out that

Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

These benefits are not included in a minimum wage increase, yet they are extremely important to helping people stay at the ‘living wage’ threshold. It used to be the case that a majority firms offered employer-based health insurance. However, over the last thirty years, the number of firms offering this benefit has been on the decline along with the presence of unions in the labor market. Since it was the strong unionized labor force the procured benefits like employer-provided health insurance in the first place, it shouldn’t be a surprise that as unions have decreased so have worker benefits.

Unions and Equity

 Liberals support minimum wage legislation also to establish a sense of equity in society. This goal will not be achieved through a minimum wage increase, and in fact, supporting an increase may be further perpetuating a system of inequality. In Why Nations Fail, M.I.T. economist Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard political scientist James A. Robinson provide an account of what factors contribute to the constitution of a successful and flourishing nation. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman does a nice job of summarizing the main thesis of the book, “nations thrive when they develop ‘inclusive’ political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become ‘extractive’ and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few. The important thing is that you need to have both a politically and economically inclusive system, because they depend on each other. Without one, you will lose the other, and that in turn creates a downward spiral into collapse and failure.

What does this have to do with Unions? My contention is this: the best way to ensure that the people experience political and economic inclusivity is through the presence of unions and collective bargaining in the work force.

We have already seen that unions are effective at improving the economic well-being of its members. However, members of society still need political inclusivity. Interestingly, in their conclusion, Mishel and Walters make an important observation, namely that, “unions enable due process in the workplace and facilitate a strong worker voice in the broader community and in politics.” Unlike an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in unionization can help citizens improve their political standing along with their economic position.

Citizen’s United

It is quite clear that we have become a very economic exclusive society with extreme income inequality, relatively high-poverty, and an low social mobility.

When it comes to the status of political inclusivity, things are a little more gray. It would seem that the US must be politically inclusive because it is a democratic-republic and everybody has the right to vote for elected leaders. However, the rise of big-money in politics has greatly changed the political landscape. In the current system corporations have the right to spend money on political campaigns, so companies like Bank of America and Goldman Sach’s donating over a million dollars to political campaigns through Super PACs. These extremely large donations allow significant access to the candidate, and a platform to communicate what they would like to see from their candidate while in office.

Low income and middle class citizens are losing political power, because their one vote is not as valuable as a million dollars in campaign financing, and unfortunately, it seems there is no solution to this problem except for reversing Citizen’s United, which is not a promising outlook.

If this problem cannot be fixed directly through the political sector, maybe it can be solved through unionization. Collective bargaining is a form of political power. Unions have a history of being key players in political movements such as the struggle for civil rights, the fight for Fair Employment Practices Commission, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, etc.

If conservatives and liberals really are interested into making the United States a thriving democracy, we really need to rethink our attitude towards Unions. They may be our best option for preserving and restoring economic and political inclusion which are fundamental components of a successful society.

[EPI] [NY Times] [OpenSecrets] [CBPP] [EPI – Mishel]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/401(K) 2012]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Conservatives & Liberals Are Both Wrong About Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.

Well, Election Day has come and gone, and things are looking (un)surprisingly bright for the tri-state area.

Folks, I live in Hoboken, New Jersey, and I commute into New York City almost every day. That means I was pretty invested in both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the New York mayoral race. So now that the results are in, let’s chat about them, mmkay?

Republican Chris Christie won reelection in New Jersey last night, with Democrat Bill de Blasio winning the mayoral seat in New York. No one was even a little bit surprised—to the point where Politico reported Christie’s victory hours before polls even closed.

Now, we all know I’m no fan of the Republicans. Christie’s conservatism irks me, and I’ve called him a douche many, many times over the course of his first term. Especially when it comes to his education policy, which actually drives me insane.

But seriously. Dude’s always railing against teachers, cutting public school budgets, and pushing charter schools. These are policies that kill fair labor laws, devalue an incredibly important job (educating the next generation, NO BIG DEAL), and exacerbate socio-economic inequality. Don’t believe me? Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other district in the country—let them tell you how much they suck.

So, obviously, I’m not Christie’s biggest fan. But, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP’s 2016 Presidential bid, and I’m weirdly happy about that. Why? A surprising side effect of my Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder is a much more positive vision of Gov. Christie.

While I was totally freaking out about the apocalyptic flooding outside my apartment, Christie was consistently calm and attentive. He made regular TV appearances, updating residents on the situation while we waited for the storm to make landfall. After disaster struck, he came and visited Hoboken—as well as many other affected New Jersey towns—to assess the damage and address his constituents.

Many have claimed that Christie used the storm as a publicity stunt, pumping up his approval ratings without giving enough material aid to affected residents. That may be true. But, he also proved himself to be a calm and effective leader who could successfully navigate an emergency situation. He made a lot of people, myself included, feel safe under terrible circumstances.

And that’s a really big deal. Since Sandy, he’s arguably toned down his conservatism—choosing not to fight against the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, for example—establishing himself as a centrist politician who’s more concerned about being realistic and representative than pushing his own agenda.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of Republicans—but that’s one I can potentially get behind.

Across the Hudson, New York has taken a very different turn. Bill de Blasio will be the first Democratic City mayor in over 20 years—and he’s not just any Democrat. He ran on a seriously liberal platform, and trotted out his biracial family as proof that he could follow through on his promises.

When his afro-bearing son, Dante, told cameras that his dad opposed stop-and-frisk, New Yorkers believed him. Why? Because de Blasio’s strong ties to people of color—his entire immediate family—must mean that he’s personally invested in ending a policy that targets and harasses them. This isn’t hypothetical for him—it’s sitting in his living room.

De Blasio’s platform also included a plan to raise taxes in an effort to decrease the city’s wealth gap, which has grown to epic proportions. YAY!  Will he be able to deliver on that noble goal? Only time will tell, but the awesome factor of the First Lady is indicative of good things.

Bill’s wife, Chirlane McCray, is a black feminist, a writer, a marketing maven, and used to identify as a lesbian. Since marrying Bill, she’s gotten queerer, explaining (why does this still need to be explained?!) that sexuality is fluid. She’s also a former member of the Combahee River Collective—one of the most important black, lesbian, feminist organizations of the 1970s and 80s.

Seriously, people. I read about the Combahee River Collective when I was a Gender & Sexuality Studies major at NYU. Hardly anyone outside the department had ever heard of it, mainly because feminist history is terribly whitewashed. Gloria Steinem gets the glory over Audre Lorde every time.

So, the fact that a former member is set to move into Gracie Mansion (unless the family opts to stay in Brooklyn, which would be super rad) is a huge deal. Like, absolutely huge.

With McCray by his side, Bill de Blasio’s mayoral victory is more than just a change of pace for New York City. It could be revolutionary.

So Tuesday’s election went pretty well, I’d say. Gov. Christie’s a pretty acceptable conservative, and Mayor de Blasio’s a super exciting liberal.

The tri-state area is going places, people.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Bill de Blasio via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Decision 2013: I’ll See Your Christie, and Raise You de Blasio appeared first on Law Street.

Sporting her pink sneakers, Sen. Wendy Davis spoke for over ten hours straight in her successful filibuster against a Texas abortion bill that would be one of the most restricting of its kind.

The bill would severely cut access to abortion clinics across Texas and make an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy illegal. Before the filibuster was carried out in its entirety, Davis’ speech was disqualified for going off topic three times. As the Dems. stalled, the crowd of opponents rose and chanted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” in a successful attempt at delaying the process. The efforts of the protesters and Davis’ 11 hour filibuster successfully stopped the bill for now.

Gov. Rick Perry has called for a second special session in order to pass the abortion bill. The session began July 1 at 2:00pm and could last a month. Though the bill is expected to pass the Republican-dominated legislature, Davis is confident that it is not over yet, now that the whole nation is paying attention.

[Full Article: New York Times]

Featured image courtesy of [The Texas Tribune via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Senator Wendy Davis Leads Successful Filibuster appeared first on Law Street.