The Bureau of Prisons released a memo last week declaring that feminine hygiene products would be provided to inmates for free. While this will only affect female inmates who are currently incarcerated in federal prisons, it’s a notable step forward for inmates who struggle to access basic hygienic products.

While some products were previously provided to women for free, many had to be purchased through the commissary, with the inmates’ own money. For the many prisoners who are from low income families, or those who are not able to work while behind bars, it can be incredibly difficult to obtain the money needed to purchase such items. And accessing those items through a commissary is actually difficult to begin with–for many prisons there is a long wait when it comes to placing orders. According to some reports, some women are forced to provide sexual favors to guards in order to obtain the feminine hygiene products that they need.

This announcement from the Bureau of Prisons comes right after a bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that would require feminine hygiene products to be provided for free. The bill, the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, would also require other humane reforms in how female inmates are treated. Some of those reforms include easier access to visitations, a ban on shackling pregnant women, and access to OBGYNs.

In an interview with Bustle, Booker said:

Most folks don’t understand that so many women are being incarcerated are coming from environments that are not stable, that they are again survivors of violence, they might come in with an addiction. So now you’re struggling to recover from an addiction, you’re going through withdrawal, you have no resources, you have no support system and you’re struggling and all of that, and now you can’t even buy soap, toothpaste, sanitary products.

But while the new move by the Bureau of Prisons is a step in the right direction, the other issues included in the bill need to be addressed as well.

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 Bureau of Prisons to Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products appeared first on Law Street.

A product design company has launched a new action figure in the shape of Senator Elizabeth Warren. The company FCTRY–which also makes pacifiers with a mustache and a glitter gel called unicorn snot–has made many political action figures already. It started when Barack Obama was running for president and the company made an Obama figure that became so popular that FCTRY raised over $10,000 for his campaign by donating a portion of the sales. This time, some of the proceeds will go to Emily’s List, a non-profit devoted to helping elect female candidates.

The latest addition became a reality thanks to a Kickstarter campaign, and Elizabeth Warren herself said, “I really like that–that’s cool,” when asked about the new figure by The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. “The moment Mitch McConnell spoke the words, ‘Nevertheless, she persisted,’ we knew Warren had to be our next figure,” said Erica Chon, FCTRY’s content strategist.

Our @SenWarren Action Figure Kickstarter will launch on June 6th! It was quite a journey from sketch to prototype, but she’s ready! pic.twitter.com/Djd1dwpW8o

— FCTRY (@fctry) June 1, 2017

Chon was referring to when Republicans voted to silence Warren on the Senate floor after she had read a letter by Coretta Scott King about Senator Jeff Sessions’ record on civil rights. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked something called Rule 19, which basically states that Senators should not speak ill of each other. That is also when McConnell said the now-famous words, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Nevertheless, she persisted. Company makes Elizabeth Warren action figure, and she loves it. pic.twitter.com/YKYTkkqjfS

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 6, 2017

After that day in February, the words became a slogan for Warren fans and feminists. And now everyone can buy their own Warren figure! The miniature Warren will have a “righteous fist” to fight for the middle class and an open hand “to smack down Trump’s policies.” She will also wear a “power blazer, to topple the patriarchy,” among other things.

The phrase came up again on Wednesday when the Senate Intelligence Committee asked intelligence officials whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into potential collusion between his campaign and Russia during the presidential election. Senator Kamala Harris asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he would give complete independence to Robert Mueller, the independent counsel overseeing the investigation.

When Rosenstein avoided answering, Harris asked for a simple “yes” or “no” answer. But the chairman of the committee, Senator Richard Burr, interrupted Harris and told her she wasn’t being courteous enough. Most people think this was pretty hypocritical, as male senators questioned people just as forcefully without being reprimanded. Now a lot of people, including Senator Warren, started using the slogan again, demanding that male politicians do better.

Silencing @SenKamalaHarris for not being “courteous” enough is just unbelievable. Keep fighting, Kamala! #NeverthelessShePersistedhttps://t.co/58y15qWVzU

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 7, 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 She Persisted: Elizabeth Warren Becomes an Action Figure appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration’s connections to Russia have worried both Democrats and Republicans, with lawmakers from both parties calling for special prosecutors, committee investigations, and intelligence probes into the matter. Late Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, had met with Russia’s U.S. ambassador twice before–in July and September–despite denying any contacts with Russian officials in his confirmation hearing in January.

A bi-partisan chorus has been building over the past few weeks for the Justice Department to investigate the administration’s ties to Russian officials. Lawmakers’ concerns were amplified when former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month after misleading the vice president about his contacts with the same ambassador Sessions met with, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions, the man who would lead a Justice Department investigation into Trump’s Russian contacts, might be embroiled in the investigation himself. Now lawmakers are calling on him to recuse himself or, like Flynn, step down completely.

A handful of prominent Republicans on Wednesday and early Thursday said a special prosecutor should investigate the Trump Administration’s contacts with Russia, instead of Sessions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Sessions should recuse himself:

AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) March 2, 2017

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) initially echoed that sentiment, but hours later said he is “not calling on [Sessions] to recuse himself.” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it “would be best for [Sessions] and for the country” to recuse himself. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during a CNN town hall Wednesday evening, also seemed to embrace the idea of a special prosecutor in lieu of Sessions. Graham said that “if there’s something there that the FBI thinks is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor.” 

Of course, a senator is allowed to meet with Russian officials, and at the time Sessions met with Kislyak, he was a senator from Alabama. But Sessions denied having any contact with the Russians during the campaign (“I have no idea what this allegation is about,” he said in a statement), and during his hearing he swore under oath that he did not have contact with Russian officials. At worst, Sessions committed perjury, in which case he would certainly be forced to step down. And at best, he misled Congress, which many Democrats see as reason enough to resign.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sessions “is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said Sessions should “resign immediately, and there is no longer any question that we need a truly independent commission to investigate this issue.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a vocal critic of Sessions when he was nominated as attorney general, said Sessions “should have never been confirmed in the first place,” and that he should resign. “We need it now,” she added.

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 Should Jeff Sessions Recuse Himself from the Russia-Trump Investigation? appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is apparently fed up with the outspoken and plucky Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Tuesday evening, McConnell invoked an obscure, and rarely-used rule which effectively silenced Warren. Here’s what happened:

In a Senate debate about Wednesday’s confirmation vote for Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions, Warren began to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1986. Warren quoted King, whose letter addressed Sessions’ record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney, saying that Sessions used “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.” King was writing to oppose Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship in Alabama, a position he was ultimately denied.

A US Senator isn’t allowed to read a letter by a civil rights icon but our President is allowed to attack one. #LetLizSpeak. #StopSessions pic.twitter.com/Up4H4NWDII

— Tracy Wehringer (@twehringer) February 8, 2017

McConnell, the Senate majority leader, responded to Warren’s letter reading by citing Rule 19, saying: “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair.” Voting along party lines, the Senate agreed with McConnell 49 to 43. So, what exactly is Rule 19, and where does it come from?

It’s an old one: in February 1902, a quarrel broke out between two Democratic Senators from Alabama, Benjamin Tillman and John McLaurin. Tillman was angry that McLaurin seemed to be swayed by the Republicans on certain issues, namely on the question of annexing the Philippines. Tillman accused McLaurin of treachery and corruption, and what happened next is what led directly to the creation of Rule 19.

“The 54-year-old Tillman jumped from his place and physically attacked McLaurin, who was 41, with a series of stinging blows,” according to Senate history. “Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members.” A few months later, the Senate enacted Rule 19, with the goal of tidying up decorum on the Senate floor.

Now, had Warren continued, it’s unlikely she and McConnell would have had a physical altercation. But Rule 19’s language is not just about deterring physical conflict. The rule states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Basically, don’t undermine a fellow senator by questioning his or her ability to govern.

The last time the Senate even came close to using Rule 19 to silence a senator was in 1979, when a heated debate between Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) and Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) became heated. Heinz reportedly showed Weicker Rule 19, the two shook hands, and the situation was resolved. Last year, McConnell might have had cause to invoke Rule 19 against a fellow Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz accused McConnell of lying “over and over and over again.”

According to McConnell, Warren has repeatedly brushed with breaking Rule 19. Reading a letter written by King, it seems, was the final straw. “Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech,” McConnell told reporters after the incident. “She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation,” He added: “Nevertheless, she persisted.” Later Tuesday evening, Warren read the letter in full on Facebook. Two million people watched–and listened.

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 Mitch McConnell vs. Elizabeth Warren: What is Rule 19? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Wednesday–it’s the middle of the week! 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:

Republicans Silence Elizabeth Warren for Reading Letter by Coretta Scott King

Last night, Senator Elizabeth Warren protested Senator Jeff Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General today. When she started reading a letter written by Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, Coretta Scott King, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abruptly interrupted her and said that it “impugned the motives and conduct” of Sessions. McConnell invoked rule XIX, which prohibits senators from implying that another senator could be unworthy of his post. The incident ended with 49 Republican senators voting to prohibit Warren from talking about Sessions until his nomination process is done.

.@SenWarren cut off as @SenateMajLdr says she “impugned the motives” of Jeff Sessions by quoting Coretta Scott King https://t.co/UHcNv2eia8 pic.twitter.com/tntBWZ4oxc

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 8, 2017

King wrote the letter opposing Sessions when he was nominated for a federal judgeship in the 1980s. Part of it reads, “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.” But McConnell’s silencing of Warren seems to have inspired many–the hashtag #ShePersisted began trending to praise Warren.

Attention Women! Please Share! #RESIST #PERSIST #ShePersisted pic.twitter.com/OzO5o2D6LB

— Liz Thurmond (@countmystars) February 8, 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: February 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, I hope you’re enjoying your Thursday! If you’re like me, the weeks feel extra long when waiting for the holidays to come. But the last story today features some new takes on classic holiday songs that may help you bide that time! 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:

EPA Critic to Head the EPA

This morning, Trump’s transition team announced that the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency will be a firm critic of the agency, climate change denier Scott Pruitt. Pruitt is Oklahoma’s Attorney General, and has close ties to the fossil fuel industry. He has fought President Obama’s climate efforts and has sued the agency he will now be leading, first over the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector and then over regulations of methane emissions from the oil and gas sectors.

The man who Trump just appointed to lead the @EPA sued the agency on behalf of the coal industry to kill enviro + public health regulations. https://t.co/ekXsqhmyXM

— Erin Schrode (@ErinSchrode) December 7, 2016

Many believe that this appointment will be disastrous for the environment. “Our country needs–and deserves–an EPA administrator who is guided by science, who respects America’s environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

“We are in danger. The whole country is in danger.” A lawyer who knows Scott Pruitt reacts. https://t.co/EOdsPbniPI

— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) December 8, 2016

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: December 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Tim Kaine on Meet The Press

What does he do? Democratic Senator from Virginia.

What has he done? Mayor of Richmond, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.

The argument for him: It’s difficult to think of an argument against Tim Kaine. Perhaps he’s not a hot young thing, but he’s got the perfect pedigree for the job, and his cautious style and strong resume help him fit the ideal Hillary mold–not a firebrand, but a policy wonk willing to show a little heart. He also has the benefit of already being vetted by Obama.

Likelihood? Since the beginning of “veepstakes” speculation, Tim Kaine has been a front-and-center choice. While he is most likely still the front runner, if Hillary is looking to add a “secret ingredient” to her campaign, she might look elsewhere.

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 Get to Know Clinton’s Likely VPs appeared first on Law Street.

In what could be a foreshadowing of the Democratic ticket come November, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts appeared onstage with Hillary Clinton at a rally Monday morning–the first official campaign event of the 2016 race–where she extolled Clinton’s virtues, slammed Donald Trump, and inspired liberal passions over the potential for a historic, all-female Democratic ticket. “I’m ready. Are you ready for this?” Warren asked the cheering crowd of 2,600 at the Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Standing behind a lectern featuring Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan, Warren ticked off Clinton’s achievements as a “fighter”–for children, for women, for families, for health care, for human rights, and “for those who need her most.” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stood to the side, smiling and clapping. The two seemed a natural fit, like they’d been at each other’s side for years. The chemistry leaves Democrats, especially the party’s liberal wing, wondering: Might Clinton choose Warren as her running-mate this fall?

According to a recent Bloomberg Politics poll–of the vice presidential candidates floated around so far by the Clinton camp–the Democratic electorate would like to see Warren hold that mantle by a wide margin. 35 percent of those surveyed chose Warren as the preferred vice president to Clinton, with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) in second with 17 percent, and Housing Secretary Julian Castro in third with 12 percent. Of course, the VP seat is not filled based on the desires of voters, and there is no guarantee Warren would accept a VP invitation if one is extended her way. Steps are being taken, however, as she is currently being vetted by Clinton campaign lawyers, and is expected to be subject to a closed-door interview with Clinton in the near future. And according to aides who spoke to The New York Times Monday on condition of anonymity, Clinton will select her VP with the fall Senate elections on her mind.

Irrespective of her future as the Democratic Party’s potential second in command, Warren spent nearly 20 minutes on Monday playing two roles that would certainly come in handy for a Clinton running-mate: a champion of Clinton and a trasher of Trump (“You want to see goofy? Look at him in that hat,” she said). Warren spent the first half of her speech running through personal anecdotes about her siblings and parents, highlighting her middle-class upbringing and working-class values. And of course, she painted Clinton, a “granddaughter of a factory worker whose going to make it all the way to the White House,” with the same brush, while tackling the Trump issue with vigor and venom.

“She knows what it takes to beat a thin-skinned bully who is driven by greed and hate,” Warren said of Clinton, eliciting boos from the crowd at the mere mention of “Donald Trump.” “She knows you beat a bully not by tucking tail and running, but by standing your ground and fighting back.” Calling Clinton a survivor of 25 years of “right wing attacks,” the Massachusetts senator–who will be up for re-election in the fall–offered full support: “most of all she has a good heart, and that’s what America needs.”

Just before Clinton took the stage to reciprocate Warren’s supportive words, the crowd erupted in chants of “Hillary! Hillary!” Warren joined them for a brief moment. Soon, perhaps weeks from now, we will know if Warren will continue rallying the troops, administering jolts of support at rally events, or play an even larger role in November.

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 At Campaign Rally, Warren and Clinton Prove a Strong Duo, Blast Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Since Hillary Clinton mathematically claimed the Democratic presidential nomination this past week, all eyes have been on Democratic party leaders to see how quickly and strongly they will back her. Luckily for Clinton, she has received a few new endorsements from important political figures this week, including President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren. These endorsements were likely made with the hopes of Democratic unification surrounding Hillary come fall so that she will have the resources and support she needs to defeat the Republican nominee.

First, Obama announced his endorsement yesterday with a video, saying that he knows how hard the job can be which is exactly why he knows that Hillary will be so good at it.

A few hours later, Elizabeth Warren jumped on board, saying,

I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.

This endorsement particularly packs a punch, as Warren and Clinton have not always seen eye to eye on political matters and Warren was the only Democratic female Senator who hadn’t endorsed Clinton up to this point. It also has stirred up a lot of buzz about a potential Clinton-Warren ticket this fall, which could help to reinforce Clinton’s progressive image and even lead to the implementation of some of Sanders’ more liberal plans.

As expected, these endorsements have come with their fair share of Twitter support and backlash. Elizabeth Warren has been slammed for what a lot of Sanders supporters see as a weakening of her liberal views.

If y’all want to give me a great birthday present, go to @elizabethforma and @SenWarren and UNFOLLOW.

— I Know Nothing (@jvgraz) June 10, 2016

Warren is Trying to Unite the Democratic Party, But All She’s Doing is Betraying Progressives https://t.co/g1V99UiD9G

— kateloving (@kateloving) June 10, 2016

One of the best responses to Obama’s endorsement of Clinton came from Donald Trump himself and spurred quite the Twitter war.

Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2016

But, no one puts Hillary in a corner! Her social media team quickly responded with perhaps the funniest tweet in the history of Twitter and the most savage thing we’ve seen all week.

Delete your account. https://t.co/Oa92sncRQY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 9, 2016

With all of the endorsements and Bernie Sanders’ promise to work with Democratic party to support her, Clinton is sitting pretty as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now all that’s between her and the presidency is Sanders’ inevitable drop and some long hard months of campaigning against the Republican nominee. With the backing of Democratic leaders and the looming presence of a potential Trump presidency, Clinton seems as desirable as ever.

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 Endorsements For Hillary Begin Rolling In appeared first on Law Street.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: both issues have lingered in the media and on the minds of voters for the duration of this presidential campaign. These two controversial topics intersected recently, when the State Department announced that Clinton’s TPP related emails will not be ready for public release until late November, well after votes are in and a new president is elected.

TPP is a 12-nation trade deal involving partners from the Americas and Asia–Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia along with America and seven others–that is currently stalled in Congress, with friction coming from both sides of the aisle. The Obama Administration has been pushing hard for the deal. It’s also proved a contentious issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–two men who often decry trade deals’ impact on the middle class American worker–have paraded the TPP as detrimental to those who have been hurt in the past by trade. Clinton’s history with TPP is a roller-coaster ride of support and opposition.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton voiced support for the controversial trade bill on 45 separate occasions, at one point in 2012 saying: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.”  But Clinton reversed course in October 2015, saying in an interview with PBS that she “did not work on TPP” and that she was “not in favor of what [she had] learned about it.” Analysts and opponents saw this as a forced move to the left in reaction to the rejection of the TPP by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the support that their positions drew from progressives.

At an event at The Brookings Institution–a think tank in Washington D.C.–last week, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and a Senior Brookings Fellow Robert Kagan discussed the tenets of the plan, its strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy, and how it has been used as a policy point by candidates.

“It’s unfortunate that in this campaign Clinton has had to come out against TPP because presumably she’s going to have to reverse herself on that and explain why,” Kagan said in front of a room of foreign business leaders.

Pritzker reiterated the trade deal’s strategic importance regarding American influence on the world economic stage. “It’s about whose going to set the rules of the road for trade in the 21^st century,” she said. “That means setting labor standards, setting environmental standards, ensuring access for e-commerce. It means protecting IP and trade secrets, or strengthening national security.”

Initially, the State Department said Clinton’s TPP related emails were going to be released–per a FOIA request from the International Business Times–in the spring. And although some of the emails have been released,  they do not provide a comprehensive picture regarding Clinton’s role in shaping the agreement, which is what IBT was originally after. Simple State Department requests require an average of 111 days to process. If completed by the last day of November, as the State Department claims, the duration of this request would span 489 days.

“In my opinion it is more incompetence than maliciousness, but either way, it is a gross error by FOIA processors to not get these documents out before the election,” said Nate Jones of the National Security Archive, a group that assists journalists in filing FOIA requests.

And on Monday, after news of the delay broke, the Donald Trump campaign predictably weighed in: “Hillary is 100 percent controlled by corporate interests, including foreign corporate interests, and it is essential these emails see the light of day.”

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 State Department to Withhold Some Clinton Emails Until After Election appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Will the #BernieTrumpDebate ever happen?

Looks like the #BernieTrumpDebate is one big pipe dream. Donald Trump told Jimmy Kimmel last night that he’d love to debate Bernie Sanders for charity. Now that would be great TV! While many sources say the debate will never happen, seems like Sanders is up for the challenge:

Has Casey Anthony been outed by her attorney-slash-lover?

Remember Casey Anthony? The Florida woman accused of killing her young daughter is back in the news. New documents report that she paid her defense attorney, Jose Baez, with sex. What’s more? Baez supposedly ratted out his client, saying she actually did kill her daughter. Anthony was found not guilty in 2011. We’ll see what this new information does for her so-called innocence!

Years later, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman are making headlines. smh #Florida pic.twitter.com/ppWYMwI5Lt

— Gavin (@renovargas_) May 26, 2016

Elizabeth Warren Hits Trump Right on the Money

Warren seems to have made it her personal mission to make sure Trump never reaches the White House. At the Center for Popular Democracy, Elizabeth Warren and her “goofy” self took to the mic to slam the presumptive GOP nom, calling him a “small, insecure money grubber.” Ouch! The mudslinging has never been more real!

Taiwanese president criticized for being single…Seriously?

These days women are criticized for pretty much everything, especially women in powerful positions. This week a Chinese military official criticized Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen for being unmarried, claiming she was “extreme” and “emotional” because she didn’t have a husband. Should Tsai’s relationship status influence her politics? NOPE. Should China mind its business? YAS. Keep stuntin’ Ing-wen!

Taiwan president accused of being “extremist” and “erratic” because she’s single: https://t.co/NPhhu96dJj pic.twitter.com/Z8YV8WSSpm

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) May 25, 2016

Marijuana Legalization is on the Come-Up in W. Virginia

Delegates in a West Virginia special budget session introduced a bill legalizing marijuana in the state. The bill would decriminalize the drug and permit use, growth, and possession of certain amounts by those over age 21. West Virginia faces a financial crisis and the hope is that legalization would alleviate the money problems.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump’s Twitter War Escalates

Today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC discussed some very important news: Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren’s Twitter war. Besides the fact that it’s getting very much out of hand, the hosts raised some real concerns that it reflects the state of American politics in the age of social media. Likening the debacle to cyberbullying, the hosts wondered what kind of awful example these “leaders of the free world” were setting for young people. They also wondered when the senator and GOP frontrunner were going to use their Twitter savvy to impact real change on actual issues instead of personal attacks. While many see Trump’s weekend jabs at Warren and the Clintons as weaknesses, many others see it as turbo fuel for getting him to the White House. Check out the full early morning rant below:

Uber & Lyft Vow to Leave Austin, Texas after Voters affirm regulations

Ride hailing companies Uber and Lyft lost their grip Saturday after Austin voters decided it would be best for the companies to continue to be regulated by the city’s ordinances instead of looser laws. This requires Uber and Lyft drivers to undergo more intense background checks, among other protocols. The two companies have seen worldwide success and popularity, but it did them no good in Austin, a presumably  lucrative market. Although they spent over $8 million on ads, voters didn’t go their way. To be very honest, after that crazy  driver in Kalamazoo, Michigan that killed six people, injured others, and claimed to be possessed by the app, many feel as though no amount of regulation will be quite enough.

Ivy League economist ethnically profiled and interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight

You may be wondering: How does one get interrogated for doing math on an American Airlines flight? Let alone a differential equation. Because when someone is doing that kind of math in their casual spare time it must be important and you shouldn’t question them. You should just stand back in awe, because most Americans actually suck at math.

But this puzzling scenario happened to Guido Menzio, a decorated Ivy league economist. Unfortunately for Menzio, a passenger next to him thought he was writing in Arabic and was, presumably, a terrorist. *Face palm* Instances of this kind are on the rise, and are often unfounded, as seen with the “Clock Kid” 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed, who was arrested for bringing a hand-made clock to school.

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore March for “Gun Sense”

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore are two Hollywood stars who were greatly affected by the news of the Sandy Hook shooting, a tragic event that left many young children dead and dozens parents mourning. This past weekend, the actresses joined hundreds of parents in support of Moms Demand Action, a group advocating gun control. Gun control has been a contentious topic of dispute for many years. But while many attribute pro-gun attitudes to conservatives and anti-gun to liberals, Moore has said she believes it should not be a partisan issue but rather a “safety” issue.

‘They stole my big brother’: violence turns child into champion for ‘gun sense’ https://t.co/Ji36LIfiMJ pic.twitter.com/V8DFjZwqu0

— Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) May 9, 2016

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman can be extradited to U.S. to face charges

Just in case there wasn’t enough El Chapo drama in your life, a Mexican judge ruled that El Chapo can be extradited to the U.S. to face charges for drug trafficking in accordance to a U.S.-Mexican extradition treaty. Although the legal side has been justified, the ministry has 20 days to authorize the extradition.

In the meantime, El Chapo has been moved to a less secure prison in Juarez, one of his cartel’s strongholds. An anonymous official admitted that there is concern that, while Guzman is being surveilled day and night in a secure wing of the prison, the Juarez prison is more lax than the one Guzman previously resided in. This move raised eyebrows for the DEA, and officials questioned the logic of moving him to a less secure prison where he potentially had the tools and people to help him escape. Prison break again, anyone?

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This week in politics there have been plenty of fun attacks on presidential candidates. But who has been doing the best job of making these sly rhetorical slams?

Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, here are the top three political burns of the week.

#1… Elizabeth Warren

To be fair, this one occurred a little over a week ago, and Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for President. But, this one was too good to leave out.

Last Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren roasted Ted Cruz on Facebook and Twitter in response to an email he had sent out to constituents about the hardships he has endured while running for President. In his laundry list of “sacrifices” he has made, Cruz included being constantly attacked in the media, a lack of sleep, and little to no personal time.

Yesterday @TedCruz sent a campaign email whining about the “significant sacrifice” he’s made to run for President. pic.twitter.com/yKtLpWG0Ou

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

Warren had absolutely no sympathy for Cruz and proceeded to go on an eleven tweet rant calling him out on his BS–here are some of the gems.

Hey @TedCruz: Maybe you should spend less time complaining about your “significant sacrifices” – & more time doing something about theirs.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

You chose to run for President, @TedCruz. You chose to make your “sacrifices.” Working people don’t have a choice.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

And @TedCruz? Working people work more, get paid less, can’t save, get mistreated, struggle with illness & family – but they don’t whine.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

All there is to say about that is “you go girl!”

#2… Donald Trump

Trump’s burns this week deserve praise, but not for being witty or clever. Instead, these burns should get a gold star for being so basic and childish that they are inherently hilarious.

In typical Trump fashion, he chose to insult his fellow Republican candidate John Kasich. He didn’t insult Kasich on his lack of merit or political ineptitude, instead he went something a little more personal: his eating habits. Trump went straight for the jugular claiming that:

He has the news conference all the time when he’s eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion. I’m always telling my young son, Barron, always with my kids, all of them, I’d say ‘children, small little bites.’ This guy takes a pancake and he’s shoving it in his mouth, it’s disgusting.

For reference, this is the “disgusting fashion” Trump was referring to:

9 photos of John Kasich eating on the campaign trail https://t.co/db2k4N5RgR pic.twitter.com/SL0lh5Duma

— POLITICO (@politico) April 26, 2016

Good one Trump! You really got him good!

#3… Ted Cruz

Coming in last place, the final “insult of the week” was Ted Cruz’s attempt to attack Donald Trump for his views on bathroom use in states like North Carolina. After Trump announced a few days ago that people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they please, Cruz jumped all over him arguing women and children need protection.

While Cruz had solid intentions of being evil and hurtful to Trump in his attack, something tells me no one is all that bothered by Cruz calling Trump “stark-raving nuts.” In fact, that insult doesn’t even sound all that human. Ah well, better luck being mean next time, pal!

Overall, it’s been an entertaining week in political banter, and I’m certainly looking forward to the insults that are yet to come in the next couple of months. They should be interesting to watch!

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 Top 3 Political Burns of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The world was rocked by the death of 79-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, February 13, 2016. Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the current bench, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan on June 17, 1986 following the resignation of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. His three decades on the Court have proven to be legendary and exceptionally influential in the interpretation of law and the Constitution. Even his passing has, fittingly, sparked a constitutionally-based showdown of governmental powers and the appointment of a new justice. Read on to learn more about Justice Scalia’s influential and legendary service to the Court and the politically fused debate regarding the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice.

Who Was Antonin Scalia?

Justice Antonin Scalia was a conservative originalist powerhouse within the Supreme Court who unapologetically defended the Founding Fathers’ intent and precise wording of the Constitution to his last day. His interpretation was fully vested in originalism, an ideology that deems the Constitution a dead document–one inflexible and unchanging to the environment and developments of the world in which it was created.

Scalia was a master in crafting polarizing opinions which were widely criticized by many and revered by others. His stances on women, abortion, and minorities made him an unfavorable justice among Democrats particularly. His protection for privacy highlighted his commitment to the Constitution. Yet, his ability to artfully and logically decipher complex analyses in a nuanced manner was an undeniable talent; Chief Justice John Roberts dubbed Scalia a “leader of the conservative intellectual renaissance.“

Noteworthy Cases: A Legacy Through Opinion and Text

Here is just a sampling of the many noteworthy cases that define Scalia’s time on the court:

The Second Amendment

Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion for District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 in a step-by-step breakdown of the operative clause in the Second Amendment, concluding the right to bear arms extended to the people of the United States beyond the context of “militia” as cited in the Second Amendment. Scalia’s opinion further developed the limitations of the right to bear arms, drawing from a historical context and English implementation. He stated,

[T]here seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms…we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Privacy

Scalia led a crusade for the protection of privacy. Justice Scalia’s 2001 opinion in Kyllo v. United States set a clear limitation on police intrusion. In a 5-4 ruling, police were barred from utilizing thermal-imaging devices to explore the insides of a private home otherwise unknown without physical intrusion as a protection of the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable searches without the requisite warrant. The use of thermal-imaging was deemed to be an “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.”

The Fourth Amendment

Scalia’s conclusion in Florida v. Jardines further cemented the Fourth Amendment definition of a search by finding that the use of a drug-sniffing dog on private property was considered a search and therefore, required a warrant. In 2013, when the Maryland v. King decision granted police the ability to collect and analyze DNA samples from individuals arrested for but not yet convicted of crimes, Justice Scalia delivered a fierce dissent. He stated:

[N]o matter the degree of invasiveness, suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crime-solving. A search incident to arrest either serves other ends (such as officer safety, in a search for weapons) or is not suspicionless (as when there is reason to believe the arrestee possesses evidence relevant to the crime of arrest).

He was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan in his dissent. Most recently, Justice Scalia supported the decision in Rodriguez v. United States, which extended Fourth Amendment protections for motorists detained for an extended period of time to allow police to conduct a dog-sniff without reasonable suspicion. Such police conduct was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Gay Marriage and Rights

Justice Scalia was widely criticized for his conservative  stance on a variety of large-scale issues facing a more progressive America. His dissents regarding LGBTQ rights were particularly controversial. These range from his dissent in United States v. Windsor to his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas in which he stated that the Court had “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” when the majority invalidated Texas’ same-sex sodomy ban. In his vehement opposition, Justice Scalia compared homosexuals to drug dealers, prostitutes, and animal abusers, garnering him significant criticism.

Abortion

Justice Scalia continuously criticized the bench on abortion jurisprudence, and stated, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, “I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.”

In 1992, his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reinforced his stance:

That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the ‘concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected–because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribe.

After three decades of service, one thing remains starkly clear–Justice Scalia remained dedicated to and bound by the words of the Constitution and what he viewed as the intent of its writers. His stances, often argumentative and unforgiving, remained unwaivering.

Has Justice Scalia’s Passing Caused a Constitution Crisis?

Before Justice Scalia’s passing could properly be mourned, the American public was reminded of the extremely high stakes in the 2016 election as Republicans took to the streets in an effort to prevent President Obama from nominating a justice to fill the current vacancy on the bench. Just thirty minutes after the news of Scalia’s death broke, Ted Cruz took to his Twitter and posted to say: “Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”

A variety of reasons have been stated for the opposition to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement. Senator Rand Paul weighed in, finding that a conflict of interest would exist if President Obama made a nomination as he has too many of his own policies before the Court. Conn Caroll, communications director for Utah Republican Mike Lee stated, “What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?” Donald Trump called for the Senate to “delay, delay, delay” and Ted Cruz stated, “the Senate needs to stand strong.” Ohio Governor John Kasich reminded the world, “I just wish we hadn’t run so fast into politics.”

However, Democrats fired back by pointing out that it is written in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Hillary Clinton commented: “It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates.” Further reminding the public that President Obama remains in office until January 20, 2017 and has a duty to continue filling his obligations as Commander in Chief. Senator Elizabeth Warren demolished naysayers with the following statement that went viral:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States. Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.” Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

President Obama has already pledged that he will fulfill his duty to nominate an individual to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy and the list of potential nominees includes many extremely qualified individuals. The list includes, but is not limited to: Sri Srinivasan of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Patricia Ann Millett of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Paul Watford of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Merrick Garland, the Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Jane Kelly of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Jacqueline Nguyen of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

While it is unclear how the battle between President Obama and the Senate will play out, it is important to note the Senate has never taken more than 125 days to confirm a Presidential Supreme Court nominee. At the time of Justice Scalia’s passing, President Obama still had 342 days left in his term. Since 1900, eight individuals were nominated during election year, six were confirmed. With that said, there is still plenty of time for President Obama to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and for the Senate to confirm–we will just have to wait and see how this constitutional showdown plays out.

Resources

Primary

Cornell Legal Information Institute: District of Columbia v. Heller

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Texas v. Johnson

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Kyllo v. United States

Oyez: Florida v. Jardines

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Rodriguez v. United States

Cornell Legal Information Institute: United States v. Windsor

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Lawrence v. Texas

JUSTIA: Hodgson v. Minnesota

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

Secondary

Slate: Antonin Scalia Will Be Remembered As One of the Greats

Yahoo! News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead in Texas

Grassfire: Remembering a Titan: The Legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Bush v. Gore

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Antonin Scalia: 5 of His Most Famous Decisions

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

 Twitter: Ted Cruz

Charters of Freedom: The United States Constitution

Think Progress: It’s a “Conflict of Interest” for Obama to Nominate a Supreme Court Justice

Slate: Could Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death Lead to a Constitutional Crisis?

NDTV: Trump Calls for ‘Delay, Delay, Delay’ on Scalia Successor”

The New York Times: Hillary Clinton Calls Mitch McConnell’s Stance on Supreme Court Nomination ‘Disappointing’

Slate: Obama’s Supreme Court Shortlist

The New York Times: Supreme Court Nominees Considered in Election Year are Usually Confirmed

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Antonin Scalia’s Death Mean for the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

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 Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 40 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

What is a student loan?

A student loan is pretty self-explanatory. It is a type of loan specifically meant to pay for university tuition and all other costs associated with going to college. This can include books, computers, and housing. Student loans differ greatly from other types of loans. For example, federal student loans do not have to be paid back until graduation. People obtain student loans by filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a form that gives students access to all sorts of financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Work Study.

Who provides these student loans?

While some students obtain these loans from private banks, many of them obtain loans from the federal government. Federal loans are all backed and funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), which means that the interest rate is often lower than those provided by a private bank.

What are some problems with the student loan system?

The big problem is that so many students need them. Twelve million students each year, 60 percent of all college students, pay some portion of their tuition with student loans. This is partly because college is more expensive than it used to be. Over the last 24 years, the average cost of in-state public college education rose by $5,470. And that’s just in-state public school. Tuition at some private institutions is staggering.

This contrast illustrates it best: the overall consumer price index has risen 115 percent since 1985. How high has the college education inflation rate risen? Nearly 500 percent. It’s no wonder that more Americans than ever have student loan debt. Here’s President Barack Obama decrying skyrocketing tuition:

Interest rates used to be a problem. In previous years, the interest rate on student loans would be set permanently by Congress. However, these rates were set up so that, unless Congress reauthorized them, they would double. There was a fight to keep these rates low in 2012 and 2013. That’s why this weird clip from Late Night With Jimmy Fallon with Obama exists:

Congress quickly realized that going through this battle every year was not good for anyone. That’s why they passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This law tied student loans to the 10-year Treasury note and locked in individual rates for life. This means that, while your own rate will never rise, the rates of future students will raise independent of action from Congress.

The bigger problem is that student loans have saddled 37 million graduates with serious debt. It takes years, sometimes decades, to pay off these loans. Worse, these debts have been steadily rising over the past few decades.

Why does it take so long to pay back student loans?

Simply put, graduates just aren’t very good at paying these loans back. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of borrowers are late on their payments. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 35 percent of American student loan borrowers were delinquent on payments in the third quarter of 2012. This local news broadcast called the situation an “economic crisis.”

Graduating students are also struggling to pay back these loans because they are entering an awful job market. For example, 6.7 percent of students who graduated in 2008 were still unemployed in 2012. How are these young people expected to start paying down this debt when they have little or no income?

Many graduates also do not know how to correctly pay these loans back. This advice column from The New York Times shows just how complicated paying back student loans can be.

If so many graduates cannot quickly pay off their debts, they may be left out of certain opportunities, like buying a house. Student loan debt is a drag on the economy.

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

Not much. Some politicians are attempting to reform the system to help graduates (we’ll get to that later), but there are only a few ways the government can currently help.

Loan consolidation is one such option. This is when the government lets you combine all of your loans into one. Graduates who are having trouble paying off multiple loans consider this option so that they can only have one manageable monthly payment. There are also some instances in which debt holders can defer their payments on principle and interest. Find out if your student loan payments can be deferred here.

Private companies exist that offer to help lower monthly payments, but these companies have recently come under fire from federal and state regulators for using predatory practices and charging graduates hefty upfront fees for services that the DOE offers for free. Illinois has sued some of these companies and more states are likely to follow.

In the past, those looking for forgiveness of their debt were out luck. Even today, graduates who want an immediate forgiveness of their debts will have trouble doing so. This table shows just how hard it is to get student loan debt forgiven. Even bankruptcy does not always result in a forgiveness of student debt. However, action taken by President Obama made forgiveness a little easier. Read on to the next section to find out how.

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

Obama has used his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the Pay As You Earn program. Pay As You Earn is a federal program that allows borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income and forgives remaining debt after 20 years. This program was previously only available to new students. Obama expanded the program to a majority of loan holders, who can begin to take advantage of it in 2015.

Obama also supports the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill, introduced this May by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would allow those with outstanding debt to refinance their loans based on newer and lower interest rates.

What does Congress think about these reforms?

As noted in the last section, Democrats are on board with Warren’s plan. Every single Democratic Senator voted for the bill when it was brought to the Senate floor. This is most likely because it is a targeted demographic of the Democratic Party’s base — young adults — and that it is paid for by a tax that that has been a part of their platform for years.

Republicans in Congress are not a fan of Warren’s bill, mainly because it would be funded by the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama before the 2012 election, is a plan to tax millionaires so that they are not paying a lower share of their wealth in taxes compared to middle-class Americans. Even Senate Republicans, often seen as more moderate than House Republicans, rejected the bill, calling it a “political stunt.” Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a possible 2016 candidate, has introduced a bill that looks nearly identical to the Pay As You Earn program, but applies the same logic to every single student loan. It caps payments as a percentage of income and allows for debt forgiveness. However, while Pay As You Earn forgives all debt after 20 years, Rubio’s bill would only forgive that debt if it were less than $57,500. The debt would be forgiven in 30 years if it were any higher than that figure. Still, there is a lot of common ground between conservatives and Democrats. Common sense would dictate that this bill has a real chance of being passed.

Yet, as those who follow Congress know all too well, common sense rarely impacts Congressional results. The main obstacle for Rubio’s reform bill is that not all conservatives are the same. There are significant divisions in the Republican party on this issue. Many conservatives do not even believe that the federal government should be in the business of paying for young people to go to college. When asked about his vote against Warren’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that it is not Congress’ job to forgive “obligations that have been voluntarily incurred.” He also said “not everybody needs to go to Yale,” presumably arguing that students who cannot afford college should look for cheaper options instead of depending on the government. There are certainly cheaper options than Yale, such as for-profit college. McConnell believes that students should consider these less-expensive options before depending on the government.

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

There has not been much polling done on the issue of student loan reform; however, one 2013 Public Policy Polling poll shows that all Americans are unsurprisingly unified on one issue: 83 percent of all Americans want Congress to either keep rates on student loans the way they are or lower them. This poll was taken back when rates could have potentially doubled, so it does not reflect feelings toward current reform packages, but it does show that the American people are in favor of Congress acting to keep interest rates low.

Americans are much more divided when it comes to opinions on the worthiness of their own loans. A poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling shows that, by a two-to-one margin, most Americans believe that their own student loan was worth the cost. However, most would not recommend taking out student loans to finance an education and some claimed they would not have taken a loan out if they were aware of how much it would cost them in the long run.

Congress would be wise to spend time on this issue, regardless of which reform plan they support. According to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll, 57 percent of Millennials believe that student debt is a major problem. That concern is consistent across party lines. This statistic will likely keep the student loan issue on the Congressional agenda for quite some time.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: S 1241 The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

College Board: Average Net Price Over Time for Full-Time Students at Public Four-Year Institutions

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren Slams Mitch McConnell: He Wants ‘Students to Dream a Little Smaller’

U.S. News & World Report: Congress Approves Student Loan Deal

Huffington Post: How Millennials and Students Won a Massive Victory on Loan Rates

Huffington Post: Why the Student Loan Deal is Bad News for Students

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

The New York Times: A Beginner’s Guide to Repaying Student Loans

U.S. News & World Report: Obama Sidesteps Congress to Expand Student Loan Repayment Program

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Loans Burden a Generation appeared first on Law Street.