With only a few days until the official start of the Republican National Convention, it seems all anyone can talk about is what is going to happen in Cleveland. While we all spent the past week practically bursting with anticipation as we waited for Donald Trump to announce his vice presidential running mate, now that the news is out the build up to the convention has seemed to plateau. But, good news for all you thrill-seeking political followers out there, because drama is back! Not five minutes from the site of the convention in Cleveland, a new billboard has popped up, and it’s a good one.

A giant billboard of Trump and Ted Cruz kissing just went up 5 minutes from the RNC https://t.co/OD96csFsCNpic.twitter.com/YcLjGt1EXP

— JamesMichael Nichols (@jamesmichael) July 14, 2016

That’s right folks, this gigantic billboard right outside the RNC features an artistic representation of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz kissing.

The billboard–which was funded and put up by Planting Peace, a non-profit focused on spreading peace through humanitarian aid–reads, “Love Trumps Hate. End Homophobia.” Aaron Jackson, the President of Planting Peace, claims that this billboard is a direct response to the recently released GOP platform on LGBT issues.

Many have noted this week that the platform up for ratification at the convention is perhaps the most homophobic platform that the Republican party has ever seen. While the platform has some expected positions, like defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it also includes much harsher and intolerant provisions, such as subtle support for conversion therapy. Republican leaders, like president of the Log Cabin Republicans Gregory Angelo, are disappointed with these archaic stances on homosexuality:

Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’–it’s all in there. This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either. Heck, it’s not even Donald Trump’s!

Planting Peace’s response to these hateful stances is an attempt to remind members of the LGBT community that they matter and are loved. The group insightfully points out in a statement:

What Donald, Ted and the Republican platform either fail to realize, or realize and just don’t seem to care about, is that their words and actions toward our LGBT family–especially LGBT children–have meaning and impact. LGBT children hear these messages telling them they are nothing but second class citizens and are left feeling somehow broken or “less than.”

The group hopes this billboard will challenge conservatives at the convention and, really, people everywhere to think about the effects that their hate can have on people in the LGBT community. Thus far, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, with people posting online about how art like this makes America a great country.

Hateful speech and homophobic party platforms are not something that our country should support ever, especially not in 2016. It’s time for love to trump hate. Here’s to hoping Ted Cruz and Donald Trump making out will forever burn that reality into the minds of closed-minded people everywhere.

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 Billboard of Trump and Cruz Kissing Displayed Next to RNC 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. The shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas, Texas during a protest has left many concerned and downright furious about the future of gun violence in America. See what the nation’s top leaders had to say:

The Presidential Candidates React to #Dallas

Last night Dallas law enforcement officers were shot during a protest. The protests were in response to Alton Sterling and Philando Castile’s recent deaths. The assassinations of these five police officers has left many with a sour taste in their mouth and presidential candidates Trump, Clinton, and Sanders have each offered their words of condolence and solidarity.

Hillary Clinton:

I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families & all who serve with them. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 8, 2016

Donald Trump:

Prayers and condolences to all of the families who are so thoroughly devastated by the horrors we are all watching take place in our country

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 8, 2016

Bernie Sanders:

The attack on police officers in Dallas last night is horrifying and despicable. We must as a nation stand against violence of all kinds.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 8, 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: July 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate passed a defense bill yesterday that will require women to sign up for Selective Service, and potentially be drafted in the future. The bill will place the existing requirements for young men on women as well, and the new rules will apply to any woman who turns 18 beginning in 2018.

Senator John McCain, who serves as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee stated:

The fact is every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services.

The head of each military branch has also stated support for the inclusion of women in the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed 85-13–some of the votes against it came from Republicans who oppose including women in the draft. Right now this provision is only in the Senate version of the bill–the House chose not to include it–so that will have to get ironed out before this even goes to President Obama for consideration. But it seems like a common-sense next step after the military has made moves to fully integrate women into combat. The debate over whether or not to include women in the draft really heated up this winter; check out our coverage back when the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony about the idea from top military officials.

But, the debate continues. Senator Ted Cruz, for example, spoke out against including women in the draft, saying:

It is a radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American people. The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat, to my mind, makes little or no sense. It is at a minimum a radical proposition. I could not vote for a bill that did so, particularly that did so without public debate.

It’s important to remember that the draft hasn’t been used by the United States since the Vietnam War. But depending on the how the House responds, women may start having to sign up with Selective Service soon.

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 Senate Passes Defense Bill That Includes Women in the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

In a five-minute long YouTube video called “No Regrets,” Ted Cruz seems to be declaring that he will be back sooner than expected. The video is a goodbye from Cruz’s campaign staff and features smiling (and crying) people, Mr Cruz himself, and campaign manager Jeff Roe. And a very filmic, melodramatic soundtrack.

Jeff Roe talks about having no regrets, even if you lose, and calls his experience a “nearly regret-free campaign.” He says that Cruz didn’t lose…only the campaign for presidency did. Ted Cruz officially dropped out of the race on May 3, but will now spend his days preparing for the 2018 Texas Senate election, which he filed to run in on May 11.

Cruz praises his campaign team and with tears in his eyes calls it the best in the world, saying, “…At the end of the day, you will look in the mirror and be proud of having been a part of this team.”

The video ends very ominously (or perhaps hopefully for some), with the message “To be continued.”

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 Ted Cruz Says Goodbye to his Campaign in Nostalgic 5-minute Video appeared first on Law Street.

Everybody’s got their ‘guy.’ He’s the first person to take your side when the going gets tough, and your intermediary with all the people you just don’t have time for. For Donald Trump, Ben Carson is that guy, and somehow, he’s the guy Trump trusts with his secrets. The trouble is, Carson might not be exercising the caution a campaign surrogate usually needs to.

Ben Carson was riding in a car with his wife Candy on his way to an interview, when the reporter who was along for the ride told him about a poll stacking up the favorability rankings of potential vice presidential picks. The reporter told Carson the names on the list, in order of favorability. After Ben Carson, who was seen as the most favorable vice presidential pick, the list included John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie.

After stating that he was not interested in being a part of Donald Trump’s administration, Carson did what no nominee’s spokesperson should do: he told the press about the short list. When asked about those five names, Carson said “Those are all people on our list.”

The media will endlessly speculate about potential vice presidential nominees, but until the announcement is made, campaigns are usually tight-lipped about who their candidate is actually considering. Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential choices are under tight wraps, with pundits’ speculations spanning from Elizabeth Warren to John Kasich. Closely guarding the decision-making process keeps the campaign’s final selection exciting, and insures against a bombshell found during the vetting process.

Of course, Carson tried to walk back his statement, calling the Washington Post to explain. “When it comes to who could be the vice president and you name a list of people, I’m going to say yes to everybody, everybody could potentially be considered, doesn’t mean they are on the shortlist.” So when Ben Carson says “Those are all people on our list” that doesn’t mean they are actually on the list.”

The candidates mentioned in the poll do present a VP Vexing Problem–the candidates are either unknown to the public, or they are highly unfavorable, with ratings like Palin’s and Cruz’s around 50 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s camp has a different problem–their choices aren’t too strongly unfavorable, but most of them are unknown to the general public. Likely choices such as Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown, and Julian Castro are unknown by 30 to 40 percent of voters. The good news for Clinton is that no one–not Huma, not Bill, not anyone–is dishing out her tightly-held list of candidates.

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 Ben Carson May Or May Not Have Leaked Trump’s VP List 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:

People are Pissed at Facebook Over Supposed Suppression of Conservative News

You know that trending news section on Facebook? It’s on the top right side of your feed and highlights the breaking news each day. Well former Facebook workers are now claiming that they were told to “artifically manipulate” what shows up in the trending news feature, with a favoritism given to more liberal news. They also claim that they were told to blacklist conservative sites and sources. But Facebook is hardcore denying that anything of the sort ever happened, and ironically, Facebook’s “trending news controversy” is trending on Facebook right now.

Facebook Says It’s Taking News Bias Allegations “Very Seriously” https://t.co/wnad5QbNi3 pic.twitter.com/cdggzpeQuP

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 10, 2016

Samantha Bee Says “Bye, Bye” to Ted Cruz

Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” had a lot of fun with Ted Cruz’s presidential run. But now that Cruz has officially dropped out, the show needed to bid goodbye to its favorite punching bag. And in true Samantha Bee fashion, she said that goodbye with quite a fantastic and hilarious sendoff.

Carry on, Bee. We can’t wait to see what you do with the rest of this crazy election cycle.

West Point Women in Trouble

16 female, black cadets at West Point under scrutiny for photo with clenched fists in the air. https://t.co/mOcL32p5bL

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 9, 2016

Sixteen African-American women graduating from West Point are in hot water over a photo that features them raising their fists. The school is investigating the photo, and comparisons are being made to the girls’ actions and the Black Lives Matter movement. While that doesn’t seem like a big deal, West Point expressly forbids expressing political opinions while representing the school. But the women claim that their gestures were just celebratory. So who’s right? We’ll have to see if the school ends up disciplining the students but people on both sides of the debate are pretty mad.

North Carolina v. The DOJ: All Hell Breaks Loose

North Carolina’s bathroom bill has royally pissed off the DOJ, and now both sides are suing each other. It all started when the DOJ gave NC Governor Pat McCrory until yesterday to begin to remedy the new anti-LGBT policies, which the DOJ believes to be discriminatory. McCrory asked for more time, and when he was refused, sued the DOJ. Now the DOJ has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state. Check out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s epically badass speech on the subject:

Jon Stewart Calls Donald Trump a “Man-Baby”

Jon Stewart may be retired from the “Daily Show” but that doesn’t mean he’s done going with his scathing social commentary. On David Axelrod’s CNN podcast Stewart said:

He’s a man baby. He has the physical countenance of a man and a baby’s temperament and hands. … (Vanity Fair editor) Graydon Carter did a joke about Donald Trump’s hands 25 years ago, he’s still not f—ing over it.

So…here’s what I’m guessing Trump’s reaction will be:

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 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the big moment that people anticipated (and feared) finally happened: Donald Trump became the apparent GOP nominee for President of the United States. While this development brings no surprise to anyone who had been following the polls for the last few weeks, it still was a huge blow to the GOP establishment, who have seemed absolutely lost and completely divided on how to approach the hijacking of their party by a narcissistic megalomaniac.

While talks of a contested convention and a potential Paul Ryan bid provided a glimmer of hope to the establishment wing of the party, any hopes seemed dashed after Trump’s win in Indiana last night. The elimination of Ted Cruz from the GOP race made it clear that the Trump train could not be stopped–and many in the party had to make a decision about whether or not to get on for the ride.

The reactions to Trump’s impending nomination from party members were varied: while some in the GOP demonstrated that they would back the party’s nominee, no matter who it was, others declared that they would choose Hillary over Trump. Then there were those who just seemed confused about what to do now…as well as those who won’t be voting for either candidate.

The “anyone is better than Hillary” camp (aka #NeverClinton)

GOP chairman Reince Priebus never seemed super-enthusiastic about the potential for a Trump nomination, but he declared last night in a Tweet that the party needed to unite in order to prevent a Clinton win:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton#NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

Some former presidential candidates, many who were once rivals of Trump, changed their tone as well, including Bobby Jindal, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that Republicans who didn’t support the candidate would only be helping Hillary.

Other prominent Republicans provided a (less than) ringing endorsement for Trump, including former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:

There’s a lot about Donald Trump that I don’t like, but I’ll vote for Trump over Hillary any day.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 4, 2016

While there were few enthusiastic responses from the establishment GOP after Trump locked the nomination, it looks like many members will still be casting their vote for him come November, as long as it keeps Clinton out of the White House.

The “we can deal with a few years of Clinton if it means no Trump” camp (aka #NeverTrump)

The #NeverTrump movement did not die with the elimination of Cruz from the race. Many prominent party members expressed the sentiment that, when it came to Clinton vs. Trump, Hillary would be the lesser of the two evils. Others did not clarify whether they would be voting for Clinton or abstaining completely after last night’s results, but indicated that their #NeverTrump stance wasn’t changing now that there were no other options in the party.

As a conservative, i would always rather lose to a democrat, than support a racist and sexist with my party’s nametag. #NeverTrump

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 4, 2016

Ben Howe, contributing editor at RedState.com, tweeted his endorsement for Hillary yesterday and demonstrated his solidarity with the #NeverTrump movement.

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), tweeted that last night’s results didn’t change his #NeverTrump stance.

Another tweet that picked up steam showed the burning of a voter registration card by Lachlan Markey, a writer for The Free Beacon, who also expressed that he was “Never Trump. Still.”

pic.twitter.com/L0hQvfBSvS

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 4, 2016

The “I need some time to figure things out” camp (aka #denial)

Many party members had yet to speak out on their choice, likely confused on how to proceed. A poll conducted  by the Morning Consult said that a quarter of Ted Cruz supporters were still unsure on whether or not to support Trump over Clinton. Cruz himself has yet to speak out on whether or not he will be backing Trump, nor has Kasich, who backed out today.

Basically, this camp of the GOP establishment refuses to endorse Hillary, but also hasn’t yet expressed any sort of desire to vote for Trump. Time will tell how (or if) these party members vote.

The GOP must spend the next few months grappling with the fact that Trump will be the representative for the party in the general election. Meanwhile, Trump must figure out how to woo the establishment wing of the GOP away from a Hillary vote while maintaining the “anti-establishment” message that has brought him so much support. One thing’s for certain: these next few months will certainly defy traditional two-party politics and make for an unpredictable presidential race.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump is the Apparent Republican Nominee, and the GOP Establishment Is Confused appeared first on Law Street.

It all ended (or began) in Indiana. Voting ended at 6 PM and before the night was over, Ted Cruz was out of the race and Donald Trump had all but secured the Republican nomination.

Here’s a tweet from Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

After Tuesday, we now know who the eventual nominees will almost certainly be: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Sorry Bernie fans, but it’s just not in the cards for him. He needs to win more than 65 percent of the remaining vote and he’s actually in worse shape today than he was before the Hoosiers took to the polls, despite winning their state).

Ted Cruz ran an impressive campaign, he was well organized, and had a better understanding of the electorate relative to most of his competitors. But Cruz was already looking like a longshot before he suspended his campaign on Tuesday night. Despite announcing Carly Fiorina as his choice for Vice President as last ditch effort, Cruz has been mathematically eliminated since the New York primary. Meaning that his only chances of securing the nomination rested on the possibility of a contested convention in which the frontrunner, Trump, did not win a majority of the Republican delegates before the party’s convention. Given that, especially in the last couple weeks, Trump was already on a pretty clear path to the necessary 1,237 delegates, the Cruz campaign had little hope. And although it may not have made a difference, the Republican Party remained notably reluctant to get behind Cruz. Just look at what former Speaker of the House John Boehner just said about him.

And now, for all intents and purposes, the general election campaign begins. Although Sanders and Clinton will continue to challenge each other, barring an extraordinary and unprecedented change of heart among the superdelegates, Clinton has it wrapped up. And now that Cruz is out, Trump has a clear path to the nomination (although Kasich is still running?).

So the remaining question is whether or not the parties will unite to support their presumptive nominees. We now have to wait and see how Republicans react to Donald Trump securing their nomination. To be fair, this is still a question for the Democrats too–Sanders has received more support than anyone thought possible and some question whether those supporters will easily shift to support Clinton–but for Republicans, it’s a much bigger issue. Given that the party split apart in the primary season as some of its leaders embarked on a crusade to stop Trump, that question is particularly important.

As the general election starts to begin, it’s anyone’s guess as to what happens next. The conventional wisdom suggests that Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite. She’s winning in head-to-head polls, which are now just starting to become somewhat useful. Republicans are deeply fractured among those who oppose and support Trump. And the only candidate with a lower net favorability rating (the percent people who view a candidate positively minus those who view him or her negatively) than Hillary Clinton is, in fact, Donald Trump. The biggest question is who turns out to vote on election day. Are Democrats able to mobilize their supporters for a somewhat lackluster candidate, and are Republicans willing to rally around Trump?

While Clinton looks like she has a formidable lead at this point, the conventional wisdom has been wrong several times so far. After all, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for president.

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 Cruz is Out and Trump is in, What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been enamored with “outsiders” this election year: whether it’s Trump’s meteoric rise among the GOP voters desperate for a “non-politician,” or the Bernie Sanders voterbase raving about the necessity of a politician who isn’t connected with the D.C. elites. Every candidate has been adjusting their message to avoid seeming too familiar with the current state of politics. Trump says it’s time to stop listening to the experts. Bernie wants to tear down the establishment. Cruz is running on the idea that he won’t work with Washington, but that he has worked against it.

Basically, experienced and accomplished politicians are trying their best not to seem experienced or accomplished, because those qualities scare and confuse the average American voter. For candidates like Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Hillary Clinton, this poses a huge problem. How can you tell people you’re ‘not a politician’ when you’ve been in office since the seventies? How do you resist looking like an ‘insider’ when you’ve literally lived inside the White House before?

In order to save his campaign after a brutal Tuesday, in which Cruz placed last in four out of five contests, Cruz is bringing in his own outsider. Ted Cruz, the man who is currently not winning the Republican nomination, announced Wednesday that if he secures the Republican nomination (a huge if), he’d select Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential candidate.

Fiorina’s only real experience in the political sphere was a failed Senatorial campaign against Barbara Boxer. You may remember her from her stand-out performance in the Republican debate where she invented a fictional video of an aborted fetus’s organs being harvested and told the nation about it in gory detail. Fiorina is often heralded as a successful businesswoman–after all, she was the female CEO of a Fortune 500 company, certainly no small accomplishment. Her business acumen has been questioned, however, and by questioned I mean constantly assailed, with reports arguing she was disastrous and terrible. Fiorina laid off over 30,000 employees, and was forcibly ousted from her position. In short, Carly Fiorina is all fire and no function–the antithesis of a pragmatic, predictable insider who knows her way around Washington.

The veepstakes shouldn’t begin until nominations are made, or at the very earliest when a nomination is a foregone conclusion. In that sense, this kind of move is way too early, as we shouldn’t be seeing these sorts of announcements until late May, even June. But the reason this feels like a last-ditch effort is because this kind of is a last ditch effort. If Cruz wanted to adjust the image of his campaign to be more outsider-friendly, he should have done it before he was lagging so far behind that nothing he does will have much effect.

So why is this happening? Could it be that the American public trusts unproved talent simply because that candidate hasn’t had a chance to fail yet? Do we shrug at experience because we’re impulsive gamblers who would rather let someone new take the wheel just because it’s more interesting? There’s no clear answer, and it’s hard to understand the why behind the impulsive and nonsensical behavior of the primary voters. The only safe bet is that Cruz’s pick of Fiorina is bizarre, telling, and destined to flop.

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 Cruz Finds His Outsider: Too Early and Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

The right-wing’s dynamic duo has arrived: after much speculation, Ted Cruz confirmed Wednesday at a rally in Indianapolis that former candidate Carly Fiorina would be his running mate. If this announcement seems premature, that’s because candidates don’t normally choose their number twos until after they have actually ensured their position as the nominee. However, as the outlook for Cruz’s nomination looks increasingly grim day by day, Fiorina may provide him with a much-needed (but probably too late) bump in the polls. The former HP executive endorsed Cruz after dropping out of the race in February, saying that he was the only candidate with the potential to beat Trump.

After this Tuesday’s round of primaries, where The Donald won victories in all five of the Republican contests, it’s looking more and more difficult to slow down the Trump train. In Wednesday’s rally, Cruz reiterated his confidence that no one would reach the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination, creating a contested convention.

The announcement also comes after Trump received criticism for accusing Hillary Clinton of using the “woman card” to secure votes. While Cruz’s speech didn’t address these comments directly, he hit hard on Fiorina’s accomplishments as a professional and said that she “shattered the glass ceiling.” Having Fiorina on the ticket stands in contrast to Trump’s comments, and could provide a compelling reason for female GOP voters to side with Cruz.

If I am nominated, I will run on a ticket with @carlyfiorina as my Vice President. Join us: https://t.co/sGy8idmZDEhttps://t.co/4RZxR2zlMz

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 27, 2016

Another narrative that Cruz and Fiorina emphasized at the rally was the idea of Trump as a “Washington insider,” comparing him to Clinton and insisting that he was a “liberal” and lover of big government. Regarding the potential Trump-Clinton contest, Fiorina stated: “They’re not going to challenge the system; they are the system.”

For the Republican Party, Trump is looking more and more like the super-villain that can’t be beat, despite the fact that everyone is teaming up to bring him down. Earlier this week, Kasich and Cruz announced their plan to work together to weaken Trump’s lead and create a contested convention, but it seems like it might be too little, too late. Bringing down the relentless Trump machine may be too far out of reach at this point, but there’s certainly not a lack of trying.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Cruz-Fiorina: The Trump Takedown Team Is Here, But Is It Too Late? 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.

Donald Trump is winning, winning, winning. He’s winning so much, he’s probably getting bored of winning. He’s enjoying a 286-delegate lead over Cruz, and with the April 26 Republican primaries poised to be a sweep for Mr. Trump, his rocket-fueled journey to the magic number of 1,237 delegates has struck fear in the hearts of his rivals. How in the world is this happening?

When you consider that each of Trump’s opponents has a weakness with the GOP base, you start to see how the rabid fanaticism of “Trumpeters” could outnumber the “Cruz-ers” and the “Kasich-ettes.” Cruz is too zealous for many non-evangelical voters, as evidenced by his paltry third place finish in New York’s Republican primary. The opposite is true for Kasich, as his more moderate brand of conservatism appeals to Ohioans, and pretty much nobody else.

Kasich is so far behind in the delegate count, even a miracle couldn’t earn him the necessary majority of delegates. And if Cruz can’t consistently and thoroughly beat Trump, it will be impossible for him to get his majority. That is a recipe for a Trump nomination, which is why Cruz and Kasich’s camps met in what I assume is a secret underground GOP lair to develop a game plan. Much like when Loki coordinated with that robot alien race in “The Avengers,” they figured their powers combined might be what it will take for primary domination.

Here’s how the game plan will work: Kasich will essentially skip the Indiana Primary, conceding all efforts to Ted Cruz. Considering that polls have Kasich’s support at around 22 points, and Cruz and Trump are close at 35 and 41 points respectively, if Kasich’s voters jump ship to Cruz, he could topple Trump. Indiana’s 57 delegates are “winner-takes-all,” so a Trump victory could sound very final. In return for this, Cruz will pass on Oregon and New Mexico, allowing Kasich to be a monolithic Trump-opposer. This interactive graph allows you to change the margins of future primary results in the GOP race, showing how a loss in any one state could prevent Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates.

There are a few drawbacks to this plan–firstly, that it might not work. Kasich’s name is still on the Indiana ballot, and he has yet to formally address his supporters and instruct them to vote for Cruz. So far, the agreement just states that he won’t campaign in Indiana. There’s also no guarantee that Kasich’s voters will want to vote for Cruz, even if they don’t support Trump.

The move also plays right into Donald Trump’s narrative of persecution. “The establishment is out to get me” sounds a lot more convincing when the establishment is actually, actively plotting to take you down in a kamikaze blaze. Nothing will stir his fan base more than actual proof that the system is indeed rigged.

The most terrifying part of this plan is that it’s a strategy designed to cause chaos. Their best hope is to create a contested convention, and it’s likely that Trump would still have the most votes among the three candidates. If Cruz or Kasich wrests the nomination from Trump’s tiny hands, all hell could break loose, including temper tantrums and riots. Say what you will about the candidates’ positions, but this has been the best season of America’s Next Top Candidate yet.

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 Mutually-Assured Obstruction: Cruz, Kasich Aim for Contested Convention appeared first on Law Street.

Bad Lip Reading features one of the simplest yet most entertaining concepts on the internet. A Youtube channel run by an anonymous creator, it takes videos of celebrities, politicians, and movie trailers and dubs in ridiculous things for the speakers to say. Bad Lip Reading has long been spoofing this year’s crazy cast of presidential candidates, but its rendition of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s last debate in New York is one of the best yet. Check it out below:

One of the highlights is when Bad Lip Reading graduates from just dubbing in silly things for Sanders and Clinton to say, and moves on to spoofing Sanders’ hand motions as well, by having him play a game of charades called “Time to Act.” Prompts included “you ask the waiter for the check” “you see a bee” “prostate exam” “timid Napoleon” and “your hand is a baby bird, your fingers are the beak.”

In the spot, which features more Sanders than Clinton (perhaps because of his more characteristic charisma and hand gestures) the Vermont Senator also takes a break from the debate to sing a quick song, “Why is it creepy to juggle in bed? When God gave us hands, and God gave us balls, and God gave us beds?”

Bad Lip Reading has certainly been having plenty of fun this election cycle, like with this interpretation of Republican hopeful Ted Cruz’s words:

Or this nonsensical version of the first Republican debate back in the summer of 2015:

As the primary contests yield nominees who will inevitably face off many times  before the general election, Bad Lip Reading will probably have even more fantastic fodder. I, for one, can’t wait.

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 Bad Lip Reading Takes on Latest Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about the qualities the United States needs in its next president. Should he or she be a forceful figure who will lead our country in defeating ISIS? Does it matter if the president is fashionable? A financially savvy leader who can pull us out of debt? How old should the president be? With all these different factors to consider, it’s no wonder Americans are confused about who to vote for.

Have no fear, because one undeniable quality stands alone as the most important: how well does a candidate understand the informal rules and faux pas of New York City? And this week, we found out. In a trip to New York to sway voters before the state’s primary, the candidates were tested on city smarts: whether that be their tunnel talent, as they traveled under the city to get from place to place; their pizza wisdom, as they sat down for a big ol’ slice of pie; or their general understanding of how to be human in a city, in the case of Ted Cruz. Needless to say, some candidates quickly came out on top.

#1… John Kasich

While Kasich may be last in the polls, at least he was first in our hearts when he visited this local deli in the Bronx. With his “can do” attitude–which propelled him to eat two helpings of spaghetti, a personalized sandwich, and more–and a winning smile for the crowd, Kasich was easily the most charming visitor in New York.

A crazy and memorable scene in the Bronx this afternoon as Kasich stopped to chow down on some food at Mike’s Deli pic.twitter.com/FA2F8rQNEB

— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) April 7, 2016

Unfortunately for Kasich, he doesn’t have a perfect NYC record after a pizza disaster a few weeks ago, in which he was seen eating a slice with a fork and a knife. Come on John, talk about detrimental gaffes!

John Kasich just ate his pizza with a fork and knife pic.twitter.com/KQ0UXCoJjN

— GIF The News (@NowThisGIF) March 30, 2016

Luckily for him, the likable dining-sesh at Mike’s Deli helped New Yorkers forgive and forget when it came to the recent pizz-astrophe, just not quite enough to actually put him ahead of Trump in any of the real polls.

#2… Donald Trump

As one of three candidates with actual ties to New York, Trump was a standout this past week. After repeatedly being attacked by Ted Cruz for his “New York values,” Trump took the opportunity to show exactly what he thinks New York values are. He and his wife, Melania Trump, toured the 9/11 Memorial Museum, also dropping a whopping $100,000 donation to the museum. With his name already all over a lot of the city, thanks to the Trump Tower, this donation just helped Trump secure what was already a pretty striking lead in his home state.

#3… Bernie Sanders

Sanders, another New York native, had a bit more of a rough go this week after he failed to answer some questions about the city correctly. When the Senator was asked to comment on the cheapest way to ride the subway, he jokingly cited jumping over the turnstile as the best way to save a quick buck–how cute! Unfortunately, when pressed a little further on the issue, Sanders showed just how lacking in city smarts he has become since moving to Vermont and working in D.C.:

What do you mean, ‘How do you ride the subway these days? You get a token and you get on.

For those of you who, like Sanders, may not have been on the subway in quite a while, the joke here is that subway tokens haven’t been used in New York in over a decade. Oops! Looks like your age is showing just a tad, Bernie. But, all in all, a valiant effort.

#4… Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s trip to New York may have been the most memorable and newsworthy visit, as it spurred tons of articles, parody videos, and internet memes making fun of her clear inability to use public transportation. For that reason alone, Clinton ranks near the very bottom of the list.

So, what actually happened? When entering any form of a subway system, the most annoying thing that can happen is someone holding up the turnstiles. And that’s exactly what Clinton did. It took not one, not two, but five swipes of her MetroCard to get through the turnstile. Talk about a serious city faux pas!

The good news about this gaffe? Her campaign has turned it into a quite hilarious 404 page on her website. Whenever you click a link or page that no longer exists on Clinton’s website, you are redirected to a gif of her swiping her MetroCard with a message that reads, “trying to get where you want to go? This page isn’t it.” While the campaign may be making light of a potentially negative situation, there’s only so much joking around you can do about a candidate’s ability to handle New York.

Clinton clearly wasn’t ready for the underground travel; how can we be sure she can handle the sad D.C. Metro or the country?

#5… Ted Cruz

Last on the list is Ted Cruz. Not only does this man not know how to act in the city, he straight up insulted NYC in a past debate with Donald Trump. After using “New York values” to insult Trump, Cruz was not welcomed with open arms when he traveled to the Bronx last week. A school in the Bronx canceled a visit from Cruz after the students threatened to stage a walk out because they didn’t agree with his views. Cruz was also heckled out of a restaurant where he was eating by angry protestors who believe that his anti-immigration platform is the opposite of everything people in the Bronx stand for. The Daily News featured nasty slogans, slamming Cruz for his anti-NY sentiment on multiple newspaper covers.

@Nannygal2 @amperg33 @wakeuppeopleSOS @tedcruz DROP DEAD TED! Now polling in NY at 16%!! NY HATES LYING TED!! pic.twitter.com/TuUAHS86jr

— Dawn Murray (@dawnellemurray) April 7, 2016

While there are obviously other factors to take into account when voting for president, these New York successes and failures could be pretty influential in swaying voters one way or another. What the candidates have hopefully learned from their New York trips is that it’s important to respect the places they campaign in and appreciate the diverse groups of people they will represent if elected president. After all, city and travel etiquette can say a lot about a person.

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 Who Did it Best? The Candidates Take on the Big Apple appeared first on Law Street.

During CNN’s town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper on Tuesday evening, all three remaining Republican candidates backed away from earlier pledges that they would support the party’s eventual presidential nominee.

Cooper asked Trump outright if he planned to continue to pledge support for whoever the nominee is and Trump replied, “No, I don’t anymore.”

With a bit of prodding, Trump accused the Republican National Committee and the establishment of “treating him very unfairly.”

Trump’s comments came after Ted Cruz effectively said he’d withdraw his pledge if Trump became the nominee.

Cruz said, “I’m not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and attacks my family.” Adding, “I think nominating Donald Trump would be an absolute trainwreck, I think it would hand the general election to Hillary Clinton.”

Cruz’s unwillingness to consider supporting Trump as the party’s nominee shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Last week things between the pair got heated after they squared off in defense of their of wives’ honor.

Cruz called Trump a “sniveling coward” after the business mogul threatened to “spill the beans” on Cruz’s wife Heidi. The threats came after a super pac-funded attack ad endorsing Cruz used a nude image from a GQ photoshoot of Trump’s wife Melania to target Utah’s conservative Mormon base.

Ohio Governor John Kaisch also refused to say that he would absolutely support the party’s nominee,  admitting to Cooper that he and his fellow candidates probably shouldn’t have agreed to the pledge in the first place.

“I have got to see what happens,” Kasich said. “If the nominee is somebody I think is really hurting the country and dividing the country, I can’t stand behind them.”

During the town hall Trump also addressed the scandal involving his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Lewandowski was arrested and charged with simple battery of the reporter, after she claimed that he aggressively grabbed her during a campaign rally in Jupiter, Florida.

Trump doubled down in defense of Lewandowski, claiming he has no intention of “discarding” him. At one point Trump even speculated that Secret Service was suspicious of the pen Fields was carrying in her hand, because it  could have been a “little bomb“

Trump fueled the flames further by sending out the following tweet criticizing the charges, which drew a response from Fields.

Wow, Corey Lewandowski, my campaign manager and a very decent man, was just charged with assaulting a reporter. Look at tapes-nothing there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2016

Because my story never changed. Seriously, just stop lying. https://t.co/1fz9cBHOuT

— Michelle Fields (@MichelleFields) March 29, 2016

We’ll have to wait and see if Trump continues to support his campaign manager as the case moves forward, but he’s already being criticized by candidates from both parties.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesman Brian Fallon commented on the charges telling CNN, “It is a very serious charge the Trump campaign will have to answer for and obviously every candidate is responsible for the culture they create in their campaign.”

So, while it may not surprise anyone, the GOP race is getting even nastier than it has been, and a fight at the convention is still a possibility.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republican Candidates Back Out of Pledge to Support Party Nominee appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Ted Cruz announced the creation of his new “national security coalition,” a team of foreign policy advisers that would help him with his “Reagan-esque approach” to national security policy. Among those on the team is Frank Gaffney Jr., who has been notable for propagating wild conspiracy theories  and making Islamophobic comments that rival the things that Donald Trump has said during this campaign. Gaffney is the president of the Center for Security Policy, a think-tank that has been denounced by both sides of the political spectrum for its extreme anti-Islamic views.

Here’s a sampling of his crazy beliefs:

Obama is Basically America’s first Muslim president

This theory is by no means unique in this election cycle: Donald Trump has a history of suggesting that Obama is a Muslim and was a notorious proponent of the “birther” movement.

Gaffney propagates this misinformation even further: in an op-ed for the Washington Times, Gaffney listed the reasons why Obama is essentially America’s first Muslim president, including his apparent “firsthand knowledge of Islam” and the fact that he referred to the Muslim holy book as “the Holy Koran.”

To add to that, Gaffney wrote that the President has attempted to “promote Islam in America” by making statements advocating that Muslims should be able to practice their faith freely in this country (quick note for Frank: the First Amendment of the Constitution says that, too). He adds at the end that “whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant,” because he’s basically pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood anyway.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah law are infiltrating our institutions and government

Gaffney has created a 10-part course entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America,” outlining how the organization is “destroying Western civilization from within.” He even makes claims that prominent political figures such as Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton, and President Obama have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Additionally, he claims that Shariah doctrine is playing out in U.S. courts (never mind that the evidence he cites is a study from his own organization). To top that off, he perpetuated a theory in 2010 that the logo for the Missile Defense Agency was created specifically to look like the Obama campaign logo, and also looked like the Islamic crescent moon, arguing that this was somehow evidence of Obama’s secret ties to Islam.

Saddam Hussein played a role in the Timothy McVeigh bombing 

Gaffney has expressed many times that he believes that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and two major attacks on U.S. soil (in which the perpetrators were found and convicted). In 2009, Gaffney stated that there’s “compelling circumstantial evidence of Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated both the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and even the Oklahoma City bombing.”

I could sadly keep going on and on about Gaffney’s Islamophobic conspiracy theories. The publications on the site for the Center of Security Policy–which include titles such as “Star Spangled Shariah” and “Civilization Jihad,”–as well as his numerous op-eds, are a treasure trove for anyone looking to prop up their anti-Islamic and bigoted views. Trump himself has actually cited a poll created by Gaffney’s organization in order to advocate for a ban on Muslims entering the country.

This Republican primary, unfortunately, seems to be dissolving into a contest for who can prop up more hateful and xenophobic rhetoric. While Gaffney has been banned from the Conservative Political Action Conference in the past, it appears that his beliefs are now becoming acceptable and mainstream among the right-wing of this country, as reflected by Cruz’s choice to appoint him.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Sampling of the Craziest Beliefs Held By Ted Cruz’s New Foreign Policy Adviser appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz–he’s just your typical guy running for president of the United States. Or is he? He was born in Canada and is really only eligible because his mother is American. I think I’m going to need a birth certificate for this one…

But Cruz continues to captivate the masses with his allegedly non-human features, such as his melting-off-the face waxy skin, lizard-like appearance, and disturbing alien-like facial expressions.

Some on the internet are seriously doubting his humanity…but that’s fine, right? After all, an alien can run for president as long as they’re not illegal.

He Makes Unusual Facial Expressions

@kevinmaisto you forgot that Ted Cruz is a lizard pic.twitter.com/CnIdqQ3MoF

— // CJ // (@CJZOLANSKI) February 7, 2016

One of the ideas floating around theiInternet is that Ted Cruz is simply a lizard man in a human suit, and I really can’t say that I don’t believe it. Look at that face. If that is a normal human facial expression, then I have seriously been sending some mixed signals over the years.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Times We May Have Doubted Ted Cruz’s Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s sort-of second Super Tuesday led to even more of a mess for the GOP than I think anyone thought possible just a few months ago. As of last night, Marco Rubio has officially bowed out of the race. Donald Trump is certainly doing well, but he hasn’t quite locked up the nomination yet. And John Kasich’s win in his home state of Ohio means that he’s still holding on. Then, with the chance that there’s a brokered convention, literally anything could happen at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this summer. So…who’s still left in the race for the GOP nomination, and what’s next?

Donald Trump

Trump is, quite obviously, the man to beat. Trump is the only Republican candidate left in the race who has a realistic path to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination before the convention–he currently has 646. While Kasich’s win in Ohio denied Trump 66 delegates, which certainly makes that path harder,  Trump is still in an enviable position.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is still in it, with 397 delegates. He’s positing himself as the only one who can beat Trump, and is seemingly trying to push Kasich out of the race to scoop some of those “absolutely never voting for Trump under any circumstances” voters. He’s also claiming that he’ll do well in closed-primary states that are coming up, where only pre-registered Republicans can vote. We’ll have to see if now that the field has narrowed a bit if Cruz can make good on those promises.

John Kasich

John Kasich somehow managed to stay alive last night by winning his home state, Ohio. However, Cruz and Trump are both promising that their delegate counts will keep him out of the convention. But Kasich may still see some room for himself at a contested convention. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney put it:

Kasich’s campaign foreshadowed its plans for a convention brawl late Tuesday, naming Stu Spencer and Charlie Black — two veterans of the last contested convention, the 1976 fight between President Gerald Ford and an insurgent Ronald Reagan — to his national strategy team.

Paul Ryan? Jeb! Bush?

With the prospect of a contested convention, there’s always the chance that another contender sneaks up through the side. In this case, all eyes would appear to be on current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Former Speaker John Boehner has stated:

If we get to the convention and we don’t have a nominee that can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all ran, they all had a chance to win, none of them won, so I’m for none of the above.

Ryan himself doesn’t seem particularly in favor of the concept, but it sounds like he hasn’t totally ruled it out, either. He told CNBC:

You know, I haven’t given any thought to this stuff. People say, ‘What about the contested convention?’ I say, well, there are a lot of people running for president. We’ll see. Who knows?

Then there are people who say that Jeb! Bush could make a comeback at a convention, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.

The Ghost of Ronald Reagan?

Honestly, at this point, it may be one of the more plausible and palatable options.

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 Who Could Still End Up with the GOP Nomination? appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

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 Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Super Tuesday kind of sucked. Actually, I take that back, it really sucked. On the Republican side, America’s future Supreme Leader Donald Trump walked away with wins in seven states, and 234 new delegates, and many from both sides of the aisle are beginning to worry that his nomination has become all but inevitable.

I guess no one should be that surprised. After all, he’s been racking up big totals in the primary thus far–although in some cases his share of the actual vote has been a bit less than polling would indicate. But, he’s still had a pretty damn good run so far–all said and done about 1/3 of the Republicans who have casted their votes up until this point have voted for the Donald.

So, no one is quite sure what will happen next. It seems likely that Ted Cruz, who had an okay night and took home wins in his home state of Texas, as well as Oklahoma and Alaska, probably won’t drop out. And Marco Rubio, who has just begun to have some of the establishment coalesce behind him, won Minnesota last night, and doesn’t seem to be dropping either.

But, it still seems that many elites are desperate to stop Trump, and there’s a few different trains of thought emerging. One is that either Rubio or Cruz should drop out, allowing the party to unify around one anti-Trump force. For example former contender Lindsey Graham, who has somehow managed to be kind of the voice of reason at points during this totally-bonkers election cycle, pointed out that rallying around Cruz may be the only choice. Graham said on CBS:

I made a joke about Ted, but we may be in a position to have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump, and I’m not so sure that would work. I can’t believe I would say yes, but yes.

Then there’s another school of thought, which actually advocates that both Rubio and Cruz stay in the race and try to take as many votes away from Trump as possible. Cruz or Rubio supporters would have to choose a new candidate if either dropped, and surely some could pick Trump. So, keeping the votes closer to a three-way split may keep Trump from meeting the threshold he needs, and gives the GOP more wiggle room at the convention. As Slate’s Jim Newell explains the theory:

Rubio would not have defeated Trump in Texas, so it was useful for Cruz to stay in and take a majority of those delegates for himself. Rubio won’t be able to defeat Trump in Ohio, so Kasich can handle that task. A split field makes it impossible for one candidate to gain a majority over Trump. But it helps to stop Trump himself from getting a majority.

Newell does acknowledge that this theory probably won’t work, especially given that there are more winner-takes-all primaries post-Super Tuesday, but it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been a serious consideration for the GOP.

So…Trump won Super Tuesday. Most people are horrified, and rightfully so. But as this future-trainwreck hurtles toward the convention, someone has to do something. Unfortunately, at this point, it’s easy to wonder if anyone can.

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 That Was an Un-Super Tuesday: Can the GOP Stop Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

This election year is the year of the conspiracy: Antonin Scalia’s lack of autopsy prompted some to think he was murdered by President Barack Obama, Donald Trump is supposedly part of the Democratic Party’s attempt to  infiltrate the GOP to make it destroy itself, and now some people are theorizing that Ted Cruz is none other than the Zodiac Killer.

The Zodiac Killer… we all know him as the infamous and mysterious serial killer who wreaked havoc in California in the 1960s and early 70s–who killed five people for sure but may have killed as many as 37. The killer also sent letters to California papers with coded messages, referring to himself as “Zodiac.”

A tweet in 2013 seems to be the origin of the theory, according to the Daily Dot, which traced the meme.

#CPAC Alert: Ted Cruz is speaking!! His speech is titled: ‘This Is The Zodiac Speaking’

— Red Pill America (@RedPillAmerica) March 14, 2013

As Cruz became more famous so did the theory. There is even a hashtag dedicated to the similarities between the two: #ZodiacTed.

Wake up America #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/l7qqqXpDQk

— Griffin (@NotGriffinNope) February 2, 2016

This was an amazing moment from the #GOPDebate tonight. #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/4DUgyxAo2k

— Bill Wetzel (@billthebutcher2) February 26, 2016

People are starting to finally ask the real questions, like: if he isn’t the Zodiac killer, then why hasn’t he denied it?

If Ted Cruz isn’t the Zodiac Killer, then why hasn’t he denied it? https://t.co/jCm2uRWOux#ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/3EWcxDoecx

— Esquire Magazine (@esquire) February 25, 2016

Public Policy Polling, a polling firm that made a name for itself by adding funny questions onto the end of its surveys, included a question about Ted being the Zodiac Killer in a recent poll in Florida.

We are finding many Floridians can not rule out the possibility, although few are convinced of guilt https://t.co/OPsWIl97Sy

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) February 25, 2016

According to PPP, nearly 40 percent of respondents think it’s possible that Cruz is the famous serial killer–10 percent believe for sure that they are one in the same, and 28 percent just aren’t sure yet. On the other hand, 62 percent of Floridians don’t believe he is the Zodiac Killer (well, +/- the 3.1 percent margin of error).

Maybe they just haven’t seen the evidence yet.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post reports, Ted Cruz is probably too young to be the Zodiac Killer. The first confirmed killing was back in 1968 when Cruz was a young negative two years old–according to his released birth certificate. But those things can be modified, right?

Ted Cruz also just wasn’t in the right place at the right time. He was born in Canada and the killings took place in California. And as a youngin, creating a cipher would probably have been far too advanced. However, what if the cipher was really just a bunch of baby babble? (Is that why it still hasn’t been broken?!)

I have no choice, though, to say that Ted Cruz is likely NOT the Zodiac Killer, but until he denies it, we really can’t rule it out completely.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Hasn’t Denied that He is the Zodiac Killer appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz announced this week  that he plans to get rid of inefficiency in the U.S. military’s bureaucracy by cutting out adherence to political correctness, social experiments, and, oh, that’s right… gluten-free meals.

According to Cruz, gluten-free MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) are what’s really wrong with America’s military today–they’re reducing efficiency and stressing out our commanders. I mean, how in the world are we supposed to trust the men and women serving our country if they don’t even eat bread? Bread is pretty much the most American thing I can think of, and loving it is part of our civic duty. If Ted Cruz expressing his love for gluten in his policies is wrong, then quite frankly, I don’t want to be right.

Check out the video of his address aboard the USS Yorktown in which he attempts to win the military vote. It’s golden. In the speech, Cruz announces his ideas for Reaganesque military policy, which he hopes will keep us No. 1 in military strength worldwide. He even cited Regan’s policies as a model example of how we should run our country:

I am confident that if we put in the hard work we can, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, rebuild our military so it will be so feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies that, God willing, we won’t have to use it. That is the essence of what President Reagan used to call “peace through strength.”

The best part of the video, by far, is the huge round of applause for Cruz’s announcement that he wants to fight against “plush-bottomed pentagon bureaucrats,” and the subsequent deafening silence after Cruz rails against providing gluten-free MREs.

But, isn’t celiac disease just a made up condition to rile up liberal voters, anyway? Unfortunately for Cruz–and everyone else who was under the impression that anti-bread lobby is the actual cause of America’s dilapidation–it turns out this harebrained scheme to avoid one of the world’s best nutrients (carbs!!!) is actually a real thing. According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the consumption of gluten by people with celiac disease can seriously damage their small intestine. In addition, the disease affects one in every 100 people. And people with a parent or sibling with celiac have a one-in-10 chance of developing the disease in their lifetime. What that means for Cruz’s plan is that not all people can enjoy bread the way he can (click here to see what we can only imagine Cruz does when alone with his favorite gluten-based foods), so getting rid of gluten-free options may not be his best plan.

The real question of the day is: is it really gluten-free meals that are ruining our country? Doubtful. Don’t get me wrong, I love bread as much as then next guy, but, infuriatingly slow bureaucracy and red tape aren’t going to be fixed by sprinkling some wheat on the situation. Saving a quick buck or two by producing less diverse meals for our men and women in service won’t fix the deficit. If anything, this policy announcement could alienate military voters who feel like Cruz is trying to decrease services for members of the armed forces. It has aggravated people on the internet and even got #tedlovesbread trending, which can’t be good for his campaign… or can it, if he’s going for the whole “any press is good press” strategy.

Cruz should really get his act together if he actually wants a shot at being president, but, then again, it’s not like his competition has avoided all embarrassing moments and weird policy ideas (Donald Trump’s wall, Ben Carson’s biblical tax plan, any and everything Jeb! has ever done). One thing is clear about his policies: a lot of us feel the same way about them as Cruz’s daughter feels about kissing him… just kind of “ew.”

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 Bread Cruz for President! 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.

This weekend, the remaining GOP candidates had what felt like the 876th debate of this election cycle (it was actually the ninth). The first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, did their job and made the field much smaller, leaving just Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and Governor John Kasich. But the smaller field didn’t lead to a smaller amount of BS being flung around the debate stage; check out the top five craziest moments of this weekend’s GOP debate below:

Everyone Was Confused About Supreme Court Nominations

Saturday’s debate was certainly affected by the fact that just a few hours earlier, the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was announced. It’s obviously a sitting president’s job to nominate a replacement, but that’s not what Senator Mitch McConnell said after Scalia’s death was announced:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

So, naturally, the candidates were asked about what they thought of Obama nominating a replacement. Every candidate on the stage essentially said that Obama shouldn’t nominate a new justice–despite the fact that that would guarantee an empty seat on the bench for at least a year, and there’s not some footnote in the Constitution that says that a President can only nominate a Supreme Court justice when he’s not a lame duck president. That didn’t stop multiple Republican candidates from speaking incorrectly about the U.S.’s history when it comes to nominating SCOTUS candidates. For example Ted Cruz incorrectly stated that “we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming justices in an election year,” despite the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and confirmed in 1988, while Reagan was a lame duck president.

This Confusion Led to Fact Checking by the Moderator

.@jdickerson tries to correct Cruz on Kennedy appointment, gets booed by audience for facts. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/31bdGQoE7a

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) February 14, 2016

John Dickerson, the moderator, even pointed out that Cruz was wrong. The issue was that Cruz was conflating the terms nominating and confirming–and Dickerson sparred with Cruz over that issue, explaining that he just wanted “to get the facts straight for the audience.” At this point the audience decided to boo Dickerson, leading to a decidedly messy exchange all around.

But There Was a Lot of Booing on Saturday Night

Dickerson wasn’t the only one who got booed–much of the audience’s ire appeared to be aimed at Trump. Trump had a theory for why this kept happening–and turns out his theory might not be that off–that the crowd was packed with  “Jeb [Bush]’s special interests and lobbyists.” Turns out the crowd had a lot of moderate Republicans, due to the fact that the RNC gave tickets to local supporters, and people actively involved in RNC work are probably less likely to be big Trump fans. So, Trump got pretty heavily booed, but unfortunately it probably won’t diminish his still pretty solid poll numbers.

One of the Biggest Boos Was About 9/11

Jeb! Bush and Donald Trump had a pretty tense exchange over 9/11–Trump essentially blamed the terror attack on Bush’s brother, George W. Bush. Trump claimed that George W. didn’t keep America safe because he wasn’t able to prevent 9/11. Bush responded that he was pretty tired of Trump going after his family, and then to complicate things more, Rubio jumped into the mix to exclaim he was glad it wasn’t Al Gore in the White House during 9/11. The entire thing turned into a mess–check out the exchange: 

But One of the Biggest (and Weirdest) Fights of the Night was Rubio v. Cruz

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz got into an interesting spat over their shared Cuban heritage, stemming, as many criticisms of Rubio have, from his role in the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Cruz accused Rubio of contradicting his platform when he appeared on Univision and spoke in Spanish about immigration and amnesty. Rubio fired back by saying: “I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish.” So then Cruz responded in Spanish (although a bit shakily) to prove Rubio wrong:

WATCH: Cruz replies to Rubio in Spanish after Rubio said he “doesn’t speak Spanish.” #SCPrimary https://t.co/xGmJKNSzup — Good Morning America (@GMA) February 15, 2016

For a party that has taken an almost methodical approach to alienating Hispanic voters during this year’s election cycle, it was incredibly odd to see the debate devolve into a pissing contest over who speaks Spanish better.

A Final Takeaway

With Scalia’s recent death, it’s almost certain that the question of who will replace him will probably become cemented on the hot list of 2016 issues–immigration, Planned Parenthood funding, and how to deal with ISIS, among others. Saturday night’s debate has been referred to by many observers as the nastiest one yet, and given that the primaries are just starting to heat up, future exchanges will probably follow suit. 

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 Top 5 Craziest Moments from this Weekend’s GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A whole host of Latino celebrities released an open letter this week, asking Americans not to vote for any of the current 2016 Republican candidates. While many of the celebrities who signed on to the letter have been speaking out against the Republican candidates’ various stances on immigration and other relevant social issues for a while, this letter takes the debate to a whole new level.

The celebrities who signed the letter, which was released on Thursday by the liberal advocacy organization People for the American Way, are: Yancey Arias, Esteban Benito, Benjamin Bratt, Peter Bratt, Raúl Castillo, Ivonne Coll, Wilson Cruz, Giselle Fernandez, America Ferrera, Mike Gomez, Lisa Guerrero, Dolores Huerta, Eva LaRue, George Lopez, Rick Najera, José-Luis Orozco, Aubrey Plaza, Steven Michael Quezada, Judy Reyes, Zoe Saldana, Miguel Sandoval, Carlos Santana, and Lauren Vélez.

The celebrities who wrote the letter particularly attack Donald Trump, and understandably so, given his consistent use of xenophobic rhetoric throughout the primaries. The letter states:

Of course, this downward spiral began with Trump. From accusing Mexicans of being rapists to kicking Jorge Ramos out of his press conference, Trump has spent the entirety of his presidential  bid stoking unfounded anti-immigrant fears and deeply offending our communities.

However, the letter also has issues with the other candidates as well, “including supposed “moderates” like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.” It reads:

We must not, though, let Trump’s xenophobia overshadow the extreme policies being pushed by every single one of the GOP’s leading presidential candidates. Latinos should understand that Donald Trump embodies the true face of the entire Republican Party. Sadly, he speaks for the GOP’s anti-immigrant, anti-Latino agenda.

[…]

The candidates cannot come back from these hardline stances. Trump is certainly an outlier for his racist remarks. But the rest of the Republican presidential candidates went off the deep end with him.

Given how large a part the debates over immigration, citizenship, and amnesty have played in the 2016 primaries, it’s not surprising that prominent Latino voices are coming forward. But the letter goes further than just decrying the 2016 potentials’ rhetoric, it also encourages Latino voters to work together defeat the possible Republican nominees–which could be a major issue for the GOP come the general election. If you want to read the entire letter, check it out 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 Latino Celebrities Pen Anti-Republican Open Letter appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz has used an approach to campaign ads fitting for the current race: bizarre, inflammatory, and slimy. You might remember his “send-up” of Saturday Night Live commercial parodies, Cruz Christmas Classics. How about his Donald Trump Doll ad, where children argue over Trump and Clinton action figures while concerned parents look on? His newest ad, however, won’t be airing on TV or the campaign’s YouTube account, because Cruz’s people took the video down over a scandal concerning one of the actresses. His campaign has quickly replaced it with a new, anti-Clinton ad.

The removed spot, called “Conservatives Anonymous,” riffs on Alcoholics Anonymous, showing a support group for conservative voters who feel spurned by centrist politicians who are “Republicans In Name Only.” The ad slyly suggests at which candidate Cruz is taking aim when a blonde woman says “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.” The punchline hits when a new member enters the room, wearing a Marco Rubio t-shirt, asking “Do you guys have room for one more?”

The campaign learned that Amy Lindsay, one of the actresses starring in the advertisement, has previously acted in erotic films, finding that her filmography includes movies called “Secrets of a Chambermaid,” and “Insatiable Desires.” To be clear–the distinction between hard and soft core pornography is that in soft core material, no sex acts are shown, and in some cases, no genitalia. The films featuring Lindsay fit in the latter category, as she performed topless, and didn’t perform any sex acts with her co-stars. Lindsay took to Twitter to voice her disappointment:

Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in… #moretocome #myvotecounts

— Amy Lindsay (@amylindsayLA) February 12, 2016

But is it really reasonable to pull an ad simply because of one actress’s past? It may not line up with Cruz’s “family values,” but there’s no reason to conflate Lindsay’s performance in this advertisement with her past roles. We don’t eternally see Charlize Theron as a psychopathic killer or Viola Davis as a house maid. These actresses are afforded the chance to re-invent themselves for each role, whereas any actor who participates in a salacious role isn’t offered that chance.

It’s not as though Lindsay drags Cruz’s message into a seedy pornographic underworld–70 percent of American males 18-24 watch actually-pornographic material–footage much more explicit than the soft-core projects Lindsay participated in. In fact, 20 percent of men admit to watching porn during work. Somehow, for all the ubiquity of adult content in mainstream America, the presence of a person whose naked body is in other videos invalidates the message of the ad. Lindsay even identifies as a Christian Conservative, and her personal views actually mirror those of her character in the advertisement.

By this measure, Cruz’s campaign would also refuse to cast Matt LeBlanc, Sylvester Stallone, David Duchovny, and Adam West. Even Helen Mirren acted nude in sexual scenes in the pornographic film “Caligula,” only to later portray Queen Elizabeth. All of these actors have performed in either hard or soft core pornographic programs, yet continued to have successful film careers after the fact. It wouldn’t surprise me if from now on soft-core porn production companies refuse to cast Lindsay, citing her appearance in a Ted Cruz advertisement.

This effort to save face isn’t surprising from Cruz, or similar conservative candidates who hinge on the support of religious voters–often Evangelicals and Baptists. Though it may be a shrewd move, it’s simply unfair to allow an actor’s past roles color their other performances. Clearly politicians can’t be held to what they said or did in the past–so why shouldn’t actors be afforded the same leeway?

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 In Defense of Ted Cruz’s ‘Porn’ Actress appeared first on Law Street.

Monday night, Donald Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters at a rally before New Hampshire’s primary. In response to a statement about his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, a crowd member yelled, “He’s a pussy!”

Trump responded by repeating the slur, but in the context of a reprimand.

“You’re not allowed to say that…” Trump said. “…I never expect to hear that from you again.”

Then, looking out over his audience of prospective voters, he added, “She said he’s a pussy.”

His statement was met by raucous cheering, and a bit of a “what can you do” attitude from Trump.

Watch the whole charming moment below:

Trump, Trump, Trump…this could have been your moment to rise above the childish antics your campaign has been associated with! Instead, in the guise of taking the high road, you chose to insult your opponent with immature name-calling.

Someone deserves a time out.

Now, let’s talk about the word “pussy” for a moment. When someone uses the word “pussy” they are usually referring to one of three things:

1. a feline,
2. a woman’s vagina, or
3. a person who is weak.

The third definition, and the colloquialism Trump and his supporter used in the video above, is actually meant to be a shortened version of the word “pusillanimous” which does mean “showing a lack of courage or determination.”

Unfortunately, if you were to ask the average person on the street, they would assume the insult is in reference to the second definition: a vagina.

But wait a second! Why would weakness ever be associated with vaginas? Aren’t they super strong?

The answer is, yes! However, the association of female genitalia with weakness is the result of a patriarchal society. It even inserts itself into our day-to-day language. Look no further than the phrase “grow some balls,” which implies the person growing said balls would gain bravery and strength to accomplish a task or goal.

Trevor Noah on why it’s nonsensical that calling someone a ‘pussy’ should be an insult. #gendermatters #gender pic.twitter.com/NXIFr5177W

— Matthias Lehmann (@yongsagisa) December 8, 2015

So, Mr. Trump’s supporter, and Mr. Trump himself, didn’t just use the classic bullying technique of degrading by name-calling. No, they attempted to degrade Senator Cruz with a word that shouldn’t even be used for degradation. (Unless Trump knows the word pusillanimous, which I sincerely doubt.)

Let this be a lesson to us all: the word “pussy” in its iteration as a slur is really an insult to women. Let’s just stop, okay?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Stop Using the P-Word as an Insult appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump finished second in Iowa, no one knew what to expect as he reacted. Would he accept the democratic outcome of the election? Would he lash out at the people of Iowa, which he’s momentarily done in the past? By the end of the night, everyone’s questions were answered when Trump took the stage. Surprising many, Trump’s reaction came across, well, classy. But that wasn’t his last word on the subject; after he had a little more time it seems like he changed his mind.

Here’s his speech in Iowa:

“We finished second and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored. I’m really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted [Cruz] and I want to congratulate all of the incredible candidates including Mike Huckabee who’s become a really good friend of mine,” Trump said in his speech after Cruz was declared the winner. In the speech, he thanked his opponents, he praised his staff, and congratulated the winner. To finish off, he even said he’d consider coming back to Iowa to buy a farm.

But Trump’s good will and acceptance didn’t last long. Naturally, Trump’s first inclination was to go after the media. After tweeting about his great experience in Iowa and how he was satisfied with the outcome, he tweeted, “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” To be fair, he is right that turnout was very high on Monday–almost 40 percent higher than in 2012–and that he fared best among first-time voters.

Trump’s usual assault on the media continued on Twitter, but he eventually shifted focus to Ted Cruz. Once Cruz gave his 32-minute victory speech, Trump quickly shifted tact:

Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

On Wednesday, Trump began an all-out assault on Cruz, accusing him of cheating and stealing the election.

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

And finally, Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and “choice” – a total lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Believe it or not, Trump again has a couple fair points. Cruz was responsible for a legitimately nefarious direct mailer that his campaign sent out to essentially scare people into voting. Many Iowans received a letter from the Cruz campaign with their voting “scores” (which aren’t a real thing) as well as the scores of their neighbors. This strategy is based on a piece of political science research about direct mail and voter turnout, but the Cruz campaign took it to a new extreme. The letters were intended to pressure voters to turn out to improve their “voting score” and it even alleged that the recipients committed some sort of “voting violation.”

The Iowa Secretary of State quickly denounced the mailers, issuing a statement saying,

Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

He went on to note that caucuses are not even conducted by the state government, rather they are under the control of political parties. It is also important to note, however, that Cruz is not alone in his use of extremely misleading mailers, Marco Rubio sent a equally dubious letter to voters as well.

Trump also criticized Cruz’s response to news that Ben Carson was not going to travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. The Carson campaign alleged that Cruz spun the news as if Carson was dropping out of the race in an effort to change the minds of caucus-goers. Cruz eventually apologized saying that spreading the news was fair game, but that a clarification should have been sent out when it was clear that Carson was not leaving the race.

While Trump’s criticism of Cruz has some surprisingly reasonable points, it’s unlikely that his tactics shifted the balance of the elections. As the Washington Post points out, Carson actually outperformed polling predictions and Bloomberg notes that Cruz sent the mailers out to about 3,000 potential voters yet won by more than 6,000 votes.  Ultimately, Trump went so far as to call for a new election, or at least for the existing results to be invalidated.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Over the course of a few days, Donald Trump went from congratulating Ted Cruz on his win to outright calling him a liar and a cheater. But then again, did we really expect anything else?

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 Trump Might Not be a Gracious Loser After All appeared first on Law Street.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has officially announced that he won’t be participating in the Republican Debate tomorrow, due to his (totally not sexist and unreasonable) dislike for moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump’s decision has been confirmed by both his campaign, as well as Fox News. So, given that the big-mouthed millionaire has been dominating the debates thus far, who will step up to fill the vacuum?

Trump not being present for the debate may change the overall flavor of the night by quite a bit. It certainly could have an impact on disappointing not-so-prodigal son Governor Jeb Bush, who has had many of his most memorable and heated campaign moments while taking jabs at Trump. It also could affect Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently coming in third in most polls, and has been pretty critical of Trump in past debates.

But, it seems like most eyes will be on Senator Ted Cruz, who has been coming in second to Trump in most of the recent polls, although those second place results have been by quite a wide margin. In national polls, including CNN/ORC, Fox News, NBC News, and other leading news outlets, Trump has seen a lead over Cruz that ranges from about 13 percent to 22 percent. However, in Iowa, which will be the first state to caucus next Monday, Trump holds a far slimmer lead–ranging from about 2-11 percent. In New Hampshire–the second primary–the gap between Trump and Cruz looks only slightly smaller than national results. Given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so soon, this may Cruz’s last chance to make up some of that ground.

However, Cruz’s success will depend on whether or not he also shows up tomorrow night. He has now challenged Trump to their own, one-on-one debate. However, it could be a mistake for Cruz to sit this one out, given that everyone will be looking to him to see how he handles a Trump-less stage.

So, Law Street readers, what do you think? Will Cruz dominate tomorrow night’s debate? Or will it be a missed opportunity for the man currently in second in most GOP polls?

Cast your vote in the poll below:

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 With Trump Out of the Debate, Who Will Dominate? appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, is evidently considering an independent run for President in 2016. According to sources close to the politician and media mogul, he “sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg’s views.” While nothing is definite yet, the moves that Bloomberg and his people are making indicate that he is seriously considering that third-party bid.

Bloomberg’s concerns about the nominees extend to both parties–he reportedly doesn’t want to see a race that comes down to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz on the Republican side vs. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. Edward G. Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania and a past DNC chair told the New York Times that he believes:

Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders. If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.

However, as much as he may dislike Donald Trump, Bloomberg’s campaign would take a page out of the Republican front-runners book–he would allegedly self-finance his campaign with the $37 billion he has acquired from his media businesses.

If Bloomberg were to join the race as an independent, he would be almost certain to take votes away from whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee. While Bloomberg has bounced around from party to party over his time in politics, many of his positions are significantly more attractive to Democrats than they are to Republicans. For example, he has long been a supporter of stricter gun controls, has donated money to Planned Parenthood, and worked to combat climate change. While he has also held some positions that are more moderate-right leaning, such as support for the financial services industry, it’s presumed that should he run as an independent, he’d draw voters more from the Democratic base than Republican.

Many are saying that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering a run is bad news for Hillary Clinton, who has seen her poll numbers take quite a bit of a hit in recent weeks. But, the primaries still haven’t even officially started, so there’s still quite a long road to go, and probably a while before Bloomberg would make any official moves.

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 Will Michael Bloomberg Jump in the 2016 Fray? appeared first on Law Street.

The two recent debates–the Republican debate on Thursday, January 14, and the Democratic debate from Sunday, January 17, were chock-full of strange exchanges and bizarre declarations. They were also strangely poetic; and the perfect reason to create some found poetry based on the standout performances from the debates.

For the uninitiated, Found Poetry occurs when a poet “select a source text […] then excerpt words and phrases from the text to create a new piece.” Politics and found poetry have been bedfellows before, such as when Donald Rumsfeld waxed philosophical about the essence of war in a series of found poems written by Slate’s Hart Seely. For the following found poems, all of the contents come directly from the listed speaker, and were spoken in that order. The titles, however, are of my own creation.

I Have Never Heard of the Geneva Convention

by Dr. Ben Carson

“We’re not going to bomb a tanker

because there might be a person in it”

Give me a break.

 

Just tell them that,

you put people in there,

we’re going to bomb them.

 

So don’t put people in there

if you don’t want them bombed.

You know, that’s so simple.

I Once Saw A Jewish Man on Television

by Ted Cruz

There are many, many

wonderful, wonderful

working men and women

in the state of New York

 

The values in New York City

are socially liberal or

pro-abortion or

pro- gay-marriage,

focused around money and the media.

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want

by John Ellis Bush!

Donald, Donald — can I —

I hope you reconsider this.

 

So I hope you’ll reconsider.

I hope you’ll reconsider.

 

The better way of dealing with this

the better way of dealing with this

is recognizing that there are people in,

you know, the — Islamic terrorists inside,

embedded in refugee populations.

I Know They Talk About Me In The Back Of P. F. Chang’s

by Donald Trump

China —

they send their goods

and we don’t tax it —

 

they do whatever they want to do.

They do whatever what they do, OK.

 

When we do business with China,

they tax us.

You don’t know it,

they tax us.

 

I love China.

I love the Chinese people

but they laugh themselves,

they can’t believe how stupid

the American leadership is.

I Respect That You’re Taking My Lunch Money

By H. Rodham Clinton

Well, my relationship with him,

it’s — it’s interesting.

 

It’s one, I think, of respect.

We’ve had some very tough dealings

with one another.

 

He’s someone that you have to

continuingly stand up to because,

like many bullies,

he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can

unless you do.

I Don’t Know How To Use My Daughter’s iPhone

by Martin O’Malley

I believe

whether it’s a back door

or a front door

that the American principle of law

should still hold

 

that our federal government

should have to get a warrant,

whether they want to come

through the back door

or your front door.

Wall Street Has More Puppeteers Than Sesame Street

by Bernard Sanders

I do believe

we have to deal

with the fundamental issues

of a handful of billionaires

who control economic

and political life

of this country.

 

Nothing real will get happened

 

Unless we have a political revolution

Where millions of people finally stand up.

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 Found Poetry From Last Week’s Republican and Democratic Debates appeared first on Law Street.

During the 6th (oh god, why?) Republican debate last night, there was a powerful moment when Canadian-ish Ted Cruz and sentient troll doll Donald Trump had a show-down about “New York values.” Cruz previously stated that Trump “embodies New York values” and then elaborated during the debate. Trump parried with arguably with his best moment to date; watch the entire exchange below:

Trump gave a compelling response to a clear attempt from Cruz to stereotype and insult America’s largest city–but New Yorkers still aren’t happy with Cruz’s generalizations and insinuations. The New York Daily News, which is well known for its biting covers, responded to his comment this morning with a somewhat cheap shot at Cruz’s Canadian birth:

Stop the presses! A new Page 1… DROP DEAD, TED: https://t.co/68hKgqmjBxpic.twitter.com/veDsxLYDTN — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) January 15, 2016

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also released a statement, pointing out the hypocrisy of Cruz’s statement, given that his father is an immigrant, and stating: 

He doesn’t know what New York values are because New York is in many ways the epitome of what formed this nation and what keeps it strong. The Statue of Liberty is in our harbor.

Others took to Twitter to emphasize their frustrations with Cruz’s comments. 

Tip: if your spouse works on Wall St. and you hold fundraisers in Manhattan, maybe avoid complaining about “New York values”

— Emma Roller (@emmaroller) January 15, 2016

Uhhh. If New York values include tolerance, inclusion, and bodily autonomy for women, sure. Okay.

— roxane gay (@rgay) January 15, 2016

He even got some crap from Republican Congressman Peter King (although this was before Cruz explained what he meant by “New York values” last night). King stated:

Memo to Ted Cruz: New York Values are the heroes of 9/11; the cops who fight terror; and the people you ask for campaign donations. Go back under a rock

As a diehard “West Wing” fan, my first thought was this scene, when the implication behind a “New York sense of humor” was made as clear as day during the show’s pilot episode: it means Jewish.

Cruz’s comment was clearly an attempt to play on an us vs. them rhetoric that has existed ever since New York’s initiation as the cultural mecca of the U.S. It was a calculated political statement to be sure–Cruz knew that he probably wasn’t going to win New York anyways–probably not in a primary, and almost certainly not in a general–so why not pander to the Americans who see New York as a hotbed of immorality and run-amuck liberalism? It was dog whistle politics at its finest: “New York values” is a code word for immoral the same way that “San Francisco values” is a codeword for LGBTQ, or “urban” is a codeword for “Black people.”

Cruz’s risk came back to bite him in the ass, at least in the press, but I don’t know that it will hurt him in the long run. The idea that New York isn’t “real America,” is, to some conservatives, a valid concept. Erick Erickson, conservative pundit extraordinaire, made that loud and clear during the debate:

New York City is not America. Y’all keep defending it though.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 15, 2016

Let’s put it this way–it’s no secret what Cruz was talking about when he said “New York values”–New Yorkers got it, and so did everyone else on that stage. It wasn’t new, and it wasn’t surprising, but we’ll have to see if it makes a difference in Cruz’s fight to defeat Trump.

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 Ted Cruz Blasts “New York Values”: We All Know What that Means 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.

In Tuesday night’s Republican debate, the candidates focused most of their attention on foreign policy, specifically what needs to be done to protect the American people. While the candidates ended up agreeing on many ideas, the clearest sense of unity on the stage was behind the notion that the United States needs to be tougher. We need to have a tougher immigration policy, we need to move away from the “feckless weakling president” in the oval office, and most importantly we need to be “tough” on ISIS.

Senator Ted Cruz started off by upping the standards for toughness. When asked about his previous call to “carpet bomb” ISIS, Cruz doubled down. He referenced the first Persian Gulf War, noting that the United States conducted around 1,100 airstrikes a day. But when Wolf Blitzer, the debate’s moderator, pressed Cruz on how that would affect civilians, he gave a rather bizarre response:

You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed — and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

Now on its face, that might sound like a sensible policy; few people would argue against a decisive bombing campaign that only killed terrorists. But that’s simply not the reality on the ground. There isn’t a huge group of ISIS soldiers standing around in the middle of the desert. They are deeply embedded in civilian populations, primarily in cities where indiscriminate bombing campaigns would kill massive amounts of civilians.

Cruz faced questions like that before, yet he has maintained his view that his policy wouldn’t kill civilians. In a recent interview with NPR, Cruz even noted that “no reasonable military endeavor targets civilians.” But looking at the reality in Iraq and Syria, what Cruz is calling for would have a massive civilian casualty toll. There are only a few conclusions available here–Cruz is either fine with more civilian deaths than he is letting on, doesn’t actually realize how ISIS is operating, or is intentionally misleading people–all three seem troubling.

Not to mention that carpet bombing, a term Cruz has repeatedly used when talking about ISIS, hasn’t been used since the Vietnam war. As Politifact points out, the main tenet of carpet bombing is that it is indiscriminate and not targeted. Even in the Gulf War, which Cruz regularly cites as an example, the military used targeted bombs. Moreover, the practice of carpet bombing may also violate the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention. What is true about carpet bombing? It sounds tough.

To be sure, the current U.S.-led bombing campaign has caused a large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria despite taking some precautions. While that is, by itself, worthy of debate, the debate on Tuesday night changed the way foreign policy is discussed in the Republican campaign. It seems as if the proposed policies are no longer about helping solve an already impossibly complicated situation, rather they are simply a way to display America’s, and by extension the candidate’s, toughness.

So what exactly does this toughness entail? Toughness, while often vague and said without further explanation, means being willing to act regardless of the consequences. That concept was even baked into the questions given to the candidates. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt questioned whether being a kind, evangelical neurosurgeon would prevent Ben Carson from doing what ‘needs to be done.’ Hewitt asked,

We’re talking about ruthless things tonight — carpet bombing, toughness, war… Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

In response, Carson reflected on the tough decisions he had to make as a surgeon, noting the firmness with which he dealt with his patients. “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks,” he said. But what he was saying did become clear until his next exchange with Hewitt:

Hewitt: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? [The crowd boos]

Carson: You got it.

Carson was not alone in his disregard for civilian casualties. The sentiment was largely popularized by the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who recently said that the United States should go after terrorists’ families. My colleague Anneliese Mahoney has already noted that Trump is, quite plainly, advocating for war crimes, but he pressed on in Tuesday night’s debate. He said, “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” Trump later asked, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?” He was seemingly arguing that the U.S. response should play at the same level as the Islamic State.

By the end of the night, only Rand Paul managed to create a compelling contrast to his competitors:

If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you’re going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

Paul’s questions, and the extent to which we are okay killing civilians, are worth further consideration from the candidates and voters alike.

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 GOP Debate: Candidates Fight Over Who is the Toughest appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Republicans (and Democratic masochists) cozied up to watch the fifth GOP debate of 2015. Hosted by CNN in Las Vegas, it featured nine presidential hopefuls sparring over mostly national security and foreign affairs questions. Some of the back-and-forths got nasty, including Trump vs. Bush, Cruz vs. Rubio, and watching the entire debate vs. my sanity.

But in a debate that focused heavily on the threat of terror, and the horrific actions of the San Bernardino shooters,  we heard a lot about political correctness last night. Most notably, according to serious contender Ted Cruz that “political correctness is killing people.” Slamming political correctness has become a new hobby for the Republican party, centered on the concept that Democrats are too scared of offending anyone that we have become weak on security.

Well here’s some political incorrectness for you guys: that line of thought is a fucking excuse, a waste of breath, and a complete misconception of the whole idea of political correctness.

The big flash point appears to be that despite the fact that one of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, posted messages on social media that advocated for jihad and showed she was radicalized, the Obama administration didn’t catch it. Nevermind the fact that she used a pseudonym with heavy security settings, “that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them.” The Obama administration was too busy being politically correct to use its crystal ball to divine that those posts were hers when she applied for a visa.

So what, exactly, were all the Republican candidates that railed against “political correctness” suggesting? That pseudonyms not be able to be used on Facebook or any other social media site? Well that’s a Facebook problem, not a political problem. Or that we should monitor every single person’s social media? That’s awfully Big Brother-ish, and if there are ramifications for someone posting something, well, that could impede on our Freedom of Speech. Or is it just people who don’t look, sound, or pray like the Republican candidates that should be monitored–there was after all, certainly no way we could have stopped Elliot Rodgers, who sent a manifesto outlining his plans before killing seven people and had spent time on multiple forums extolling his hatred for women. But of course, Rodgers, as a non-Muslim young man, was a victim of mental illness, nothing more. There’s no way we could have stopped him.

Or what about Dylann Roof, who shot nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina? It’s widely suspected Roof spent time on a white supremacist site called Daily Stormer. The manifesto he wrote uses language pulled almost directly from that site. Should he have been monitored? Or again, were his actions utterly unpredictable, beget out of mental illness and not out of any sort of radicalization that made him believe he needed to slaughter Black Americans?

Can we also talk about the logistical issues of what the Republican candidates were seemingly proposing? The average American age 18-24 sends or receive over 100 texts per day. Overall, time spent on Facebook worldwide accounts for 20 percent of all time online. In the U.S., 74 percent of all adults use at least some form of social media—we’re talking 240 million people. Even if we only identify 1 percent of them as even a possible threat–still 2.4 million people–how do we identify those people in the first place? Yes, we have algorithms, but computers can’t interpret tone or intent. So unless we want the NSA to spend its time sorting through Facebook posts, we have some serious logistical issues here–the NSA has had a hard time processing the data it already has. The Republicans on that stage last night wanted you to believe that we have Muslim terrorists writing “I’m going to commit an act of terror” on their Facebook pages and that the Obama administration is ignoring it, but that’s simply not true.

The internet is an unprecedented thing that we have now–the concept that we have access to this kind of massive personal information on people and their thoughts. We do need to figure out how to optimize policies in a way that will best help with national security. But the idea that all that’s stopping us from accessing all the answers about terrorism is “political correctness” doesn’t recognize the huge logistical undertaking proposed, the potential Freedom of Speech issues, the anonymity the internet provides, or the fact that the government maybe shouldn’t have access to every corner of it. This debate isn’t black and white–it’s significantly more nuanced than that. It’s not just about flipping a “political correctness” switch and suddenly being able to see everyone’s posts (particularly if they’re Muslim) and pinpoint terrorist attacks. And the fact that so many of the Republican candidates last night appeared to think that was the case indicates that they either don’t understand the internet, or are trying to score cheap political points. Given last night’s totally off-base contentions, I’d be surprised by neither.

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 Let’s All Shut the F**** Up About Political Correctness in a National Security Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

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 What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

As it turns out, there’s a lot of unedited, raw footage of Ted Cruz out there. It’s a not-so-secret trick that campaigns use to coordinate with their corresponding Super PACs–by releasing the footage publicly, PACs can use whatever they want. While the Cruz campaign uploaded the roughly 15 hours of raw footage this summer, the denizens of the internet appear to have just recently found it. Now, everyone is having quite a bit of fun at the expense of the Cruz family.

The entire thing is incredibly awkward. As New York Magazine stated about the segments of footage:

Presented in segments ranging anywhere from 24 minutes to more than an hour long, they contain unedited video from ad shoots for presidential campaign videos. What comes across is a bizarro campaign ad, full of awkward pauses, multiple takes, and uncomfortable hugs.

A lot of the best moments have already been cherry-picked; here’s my personal favorite:

The Daily Show host Trevor Noah had a bit of fun with Cruz’s footage, pointing out that the 15 hours of tape can be mixed and matched to create pretty much whatever. He dubbed it #CruzYourOwnAdventure, and gave some examples.

Noah then encouraged viewers to make and submit their own versions. Check out some of the best of #CruzYourOwnAdventure below.

Cruzac Commercial from Justin Bare on Vimeo.

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 The Best of #CruzYourOwnAdventure appeared first on Law Street.

It’s true–the Syrian refugee crisis is a tough situation to handle. There are a lot of questions, few answers, and overall there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. But there have also been some truly horrifying responses from Republicans on the issue (and a Democrat as well), from state level politicians, to governors, to current presidential contenders. Check out the top five most terrifying Republican responses to the Syrian refugee crisis below:

Senator Ted Cruz: Let’s Only Allow in Christian Refugees, No Muslims

Somewhat uniquely, Ted Cruz does say that he would let refugees in, but only if they are Christian. He backs up this startling show of intolerance by saying that it’s only Christians who are being persecuted by ISIS and in Syria.

Christians are being persecuted by ISIS, there’s no doubt about that. But so are Shiite Muslims, and so are Yazidis, and so are a whole bunch of other people. In fact, pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with ISIS is being persecuted–and that includes a whole bunch of Muslims as well. There are a lot of other things wrong with Cruz’s plan when it comes to Syrian refugees as–including the fact that he’s used completely incorrect facts about the demographics of refugees in Europe–but blatantly mischaracterizing the situation in Syria is probably the worst.

Senator David Vitter: Using Lies About a Missing Refugee for Cheap Political Points

David Vitter, who is currently running for governor of Louisiana (and losing) is now using total fear-mongering to attempt to get a bump in the polls. This week, the Louisiana Republican Party sent out an email and in support of Vitter, slamming Obama’s approach to dealing with the refugees, which Vitter tweeted about as well. The message was also posted on the LA GOP’s website. It read:

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

Republicans also claimed that the refugee was “heading to Washington D.C.” Let’s just set the disgustingly xenophobic language aside, if only because it’s a common thread running through all of these examples, and point out that the Syrian refugee wasn’t actually ever “missing” or “unmonitored.” The Louisiana police knew exactly where the refugee was–he was moving to DC because his family lived there and had to fill out many, many forms in order to be able to do so, including filing paperwork with the federal government. Fantastic job, David Vitter.

Donald Trump: Creating a Muslim Registry

While this one is only tangentially related–Trump actually calls for a complete refusal of Syrian refugees–it’s been worked into the overall debate enough I had to include it. Donald Trump, a man who is leading some Republican polls, said that he would support the creation of a registry with which to keep track of our nation’s Muslims. Although there’s been some arguments over what exactly he did mean–in one of the most damning clips he at one point appears to think he’s talking about border security–he didn’t flat out deny the proposal when asked a question about it, and that’s scary in and of itself. He was given the opportunity to clear up any confusion (if there was any) when asked how a registry of America’s Muslims would be different than the registration of Jews under Nazi Germany. But as the New York Times pointed out:

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, ‘You tell me,’ until he stopped responding to the question.

Here’s the full clip, if you want to watch for yourself:     Bonus points: Trump has also said that we have no choice but to close certain mosques earlier this week.

Ben Carson Compares Refugees to Dogs

   Ben Carson compared some refugees to “rabid dogs.” Do I even have to explain why this is offensive? Carson’s point–that we need good screening–is fine, but was there really a need to compare refugees to “mad dogs?” Not only is that dehumanizing, it implies that the refugees are diseased and have no autonomy over their own actions. But, what else can we expect from the man whose campaign is so messy that it actually misplaced New England earlier this week?

.@RealBenCarson‘s campaign redraws its map of the U.S. https://t.co/rGCSZDhG8c via @GregJKrieg pic.twitter.com/qCPzydrZCC — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 18, 2015

A Whole Bunch of People Suggesting Internment Camps

This is a fun one, because I get to highlight stupidity from multiple different people! Let’s start this with a history lesson: remember that time during World War II when we rounded up a bunch of Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps? And if you paid attention in middle school, remember how we now view that a massive human rights failure and total usurpation of their Constitutional rights? Remember how in 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed, compensating those Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps and offering a formal apology? Here’s what Ronald Reagan (the president who so rightfully signed that bill) said:

The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

Now, some people want to create similar camps for the Syrian refugees.

Let’s actually start with a Democrat–after all, ignorance and stupidity is certainly bipartisan: Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. After Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said that Virginia is open to refugees, Bowers called for all local government agencies to stop assisting refugees. He stated:

I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

So Bowers apparently missed history class. Who else?

State Senator Elaine Morgan of Rhode Island made a similar suggestion, saying that if we have to take refugees in: “we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous.”

Great! Any more?

Sure–there’s also Tennessee GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada who suggested using the National Guard to round up any refugees allowed in Tennessee and sending them back to the ICE Detention Centers.

Great work all around–I’m super proud to be an American today.

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 Top Five Most Horrifying Republican Responses to the Syrian Refugee Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was yet another installment of the GOP circus–also known as a Republican primary debate. Hosted by Fox Business, the debate was supposed to be focused on economic issues, with a bit of domestic and international policy thrown in. This debate field was smaller than the last three–Governors Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were moved down to the kiddie stage. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t still plenty of crazy to go around–check out the top seven funniest, strangest, and most memorable moments from the 4th GOP debate below:

Is China Part of the TPP?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, has been a hot topic in the political sphere as of late. Check out Law Street’s explainer on it here, if you’re not caught up. Last night at one point, the discussion on stage devolved into a talk about the TPP, and Trump went on a nice ramble about how the deal is “designed for China to come in as they always do through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.” Senator Rand Paul was quick to interject, pointing out that China isn’t part of the deal. It was an embarrassing moment for Trump, to be sure.

Everyone Was Kind of Mean to Philosophers

Last night, “philosophers” became a weirdly maligned group of people. It started when Marco Rubio talked about a need to destigmatize  trade education, arguing that “welders make more money than philosophers.” Then, Ted Cruz called the Fed “philosopher kings.” Then, John Kasich, when talking about economic concerns, stated: “philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

I’m not sure why everyone was being so mean about philosophy, but it’s worth noting that Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major.

Kasich Gets a Little too Excited about our Friendship with Jordan

John Kasich got a little too into the King of Jordan last night, when he stated: “Jordan, we want the king to reign for 1,000 years.” While he might have just been being a little hyperbolic, it seems pretty extreme. I don’t know that we should be wishing immortality on any other country’s leader.

Literally No One Paid Attention to the Bell

Fox Business’s poor “time is up” bell-ringer was the least respected person on stage last night. The bell was constantly rung to signal “time is over” and every candidate completely ignored it. While that meant that the candidates had a more open discourse than the previous debate, it was still pretty pathetic that no one even tried to stay within their allotted time.

The World’s Biggest Over-Simplification of Israeli-Palestinian Relations

We need someone who knows diplomacy, not name-calling & green rooms #DonaldTrump #RepublicanDebate #GOPDebate #Putin pic.twitter.com/yrjPcyPojp

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) November 11, 2015

When talking about a desire to build a wall on the American-Mexico border, Trump brought up the wall between Israel and Palestine on the West Bank. This is an incredibly controversial project, which was at one point ruled to have violated international law, so maybe not something that a presidential candidate wants to compare their future strategy to.

Jeb Bush Thanks Trump for Letting him Talk

Jeb! proved he can’t “fix” his debate performances last night, all epitomized by a fantastically awkward moment in which he thanked Trump for letting him talk. After a messy back-and-forth involve Kasich, Bush stated: “Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. That’s really nice of you. Really appreciate that.” Jeb, unfortunately, total passive-aggression isn’t going to help with your quickly falling poll numbers.

The Department of Commerce: So Bad, We’ll Get Rid of it Twice

If you’re from Texas and decide to run for President, never try to explain what departments you’d cut during the debate, because y’all are 0/2 in recent years. When talking about his tax plan, Ted Cruz stated:

$500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD — and then 25 specific programs.

That’s right, he mentioned the Department of Commerce twice. While it was less noticeable and embarrassing than Rick Perry’s “oops” moment back in 2012, it would have been nice if he could have really told us what five agencies he wants to eliminate.

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 Top Seven Most Memorable Moments from the 4th GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

It’s understandable that some of the Democratic and Republican candidates may not have put too much thought into their Halloween costumes yet–after all, it’s been a busy few weeks. So, we here at Law Street thought we’d help them out, and come up with some suggestions for a few of the candidates. Check them out below:

Bernie Sanders could go as Larry David

The senator from Vermont wouldn’t even have to get too creative on this one. He’s a dead ringer for comedian Larry David, who actually impersonated him on SNL a few weeks ago.

Bernie Sanders Thinks Larry David Impersonation Was ‘Pretty Good’ – ABC News https://t.co/33XTm0A2rZ#Headlinespic.twitter.com/EMjdzxtusv

— Stormbreaker (@iTwit_News) October 22, 2015

Ted Cruz as Grandpa Munster

According to some, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas looks an awful lot like Grandpa Munster from the Munsters–a 1980s CBS sitcom. It’s seasonally appropriate too, given that Grandpa Munster’s real name was Vladimir Dracula, Count of Transylvania, and a vampire.

Ted Cruz literally is grandpa Munster #GOPDebate@tedcruzpic.twitter.com/BCWQH4gPSa

— Lawyer with wine (@Esq_Wine) October 29, 2015

Martin O’Malley as Taylor Swift

After he regaled the hosts of the “View” with his rendition of “Bad Blood,” O’Malley should reprise his role as T-Swift for Halloween.

Lindsey Graham Could be an iPhone

Given his aversion to technology and email, and the earlier controversy when Donald Trump gave out his personal cell phone number, Lindsey Graham could make a convincing iPhone for Halloween.

Making my iPhone costume! @MaesieKostynuik @MegsDeAngelis #iphonecostume pic.twitter.com/Y2mzeiRvmX

— Julie (@JulieGeneroux) October 30, 2015

Jeb Bush Could be His Brother, or Father

Bush might as well save some money, and repurpose an old costume. I’m sure there are plenty of George W. and George H.W. costumes floating around out there.

Image courtesy of Steve Shupe via Flickr

Hillary Should Dress up as Tech Support

Given all the issues she has had with her email so far in this campaign, Hillary could moonlight as a member of tech support–Geek Squad, perhaps?

Image courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr

So there you have it–some suggestions for the 2016 candidates to celebrate Halloween in style. With only hope, they’ll take these suggestions seriously. 

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 Halloween Costume Suggestions for the 2016 Presidential Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched CNBC’s Republican Debate last night, you probably noticed the candidates’ general disdain for the media. It started off early and persisted throughout the night, as the candidates criticized the moderators’ questions and the mainstream media’s coverage of the campaign so far.

The first candidate to criticize the media was Marco Rubio. When moderator Carl Quintanilla asked him about an editorial in the Sun-Sentinal that called for Rubio’s resignation due to his attendance record at Senate votes during the campaign, Rubio responded saying, “I read that editorial today with a great amusement. It’s actually evidence of the bias that exists in the American media today.”

Rubio went on to criticize the editorial and the double standard that he believes people have been using to evaluate him. He noted that several past presidential candidates actually had worse attendance records while campaigning, yet the Sun-Sentinel endorsed them. He expanded his criticism to argue that the mainstream media is generally inhospitable to the modern conservative movement.

While Rubio has a point when it comes to peoples’ criticism of his voting record, it is extremely important to note that the article that he referenced as an example of media bias was an editorial, which typically contain opinions from the editorial board and are not the same as a general news article. In fact, there is very little evidence of partisan media bias in news coverage. As the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog pointed out on Twitter, a meta-analysis of media bias in presidential elections found virtually no evidence of partisan bias, particularly in newspapers and news magazines. While the media does have its biases, they generally do not fall along partisan or political lines, rather they are often a product of the economic constraints faced by news organizations.

Arguably the most notable example of a candidate attacking the media came from Ted Cruz, who went on a rant against the moderators and election coverage more generally. He said:

The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media…

This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions — ‘Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?’ ‘Ben Carson, can you do math?’ ‘John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?’ ‘Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?’ ‘Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?’ How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?

Most of the criticism focused on the moderators and what critics argued were hostile questions. Cruz’s point captured the sentiment behind that criticism; he claimed that the debate focused more on personal disagreements and politics than substance.

In fairness to the moderators, Cruz made that comment in response to a question on his opposition to the recent Congressional compromise, which led Congress to raise the debt ceiling. By most standards, the debt ceiling is a substantive issue, and it is particularly relevant for Cruz as it allowed him to get at his tendency to use important votes–like the 2013 budget vote that led to a government shutdown–to talk about his agenda. Now, to Cruz’ credit, and regardless of how you feel about his positions, he did try to touch on important issues during Wednesday’s debate. His comments focused on his plan for a 10 percent flat tax, addressing the national debt, criticizing of the Federal Reserve, and a brief call to reinstate the gold standard. But regardless of his attempts to focus on real issues, the one quote that everyone seems to be focusing on his call-out of the moderators.

The media criticism wasn’t confined to Rubio and Cruz, though they did their fair share to bring it into the spotlight. Other candidates, notably Donald Trump and Chris Christie, spoke out against the moderators’ questions at several points during the debate. Afterward, the Republican National Committee (RNC) also expressed its displeasure with CNBC. Reince Priebus, the RNC Chairman, said that the network “should be ashamed of how this debate was handled.” He tweeted his criticism saying:

I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange. #GOPDebate

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015

In spite of the moderators, I’m proud of our team for standing up against the improper and unprofessional display put on by CNBC. — Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015

In a review of the debate’s transcript, Bloomberg noted that in contrast to September’s debate, the candidates were more willing to criticize the moderators than each other. The analysis also found that there was a total of 14 points during which the candidates attacked the “mainstream” media. In response to the rush of criticism, CNBC’s Vice President of Communications, Brian Steel, issued a brief but direct statement. He said, “People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions.” Although many agree with the candidates and the RNC, not everyone has criticized the moderators’ performance. While both sides have their points, it’s also important to ask why exactly the candidates are so vocal in their opposition to the mainstream media. 

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 GOP Debate: Candidates Agree on One Thing, They Don’t Like the Media appeared first on Law Street.

It may only be Stephen Colbert’s second week in the “Late Show” chair, but that didn’t stop him from seriously quizzing Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz  Monday night on Ronald Reagan, gay marriage, and the Constitution.

Reagan and his policies have been at the forefront of the Republican race following last week’s second Republican primary debate in the Reagan library. So much so, that candidates have begun comparing themselves in one way or another to the 40th president, despite their actual positions on key topics proving the contrary.

So when Cruz brought Reagan up, Colbert jumped at the chance to weed out another Reagan wannabee.

Here’s a clip from the interview below:

But if you either a. don’t have a pair of headphones handy, b. don’t have four and a half minutes to spare, or c. would prefer to read my attempt at witty commentary, enjoy some of the interview highlights below:

Colbert: “Reagan raised taxes, okay. Reagan actually had an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Neither of those things would allow Reagan to be nominated today. So to what level can you truly emulate Ronald Reagan?”

Noting that Reagan worked across the aisle with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil to get shit done, he continued:

“Isn’t that what people want more than anything else. Not just principles, but actions.”

Cruz:  Says no voter has told him that they want him to “give in more to Barack Obama.”

Colbert: Continued to press Cruz on whether or not he agrees with Reagan on raising taxes and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Cruz: “No, of course not. But Ronald Reagan also signed the largest tax cut in history. He reduced government regulations from Washington, and economic growth exploded.”

Colbert: Quickly reminds Cruz that “when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations, so it’s a matter of compromising.”

(Did you hear that Cruz? Successful government requires compromise, not forced shutdowns.)

Cruz: Steers the conversation to his platform, telling Colbert that in a nutshell he thinks the country should “live within our means, stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids, and follow the Constitution.”

Colbert: “And no gay marriage?”

Cruz: “Well no , let’s be precise: Under the Constitution, marriage is a question for the states.”

Colbert: “It doesn’t mention marriage in the Constitution.”

(Oh snap.)

Cruz: “The 10th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn’t mention it, it’s a question for the states. … I don’t think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington.”

Colbert: Has to silence the audience’s boos for Cruz.

Cruz: “If you want to win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box.”

Touche, Cruz. So how about you get back to me after you win at the ballot box. But right now i’m awarding this political showdown Colbert-1, Cruz-0.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stephen Colbert Owns Ted Cruz on Reagan, Gay Marriage, and the Constitution appeared first on Law Street.

The second Republican primary debate of the year was aired last night by CNN and took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It was a three hour debate that left me with more questions than answers–for example, did they really all go that entire stretch without having to use the bathroom? But, tradition dictates that we boil down those three hours into some gifable snapshots, so without further ado, check out the top ten moments from the second Republican debate.

10. Mike Huckabee Appealed to Millennials with a Reference from the ’80s

Mike Huckabee referred to the Republican field as the “A Team” and decided that Donald Trump was Mr. T, saying:

I think we are in fact The A-Team. We have some remarkable people. We even have our own Mr. T, who doesn’t mind saying about others, ‘you’re cool.’

Pop culture references are a great way to appeal to the masses–and if he had picked something less than 30 years old (we’re not counting the horrible 2010 remake) it might have been successful.

9. Marco Rubio Made a Fun Reference

One of Marco Rubio’s early introductions to the national stage was when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union back in 2013. During the speech he took a fantastically awkward sip of water:

But last night, Rubio paid homage to that really awkward moment by bringing his own water to the debate. It was a sweet and dad-joke like, but I’m not sure how much of a splash it made.

We’re entering the next phase of the #GOPdebate. Anyone need refreshments? http://t.co/tdQhhyEBDb pic.twitter.com/ki3fr601BE

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 17, 2015

8. Donald Trump Proves his Mature Rhetorical Mastery

Trump, on immigration: “First of all, I want to build a wall-a wall that works. We have a lot bad dudes, from outside, in this country.” So eloquently put, Trump, although I do have to admit “bad dudes” is a bit more PC than calling swarths of the population “rapists.”

7. Carly Fiorina Makes Things Up

Carly Fiorina went on a weird, grisly rant about Planned Parenthood that would have been strategically powerful if it was in any way true. She stated–presumably in reference to the much-edited Planned Parenthood hit videos created by the Center for Medical Progress:

I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

The videos were disturbing to be sure, even though they were patently fiction. But at no point did those videos even come to close to portraying a fully formed fetus kicking its legs–Fiorina at this point was over-exaggerating exaggerations in an incredibly upsetting way. It’s one thing to be anti-choice, it’s another thing altogether to use lies and fear-mongering to prove your point.

6. Everyone Got Handsy with Donald Trump

Donald Trump was flanked on stage by Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, and at various points he exchanged really awkward high fives/handshakes with each of them. First was Ben Carson, who was very reluctant to get involved in the entire situation: But Jeb Bush got a little too enthusiastic, and actually appeared to make Trump flinch: 

Here you go Twitter pic.twitter.com/9wfzAQGftg — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) September 17, 2015

5. Winner of the Happy Hour Debate (Literally): Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham had my favorite quote of the earlier happy hour debate, which featured the candidates who aren’t polling well enough to make it to the main stage. Graham, who has his priorities in order, stated: “That’s the first thing I’m going to do as president. We’re going to drink more.”

He was referring to Ronald Reagan’s tradition of drinks with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, but it still makes for an awesome one-liner, and I wholeheartedly approve.

4. Chris Christie Gets Fed Up

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina got into a spat back-and-forth about their business records, and Christie got really damn tired of listening to it. He eventually said:

 The fact is that we don’t want to hear about your careers. Back and forth and volleying back and forth about who did well and who did poorly. You’re both successful people. Congratulations. You know who is not successful? The middle class in this country who’s getting plowed over by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.

While I’m normally not a Christie fan, and I don’t agree with the claims in his comment, here’s some well-deserved applause for shutting up that annoying Trump and Fiorina spat:

3. Jeb Bush Tries to Prove He’s a Cool Kid

Jeb Bush attempted to get some street cred in the lamest way possible–by admitting he had smoked  marijuana 40 years ago and his mom doesn’t approve:

So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.

 

2. Fiorina Takes Down Trump

You can watch this one yourself:

.@CarlyFiorina responds to @realDonaldTrump‘s comment about her face #CNNDebate http://t.co/jcEf6bW9ja #GOPDebate http://t.co/m0eDU5NvhT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 17, 2015

Ok, now we actually do have a bad ass over here.

1. Some Really Lame Answers to the “Which Women You’d Put on the $10 Bill Question”

As a fun, easy question toward the end, the moderators asked each of the debaters “Which woman would you put on the $10 bill?” Some answers were fine–Susan B. Anthony,  Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams are all admirable American women. But some of them were flat-out ridiculous. For example, three of the candidates–Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson–all cited female family members. Huckabee chose his wife, Donald Trump chose his daughter, and Ben Carson named his mother. While those are nice answers and may have been good responses to “who inspires you,” they’re also total cop-outs and a bit insulting. Women have done so many great things for this country and none are included on our paper currency–yet three of the eleven candidates couldn’t even name one.

Then, Jeb Bush gave arguably the weirdest answer all night–put Margaret Thatcher on the $10 bill. Alright Jeb Bush, please do remember that if you want a fighting chance, some American women will have to vote for you. Although at this point, I haven’t the foggiest why we would.

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 Top 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns to Washington there are several important issues on the docket, from the Iran deal to Pope Francis’ speech, but there is one major debate that is sure to take center stage in the coming days: budget negotiations. It’s certainly not everyone’s favorite reminder of Fall, but it comes each year as sure as the change in seasons. This time around, the budget debate is shaping up to be a particularly ugly battle and may even lead to yet another government shutdown.

Creating a budget traditionally involves the passage of 12 different bills, which fund various parts of the government. But in recent years, Congress has had difficulty passing budget measures and has resorted to using continuing resolutions, which essentially maintain existing funding levels for a short period of time to extend negotiations. The last time Congress passed all 12 bills on time (before the fiscal year begins on October 1) was back in 1996.

When Congress does pass a budget, it typically takes the form of an omnibus bill that combines all of the various spending measures into one piece of legislation. However, such bills often include a lot of minor amendments that allow congressmen to sneak in controversial policies. These changes manage to get through because they are attached to such an important bill, which few people want to derail over one specific issue. A recent example of this was the so-called “Cromnibus” bill, a continuing resolution that was passed at the 11th hour (almost literally) before an impending shutdown last December. The bill included some contentious elements, like raising limits for donations to political parties and rolling back some of the regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

This year, there are several major hurdles that Congress must get past in order to agree on a new budget, which makes a shutdown all the more likely. For those of you who remember the 2013 shutdown–which sought to push back the implementation of Obamacare and lasted for 16 days–a familiar face is back at the center of attention: Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Cruz is leading an emerging group of conservative Republicans who want to stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood–the non-profit healthcare organization that provides a range of reproductive health services including, controversially, abortions. Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually; however, due to a decades-old amendment, that funding cannot be used for abortions.

While Planned Parenthood is perennially a hot topic in American politics, it has become the subject of a lot of attention lately after a series of videos were released alleging that the organization sold organs and tissue from aborted fetuses to researchers. The videos were released by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress. So far, state investigations into Planned Parenthood have found no evidence of wrongdoing and a review of the videos indicate that they were edited before publishing.

There are currently 28 Republicans in the House and Senator Cruz in the Senate who have stated their commitment to either defunding Planned Parenthood or forcing a government shutdown. If the movement garners enough support, the group could refuse to vote on any spending measure that includes any funding for Planned Parenthood. Even if Congress manages to pass a budget that defunds the organization, it will still likely lead to a shutdown because President Obama has already vowed to veto any such bill. Cruz and his allies’ proposed alternative to Planned Parenthood funding calls for the money to be given to community health centers. While several Republicans favor defunding Planned Parenthood, few may be willing to shut down the government over the issue–putting many, particularly the party leaders, in a very difficult position. If the government does shut down it is likely that Congress will take the blame. After the 2013 shutdown, approval of Republicans in Congress reached an all-time low, and now that the party controls both the House and the Senate a shutdown could be even more embarrassing.

Based on the way the budget talks are developing, it’s clear that Planned Parenthood will be one of, if not the most, important issues as the deadline comes closer, but its funding won’t be the only controversial topic in budget talks. Due to the Budget Control Act passed in 2011, also known as the sequester, caps were placed on both domestic and military spending. President Obama has harshly criticized the caps for domestic spending and many Republicans want to provide additional military spending after the Pentagon’s budget faced dramatic cuts as sequestration began. Republicans are now trying to move funding from domestic programs as a way to increase military spending, but President Obama and Congressional Democrats will likely reject any compromise that does not include raising domestic spending. The President has promised to veto any bill that leaves sequestration-level budget caps in place.

Congress only has just over 10 legislative days to pass a new budget or a continuing resolution before the government shuts down at midnight on September 30. Some experts. like Stan Collender, have given precise estimates–Collender believes there is a 67 percent chance of a shutdown. Overall, the likelihood of either solution seems to be in doubt as the deadline looms closer, leaving budget analysts to argue that a shutdown is more likely than not.

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 Brace Yourselves: A Government Shutdown May Be Looming appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, here are Law Street’s top stories of the week. The number one story involves Ellen Page and Ted Cruz battling over gay rights in Iowa. The number two story covered two reporters who were shot by a disgruntled former coworker in Virginia. Finally, number three involved Kanye West’s declaration of presidency for 2020. Check out all three below:

#1 Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Read the full story here.

#2 Disgruntled Employee Kills Virginia Reporter and Cameraman on Live TV

A television reporter and cameraman were shot dead during a live news broadcast for WDBJ-TV, a Roanoke-Lynchburg CBS affiliate, this morning in Moneta, Virginia. Alison Parker, 24, and photojournalist Adam Ward, 27 were in the middle of filming a segment on tourism at the Bridgewater Plaza when several shots rang out at 6:45 am. Read the full story here.

#3 Is Kanye West Really Running for President?

Last night’s MTV Video Music Awards went much like you’d expect. Miley attempted to shock viewers with nipple skimming outfits and weed references, none of the jokes were funny, Taylor Swift won most of the awards, and Kanye managed to steal the show–but this time without stealing a mic from Swift. During a bizarre 11-minute-long acceptance speech for the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, Yeezy talked about everything from how fatherhood changed him to fighting for artists…and a possible presidential run in 2020? Read the full story 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: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

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 Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton take the battle online, Ted Cruz uses a War Games meme, and then there’s Donald Trump. Check out the slideshow below with some of the best campaign tweets of the week. For more election Twitter coverage, check out Law Street’s 2016 Voices.

Jeb Bush Calls Out the White House

For the first time in 54 years, the American flag flies above @USEmbCuba. #Cuba http://t.co/0O4X1m5bb8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 14, 2015

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 Best Campaign Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. The panel of men, 90 percent of whom are white, debated women’s health care issues as well as the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and argued about who among them was the most average, the most American, and who hates Hillary Clinton the most. The riveting debate had hundreds of quotable moments, but here are the top ten quotes, one for each of the presidential hopefuls, in the order of the candidates’ standings in the polls.

1. Donald Trump: “If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.”

America runs on Trumpin.

2. Jeb Bush: “They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.”

Jeb! will make you an offer you can’t refuse. Literally. You can’t refuse a veto.

3. Scott Walker: “I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…”

Scott Walker: destroying women’s health centers before it was cool.

4. Ben Carson: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

So if you ever elect a Siamese twin to public office, Carson can help to make your vote count twice.

5. Mike Huckabee: “The military is not a social experiment, the military does two things: kill people and break things.”

How strong? Army strong.

6. Ted Cruz: “Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.”

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is the chosen one by divine right.

7. Rand Paul (to Chris Christie): “I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.”

Don’t ever think we don’t notice all of your awkward hugs, Christie.

8. Marco Rubio: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Velma might find her glasses before the Democrats can find a good candidate, #AmIRight Rubio? High five!

9. Chris Christie (in response to Rand Paul wanting to get warrants before tapping into Americans’ phones and emails): “Listen, senator, you know, when you’re sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air, you can say things like this.”

Look at all of these hot air balloons emanating from Cleveland during the debate!

10. John Kasich: “I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage…. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay.”

(Read: “I HAVE GAY FRIENDS I SWEAR.”)

Jennie Burger  and Maurin Mwombela also contributed to this story.

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 Top 10 Quotes from the First 2016 Republican Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

With Ohio governor John Kasich joining the Republican field for the 2016 presidential election, the numbers have reached an all-time high. Sixteen GOP candidates have now officially declared they’re running for the presidency–the highest number in campaign history. Previous to this year, the all-time high for the GOP as reported by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was 11 in both 2000 and 2012. What makes 2016 so different than previous years, and why are so many Republicans suddenly running for the nation’s highest office? Surely the chances of winning are slim in such a highly contested field, however it is still early enough that it’s any candidates’ ball game, and there are definitely reasons why so many may have thrown their hats into the ring.

One of the reasons that makes 2016 such a viable year for GOP candidate hopefuls is the mere fact that Republicans no longer want a Democrat running the government.The last Republican president to hold office was George W. Bush and that was back in 2008. Since then it has been a Democratic-run government under President Barack Obama. Now is the best time for Republicans to run granted that there is no incumbent president. As was seen in 2008, Obama ran as one of the younger candidates in history and proved that running at the right time can overcome a lack of experience.

The large number of candidates further demonstrates that there are contributing factors such as the changes to campaign funding policies which further permit individuals running to raise exorbitant amounts of money through fundraising and sponsorship (think Republican Jeb Bush, and Democrat Hillary Clinton.) Although the FEC used to place strict monetary guidelines on candidates, the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on the Citizens United case essentially gutted those stipulations and made it a lot easier for candidates to raise massive sums of cash. Further, the influx of money as a result of the Citizens United ruling may have propelled and incentivized individuals with large personal wealth (think Republicans Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina) to declare their candidacies. CNN recently reported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as stating, “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates.” Sanders quote is clearly reflected by the latest GOP poll as it shows one of the most famously wealthy men in United States, Donald Trump, leading the pack.

While many refer to the 2008 election as the “Facebook Election,” it appears that the 2016 election is covering a lot more than just one social media platform. In fact most of the top candidates in the GOP field are staying very active on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Periscope. Senator Ted Cruz demonstrated his active social media dedication as he provided a live stream of his first major speech across all mediums of social media on March 23. Although GOP candidates are aware that the competition in their own field alone is very fierce, they also understand that the highly prioritized use of social media in the campaign will allow them many hours in the national spotlight. Many of the candidates may be seeking some sort of business venture, platform, or  political deal as a realistic option from campaigning, and are in a great position with the constant celebrity-like attention they can get through social media.

Having won the previous eight years in the White House, the Democratic party is somewhat unified on its ideals while the Republican party is immensely divided. There are arguably four separate yet equally important constituencies which make up the GOP right now. The four of these are: the libertarians, the Tea Party goers, the social conservatives and the establishment, although of course there’s plenty of overlap as well as other ideologies. With that being said, it is very tough for one candidate to appeal to all four of the subgroups. However, granted that it is still very early on in the race, candidates have time to strategically plan how to reach their respective audiences within the party. Hypothetically speaking, if one candidate can somehow secure the following of all four groups, he or she would skyrocket in the race and have a very high chance of winning.

Whether all 16 candidates are in it to win it or simply for an experience to share some ideas, the fact remains that only one will win the GOP primary and eventually run against the Democratic rival. With that being said there will be 15 qualified (some more than others) and hungry losers looking to further their influence in politics. Candidates who have already lost may join and support a fellow constituent still in the running who shares similar ideals. Losing candidates might also join forces with those still in contention to make it more difficult for the competition to win. It is still early on, however, things are looking rather exciting for the Republican party as the field is stacked and surprises await.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Raining Republicans: Why is the 2016 Field So Crowded? appeared first on Law Street.

GOP presidential candidates are nervously returning money and double checking their finances this week. An investigation recently revealed that the leader of the white supremacist group that is said to have radicalized Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old white man who murdered nine black people during a bible study in Charleston last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns.

Sixty-two-year-old Earl P. Holt III is president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a self-declared “conservative activist group” that opposes “race mixing” as a religious affront and that “vilifies blacks as an inferior race.” Holt has donated $65,000 to campaign funds in recent years, including 2016 GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Holt has provided $8,500 to Senator Cruz since 2012. Another $1,750 was given to Senator Paul’s action committee, and $1,500 was donated to Senator Santorum, who attended Sunday’s memorial service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. A spokesman for Cruz’s campaign was quick to say that the money donated by Holt would be immediately refunded. Also in hot water to return money funded by this extremist organization is Paul, who said today that he would also be foregoing the money donated by Holt. Santorum  finally denounced the funding on Monday afternoon, saying he would be donating the money to the victims’ families.

GOP candidates got cash from white nationalist cited by Charleston shooting suspect http://t.co/sLN6nNSdYV pic.twitter.com/d1Gqsdz9D4

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2015

Over the past four years, a user named Earl P. Holt III has posted racist comments on The Blaze, a conservative news outlet. On a February 2014 article, the user–who is suspected to be the same Earl P. Holt III who is funding Republican campaigns–wrote that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground.” Roof echoed these chillingly racist remarks as he complained to his victims in Charleston last week, saying: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” A close associate and former director of the CofCC, Jared Taylor, was asked by Holt to handle all media inquiries relating to the Charleston massacre. When asked about the online user going by Holt’s full name, Taylor stated: “If there’s a statement that is ‘Earl P. Holt III’, he probably made it.”

On Saturday, Internet sleuths discovered that Dylann Roof had a website complete with a racist manifesto, which states that he learned about black on white crime from the CofCC website. Roof says it was the Trayvon Martin killing and his opinion that George Zimmerman did no wrong in shooting the unarmed black teen that began his obsession with “black on white violence.”

In an online statement, Holt said he was not surprised that Roof had learned about “black-on-white violent crime” from the CofCC. He stated that the Council is one of the few brave activist groups that are not afraid to “accurately and honestly” disclose “the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.” Holt said the Council of Conservative Citizens should not be held responsible for Roof’s actions just because he gained “accurate” information from the website.

Santorum has declared the statements made and sentiments held by Holt to be “unacceptable.” But isn’t it unacceptable to have your campaign financed by individuals and groups that represent the beating heart of racism? It’s easy to wonder if Cruz, Paul, and Santorum knew that their campaigns were receiving donations from a man who runs a white supremacist organization. Moreover, if the media had not exposed Holt’s status as a white supremacist, would the candidates have donated and refunded the money? Hopefully this exposure will shed light on the often amoral campaign financing process and lead to more scrutiny about where our presidential candidates are getting their money.

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 GOP Candidates in Hot Water After Receiving Donations From White Supremacist Leader appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday June 5, Rick Perry announced his plans to run for the Republican presidential bid in 2016. Despite his blunder in a Republican presidential debate almost four years ago, Perry decided that reforming his image and enhancing his stage presence will give him a good shot at running for president this time around. But considering Perry’s low support among Texans and his indictment regarding his alleged abuse of power as governor, Perry might not be able to rally any support for his bid.

So far, Perry has focused his presidential bid on his experience as a governor who stimulated Texas’s economy and on his military experience. His primary tactic is to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates by being the face of leadership and experience. He’s also emphasized his humble background by relaying his childhood upbringing on a cotton farm. But this technique has not quite corrected his previous blunder, nor is it garnering the same support that he had the first time around.

Perry has already lost crucial support in Texas and many Texans don’t even support him; in a recent poll he barely polled at 2 percent compared to Scott Walker at 18 percent and Marco Rubio at 13 percent. Many Republican and Tea Party members have flocked to Ted Cruz instead of Perry.

The last piece of the puzzle that is seriously damaging Perry’s chances of winning the Republican bid for the presidency is the indictment that accuses Perry of abusing his power as governor when he was in office. Perry allegedly threatened Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after she had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence. She refused and Perry vetoed the funding to her office’s Public Integrity Unit, which focused on anti-corruption measures. As a result of the indictment, Perry faces the possibility of 109 years in prison. Perry’s defense appeals to the rule of the law, as he stated:

I stood up for the rule of the law in Texas, and if I had to do it again, I would make exactly the same decision.

However, the original complaint was actually filed before Perry vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unit. The team who filed the complaint found four other allegations that could point to felonies. The claim for the complaint is focused more on Perry threatening another official and actually has little to do with his vetoes. All of these accusations could spell problems for Perry on the campaign trail.

Perry seems to be taking on a lot as he runs for the Republican presidential bid. The fact that he is accused of abusing his power as governor should put a lot of doubt in voters’ minds. And even though his presidential campaign has focused on important issues so far, such as increasing jobs, Perry has not been successful in gaining support in Texas. Some could say it’s admirable that he is trying to run for the presidency again, but he should be more focused on his abuse of power charges, which may end up determining his presidential campaign before it even really begins.

Sarina Neote

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

The post Rick Perry’s Hands Are Full 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.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday morning that he will be running in the 2016 presidential race, making him the first Republican candidate to officially declare his bid for the presidency.  But if you thought all election birth certificate drama ended with Obama, you were wrong. This time Cruz’s citizenship is under scrutiny, causing some people to wonder if the Canadian-born U.S. Senator can actually become president.

It’s common knowledge that according to the Constitution you must be a “natural-born-citizen” in the United States in order to become its president or vice president. Sorry Arnold Schwarzenegger. But how is it possible for Canadian born Senator Cruz to run for office?

For starters Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and Cuban émigré father, received U.S. citizenship from his mother, but also maintained Canadian citizenship by way of birth. In 2013 when he was being considered as a potential candidate, questions regarding Cruz’s citizenship began to surface, prompting him to release a statement:

Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter.

Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.

Cruz’s became “All-American” in 2014 when he signed his official “Canadian Renunciation Letter” absolving him of his Canadian citizenship. Despite this, some conservatives like Donald Trump have continued to question Cruz’s eligibility, albeit quite passively, calling it a “hurdle” for Cruz. That’s a stark difference from the attack dog-like aggressiveness from birthers like Trump who not too long ago demanded to see Obama’s birth certificate with their own eyes. That group went so far as to claim that the president was really born in Kenya and his birth certificate was a forgery.

In case you were wondering, Cruz isn’t the first presidential candidate to be born outside of the United States. ABC News was quick to point out that both John McCain and George Romney ran for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone and Mexico, respectively.

So just to make it clear yes, Cruz is American and yes, he is allowed to run for President. Whether or not he’ll even become the Republican nominee is another story, but for now lets put an end to another round of trivial “birth certificate drama.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz’s Presidential Bid: Will There Be Citizenship Questions? appeared first on Law Street.

Net Neutrality has been the center of an important political and technological debate for a while now. Law Street has covered the different developments extensively. This week, President Obama released a statement affirming the need for net neutrality, and it was a strong one.

If you don’t want to watch the entire statement, here are the sparknotes. Obama affirmed the concept of net neutrality and stated his plan moving forward: he wants the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) to reclassify the internet and protect net neutrality. As he put it in his statement:

To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Essentially, Obama wants to prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from changing or altering the speeds at which they provide service to various sites or users. He wants to prevent what’s called “internet fast lanes,” because they mean that ISPs would have control over how fast particular sites load. Fast lanes stifle creativity, equality, and would give a ton of power and money to ISPs such as the much-maligned Comcast.

Of course, Obama can’t support anything without there being a very good chance that the other side of the aisle will get up in arms about it, and that’s exactly what happened here. Rising Republican star Ted Cruz tweeted the following:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I’m not even entirely sure where to start. It’s almost like Cruz created this tweet during a game of petty political Mad Libs–the prompt would have been “fill in a controversial program that will make people angry with the President without explaining the context, giving a comparison, or even trying to justify it.”

First of all, this shows that Cruz fundamentally does not understand what net neutrality is. Luckily, the very denizens of the internet whom net neutrality would hurt had a nice response for Ted Cruz–my favorite was the one by the Oatmeal, a humorous web comic. In addition to being a great take down of Cruz, it is also a pretty good explanation of net neutrality for the uninitiated. Take a look:

Dear @SenTedCruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works http://t.co/rQWMlmJTmY pic.twitter.com/dvxQGDZMBF

— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) November 10, 2014

The Oatmeal’s point is simple–Cruz takes money from the very same ISPs that want to be able to charge people more for their services. And then he turns around and posts something on Twitter that’s not just horribly inaccurate but clearly inflammatory. Because he most likely does not understand net neutrality.

But Cruz and the people who work for him know how to score political points. And comparing anything to Obamacare is going to be a winning metaphor among those who have decided that Obamacare is the devil incarnate.

The fact that Cruz is against net neutrality is a bit upsetting though. It stands directly in contrast to the principles he purports to support. Cruz’s website focuses heavily on the idea of small business success, and working hard to achieve your goals.

Those principles–economic success through small business growth, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps–of Republican theory have been made so much easier by the advent of the internet. Now an entrepreneur can start a small business and use the resources provided by global connectivity to reach customers all over the world. A student who doesn’t have access to very good educational resources can use the internet to learn, for free.

But Ted Cruz would rather compare the internet to Obamacare because it’s easy.

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 Ted Cruz Doesn’t Know or Care What Net Neutrality Is appeared first on Law Street.

Gay marriage is now legal in the majority of American states. The Supreme Court declined to take on cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin in which lower courts struck down the gay marriage ban. Given that the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia fall under the purview of the same appeals courts, gay marriage essentially has been legalized there as well.

Most Americans now live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal http://t.co/7XbvlUuirz pic.twitter.com/DPbAoZUf5T

— Conrad Hackett (@conradhackett) October 6, 2014

The speed with which the legalization of same-sex marriage has spread through the United States is nothing short of remarkable. The first state to legalize gay marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. Back then, it was pretty much revolutionary. The Defense of Marriage Act still existed, states were voting to ban same-sex marriage by droves, and sodomy laws had only just been struck down.

In just ten years the trajectory has changed dramatically. In 2004, less than a third of the American population supported legalizing same-sex marriage, now a clear majority does.

With the opinion on gay marriage shifting so dramatically, it’s easy to wonder what role the debate will play in the 2016 election. Will it even be a topic of conversation? Or is this a done deal — states are going to continue to legalize same-sex marriage, probably slowly, until we get to the point where same-sex couples can marry no matter where they are in the United States. Ten years ago, Massachusetts was almost revolutionary, now the practice is common place. In another ten years, will prohibiting gay marriage seem as archaic as the ban on interracial marriage?

Those questions, especially what will happen in 2016, are difficult to answer. There’s a chance that it will still be a topic of conversation, after all, GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz had a strong reaction to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. He took issue with the court, saying:

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislature.

Ted Cruz essentially said that it should be to the voters to decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. He won the straw poll at the Values Voters Summit, held in Washington D.C. just a few weeks ago. The Values Voter Summit this year apparently focused heavily on anti-Muslim and anti-ISIS rhetoric, but there was still some LGBT-rights bashing as well. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was present, and it worked hard to try to convince attendees that the fight against same-sex marriage was by no means over. And some of the speakers did wax poetic about traditional marriage — Rick Santorum, for example, made an appearance.

But the question is, is the Values Voter Summit still representative of a large chunk of the Republican Party? And that’s not just a question that I, as an observer, am trying to answer. It seems to be a question that the Republican Party itself is having difficulty with.

The Republican Party is in a tough place — an issue that it’s worked on for a very long time is no longer really an issue. While it’s tough to tell whether or not the Party will still put any focus on the issue in the 2016 elections, it’s a choice that it is going to have to make for itself. But as more states move toward legalizing gay marriage and more Americans show their support, it will be a difficult choice to make.

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 Same-Sex Marriage Legal in Most States: What Does the GOP Do Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

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 [eskimojoe 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 America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, lovelies. Did you all survive Thanksgiving? How many of you are still battling tryptophan-induced comas?

I know I am!

But all the Thanksgiving gluttony in the world couldn’t hold me back from you all. Nope. And I’ve got some worrying news to open your re-entrance into the world of normal portion sizes and stuffing withdrawal.

2016 is going to be a bitch.

Why? Well, because of a little “nuclear” reactor that was detonated just in time for my turkey to come out of the oven.

It did not look like this.

One week before Thanksgiving, Senator Harry Reid rallied together enough votes in the Senate to eliminate the minority party’s ability to filibuster executive branch nominees and any judgeship below the Supreme Court. What does that mean? Sen. Reid and the majority of his fellow Senators told the GOP to shut the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums already. Who can get anything done with these filibuster-happy, crazy people running around, making medically inadvisable speeches for gazillions of hours?

But actually. Filibustering hinders productivity. FACT.

Also fact: filibustering is sometimes necessary. If the majority party is set on passing some super fucked up legislation, the opposing side has to have some way to stand up and call bullshit. But here’s the problem with these two indisputable facts. Since President Obama was first elected in 2008, the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.

Literally abusing it. Like, if the filibuster were a person, the GOP would be collectively doing time for assault and battery right now. So, Sen. Reid took the initiative. He got his fellow Senators together, and they stood up to the obnoxious, filibuster-abusing Republicans. And now they can’t filibuster anymore. Yay!

Except that the filibuster ban goes both ways. So, if the Republicans regain control of the Senate in the upcoming 2016 elections, we are in for a SHIT TON of trouble. Now, when I say we, who am I referring to exactly?

Women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, scientists, people who believe in the separation of Church and State, people who believe in reality. A lot of us, shall we say.

How come? Well that’s not hard to figure out. The Christian Right has made it abundantly clear that they’re out for blood. In a perfect world, they’d like to slash women’s access to safe abortions, slash access to healthcare for everyone but the obscenely wealthy, while turning a blind eye to racism, sexism, classism, global warming, and everything else that they’d like to pretend doesn’t exist. They’re also down for warmongering, merging Church and State, and basically turning the U.S. into an even bigger shit show than it already is.

We’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy.

As a lesbian, feminist writer who earns a portion of her living criticizing the government, I would really appreciate this not happening. I don’t want to live in a tyrannical theocracy. No thank you! But, with the demise of the ability to filibuster, come 2016, we could potentially go there.

Now, before we get too crazy, let’s look at the facts for a second. Sen. Reid’s “nuclear” decision didn’t ban all filibusters, everywhere, all the time. Only the ones that revolve around presidential nominees for executive or non-Supreme Court judicial positions. There’s still plenty of room to filibuster on both sides. For example, Ted Cruz’s filibuster of the Affordable Care Act would still be admissible. However, without the ability to filibuster presidential nominees, Congress’s majority party can potentially stack the courts with judges that align with their platform.

If 2016 brings a Republican majority, that means court-stacking à la Justice Antonin Scalia. This is the same guy who claimed that the separation of Church and State is a myth. That’s not a happy prospect. Justices like Hon. Scalia would strip women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, and non-Christians of their rights in a hot second, given the opportunity. And most of the folks on that list don’t have a ton of legal rights to begin with. As my immigrant, Polish, Jewish grandmother would say, oy vey.

But, since we have checks and balances, this is not the end of the world, right? The courts don’t rule the land with an iron fist. The judicial branch is just one arm in a complex tree of government. We’ve still got the legislative branch and the executive branch to even everything out.

Well, sort of. If the legislative and judicial branches are in each other’s pockets, there won’t be much checking or balancing going on there. The same can be said of the executive branch, which will also be up for grabs come 2016. Imagine a Christian Right president, elected alongside a conservative congressional majority, who will both work together to nominate conservative judiciaries.

It’s one possible outcome of 2016 elections, and it’s one where the whole checks and balances thing kind of becomes moot. Not to mention, even in a less-extreme situation, a highly conservative court hinders the legislative and executive branches’ abilities to make lasting reforms.

So, what have we learned about 2016?

Basically, that Sen. Reid’s decision to go nuclear prior to Turkey Day this year could have some serious consequences if the next election swings Right. So let’s jump on that Lefty-loosey bandwagon, mmkay? Keep those neocons at bay!

Featured image courtesy of [Center for American Progress Action Fund 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 Will We Live in a Tyrannical Theocracy by 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

The government has been shuttered for three days now, and things are already starting to look bleak.

I’ve written about how the GOP’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is really about a racist, sexist, elitist desire to keep privilege (and life’s basic necessities) concentrated among rich, white, straight men. And that’s what’ll happen if the Affordable Care Act gets defunded.

But even though Obamacare hasn’t been axed, those of us who are outside of privilege are already starting to feel the heat. While Congress engages in the world’s most irritating staring contest, government programs that disproportionately serve women and people of color are already starting to run dry.

Thanks, Hyperbole and a Half!

One of the first things to circle the drain are WIC payments. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been deemed a non-essential government service. That means, while the government is shut down, WIC’s doors will be closed. More than half of the country’s babies rely on WIC to receive proper nutrition, and their mothers are the ones who will be left with crying, hungry, and sick children.

I’m sorry, but how can feeding babies possibly be considered non-essential? That’s really just awful. Especially considering that Republicans added a “conscience clause” to their ridiculous, let’s-shut-down-the-government ransom bill that would cut women off from accessing contraceptive and other preventive health services.

So basically, the GOP is pushing legislation that would simultaneously result in more babies, while denying food to those who already exist. And who has to figure out how to survive in all this mess? Women. More specifically, poor women of color. I’m sure they really appreciate that, Ted Cruz.

 And it doesn’t stop there. Head Start programs, which provide early education to low-income children, might have to stop serving their students, depending on how long this government shutdown lasts. A handful of Head Start programs will get hit immediately, with the rest following suit as this game of Congressional chicken drags on. Again, we’re seeing the GOP push legislation that creates more kids, while denying education to the ones who are already here. And who has to pay the price? All the mothers who will skip work, and potentially miss out on wages, to care for their children who have been turned away from shuttered Head Starts.

And those wages are really important, especially if this shutdown lasts any substantial amount of time. As temperatures drop, heating bills will rise, and the Low Income Home Energy program — which disproportionately serves women — won’t be able to provide assistance. Neither will the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which is, once again, overwhelmingly used by women. Single mothers will have to decide between paying rent, feeding their children, or heating their homes. How can we allow that to happen?

All of this is happening because our elected Congress-people can’t — or won’t — do their jobs. This is professional incompetency at its finest, and it’s entirely unacceptable. But it also reveals a lot about our national state of affairs.

While the GOP may have started this ridiculousness with the goal of blocking legislation that would benefit underprivileged people, it’s clear that systematic inequality is already in place. Anyone who argues that racism and sexism are things of the past only needs to look at what’s happening right now to see that they’re wrong.

If racism and sexism were over, women and people of color wouldn’t be hit the hardest when our lawmakers fail to do their jobs. They wouldn’t be the ones who have to choose between feeding their children and heating their homes. And most importantly, those struggles would be making top headlines in news outlets across the country.

But that’s not the case. Women and people of color are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to this government shutdown, and they’re barely making any headlines about it. It’s no coincidence that veterans — who are mostly white and male — failing to receive government benefits has caused national outrage, while the single mothers who depend on WIC remain largely in the shadows.

As Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep women, people of color, queer people, and the poor disenfranchised, they wind up highlighting all of the ways that these communities are oppressed in the first place.

So thanks, guys. You’re making my job a little bit easier.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [cool revolution 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 SHOCKING: Women Are Disproportionately Shut Out by the Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

Well folks, it happened. After a collective freak out from the media – and a collective yawn from the general public – the government shut down today. Not surprising.

If you’ve been keeping up with this latest political soap opera, you’ll know that House Republicans planned this ridiculousness months ago, when they refused to meet with House Democrats and Hash out their budgetary differences ahead of time.

You’ll also know that this government shutdown isn’t the end of the world. A ton of federal employees will be furloughed, possibly without pay, military troops will stop receiving paychecks, national parks will close, passport applications won’t get processed, and Social Security checks will probably be a bit delayed. Obamacare will still become law. And Ted Cruz will forever be known as the latest King of Crazytown. (I told you all that someone would replace Michele Bachmann!)

To the average American, some of these facts will be irritating, inconvenient, or downright awful. (Are you the poor soul who planned a Washington, D.C. vacation for this upcoming week? No panda for you!) And the economy will definitely take a dip. But overall, nothing too horrific.

But! Let’s not get too comfy in our government-shutdown-who-cares apathy. Even though this doesn’t mean our entire democracy will come crashing down around our shoulders, it does bring up some very interesting questions about who matters in our government.

Let’s start with Obamacare, shall we?

A few days ago, Ted Cruz filibustered Congress for 21 hours, talking about why Obamacare is an awful, terrible idea.

First of all Ted, trying to dismantle healthcare reform while engaging in a very medically irresponsible activity probably isn’t your smartest idea. Just something to think about.

Forrest knows what’s up.

Second of all, what is so awful about Obamacare? Why is Teddy over here torturing himself, and creating quite the media circus, over defunding it?

Here’s what’s so awful about it – Obamacare benefits mostly everyone, but mostly poor people and women. Who are, incidentally, often the same thing. Also people of color and queer folks. Again, many times the same thing. Who does it benefit the least? Rich people! White people! Men! Again – many times, one in the same.

Ted Cruz’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is reflective of a larger idea that’s present across both parties, but which has come to a particularly alarming head within the GOP. Poor people, women, people of color, and queer people don’t matter. They are not worth out tax dollars or our reform efforts, and bills – like Obamacare – that would benefit them are offensive. That’s a really classy concept, isn’t it?

Seriously. It’s pretty gross that House Republicans would rather the government shut down than to extend basic healthcare to folks who don’t have access to racial, gendered, or economic privilege.

Now, obviously, that’s pretty shitty. But since the whole government shutdown thing isn’t overly dire, it’s not really a big deal, right? Jerks will be jerks, can’t we call just roll our eyes and move on?

Not really. Very soon, this government shutdown won’t be our only problem. In just 17 days, Congress will have to vote to lift the United States’ debt ceiling. While this sounds like voting to allow the government to spend more and rack up more debt, that’s not at all what it means – instead, lifting the debt ceiling simply means voting to keep the American economy running.

Without lifting the debt ceiling, the U.S. won’t be able to pay any of its bills. That means indefinitely delayed Social Security checks, no more benefits for veterans, and no more paychecks for soldiers. Also, hundreds of thousands of companies that do business with the U.S. government won’t get paid, the cost of borrowing money will skyrocket, and the U.S. won’t be seen as a safe place for business or investment.

Basically the U.S.’ economy, and the global economy, would go kaput. You think 2008 was bad? Failing to lift the debt ceiling would be much, much worse. And guess what! The GOP doesn’t want to do it.

Unless of course, a whole bunch of entirely unreasonable demands are met. Halting healthcare reform, building an oil pipeline, and nixing the regulation of greenhouse gases all make the list. It reads, essentially, like Mitt Romney’s campaign platform.

But, you see, Mittens lost the 2012 election for a reason.

He wasn’t shy about his disdain for the less fortunate, for those of us who are outside of privilege. We all remember his comment about the 47 percent. And last November, we all collectively decided that his wasn’t the kind of attitude we wanted in the White House. The American people have spoken! This case should be closed.

Mitt.

But the GOP isn’t willing to let it go. Some of their other demands over the past few years have included eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood – which would leave thousands of women, mostly poor and of color, without access to necessary healthcare – slashing food stamp funding – a program that is already insufficient for making sure the poor don’t starve to death – and preserving or implementing a bunch of tax reforms that benefit the rich and screw the rest of us.

The pattern is very clear. To the GOP, political negotiation means demanding people who are outside of privilege be made as vulnerable as possible. It means crusading against women, poor folks, people of color, and the queer community. It means threatening political and economic ruin for the entire country if our lives and livelihoods aren’t seriously threatened.

So, even though this latest government shutdown isn’t the end of the world, it’s only one episode in an ongoing political drama. And in 17 days, things could get much, much worse.

Because today, the Republican Party has shown that it would rather shut down the government than support a whole bunch of disenfranchised citizens gaining access to healthcare.

What will they do on October 17th?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Mount Rainier National Park 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 Here’s Why Republicans Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

 Since the implementation of the “silent filibuster” (allows Senators to fiat the idea that they would speak for ever), filibusters have become a juggernaut tactic to halt legislation. Now, filibusters are used as jokes.

The reasoning is simple: Filibusters no longer serve as a means of discussing legislation.

 What the hell is our politics coming to when Senators feel it is acceptable to read a child’s book on the floor of the Senate?  The filibuster was once a strategic tool to discuss legislation and improve a proposed bill. Now, we have senators akin to Ted Cruz who find it appropriate to recite Green Eggs and Ham. I am positive Doctor Seuss would be as disgraced with our politicians as many of us our today.

 It is no mystery that the filibuster has lost its intended purpose. From the “Silent Filibuster” to Ted Cruz’s story time readings, the western model of government is losing credibility—it is a joke. But who are we to complain? After all, WE elected them into office (great job, Texas).

 All of the mockery put aside, how is it possible that  something as corrupt as the filibuster is constitutional? This brings up a particular question; is the filibuster even in the constitution?

 Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly state anything about the filibuster, nor the act of filibustering. So does that mean it is unconstitutional? Aaron Burr, Vice President to John Adams, can be blamed for this confusion. As President of the Senate, Burr removed cloture, deeming it unnecessary, leaving an open spot for the filibuster in the “unwritten constitution”. Although it is not written verbatim in the Constitution, it has been adapted into our structure of government. This can also be seen in the emergence of a two party system as well as the cabinet.

If I recall, the Constitution does not directly include an Air Force, so does that mean the United States Air force is unconstitutional as well? The Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, which is why Article I, § 8, establishes that Congress has the power to “raise and support Armies”. So the answer is, yeah, the filibuster is constitutional; it’s just being exploited.

And if you think it couldn’t get any more corrupt, it does. In fact, this process was too strenuous; hence the birth of the Silent filibuster. Now, Senators simply fiat the idea of talking for infinity.  The way I see it, they should be required to put in some effort. The notion that one can halt an entire bill because they say they will talk forever is absurd.

Not only is Cruz giving a bad name for himself, he is tarnishing diplomacy, moreover the democratic process our nation prides itself upon. His political stunt is parallel to celebrity Miley Cyrus’s unwarranted gestures—a nation utterly embarrassed.

[ RawStory] [Newsdailynews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Political Twerking appeared first on Law Street.