Thoughts on Baltimore

Protests, riots, uprisings, they all spring from some sort of anger, and the situation in Baltimore is no different. Last Tuesday, after days of peaceful protest, and demonstrations by community leaders, protests turned violent, with buildings burning, looting, and police and protestors alike being injured. To dismiss this as a senseless riot is to forget not only the years of oppression that people of color in this country have faced, but the daily fear that many people of color experience when they walk in the street and interact with the police.

The FBI’s Justifiable Homicide Report released in November of 2014 stated that 461 people were killed by the police in 2013, which is thehighest rate of police killings in two decades. Across the nation, black people are three times more likely to be killed by the police. The nationwide rate of police shootings of civilians is .13 per 100,000 people, but that rate increases dramatically in Western states. In Albuquerque, my home, the rate of police shootings is over 30 times the national average, with4 people per 100,000 being shot by the police. While black men are the most likely to be shot by the cops in population dense areas, out West, in more sparsely populated areas, it is the mentally ill whoare more likely to be shot by the police.

There are 461 reasons to be angry. There are countless more stories of police brutality that go unreported due to the undesirability of the victim, or their mental state. Those are reasons to be angry. And with all that loss of life, and all those reasons to be angry, there is little to no accountability for police officers who kill Americans, as few face indictment by grand juries, let alone criminal consequences for their actions.

The protests in Baltimore are a result of that anger. The days of peaceful protest and organizing by community leaders are a result of that anger. The riots last night were a result of that anger. People are free to form their own opinions on the riots, but if you do not understand why people are angry, you need to take a closer look at the data and statistics available, and ask yourself why you’re not more horrified and enraged by police brutality itself, instead of being horrified by the community’s reaction.

Currently, the state, in the form of the police, appears to have unchecked power to kill American citizens. They may not be citizens that look like you, they may not be people you come in contact with, but the state has an ability to end a human life without any sort of fair trial, and little to no consequence to the person who committed a crime or murder, justified or not. This is an issue that affects all Americans. It is an extreme overreach of state power that should make all citizens of this country nervous.

I have relatives who work in law enforcement, and I fear for their safety. How can you not? If someone you loved was putting themselves in dangerous areas, trying to protect people, how could you not be worried about them? But I realize that the way I fear for my cousin, who chose to be a police officer in a dangerous area, is the same way countless mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends fear for those they love. A country with fewer police shootings will not only protect youth and adults of color, it will hopefully increase trust in the police, which creates a safer country for us all. This is an issue that affects us all, whether we fear for our relatives in law enforcement or our relatives walking peacefully in the street.

(Finally) Ready for Hillary

I’ll confess. I didn’t come out of the womb Ready for Hillary. I wasn’t even Ready for Hillary in 2008. Until recently, I still wasn’t Ready for Hillary. I was Holding Out Hope for Joe Biden, or Assuming Elizabeth Warren Would Run, or even Maybe Going to Give Bernie Sanders A Try. But I was, and on some level remain, Skeptical of Hillary.

After the November Midterm Elections, and with Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she would be running for President in 2016, I can finally say that I am totally Ready for Hillary.

Why did it take so long? And what made me eventually change my opinion?

I’m Skeptical of Hillary for the same reason I’m Angry About Jeb. I do not like that we are living in an American oligarchy. I don’t like the idea that our political history could read Bush, Clinton, Bush, first black president, Clinton. I really don’t like the possibility of Bush, Clinton, Bush, first black president, Bush. An oligarchy is defined as a small group of people who have control over a country or institution, and in looking at the political landscape in this country, it’s hard to argue that we are not living in an oligarchy.

According to one study by academics at Princeton, opinionsand causes supported by lower income people, and interest groups that represent them, have no effect on policy. Rather, it is the richest and most powerful that are able to make their ideas heard, and advocate for change, whether they exert their influence with large campaign contributions, or through high-powered lobbying firms.

The idea of a rich and powerful elite controlling my country, with little opportunity for others to try to run for office, is initially why I did not like the idea of another Clinton presidency. In a lot of ways, that skepticism is still there, and I think it does raise important issues that American as a country needs to discuss.

But we don’t need to discuss those issues right now. Right now, we need another Democratic president, and that is why I’m Ready for Hillary.

I think Hillary can win, not just the Democratic nomination, but the overall election. 59% of Democrats say that there is a “good chance” that they will support Hillary Clinton in the election, compared to 23% ofRepublicans who say the same thing about Jeb Bush. If Clinton already has an substantial edge with the Democrats, my entirely unscientific assessment of the situation is that Hillary could win a general election. At the very least, she has a better chance than anyone else the Democrats could nominate (sorry Vice President Biden, I would have run your campaign).

I’m not just Ready for Hillary because I think she can win. I’m Ready for Hillary because I think she has to win. I’m not going to outline all the reasons I vote Democrat, but I will outline the main reason, the reason I think that everyone needs to really think hard about who they are voting for.

Currently, the Supreme Court is only slightly in favor of preventing abortion. There are four liberal justices who would not dream of eliminating the protections laid down in Roe v. Wade, and there are four conservative justices who would welcome the opportunity. There is a swing justice, who usually airs on the side of protecting abortion, but if a fifth conservative justice is put on the court, Justice Kennedy will be unnecessary. Whoever America elects in 2016 will be the person who can appoint justices who will serve for years to come. This election is not just about immediate policy, it’s about the far reaching effects of ideology in our judicial system. In 2016, make sure to actually show up, and vote for a candidate that will protect women’s rights not just while they are in office, but for years to come. Not to mention the backsliding the court and the country will do with regard to economic equality, gay rights, and protections for minorities.

Not only do I think Secretary Clinton is the best person to protect those rights in the short and long term, I think that with the visible and invisible sexism that still plagues every woman in our society today, from street harassment to Federal laws that dictate what we can and can't do with our bodies, it would be incredibly powerful, and frankly, necessary to have a female president. 

And that’s why, despite my discomfort with our American Oligarchy, I am, without a doubt, Ready for Hillary.

Wait For It

167 days. That’s how long new Attorney General Loretta Lynch waited to be confirmed. After sailing through a confirmation hearing, the extremely qualified lawyer waited longer than the past seven attorney generals combined to have her nomination be voted on by the Senate. Unsurprisingly, she sailed through the vote, with 56 Senators voting for her, and 43 voting against. Ten Republicans joined all the Democrats in confirming Attorney General Lynch at the nation’s first African-American female Attorney General. Only Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not vote.

Interestingly, Senator Cruz also abstained from a vote held yesterday on S.B. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This bill, in contrast to the somewhat close vote to confirm Attorney General Lynch, passed with the other 99 Senators voting in favor of the bill. How did a bill that was previously contentious enough to create an unprecedented delay for a presidential nominee pass with the support of almost every Senator?

The bill, as you may recall, was held up by a debate about whether or not funds could be used for abortions. The Hyde Amendment already is in place to prevent the use of Federal funds for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother (see this post for why that language bothers me). However, language in S.B. 178 would have expanded this rule to cover non-taxpayer funds, and make it even harder for victims of human trafficking to access abortions.

In the end, the Senate reached a compromise. The new bill will create two funds that support victims of human trafficking. One fund will be built by collecting fines from traffickers. It will be used to cover survivor services, and is not subject to the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment. The other fund will draw mostly from “community health center funds,” which are subject to Hyde restrictions.

A bona fide compromise! Except that the fund for survivor services doesn’t include healthcare, and therefore, even though it is not built with government funds, it cannot be used to help women access abortions, or other forms of reproductive healthcare. All types of healthcare will be supported through the second fund, which cannot be used to pay for abortions for victims of human trafficking, unless they happen to fit a small set of circumstances.

The confirmation of Loretta Lynch is indeed historic, and she will be an excellent attorney general. But her confirmation came on the heels of the continued disrespect for women's agency over their own bodies. Hopefully, Attorney General Lynch can use her position to begin to work against the seemingly never-ending flow of abortion restrictions put in place by governments around the country, but with 99 Senators supporting this bill, it will be an uphill battle.

Let Me See The Birth Certificate

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is rumored to be announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president this Monday. When I first heard Senator Cruz was going to run for president, I turned into a member of the “birther” movement. You know the ones? The people who demand to see President Obama’s birth certificate, not believing he was born in America?

Well, as soon as I heard Senator Cruz was going to run, all I could say was, “But Senator Cruz can’t even run for president! He’s a Canadian! He was born in Canada! I want to see the birth certificate!”

I can report to you now that I have seen the birth certificate, I have looked at the facts, and I am here to tell you that Senator Cruz can indeed run for president.

Good news for the Tea Party. Not great news for me as a person, but I digress.

The confusion comes from the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution. According to the Constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

At first glance, Senator Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada to a mother who was a United States citizen, and a father who was not, doesn’t seem like he would beeligible for the office. The clause of the Constitution says “natural born citizen” so wouldn’t that mean a person born in the United States?

Turns out, no, it would not. At the time of the scandal around President Obama’s place of birth (spoiler alert: it’s Hawaii, which is far away, but still part of the United States) the Congressional Research Service wrote a fifty page report detailing exactly who was a natural born citizen.

Oddly, it wasn’t President Obama but Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was the subject of the inquiry, as he was born not in America, but in the Panama Canal Zone tocitizen parents.

I’ll spare you the fifty pages of the CRS report, and just tell you that according to Congress, a “natural born citizen” is someone who was born in the United States, even if they are born to non-citizen parents, or someone who was born abroad to citizen parents. It is this second loophole that Senator Cruz fits into. The vast majority of legal though and scholarship on the issue does say that Senator Cruz iseligible to run for president.

So there you go! Senator Cruz should have no legal issues when he runs for president. His father who fought with Fidel Castro…well that socialist connection might be harder to explain to his loyal Tea Party fan base.

Hyde Your Amendments

There has been gridlock around the anti-human trafficking bill in the Senate, and I promise that is the last traffic-based pun I will make at the expense of human trafficking.

The debate about the anti-human trafficking bill came to a standstill today when the Senate failed to achieve the necessary 60-vote cloture to end debate on the bill, and put the bill up for the real vote. Unlike the cloture votes of years passed, this one was tanked by Democrats, not Republicans.

Why do Democrats want to prevent an anti-human trafficking bill? Why does anyone want to prevent an anti-human trafficking bill? Human trafficking is widely regarded as a terrible thing, and I would guess every member of the Senate is opposed to it on moral grounds alone, to say nothing of the illegal activities it facilitates. Why would the Democrats prevent a bill that would create a fund for victims of human trafficking and tools for law enforcement officials to fight human trafficking?

The answer is, surprisingly, abortion. Democrats discovered last week that included in the human trafficking bill is an extension of an amendment called the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. This bill would expand that amendment, and prevent any funds, Federal or otherwise, from being used for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.

(An editorial aside, I don’t love the phrase “threat to the life of the mother” because with an average of 650 women in the US dying in childbirth every year, a maternal mortality rate that puts us below Belgium, Bosina, and Kuwait, most pregnancies in this country could turn into a “threat to the life of the mother.” Pregnancy is dangerous, and a woman should be allowed to decide for herself if she wants to go through it or not.)

To prevent that amendment from being passed, Democrats filibustered the bill, or prevented it from obtaining 60 cloture votes. Senator McConnell (R-KY) held the cloture vote twice, and Democrats ensured that it failed both times.

What complicates this story is that Senator McConnell is refusing to hold a confirmation vote for Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s appointee for attorney general, until the human trafficking bill is passed. Democrats, who hope to see a confirmation for Lynch as soon as possible, say that they will pass the bill as soon as the ban on funding is removed. Republicans counter by saying that the Democrats should be embarrassed that they are filibustering the bill, and should just vote to end debate on the bill so it can move on to a final vote. We’ve seen how well these groups work together in the past, so it’s likely that we will not see the bill passed, let alone Loretta Lynch’s confirmation, for awhile.

The Most Secure Shutdown

It’s been awhile since I’ve updated the blog, but it’s also been awhile since Congress was on the brink of a shutdown of necessary government services, so I guess we both just had other things on our plates. Now, after over a year since the last government shutdown, Congress is once again flirting with the possibility of ending funding to a government agency. This time, it’s the Department of Homeland Security, and the Republicans are in charge. What a difference a year makes!

The Department of Homeland Security was created in the aftermath in the 9/11 attacks, and oversees border patrol, emergency responses, cybersecurity, andother industries that protect our nation from foreign threats. Their funding is running out, though Congress did pass a one week extensionlast Friday to fund the department for another week. But once this funding expires on March 6^th, another bill will have to be passed to continue to keep our country safe.

Why has this become such a contentious issue? On the surface, it seems like an issue that would not be subject to partisan politics. In this case, the debate comes down to immigration. Likely because the Department of Homeland Security oversees border patrol, Republicans are trying to attach a clause to a funding bill eliminating some of the executive orders that President Obama has signed to protect undocumented immigrants. The Democrats will only vote on a “clean” funding bill, or a bill without extra political amendments.

Last Friday, the House rejected a funding measure that would keep the Department funded for three weeks, in a move that signaled to many people that SpeakerBoehner (R-OH) does not have control over his party. Today, the Senate Democrats blocked a request by the Republicans to go toconference, or convene a meeting between the House and the Senate to reconcile the differences between the bills.

The Senate has passed a bill that would keep the DHS funded through September, and some say that it would pass in the House with bipartisan support. The chances of this being brought into the House are minimal, as Speaker Boehner failed to even pass a three-week funding bill.

This next week will be full of Congressional scrambling, archaic procedural rules, and who knows, maybe even a coup against Speaker Boehner. Whatever happens, you know I’ll be here, likely with some microwave popcorn, watching it all unfold.

Going Nuclear

The nuclear option has been deployed! We're all going to have to duck and cover!

If you're nervous about the frighteningly named "nuclear option" that you've been hearing so much about, you shouldn't be. The "nuclear option" is a dramatic name given to a rare procedural rules change the Democrats in the Senate implemented on Thursday. The measure prevents the minority from filibustering presidential nominees for cabinet positions and all judicial posts except ones on the Supreme Court.

When did filibusters become such a problem? We rarely see Senators take to the floor, a la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and speak for hours to prevent a bill from being voted on. The last time someone in the Senate held the floor with a long-winded speech was Rand Paul's filibusterin March over Obama's nominee for the director of the CIA. (Ted Cruz's marathon speech doesn't count, as it was not technically a filibuster.)

But there is another kind of filibuster that has been used far more often in recent months called the "silent filibuster." With a silent filibuster, a Senator, or group of Senators threatens to hold to floor, and to override this threat, the majority party must achieve cloture on the legislation. What that means is, in order to stop debate, both real and threatened, 60 must vote to end debate. Only then can they proceed to a simple up or down vote on the legislation or nomination.

Why would the threat of a filibuster scare the majority party into compliance? Many people argue that, in the threat of a filibuster, the majority party should just let the minority party talk, and wear them down. In recent years, however, this has not been effective. If a bill is filibustered for too long, and fails too many cloture votes, it is pulled from the floor and effectively killed. This has happened several times in recent years with Democrat's bills. Eventually, the Democrats started to listen to the filibuster threats and responding with increasing cloture votes.

Not anymore. With the rule change, the Republicans are not allowed to hold a talking or a silent filibuster against any presidential nominees for cabinet positions or the judiciary branch. The only presidential appointees that can still be filibustered are Supreme Courtjustices. The bill passed 52-48, withthree democrats defecting. Two were from red states, and Senator Carl Levin (D-MN) is merely an opponent of a change in rules.

How did Senator Reid (D-NV) change the rules? It came down a slightly complicated series of votes. Basically, Senator Reid asked that the Senate vote on a motion to proceed to a motion to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Millet to the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's a lot of motions in one vote. In normal English, that means the Senate will proceed to another cloture vote (or a vote ending debate) on the nomination of Patricia Millet. As motions only need 51 votes, this passed. The Senator McConnell (R-KY) moved to adjourn the Senate,which failed. Senator Reid moved to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Millet. As this was not a motion of cloture, and merely a motion to reconsider cloture, it also passed with a simple majority. Finally, Senator Reid asked for the Senate Pro Tempore, Senator Leahy (D-VT) to rule as to whether ornot cloture on nominees took 60 votes and the chair ruled that they do.

And here's where it becomes tricky. Senator Reid asked to appeal the ruling of the chair, which meant that Senators were asked if they agreed that nominees needed a 60 vote cloture or if nominees could be passed with a simple majority of 51 Senators. This was the key vote that came down to 48 Senators (mostly Republican) agreeing with the ruling of the chair, and 52 Senators (entirely Democratic, including the chair) disagreeingwith the ruling. And with that, the Senate rules were changed.

This rule change will certainly make the Senate more effective, there's not question about that. But while there is still a mechanism for the minority to voice their dissent, mainly in committee hearings of nominees, this rule change takes significant power away from the minority. Especially when you consider that judges are how many presidents ensure their policies will be carried out after they leave office. By removing the possibility of a cloture vote, it will be harder for the minority to prevent the nomination of judges they may not agree with.

For more information on how the silent filibuster works, this Washington Post article and accompanying graphic explains it better than I could: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/14/the-silent-filibuster-explained/