Battle of the Liberals

In most interactions, I am "The Liberal." I take a progressive stance on 97% of all issues, so it's very unsettling to me when I find that I am the most conservative person in a conversation. Since Senator Sanders (D-VT) has been rising in the polls though, I've been in that position often. I've experienced an interesting turn around from being not excited about Hillary Clinton just a year ago, to adamantly defending her against people who say that Senator Sanders might be a better choice.

I'm not going to delve into the debate about the value of a tough primary challenge, or talk about how Hillary Clinton and her many years of experience dealing with foreign affairs make her the wiser choice for the commander in chief. But I want to clear up the idea that Senator Sanders is the only choice for progressives, because Hillary Clinton is a moderate wolf in Democrat clothing.

According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time when they were in the Senate together. According to my favorite statistics reporters at 538, Hillary Clinton is more liberal than 85% of members of the Senate, and more liberal than 70% of Democrats. One scale ranks her at the same level of progressiveness as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). She's consistently measured as more liberal than President Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders.

Yes, Bernie Sanders didn't vote for the Iraq War. Yes, he has been an advocate for gay marriage for many years. [4] Yes, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and only recently "came out" in support of same-sex marriage. On many other issues, however, Sanders and Clinton are debating "how--not whether" certain things will be done. Financial reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting women's rights, expanding rights for LGBTQ people, reforming the criminal justice system, focusing more attention on substance abuse treatment, protecting the Affordable Care Act, and continuing to make America a more free and equal place, are all things the candidates can agree on.

It's not that Hillary Clinton is not for these issues. In my humble analysis, it is that Bernie Sanders is in the press, talking candidly about those issues, and introducing policy proposals. Hillary Clinton has been incredibly press-shy so far, controlling what parts of her message are heard through her official campaign channels, and not granting many interviews. People think she's a moderate because she hasn't made her views clear.

I hope that once she does, people realize that we are not picking between a progressive and moderate. This primary is coming down to a contest between two progressives (and Martin O'Malley, coming in at a distant third). The biggest difference I can find between the two candidates is that only one can win. I think it's great that Bernie Sanders supported gay rights for many years. But my vote is going to go to the candidate who can put another Anthony Kennedy on the bench of the Supreme Court. Bernie Sanders' lack of experience with international affairs and his more hard-line economic positions make him unlikely to win a general election.

Rather than continue to repeat myself, I'm going to give the last word to former Congressional Representative Barney Frank. In a recent piece for Politico, Frank says, "I wish we lived in a country where the most relevant political dispute was over how far to the liberal side the electorate was prepared to go. Until we do — and I will continue to work with Sanders and others to get us there — spending our resources on an intraparty struggle rather than on working to defeat our very well-funded conservative opponents is self-indulgence, not effective political action."

SCOTUS Does Care!

Today, the court upheld all provisions of the Affordable Care Act! In a contentious case before the Supreme Court, regarding the Federal subsidies for health insurance, Chief Justice John Roberts once again defended the Affordable Care Act.

King v. Burwell cuts at the heart of one of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, for those not in the know). Namely, the idea that people can receive subsidies from the Federal government to sign up for insurance through the health insurance exchange. Currently, people receive a subsidy whether they sign up for health insurance through a state exchange, or through the Federal exchange, set up because many states flat-out refused to set up health insurance exchanges.

Opponents argue that the actual text of the Affordable Care Act only requires subsidies in state exchanges, while the government maintains that if too many people are allowed to opt-out of health insurance, or are forced to because they cannot qualify for the subsidy, only very sick people will have insurance, and our health care system will be back to where it was before Obamacare.

You fearless blogger-with-friends-whose-lives-were-saved-by-Obamacare applauds this decision, as well as the Chief Justice, who at this point is one of the best defenders the Affordable Care Act has, even if he isn't happy about it.

We are fast approaching the final decision days for the Supreme Court, which means the Court will hand down the most high profile decisions of this year's cases. The court has a flair for the dramatic, and typically leaves the most controversial cases until the very end, leaving the rest of us hopelessly refreshing the SCOTUSblog Twitter, and counting down hours until the next decision day.

I'm eagerly awaiting decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that will determine the fate of same-sex marriage. Straight from SCOTUSblog itself, the questions at issue in Obergefell v. Hodges are, does the 14th Amendment require a state to give a marriage license to a gay couple, and if not, does the 14th Amendment at least require a state to recognize gay marriages that were performed in states where they are legal? The 14th Amendment, if you remember from 12th grade government class, contains the famous "Equal Protection Clause" which states that the government cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In this case, some justices (let's call them Justice Ginsberg, Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer) argued that to not give gay couples marriage licenses is to have the state confer a second class status on gay couples. The lawyer for the state answered that the prohibition of same-sex marriage was not about punishing gay couples, but about protecting the institution of marriage, which was centered around producing children. Other justices (who I'll call Justice Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) argued that the definition of traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years, and it wasn't for the court to decide on this issue.

The justices have the option of declaring marriage a constitutional right in all states, by protecting it under the 14th Amendment, ruling that marriages in one state must be recognized in states across the country, or they could find against Obergefell, and rule that his marriage is not valid in states where gay marriage is still illegal (your fearless gay blogger hopes for the first outcome, because it sure would be nice to remove laws that, while they do not explicitly mark gay people as second class citizens, are discriminatory).

Most likely, it will be Justice Kennedy that proves to be the deciding vote in the case, so if anyone has his email, I'd love to try to sway him before Monday, which has been scheduled as the last decision day of the court. Until then, keep refreshing SCOTUSblog for updates. They're much quicker with the legalese than I am!

Death: Overridden

Today, legislators in Nebraska voted to repeal the death penalty, making them the first conservative state to do so in over 40 years. This marks the end of a long hiatus on the death penalty in Nebraska, with their most recent execution being in 1997.

There are still 30 states that allow the death penalty, even though many, like Nebraska, haven't executed a criminal in years. New Mexico, which outlawed the death penalty in 2009, hadn't executed anyone since 2001, and the only reason the execution went through is that the criminal said he did not want to appeal anymore, and chose to die. He had been on death row since 1986.

And therein lies the key problem with the death penalty today. (I for the time being, will lay aside moral arguments. There are those that believe truly heinous crimes deserve the ultimate punishment, while your trusty blogger here believes that the use of the death penalty is a huge overreach of state power, and the taking of a life should be left only to fate. But as I say often these days, no one is asking me to run the country.) Some argue that the death penalty is beneficial, as it saves the state money killing criminals that they would otherwise have to feed and clothe for the rest of their lives. But let's look at the real numbers.

The cost of keeping a person in prison for a year varies by state, and varies depending on the study. One study revealed that in 2010, the average cost to house an inmate for a year in prison was $31,000, with smaller states like Kentucky spending just over $14,000 a year on prisons, and bigger ones like New York spending over $60,000. However, according to the US Bureau of Prisons, in 2010 it cost just over $28,000 to house an inmate for a year, and one study in New York City in 2013 stated that the city paid over $167,000 for each inmate in one year.

Sounds like a lot. But how much does it cost to have a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a court reporter, and various other federal employees try and retry death penalty cases year after year?

One study found that death penalty cases in Maryland cost taxpayers an extra 1.9 million to 3 million dollars, on top of what they were already spending to house prisoners. California, the state with the largest death row population, found that death penalty cases caused them to spend 63.3 million dollars extra a year. And a study by Duke found that the death penalty costs North Carolina taxpayers 11 million a year.

These aren't one year costs taxpayers have to bear. California's average wait time between conviction and execution is 25 years. The rest of the United States has an average wait time of 12 years between conviction an execution.

11 million dollars over 12 years? Sounds like a very expensive 8th Amendment Violation to me.

Despite the cold hard facts, the truth remains that death is the cruelest punishment a state can levy on a citizen. And while it may provide comfort to some families of murder victims, there is a sizeable, and organized coalition of the families of murder victims who oppose it. This not even to mention the number of wrongful executions and the disputed idea that it is a deterrent to crime. The death penalty does nothing for public safety, as these murderers are already locked away without the possibility of parole, and only chips away at human rights in America. In this blogger's opinion, Nebraska made the right call, and I can only hope other states will soon follow.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-house-inmates-in-prison/
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2012-02-the-high-cost-of-prisons-using-scarce-resources-wise
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/file/fdpc2010pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/
http://news.sanford.duke.edu/news-type/news/2010/death-penalty-costs-nc-taxpayers-11-million-year
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs
http://www.mvfhr.org/

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.