After a week of hearings and a fortnight of soul-searching, Republican Judiciary Committee members will vote today against confirming Sonia Sotomayor to protect the Supreme Court from activist judges--and save their own hides from the vengeance of The Base when they face reelection.
With the possible exception of Lindsey Graham, who is teetering toward approval, the minority is expressing no doubts about Judge Sotomayor's qualifications but terror over her possible excess of empathy.
Joining the parade of naysayers yesterday, Chuck Grassley explained that the nominee would not assuage a Souter-like feeling in "the pit of my stomach": "I was not convinced that Judge Sotomayor understands the rights given to Americans under the Constitution, or that she will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based on her personal preferences."
Translation: Grassley's intestinal barometer tells him that voting no is much safer than having to explain approval of an Obama nominee with iffy demographics and temperament.
Yesterday ranking minority member Jeff Sessions wrote in an USA Today OpEd: "I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism. She has evoked its mantra too often.”
After the siren calls, mantras and stomach pains have subsided, Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed by the full Senate with only a handful of Republican votes in what used to be a relatively nonpartisan process.
Showing posts with label Sen. Chuck Grassley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. Chuck Grassley. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Senate Whistle-Blower
By today's standards, Chuck Grassley is right out of a Frank Capra movie.
This summer the Republican Senator from Iowa got the Department of Agriculture to admit it had been sending subsidy checks to dead farmers, $1.1 billion over seven years.
This fall he voted to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill and worked hard to persuade House Republicans to do the same and expand health insurance coverage for poor children.
Now he is pressing televangelists to explain how and why they drive Bentleys, fly in private jets and buy $23,000 commodes. Tomorrow is the deadline for six ministries to answer Grassley's questions about compensation, housing allowances, personal use of assets and unreported income.
"If tax-exempt organizations, including media-based ministries, thumb their noses at the laws governing their preferential tax treatment, the American public, their contributors, and the Internal Revenue Service have a right to know," says Grassley, the top minority member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Even Robin Hood has not escaped the Iowan's beady eye. A prestigious New York foundation of that name had to reexamine practices that led to employees of hedge funds run by board members collecting 2% of the assets and 20% of the profits, adding up to $14 million a year in management fees.
"I don't remember Robin Hood keeping 2 and 20 as his cut," Grassley said. "I'm worried that more and more, it seems some hedge fund and private equity managers see charitable donations as a chance to do well for themselves."
In the past five years, the Christian Science Monitor reports, "Grassley has led probes of nonprofits that unearthed lavish perks at the Smithsonian Institution, conflicts of interest at the Nature Conservancy, and mismanagement at the American Red Cross."
He has also sponsored legislation to protect whistle-blowers. Frank Capra would have loved him.
This summer the Republican Senator from Iowa got the Department of Agriculture to admit it had been sending subsidy checks to dead farmers, $1.1 billion over seven years.
This fall he voted to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill and worked hard to persuade House Republicans to do the same and expand health insurance coverage for poor children.
Now he is pressing televangelists to explain how and why they drive Bentleys, fly in private jets and buy $23,000 commodes. Tomorrow is the deadline for six ministries to answer Grassley's questions about compensation, housing allowances, personal use of assets and unreported income.
"If tax-exempt organizations, including media-based ministries, thumb their noses at the laws governing their preferential tax treatment, the American public, their contributors, and the Internal Revenue Service have a right to know," says Grassley, the top minority member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Even Robin Hood has not escaped the Iowan's beady eye. A prestigious New York foundation of that name had to reexamine practices that led to employees of hedge funds run by board members collecting 2% of the assets and 20% of the profits, adding up to $14 million a year in management fees.
"I don't remember Robin Hood keeping 2 and 20 as his cut," Grassley said. "I'm worried that more and more, it seems some hedge fund and private equity managers see charitable donations as a chance to do well for themselves."
In the past five years, the Christian Science Monitor reports, "Grassley has led probes of nonprofits that unearthed lavish perks at the Smithsonian Institution, conflicts of interest at the Nature Conservancy, and mismanagement at the American Red Cross."
He has also sponsored legislation to protect whistle-blowers. Frank Capra would have loved him.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Bush Explains the Veto
The President is not against the government helping poor children get health care insurance. He just wants to be sure that there isn’t too much for too many and especially not for kids whose parents could cut back on a few of the necessities and buy it from private insurers.
As he explains in his veto letter, the misguided bipartisan bill “moves our health care system in the wrong direction” and turns it into “a program that would cover children from some families of four earning almost $83,000 a year.”
White House statisticians must be working overtime these days because last week the program was covering families with up to $73,000 a year.
But no matter. The heart of the President’s argument is that “Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.”
Why can’t radicals like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch understand that? If they keep going in this direction, every kid in the country would have health insurance and Congress would have devastated a major American industry.
As he explains in his veto letter, the misguided bipartisan bill “moves our health care system in the wrong direction” and turns it into “a program that would cover children from some families of four earning almost $83,000 a year.”
White House statisticians must be working overtime these days because last week the program was covering families with up to $73,000 a year.
But no matter. The heart of the President’s argument is that “Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.”
Why can’t radicals like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch understand that? If they keep going in this direction, every kid in the country would have health insurance and Congress would have devastated a major American industry.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Bush-Hunting Season Opens
Next week the President officially becomes a lame duck. One of his staunchest Senate supporters, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, has turned on the issue of children’s health insurance and is actively fighting to defeat him.
“We’re going to try [to] convince people in the House to change their vote,” he said yesterday. “All I can do is make phone calls.”
Not quite “Here I stand, I can do no other,” but 18 Senate Republicans defected from Bush dogma yesterday by voting for the State Children’s Health Insurance Bill the President has promised to veto.
The 67-29 margin would override it, and two Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama and Biden, were not even there. The question now is whether another dozen House Republicans will join the 45 who broke ranks the other day.
The President who lost the popular vote by more than half a million in November 2000 but won the Supreme Court by 5-4 in December has translated that mandate into almost seven years of domination in Washington, but now servile Republicans in Congress are facing extinction next year if they persist in their fealty.
Under cover of Gen. Petraeus, they may hold out over Iraq, but denying children health coverage is quite another matter. The White House may compromise, but they have no experience at it.
Childrens do learn. Do Presidents?
“We’re going to try [to] convince people in the House to change their vote,” he said yesterday. “All I can do is make phone calls.”
Not quite “Here I stand, I can do no other,” but 18 Senate Republicans defected from Bush dogma yesterday by voting for the State Children’s Health Insurance Bill the President has promised to veto.
The 67-29 margin would override it, and two Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama and Biden, were not even there. The question now is whether another dozen House Republicans will join the 45 who broke ranks the other day.
The President who lost the popular vote by more than half a million in November 2000 but won the Supreme Court by 5-4 in December has translated that mandate into almost seven years of domination in Washington, but now servile Republicans in Congress are facing extinction next year if they persist in their fealty.
Under cover of Gen. Petraeus, they may hold out over Iraq, but denying children health coverage is quite another matter. The White House may compromise, but they have no experience at it.
Childrens do learn. Do Presidents?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)