Alabama politicians react to Jeff Sessions’ AG confirmation
The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to confirm Alabama-Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions as the next attorney general. By a vote of 52-47, Sessions was confirmed by party lines with the exception of lone Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin who joined his Republican colleagues in the vote. Here’s what Alabama politicians are saying about Sessions’ confirmation: Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange: Today, I join with the people of Alabama in offering our congratulations to Jeff Sessions on his confirmation as our United States Attorney General. Now the whole country will have the privilege of knowing the fine man that Alabamians have long come to admire and revere,” said Attorney General Strange. As Alabama’s Attorney General, I am particularly grateful for the reprieve from federal overreach that states will surely be granted under Attorney General Sessions. Throughout my six years in this office, I have wrestled with the Justice Department on an endless number of oppressive federal policies stemming from a total lack of constitutional deference and respect for the states. I am confident that Jeff Sessions will do his part to restore the delicate balance between the states and the federal government that the Founders envisioned. Jeff Sessions will enforce our nation’s laws with impartiality and unwavering fidelity to the Constitution. He will support and reinvigorate our law enforcement officers. As demonstrated throughout his 20 years of service in the Senate, he will never sacrifice principle for popularity. Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne: Jeff Sessions is going to make an outstanding Attorney General, and I could not be happier for him. As someone who has spent most of his career enforcing and defending the rule of law, I know Jeff will help restore law and order in our country. I hate to lose his leadership and advocacy in the Senate, but the United States is better off having Jeff Sessions as our Attorney General. Alabama 2nd District U.S. Rep. Martha Roby: Jeff Sessions is a great American who has served his state and nation admirably. There is no one more qualified to serve as Attorney General, and his confirmation by the Senate is a proud moment for Alabama and our country. During the confirmation process, there were many unfair, untrue attacks on Jeff Sessions’ character – all in the name of politics. I know him to be a man of the highest integrity, and I have no doubt he will prove his critics wrong as he works in the best interests of all Americans as Attorney General of the United States. Alabama 5th District U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks: Although this confirmation should have come sooner, I am pleased the Senate today confirmed Jeff Sessions as the United States Attorney General under President Donald Trump. I look forward to his strict enforcement of our immigration laws, support for local law enforcement officers, protection of our Second Amendment rights, and adherence to the rule of law. I appreciate Jeff Sessions’ willingness to serve and have every confidence he will faithfully defend the Constitution and protect the rights of all Americans.
Jeff Sessions confirmed as attorney general
The Senate has confirmed Sen. Jeff Sessions as Donald Trump‘s U.S. Attorney General. Sessions has been U.S. Senator from Alabama since 1996 after serving two years as the state’s attorney general. The GOP holds a 52-48 margin in the U.S. Senate. Sessions was one of the earliest supporters candidate Trump, and had been a leading adviser in his presidential campaign. He has approved of Trump’s call to secure the borders as well as the president’s executive order instituting a temporary travel ban on seven Muslim-majority nations. The controversial travel is on hold after a federal judge’s order and is now subject to a heated legal battle. Sessions is considered one of the most conservative senators in America. He backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He is a vocal opponent of abortion and voted against the Affordable Care Act as well as former President Barack Obama’s stimulus package in 2009. Sessions graduated from Huntingdon College in Montgomery and the University of Alabama Law School and was the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. He also served as a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman released from federal prison
Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman has been released from a federal prison in Louisiana where he was serving a six-year sentence for bribery and obstruction of justice. Longtime aide Chip Hill said Siegelman’s brother received a call Wednesday morning confirming his release. Federal prison officials are driving Siegelman to the probation office in Birmingham. He is expected to go home on house arrest. A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman of selling an appointment to a state health board in exchange for donations to his 1999 campaign for a state lottery. Siegelman’s supporters cheered the release of the 70-year-old Democrat who for decades was a dominating figure in state politics. Hill said the former governor’s friends and family are “very excited about his release and very much look forward to seeing him.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Groups sue to block Donald Trump’s order on government regulations
Organizations opposing President Donald Trump‘s executive order to curb government regulations filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block it. The president’s order was issued on Jan. 30 and required federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation proposed or issued. Trump had promised during his presidential run to place a moratorium on new federal regulations not compelled by Congress or public safety. Soon after his victory, he issued a video mapping out his first 100 days that included the 2-for-1 curb on government regulations. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It underscores the limits of governing through executive action as opponents turn to the courts to block implementation, just as they did with Trump’s travel ban. Former President Barack Obama faced similar roadblocks when his administration sought to expand overtime pay and block millions of people from deportation. The lawsuit contends that Trump’s order exceeds his constitutional authority and directs federal agencies to illegally repeal regulations needed to protect the health and safety of Americans and the environment. The organizations filing the lawsuit are Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, the Communications Workers of America and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC’s Rhea Suh said in announcing the lawsuit that new efforts to stop pollution don’t automatically make old efforts unnecessary. “This order imposes a false choice between clean air, clean water, safe food and other environmental safeguards,” Suh said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Republicans in Congress have been supportive of the president’s calls for reduced regulation and have moved to repeal several of the final regulations issued during Obama’s presidency affecting the environment, education and financial disclosure. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Darryl Paulson: We are not the same; the immoral equivalency of President Donald Trump
Voters who supported Donald Trump for president did so because they liked his free-speaking ideas, his attacks on the political establishment and his promise to “make America great again.” President Trump has repeatedly stated that he would have won the popular vote for president if not for massive vote fraud. Does Trump believe that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin won his office in free and fair elections? I hope Trump cannot be that deluded. Republicans raised strong criticisms when President Barack Obama conducted what many Americans viewed as an “apology tour,” criticizing America for all its failures. Americans prefer their presidents defend the nation and its values, and not constantly criticize the nation for its shortcomings. Obama told a European audience in 2009 that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” He also criticized the notion of American exceptionalism that all presidents have defended. When Jihadists burned a Jordanian pilot alive, then showing the video online as a recruiting tool, President Obama cautioned a national prayer breakfast audience not to “get on our high horse” and “remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” Many Americans were sickened and highly critical of Obama’s efforts to apologize for America’s shortcomings. Instead of defending American exceptionalism, the president seemed to delight in pointing out our deficiencies. If President Obama’s “apology tour” disgusted many Americans and most Republicans, President Trump’s defense of Putin and the Soviets should strike a similar response from the electorate. To cast America and the Soviets as “one and the same” should thoroughly repulse Republicans, in particular. Republican Ronald Reagan must be retching. President Trump turned in one of the most disgusting performances of any American president when he placed America and the Soviets on the same moral plateau. In a Fox News interview with Bill O’Reilly before the Super Bowl, Trump defended Putin against O’Reilly’s charge that “Putin’s a killer.” Trump responded that “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. Well, you think our country is so innocent?” If Obama had made that statement, Republicans would be calling for his impeachment. But, weak-kneed Republicans, who have no problem praising Trump, have a far more difficult time criticizing him when he becomes ill with “foot and mouth” disease. In their silence, supporters of Trump are neither doing him, or the nation, favors anyway. Do you remember when one of our political leaders ordered the assassination of a political opponent? Neither do I. But, Putin did that to Boris Nemtsov in 2015. Anti-corruption reporter Sergei Magnitsky was killed in prison in 2009. Respected journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot and killed the same year, and fellow reporter Yuri Schekechikhin was poisoned in 2013. The list of reporter and political opponent deaths is a long one. The United States does not purposely bomb civilian neighborhoods as did the Soviets in Syria. The United States does not shoot down unarmed civilian aircraft as the Soviets did in the Ukraine. The United States does not invade independent neighboring countries as the Soviets did to the Ukraine. Does President Trump really believe that murders of political opponents could happen in America? I hope that Trump sees America in a different light than Putin and the Soviets. Some Republicans have objected to President Trump’s abhorrent remarks about the moral equivalency between the Soviets and the United States. Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who called Putin a “thug,” and rejected any attempt at moral equivalency. Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio tweeted: “When has a Democratic political activist been poisoned by the GOP or vice versa? We are not the same as #Putin.” Republicans, in particular, and all Americans must support the president when he is right and must criticize him just as vigorously when he is wrong. To not do so will embolden both Trump and dictator Putin to continue a reckless path. ___ Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg.
Mike Rogers: Protecting America’s taxpayers by securing the border
Most folks across East Alabama watched with excitement on January 25th as President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strengthen our country’s immigration laws. I, too, applauded our new president’s action to take seriously our nation’s immigration crisis. As a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I have long been an advocate for protecting American taxpayers from the enormous costs of illegal immigration. President Trump’s action stated his intent to build a wall along our southern border. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the building of a fence along our southern border. I am proud to say that I was a cosponsor of that legislation then, and I remain a strong supporter of that law now. Though President Obama ignored this public law, we in the Congress will work with our new president to build the wall once and for all. Recently, in a House Homeland Security Committee hearing I was able to speak with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kelly about our shared efforts. I believe border wall construction is a time-sensitive issue and should start as soon as possible. In order to jumpstart construction of the wall, I will sponsor a bill, the Border Security Funding Act of 2017, which will require illegal workers to pay a fee on money they send away to their home countries. This bill will also strengthen penalties for any country benefitting from illegal immigrant work in America. Thankfully, with Jeff Sessions becoming our Attorney General, we will finally have a strong supporter of the rule of law at the DOJ. By building a border wall and enforcing the laws on the books, American can start to reclaim its sovereignty. I am looking forward to working closely with the Trump administration to curb America’s illegal immigration problem. • • • Mike Rogers is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District.
Robert Bentley looking to ‘Big Luther’ Strange as Jeff Sessions replacement
Gov. Robert Bentley is leaning toward Alabama’s attorney general Luther Strange to replace U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed Wednesday as Donald Trump’s Attorney General. POLITICO reports that three Birmingham Republican insiders have confirmed Bentley’s choice of Strange, but warned it’s not a formal selection, and the governor could change his mind at any time. Strange, a former basketball player nicknamed “Big Luther,” was first elected as the state’s attorney general in 2010. Insiders say he is planning to travel to Washington D.C. this week for a series of interviews to staff a potential Senate office. Strange already announced his intention to run for Sessions’ vacant seat, but Bentley has yet to schedule a special election and can appoint someone Senator until he does. POLITICO suggests one advantage of Strange going to Washington is that Bentley would get to choose a new attorney general, presumably one less inclined to follow through on the governor’s sex scandal last year which led to talks of possible impeachment. In November, strange had requested the state Legislature to suspend its investigation of Bentley, pending the completion of an investigation by his office. “Luther is screwed either way,” one source told POLITICO. “If he gets the job, it looks like he cut a deal. And if he doesn’t, it looks like he’s prosecuting Bentley out of revenge.”
Court mulls travel ban: To compound whiplash, or calm it?
President Donald Trump‘s surprise executive order on immigration and a Seattle judge’s stunning decision to temporarily block it a week later have induced a national whiplash, riveting attention first on protests that filled airports around the country and then on Trump’s Twitter rants questioning the judge’s legitimacy. Whether the travel ban gets immediately reinstated is now up to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where three judges heard arguments Tuesday . If they keep U.S. District Judge James Robart‘s order in place, the case could return to Robart, who would have more time to make a ruling on the merits of the case, based on fuller arguments and evidence. If they let the President go forward with his executive order, it could compound the whiplash: The travel ban would take effect once again pending a legal challenge by Washington state and Minnesota, even though the courts might wind up striking it down later. A decision has been promised within days. ___ WHAT WAS THE UPSHOT OF TUESDAY’S HEARING? Trying to divine how a court might rule from the questioning can be a fool’s errand, but some legal scholars who were willing to try anyway said Washington state appeared to make enough of a case to keep Trump’s travel ban on ice, at least for now. Tuesday’s arguments between Justice Department attorney August Flentje and Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell were conducted by phone, due to the emergent nature of the hastily arranged hearing. The record audience that tuned in for the live-stream on the court’s website heard each lawyer getting grilled. The judges repeatedly asked Flentje whether the government had any evidence that the travel ban was necessary, or that keeping it on hold would harm national security. They expressed skepticism over his argument that the states don’t have standing to sue, and over his assertion that the courts have little to no role in reviewing the president’s determinations concerning national security. Purcell faced tough questioning from Judge Richard Clifton, who said he wasn’t necessarily buying the states’ argument that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination, given that the vast majority of Muslims live in countries that aren’t targeted by the ban. “I certainly thought the government’s case came across as weaker,” Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, wrote in an email, citing “the government’s seeming inability to provide concrete evidence of why immigration from those countries threatens national security.” ___ DISCRIMINATION OR NOT? After being repeatedly asked, Flentje acknowledged that individuals could have standing to sue if the president tried to enforce an all-out ban on Muslims entering the U.S. But, he said, that’s not all what’s happening here. Basing the order on travel from certain countries that have been linked to terrorism — whatever their religion — is a perfectly legitimate exercise of the president’s authority over national security, he argued. Purcell argued that it’s remarkable to have this much evidence of discriminatory intent this early in the case — including Trump’s campaign statements about a Muslim ban and adviser Rudy Giuliani‘s interview comments that he was asked to help devise a legal version of the Muslim ban. “There are statements that we’ve quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims, given that we haven’t even had any discovery yet to find out what else might have been said in private,” Purcell said. Even if Trump’s executive order itself doesn’t single out Muslims, the order is unconstitutionally discriminatory if it was adopted with such intent, Purcell said. Judge Michelle Friedland asked Flentje persistent questions about such evidence. “It is extraordinary for the court to enjoin the president’s national security determination based on some newspaper articles, and that’s what has happened here,” Flentje responded. That drew an incredulous response from Clifton: “Do you deny those statements were made?” Flentje conceded they were, and Clifton said in that case it was appropriate to consider them. ___ WHAT ARE THE COURT’S OPTIONS? In addition to simply leaving Robart’s temporary restraining order in place or striking it down, the DOJ said the appeals court could narrow its scope, which it called over-broad. Flentje suggested it could be limited to allow the president to ban travelers who don’t already have relationships with the United States, while allowing legal permanent residents, for example, to return to the U.S. from the seven countries. In questioning Purcell, Clifton followed up on that. “Why shouldn’t we limit the order, the temporary restraining order’s reach to those people who you’ve got a strong case for, like the LPRs?” he asked. Purcell said that wouldn’t work. The government hasn’t shown that it could engineer a way to apply the ban so selectively, and even if it could, the rights of U.S. citizens who want to have family members come visit them from the listed countries would still be harmed, he said. Judge William Canby noted that Washington’s state universities might want to invite some foreign scholars to visit — and that those scholars might have no current connection to the U.S. In that case, the rights of the schools might be compromised. Further, the travel ban would still violate the separation of church and state, because it’s grounded in religious discrimination, and that’s something that affects all residents of the states, Purcell said. However the judges rule, the case is likely to wind up at the Supreme Court. Its route there is the main question. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Steve Flowers: Time again to focus on Alabama budgets, Medicaid problem
As the third regular session of this quadrennium begins, the paramount focus once again will be on the budgets. Even more specifically, it will be about the General Fund Budget. Alabama is one of five states that has two budgets. Our Education Budget now receives over two-thirds of our tax revenue due to the fact that our growth taxes, income and sales, are earmarked for Education’s coffers, whereas our General Fund gets the remaining one-third of revenue and that will continue to shrink because it has no growth taxes. The General Fund also has to feed the most expensive expenditure of state government – Medicaid. This Great Society program created by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s is a money eating monster that grows exponentially and now eats up over half of the General Fund Budget. This problem is not unique to Alabama. Every state would name Medicaid funding as its most significant financial nightmare. We are affected more adversely than most states because we have a much higher indigent population. It is this long-term problem that eventually will have to be addressed. Those who are closest to the problem are aware that it is an elephant in the room that will not go away. Rep. Steve Clouse (R-Ozark), who chairs the House Ways and Means General Fund Committee, sees it as does Gov. Robert Bentley. Governor Bentley, being a former physician, is sympathetic to the needs of the less fortunate. He treated all patients during his 35 years of practicing medicine. He also wants to see his compatriot pediatricians paid to take care of poor sick children. Initially many of the Republican House and Senate members were saying enough is enough. We cannot continue to absorb 10 percent annual increases in this social program, even if the federal government matches Alabama’s contribution about three to one. However, once a crisis seemed imminent, they realized that it not only affected the poor but also the middle-class Alabamians they represent. In medium sized towns and cities throughout the state it is imperative that Medicaid be funded in order for their hospitals to exist. In Birmingham, it would cripple our crown jewel, Children’s Hospital. It would also be devastating for Alabama’s and Birmingham’s largest employer, UAB. Most respected economists say that Alabama should have taken the Expanded Medicaid Program offered by the federal government. It would have been a financial boon for that state if for nothing else than the windfall to UAB. A good many of the Republican legislators’ constituents rely on Medicaid to care for their parents and family members and probably a good many of their parents reside in nursing homes. Approximately 70 percent of nursing home residents in the state depend on Medicaid to pay their nursing home expenses, which by the way is very expensive. In short, Medicaid is here to stay. It is not going away. Legislators cannot bury their head in the sand like an ostrich and hope the problem disappears. The legislature and governor have come up with a short-term fix to our Medicaid problem. They appropriated $120 million of the one-time BP oil spill settlement funds and gave it to Medicaid. This was about 20 percent of the one-time BP windfall. Ironically, it will be disbursed over the next two years, 2017-2018. Guess what folks – that is when the quadrennium ends. Therefore, the proverbial can has been kicked down the road. The next governor and legislature will inherit this baby to take care of the following four years. Legislators may be faced with yet another issue in this overladen regular session. It may be imminent to raise the gasoline tax in the state, which has not been increased in 15 years. The reason being is that the Trump administration will probably come with a massive federal infrastructure plan to rebuild the nation’s highways and bridges. More than likely states will have to come up with some matching dollars. It will be imperative that we take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity. The last major federal highway initiative was the Eisenhower Federal Interstate Program. We are behind the eight ball when it comes to political capital and attaining federal dollars. Governor Bentley is blackballed and laughed at by the Trump administration, as are our Congresswomen Martha Roby and Terri Sewell. We also have a freshman Senator who will be ranked 100th in seniority. However, we have quite an ace in the hole. We have Richard Shelby to protect us. When Shelby speaks, folks in Washington listen and that includes Trump. Richard Shelby is unquestionably one of the five most powerful members of the U.S. Senate. See you next week. ___ Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state Legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
