Jeff Sessions slams judges for thwarting Donald Trump policies
The nation’s chief law enforcement officer on Thursday blasted federal judges who have thwarted or criticized Trump administration policies, accusing them of trying to veto the president’s decisions because they disagree with him politically. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, speaking at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said U.S. district court judges are failing to respect Congress and the “prerogatives and responsibilities of the executive branch” in issuing their orders, namely those who have temporarily blocked policies like President Donald Trump‘s travel ban from taking effect. Sessions took aim at a Brooklyn judge who decried as “heartless” the Trump administration’s recent move to end a program protecting some young immigrants from deportation. “He didn’t say it was unlawful. He said, ‘I don’t like your policy,’ in effect,” Sessions said. “A judge’s comments on policy like this is offensive, and it’s disrespectful of the legislative and executive branches, and to the fine attorneys in the Department of Justice.” It was an unusual commentary from the nation’s top prosecutor, but it’s not without precedent. Following his remarks, Sessions answered questions from former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who was known for intense attacks on what he saw as judicial activism in the 1980s. And it was hardly the first time Sessions himself has criticized the judiciary, in keeping with Trump’s own intensely personal attacks on judges who have not ruled in his favor. In April, Sessions drew the ire of Hawaii’s Democratic lawmakers after saying he was “amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific” could stop Trump’s travel ban, a point Sessions reiterated Thursday. Hawaii was one of three states where a judge issued what Sessions described as “activist nationwide injunctions” blocking the policy, which attempts to bar travelers from certain predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States. “Forgive me for feeling strongly about this,” Sessions said, his voice rising. “In effect, single judges are making themselves super-legislators for the entire United States.” Yet as an Alabama senator, Sessions and other Republicans supported a Texas judge’s injunction blocking an Obama-era immigration program that spared some immigrants from deportation. Sessions said Thursday he was confident Trump administration policies would prevail in higher courts. The American Bar Association fired back, saying in a statement that Sessions had disregarded the constitutional independence of the judicial branch. “Judges should not be attacked or diminished by another branch of government just because they do not rule in its favor,” the organization said. “Judicial independence is critical to maintaining the rule of law in our nation.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Autism insurance bill stalls in Alabama Senate
Families of autistic children faced a set-back Monday when a bill that would require health insurance providers cover an expensive autism therapy stalled in the Alabama Senate. The bill, which passed the state House unanimously two weeks ago, is held up in the Senate Budget Committee where Chairman, Daphne-Republican Sen. Trip Pittman says there are concerns over the costs to the state. Alabama is one of only five states with no requirement that insurance companies cover the costly therapy, called Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). According to the bill’s language, children with autism who are 9 years old and younger would be insured for up to $40,000 in treatment per year. That coverage would decrease to $10,000 per year by age 19. The bill faces heavy opposition from the insurance industry, including Blue Cross Blue Shield, as well as the Business Council of Alabama. Nevertheless, the bill’s sponsor Auburn-Republican Sen. Tom Whatley took to social media on Saturday where he posted a video discussing the importance of the bill calling it “much-needed” and “the solution our state needs” for families with children along the autism spectrum. Pittman says it will be at least another week before SB406 has a public hearing. Watch Whatley’s Facebook video about the bill below:
Darryl Paulson: On Neil Gorsuch; both parties should just grow up!
Until 1987, presidential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court were respectfully received and reviewed by the U.S. Senate. In 1986, Antonin Scalia, a judicial conservative and constitutional originalist, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a vacancy on the court. He was confirmed 98 to 0 by the U.S. Senate. The confirmation process imploded in 1987 when another Reagan nominee to the court, Robert Bork, was subject to such a vicious attack concerning his record and judicial temperament, that the word “borking” became part of the political lexicon. To be “borked” was to be the subject of a public character assassination. Since the defeat of Judge Bork in 1987, the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees has become bitter and brutal. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated the highly-qualified jurist Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy due to the death of Scalia. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination, arguing that it should be left to the next president. Democrats were outraged by the treatment of Garland and are taking out their anger by attempting to defeat President Donald Trump‘s nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Democrats contend that Gorsuch’s views are out of the mainstream and accuse him of favoring corporations over workers. They also argue that he fails to fully defend the right to vote and favors the “powerful candidate interests over the rights of all Americans.” Republicans respond by asking how, if Gorsuch’s views were so extreme, did he win confirmation on a 98 to 0 vote 10 years ago, when he was seated on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado. Would not some of those senators have opposed his extreme views when first nominated? Not only that, but the American Bar Association (ABA) told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Judge Gorsuch received its “well qualified” rating, the highest rating available from the ABA. Nancy Scott Dogan of the ABA said, “We do not give the “well qualified” rating lightly.” So, why does the ABA see Judge Gorsuch in such a different light than Democrats in the Senate? Republicans want to confirm Gorsuch for several reasons. With the death of Justice Scalia, Gorsuch would likely carry on his conservative views. For quite some time, the court has been divided between four conservatives, four liberals and the swing vote of Justice Kennedy. The Republicans and Trump also need a political victory. The Republican failure to “repeal and replace” Obamacare was a deep political blow to the party and its president. President Trump, who promised his supporters that they would “get tired of winning,” are beginning to wonder what happened to all those promised wins. Democrats want to defeat Gorsuch as political payback for the treatment of Garland, and also to make amends for Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton. In addition, Democrats want a second major defeat of Trump after he failed to secure passage of the Republican health care plan. Democratic activists do not want their elective officials to give 1 inch to the Republicans. In 2005, the “Gang of 14” senators from both parties reached an agreement to prevent an impasse over judicial nominations. The filibuster and 60 vote requirement would continue for Supreme Court nominees, but a simple majority would be needed for other nominations. Since Republican outnumber Democrats 52 to 48 in the Senate, eight Democrats must support Gorsuch for him to be confirmed. So far, no Democrat has indicated support for Gorsuch. As a result, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is threatening to use the “nuclear option.” The “nuclear option” would allow the Senate to approve a change in the filibuster rule to require a simple majority of the Senate, or 51 votes, to confirm a Supreme Court appointee. To change the filibuster rules only requires 51 votes. If Democrats are successful in their filibuster against Gorsuch, it will be the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in over 50 years when the Senate rejected President Lyndon Johnson‘s selection of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice. According to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a successful Democratic filibuster would mean “that qualifications no longer matter.” A candidate unanimously confirmed to the Court of Appeals a decade ago and one who has received the highest rating from the ABA is not suitable for the court. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of only three senators still left who brokered the “Gang of 14” deal, is keeping the door open to use the nuclear option. As a firm believer in the rules and traditions of the Senate, Collins argues that “it would be unfair if we cannot get a straight up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch.” But then, it was only a year ago, that Obama and the Democrats were making the same argument on behalf of Merrick Garland. If only one of the two parties could grow up! ___ Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at USF St. Petersburg.
