NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label 1%. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1%. Show all posts

27 August 2024

Maggie and the Millionaires TALK MONEY from 26 AUG to the election on Tuesday, 5 NOV 2024

 THIS sounds like it will be interesting and useful in persuading voters to vote for Harris-Walz. Here's the link to Maggie and the Millionaires TALK MONEY

Patriotic Millionaires

Exciting news! Today, Patriotic Millionaires, in partnership with Civic Media, is launching a new economic-centered live radio show and podcast. Tune into the first episode TODAY Monday, August 26th at 3pm CT / 4pm ET.

Maggie and the Millionaires TALK MONEY is a 30-minute show airing live statewide in Wisconsin and streaming nationally every weekday, Monday through Friday, through Election Day. As the 2024 election season kicks off in earnest -- and both candidates vie for the all-important working class vote -- join Maggie Daun and the Patriotic Millionaires for a daily deep dive into the one issue that matters most in a capitalist democracy: money. Money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

Maggie and her guest will unpack how the economy has been rigged against working people, what it means in the context of the day's news, and what we can do to fix it. The segment will feature a different guest each day -- including several of our Patriotic Millionaires, economists, and policy experts -- who will give listeners a fresh perspective and deeper understanding of America's rigged economic system and the power they have -- right now -- to fix it.

Click here to tune in to the VERY FIRST episode of Maggie and the Millionaires TALK MONEY featuring Patriotic Millionaires Vice Chair, Stephen Prince, today at 4pm ET to learn when and why $1,000 can be more than $1 million.

TUNE IN

Maggie and the Millionaires Talk Money; Mon - Fri, 3:00 PM CT

Stephen Prince, born, in his words, “a poor redneck from south Georgia,” became a multi-millionaire after starting National Business Products -- now known as Card Market, Inc. -- a gift card and in-store marketing material production company. The Gift Card Guy, Prince is the Vice Chair of Patriotic Millionaires, fighting to unrig the economy and build a better country for his children and grandchildren. Today, Stephen will explain exactly how the economy left so many behind and why, sometimes, $1,000 is worth more than $1 million.

All this week, Maggie will interview other experts and Patriotic Millionaires at 3pm CT/4pm ET:

  • Tuesday: Patriotic Millionaire Scott Ellis will explore “How Much is Too Much: Excessive Wealth and the $30 Million Success Project”

  • Wednesday: Tiffany Muller from End Citizens United will explore why “America Can't Have Both: It’s time to choose Concentrated Wealth or Freedom”

  • Thursday: University of Massachusetts Professor Bill Lazonick will discuss “How Billionaires Become Billionaires: Predatory Value Extraction and the Truth About Corporations”

  • Friday: Chuck Collins, heir to the Oscar Meyer fortune, will explain “Why you SHOULD take it personally: How Billionaire Wealth is Ruining YOUR Life”

You can tune in every day on YouTube or Spotify!

It’s time to demand the economy working people in Wisconsin and all across America need. Through our new show, we will break down how to build that economy with a group of millionaires, economists, and policy experts who see how the system is rigged and want to fix it.

Join us today, Monday, August 26th, and every weekday through Election Day at 4pm ET for Maggie and the Millionaires TALK MONEY.

Thank you for everything you do,

-Erica

Erica Payne
Founder and President, Patriotic Millionaires

27 November 2018

Is Trump Compromised by Saudi Money? DOES A BEAR SHIT IN THE WOODS? 26NOV18

Image result for trump pence greed
TO be fair to The Atlantic I added the second part of the title of this post. The fact is NOT MY pres drumpf / trump, in fact the entire drumpf / trump-pence administration with the republican / gop-greed over people controlled congress has been one of the most corrupt and greediest in decades. It isn't just the saudis and russians who have a financial hold on the drumpf / trump-pence and republican cabal, anyone who can be considered part of the 1% can buy into this cabal. When dealing with NOT MY pres drumpf / trump, NOT MY vp pence, and the republican / gop-greed over people cabal keep in mind morals are not  required, just millions, billions of dollars.

Is Trump Compromised by Saudi Money?
The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee wants to know, saying the president hasn’t been honest in accepting Saudi denials in the Khashoggi murder.

On Thanksgiving Day, President Donald Trump once again touted the Saudi royal family’s denial of any role in the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. That didn’t sit well with Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat poised to take over the House Intelligence Committee.
“The president is not being honest with the country about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi,” Schiff said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, having promised to use his new authority to investigate whether Trump’s personal finances influence his foreign policy. “Is his personal financial interest driving U.S. policy in the Gulf? … Are there financial entanglements with the Gulf? Are there financial inducements that the president has not to want to cross the Saudis?”
Although Trump tweeted last month that he has “no financial interests in Saudi Arabia,” he has in the past acknowledged business ties with the kingdom. “Saudi Arabia, I like the Saudis,” he said at a July 2015 campaign rally. “I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff. All kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions.” The Associated Press reported that in the 1990s, when Trump was “teetering on personal bankruptcy and scrambling to raise cash,” a billionaire Saudi prince twice closed on multimillion-dollar deals, including one to buy a 282-foot yacht called Princess. More recent business comes through Saudi stays at Trump hotels during his presidency, though PolitiFact reports that the Trump Organization doesn’t appear to own property or invest in the kingdom.
These concerns about Trump’s financial entanglements with Saudi Arabia parallel suspicions about possible financial connections to Russia, which Schiff also promised to investigate, including “whether the Russians have been laundering money through the president’s businesses, and this is the financial hold that the Russians may have. It would certainly explain the otherwise bewildering conduct of the president in Helsinki, many of the president’s pro-Putin comments. It would explain why his sons have said at various times they don’t need money from U.S. banks—they get all the money they need from Russia.”
Schiff, whom Trump called “little Adam Schitt” in a tweet last week, apparently is laying the groundwork to dig into the president’s personal finances more than any other investigator. When the Democrats take control of the House in January, he’ll gain control of the Intelligence Committee’s subpoena power and majority staff. The Daily Beast reported a few days ago that the committee has created positions for “money-laundering and forensic accounting experts.”
Some GOP senators joined Schiff and the Democrats in rejecting Trump’s meek acceptance of Saudi denials as they pressed for tougher punishment.
“I disagree with the president’s assessment. It’s inconsistent with the intelligence I’ve seen,” said Senator Mike Lee, the libertarian-leaning Utahan who was the only non-judge on the president’s short list for the Supreme Court. On NBC’s Meet the Press, the host, Chuck Todd, asked whether Lee supported congressional investigations into Trump’s motive for accepting Saudi denials.
“Look, I don’t know why he’s siding with the Saudis … (But I’m) certain that in the next Congress, people will look into that.” The GOP senator argued for cutting U.S. support for the Saudis’ devastating war in Yemen, pointing to his collaboration with Bernie Sanders on that issue.
Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, elected this month to the No. 5 GOP leadership spot, expressed a quieter objection. “I do think we need to look into this further,” she said on CNN’s State of the Union. She highlighted the importance of a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East but added, “We also are a very strong nation when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the rule of law. And if there are indicators that the prince was involved in this murder, then we need to absolutely consider further action.”
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, a frequent Trump critic whom Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona floated as a 2020 primary challenger, said on Fox News Sunday that the president’s statement was “very weak.” Sasse acknowledged the realpolitik case for a tight alliance with the Saudis and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MbS. But then he said, “Making the realist case is a different thing than being so weak that we failed to tell the truth. MbS contributed to murdering somebody abroad, and it is not strength to sort of mumble past that. Strength is telling the truth even when it’s hard.”
After a Thanksgiving Day teleconference with U.S. troops around the world, President Trump took questions from reporters, who asked about the American response to Khashoggi’s murder last month at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Although the CIA has concluded with high confidence that MbS ordered the killing, according to a Washington Post report, Trump once again emphasized the vehemence of the royal family’s denials and said that “the CIA points it both ways.”
So, a reporter asked, “who should be held accountable?” The president’s response did not identify any other Saudi officials, military cooperation, arms sales, official visits, or support for the war in Yemen. Instead, Trump seemed to blame universal human depravity.
“Maybe the world should be held accountable, because the world is a vicious place,” Trump said. “The world is a very, very vicious place. If you look at what’s happening in China, if you look at what’s happening in so many different countries—I could name many countries. If you look at what’s happening with terrorism all over the world.”
So as Schiff lays the groundwork to investigate Trump’s ties to the Saudis and the Russians, it seems that, beyond the sanctions levied against 15 to 20 agents and officials directly involved in Khashoggi’s killing, the Trump administration is not likely to hold MbS or Saudi Arabia responsible for ordering the murder.

03 July 2018

Anthony Kennedy Was No Moderate & EMERGENCY: Roe v. Wade & Anthony Kennedy, swing justice, announces retirement 3JUL & 28&27JUN18

Related image
anthony kennedy leaves a dark stain on the history of the SCOTUS beginning with his vote on bush v Gore in 2000 allowing the only judicial coup d'etat in the history of our representative Democracy. Because of kennedy's vote we are still paying for the illegal and immoral Iraq War in blood and tax dollars. kennedy was bought and paid for by corporate America and the 1% and his court votes reflect he was guided by greed and not the concept of the common good and the American social contract. kennedy could have waited to announce his retirement after the 2018 Midterm election but he is the same kind of person as drumpf/trump-pence and the rest of their fascist administration and knows his successor will be a neo-nazi committed to eliminating more of our rights and protections enshrined on the American constitution while increasing the wealth and power of corporate America and the 1%. From Politico followed by a call to action from UltraViolet I hope you will participate in and then a report on kennedy's retirement from the SCOTUS blog..... 

Anthony Kennedy Was No Moderate

Progressives mourning his departure from the Supreme Court have the guy all wrong
 
July 03, 2018
Conventional wisdom holds that Justice Anthony Kennedy was a moderate whose rulings hewed down the center of the fairway with the centrist wisdom of a modern-day King Solomon. I don’t buy it. Neither should you.
To paraphrase a famed retort, I have known moderate Supreme Court justices, I have worked with moderate Supreme Court justices, moderate Supreme Court justices have been friends of mine, and Anthony Kennedy was no moderate Supreme Court justice.
Although he wrote the majority decision in favor of marriage equality and cast crucial votes for reproductive rights, Justice Kennedy sided far more often with the powerful over the vulnerable. In opinion after opinion, he ruled in favor of corporations over average people and Big Money interests over the best interests of our democracy. Of the 35 justices who have served since World War II, Kennedy was the sixth most reliable pro-business vote. How’s that moderate?
With all the whitewashing of a staunchly conservative record that has been going on lately, it would be easy to forget that Kennedy cast the deciding vote in some of the most consequentially disastrous decisions of a generation. That’s right: This is the “moderate” who gifted a presidential election to George W. Bush on a silver platter in Bush v. Gore. In 2000, the popular vote did not count. It was Kennedy’s decisive vote from the bench that mattered.
This is the “moderate”’ who wrote for the majority in Citizens United v. FEC. He conflated money with speech and corporations with people. Wrong on both counts. That decision overturned a century of campaign finance law and opened the floodgates for unlimited special interest money, including from overseas, to flow unchecked into our elections. The results prove it. In 2016, 25 percent of the money spent on presidential and congressional races came from groups “with access to unlimited and unrestricted sources of funding.”
Kennedy is the “moderate”’ who last month handed powerful corporations yet another significant victory, in another 5-4 decision, in the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. It made it more difficult for workers to seek recourse against employers engaged in wage theft and discriminatory pay practices.
Just last week, on his way out the door, Kennedy sided with another 5-4 majority to upend decades of precedent and progress for organized labor in Janus vs. AFSCME. It was a parting shot to workers before heading off to his own taxpayer-secured retirement.
I do not overlook the positive aspects of Kennedy’s legacy. I have fought for women’s rights and gay rights my whole life. But a few good votes that are close to my heart do not blind my eyes to a fundamentally reactionary record. They should not obscure your opinion of Kennedy’s tenure either.
The politically correct Beltway view that ce Kennedy stands among true moderates, like Justices David Souter and Lewis Powell, to name just two, is in fact a sign of how far the political center has moved to the right.
The costs of Kennedy’s decisions, and their unforeseen consequences, will reverberate for years to come. Overruling the popular vote in Bush v. Gorebrought us the Iraq War. Overturning every post-Watergate campaign finance reform in Citizens United brought us the best democracy money can buy.
The American people deserve a Supreme Court justice who will stand firmly with us, not consistently throw in their lot with the country’s most powerful interests.
President Barack Obama nominated just such a jurist in Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell robbed my old boss of his constitutional right to put forth his pick for the high court on the flimsiest possible grounds that it was an “election year.” In this election year, with Senator McConnell’s rank hypocrisy already exposed for the world to see, will the Senate confirm a judge even further to the right than Kennedy? If President Donald Trump has his way, the court will continue its rightward shift and leave the rest of us behind.
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy--the critical swing vote protecting Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion--announced his retirement.1 This news will set off a furious fight to replace him that we absolutely must win, because Trump has vowed to nominate ONLY justices who will vote to overturn Roe.2
Craig, this is a CRISIS. We simply can't go back. In recent months, multiple states have put laws on the books to challenge Roe and ban abortion, in anticipation of Kennedy's retirement.3 Anti-abortion lawmakers expect Trump will get the Senate to confirm an extremist--and once one of these laws is challenged in the Supreme Court, that extremist would provide conservatives' long-awaited fifth vote to overturn Roe. That could happen in just over a year's time, and once it does, more than a dozen states have "trigger" laws to automatically ban abortion--with other states set to follow.4
But there's a path to victory. Rapid, intense pressure has convinced pro-choice senators like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to repeatedly side with us before. They've voted against abortion bans and to protect Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act.5 Their votes, along with those of several swing Democrats, will be key in any nomination fight--and that's why your voice is so urgently needed to put pressure on them now. Can you sign the petition?
Tell the U.S. Senate: "Block any Trump nominee who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Sign the petition
The right to an abortion is not the only issue for which Justice Kennedy's replacement is critical. While Justice Kennedy has not always supported progressive causes, his vote has been decisive on many. In 2016, he voted to strike down the notorious Texas law that forced the closure of dozens of abortion providers throughout the state.6 He was the swing vote on decisions to block the death penalty for crimes committed by minors under 18, and for those with intellectual disabilities.7 He was recently the deciding vote to protect race-based affirmative action at colleges and universities.8 And perhaps most notably, he was the swing vote--and wrote the landmark decision--that legalized the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide.9
Legal experts predict a Trump nominee would almost certainly overturn those decisions.10 We can't let the Senate vote in an extremist to replace Kennedy and turn back the clock. But just like we did with the campaign to protect the Affordable Care Act, we can pressure the senators who hold key swing votes. If enough of them go on record refusing to vote to confirm an extremist nominee, Trump will have to backtrack and nominate a more moderate individual.
It's up to us to make that happen--and to do it we will need to pile on the pressure, big time. Nearly every one of the Senate's 49 Democrats supports Roe, and our voices are critical here. If we loudly demand that every last Democrat vote against turning back the clock, and add just two Republicans, we can block an extremist Trump nominee.
Thanks for speaking out!
--Shaunna, Kat, Karin, Adam, Holly, Kathy, Susan, Anathea, Audine, Shannon, Emma, Pilar, Natalie, Melody, Pam, Lindsay, and Ryan, the UltraViolet team
 Sources:
1. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire, The New York Times, June 27, 2018
2. Trump promised judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, Washington Post, March 21, 2017
Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe, Guttmacher Institute, June 5, 2018
7. Supreme Court strikes down juvenile executions, The New York Times, March 1, 2005

Want to support our work? UltraViolet is funded by members like you, and our tiny staff ensures small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

Anthony Kennedy, swing justice, announces retirement

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter
Posted Wed, June 27th, 2018 7:01 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post, originally published at 2:23 p.m., has been moved back to the top of the blog.]
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced today that he would retire from the Supreme Court, effective July 31. In a letter to President Donald Trump, Kennedy wrote that “it is the highest of honors to serve on this Court,” and he expressed his “profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret, and defend the Constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises.” The decision by the 81-year-old justice, who spent much of his 30 years on the court as a pivotal vote on a wide range of high-profile issues, especially since the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, is all but certain to kick off a pitched confirmation battle because of the possibility that his successor could move the court significantly to the right on a number of those issues.

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Art Lien)
When he was nominated to the court in November 1987, Anthony McLeod Kennedy was only President Ronald Reagan’s third choice to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Lewis Powell. Reagan had first nominated Robert Bork, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to succeed Powell, but the Senate rejected Bork’s nomination by a vote of 42 to 58. Reagan next nominated another judge on the D.C. Circuit, Douglas Ginsburg, but Ginsburg withdrew his nomination after the revelation that he had used marijuana as an adult. Kennedy, then 51 and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, was confirmed to the court in February 1988 by a vote of 97-0.
When he nominated Kennedy, Reagan billed Kennedy as a “true conservative,” but he was generally regarded as a consensus pick after the failed Bork and Ginsburg nominations; Reagan himself noted that Kennedy “seems to be popular with many senators of varying political persuasions.” The Kennedy nomination drew disapproval from some conservatives, however. Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, characterized Reagan’s choice as a “basic compromise of principle,” while political activist Richard Viguerie described the nomination as a “total surrender to the left.”
Over the next three decades, conservatives were indeed often disappointed with Kennedy and his votes on a variety of issues, particularly social ones. One such topic was abortion. Anti-abortion voters had played a key role in Reagan’s election, and Kennedy initially provided both the president who appointed him and those voters with reason to be optimistic. Just a little over a year after his confirmation, Kennedy joined the majority in upholding a Missouri law that (among other things) defined life as beginning at conception and required doctors to conduct fetal viability tests before performing abortions on women who were 20 or more weeks pregnant. Along with Justice Byron White, Kennedy also joined a separate opinion, written by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, that would have effectively dismantled the test outlined in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision establishing a woman’s basic right to an abortion. And in 2007, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion when a closely divided court upheld a federal law that criminalized a procedure known as a “partial-birth” abortion.
But in 1992, in a challenge to a Pennsylvania law restricting abortions, Kennedy wrote an unusual joint opinion, along with O’Connor and Justice David Souter, that reaffirmed the “essential holding” of Roe. “Men and women of good conscience can disagree,” the trio said, about “the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals,” the opinion continued, “find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision.” At the same time, the Kennedy/O’Connor/Souter joint opinion established a new and less stringent test for evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of abortion regulations: Efforts to regulate abortions before the fetus is viable are constitutional as long as they do not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.
Fourteen years later, Kennedy joined the court’s four more liberal justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – in striking down two parts of a Texas law that had made it significantly more difficult for abortion clinics to operate in the state. In enacting the law, the Texas legislature had pointed to the need to protect women’s health, but the majority declined to take that justification at face value.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump declared that he would appoint “pro-life” justices. When pressed later about whether he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, Trump responded that, if he were able to put two or three justices on the court, it would “happen automatically.” As Reagan’s experience with Kennedy reflects, there is no way to guarantee how a nominee will vote once confirmed. At the same time, however, Trump has relied on the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, to vet his judicial nominees. Members of that group have repeatedly vowed that, when it comes to Supreme Court nominees by Republican presidents, there should be “no more Souters” – a reference to their disappointment with the George H.W. Bush nominee. If Trump does replace Kennedy with a new justice who fulfills the president’s promise, the result could be a substantial shift on the court on abortion rights.
Kennedy’s pivotal role in the Supreme Court’s gay-rights cases prompted one law professor who studies the court to dub him the “first gay justice,” but that role could also now provide an opening for a shift in the court’s gay-rights jurisprudence.  In 1996, in Romer v. Evans, Kennedy wrote for the court – over the objections of three of his colleagues –striking down an amendment to the Colorado constitution that barred state and local governments from adopting laws or policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law, Kennedy explained, “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to someone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”
Seven years later, the court – again, by a vote of 6-3 – ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that a Texas law criminalizing private consensual sexual relations between two adults of the same sex violates the Constitution. Some of the lawyers for the men challenging the law wept openly in the gallery as Kennedy read from his opinion for the court, emphasizing that the plaintiffs “are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”
In 2013, Kennedy would provide the key vote and write for the court in United States v. Windsor, the case that invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs. Kennedy described the legalization of same-sex marriage by some states as a decision that gave same-sex couples “a dignity and status of immense import.” By contrast, he observed, “DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.”
Exactly two years after the decision in Windsor, Kennedy delivered the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, striking down Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage. Kennedy’s opinion used the same lofty rhetoric found in his earlier gay-rights decisions, explaining that the “limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.”
In an interview with 60 Minutes shortly after the 2016 election, Trump described same-sex marriage as “done. These cases have gone to the Supreme Court,” he indicated. “They’ve been settled. And I’m—I’m fine with that.” But even if Trump regards the question as resolved, and the conservative successor that Trump has promised agrees, the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on a variety of other legal issues related to marriage – such as divorce and child custody – or, more broadly, on civil-rights protections for LGBT people, for example in the workplace, schools and the military. Kennedy’s successor could hold the deciding vote in such cases, which could determine the scope of LGBT rights even if the right to same-sex marriage remains intact.
Kennedy also provided the key vote in the Supreme Court’s most recent decision on affirmative action. His vote was not entirely predictable: In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court – by a vote of 5-4 – upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative-action policy. O’Connor wrote for the majority, in an opinion joined by Souter and Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy joined then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent but also penned his own dissent, in which he reasoned that there “is no constitutional objection to the goal of considering race as one modest factor among many others to achieve diversity, but an educational institution must ensure, through sufficient procedures, that each applicant receives individual consideration, and that race does not become a predominant factor in the admissions decisionmaking.” The law school in this case, he continued, had not met that test.
Thirteen years later, Kennedy would write for the court in a ruling that upheld the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process. He was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the 4-3 decision; Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case, while Justice Antonin Scalia died before the court issued its opinion. Kennedy cautioned that the court’s decision was not a “blank check” for universities to use the same race-conscious policy indefinitely. Instead, Kennedy stressed, it “is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies.”
Lawsuits challenging affirmative-action policies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University are currently winding their way through the lower courts and could reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. There’s no way to know how Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced Scalia on the bench, would vote in such a case, but if he shares his predecessor’s views, the outcome could hinge on the vote of Kennedy’s successor. Then again, even the majority in Grutter, writing in 2003, suggested that affirmative action might not be necessary in 25 years – a sunset that is now only 10 years away.
In recent years, Kennedy has sided with the court’s four more liberal justices on a wide variety of other issues, ranging from the death penalty and the Sixth Amendment to redistricting and the Fair Housing Act. Kennedy’s successor could play a central role in determining the direction of these areas of the law as well, and we can expect whomever Trump nominates to face persistent questioning about his or her views on these subjects. Of course, if past confirmation hearings (for nominees put forward by both Republican and Democratic presidents) are any predictor, whether we learn anything about those views beyond what the nominee has already written will be another matter. But what we can say with certainty is that, given Kennedy’s role on the court, the upcoming confirmation battle will be a heated one.
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

03 April 2018

The Country With The World's Worst Inequality Is ...2APR18

Related image
26 years after freeing itself from apartheid South Africa still struggles with income and economic inequality.  South Africans may be equal politically but economically a very small group controls the economy and most of the wealth in the nation. Still, this World Bank report shows they are taking the necessary steps to address this problem, considering the hundreds of years the country was exploited as a colony and then a brutal plutocracy / oligarchy it is going to take more than 25 years to overcome the damage done. The United States ranking in this report is something to be ashamed of but also proves the voluntary political ignorance of the American people allowing them to be deceived and manipulated by politicians controlled by greedy corporate America, the 1%, is moving America closer and closer to being a Third World nation. From NPR

The Country With The World's Worst Inequality Is ...

More than two decades after South Africa ousted a racist apartheid system that trapped the vast majority of South Africans in poverty, more than half the country still lives below the national poverty line and most of the nation's wealth remains in the hands of a small elite.
"The country was very unequal in 1994 [at the end of apartheid] and now 25 years later South Africa is the most unequal country in the world," says Victor Sulla, a senior economist for the World Bank in charge of southern Africa. "There is no country that we have data about where the inequality is higher than South Africa."
Sulla is the lead author of a new report on poverty and inequality in South Africa.
There are various ways to look at economic inequality and South Africa scores terribly on all of them. Income inequality looks at the gap between what the lowest paid workers earn each day versus the salaries of top employees.
"The people at the bottom in South Africa, they get wages comparable to the people who live in Bangladesh. It's very, very poor. Wages of less than $50 a month," Sulla says. "If you take the top ten percent, they live like in Austria. So it's very high level even by European standards or even by U.S. standards. And we are talking just about employees, people who are getting paid." And not the super-rich who are earning income from factories or property or other investments.


In addition to a huge problem with income inequality, South Africa also has a significant problem with wealth inequality. Wealth inequality looks at the range of a person's assets. So a businessman in Johanesburg might own real estate, factories or other investments while a farmer in KwaZulu Natal might not even own the land she's tilling.
This new report from the World Bank finds that the top 1 percent of South Africans own 70.9 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 60 percent of South Africans collectively control only 7 percent of the country's assets.
"How is that possible? Someone must explain this to me!" exclaims 30-year-old Phiwe Budaza, reached on her cellphone in Cape Town. "How is that even possible?"
Budaza, who grew up in the township of Khayelitsha, says inequality is part of life in South Africa.
"There's always been a difference between the white and the black but I think it's getting worse now," she says. Before her cellphone battery dies Budaza says she doesn't have a permanent job. She freelances as a photographer and in her words "hustles" to cover her bills.
"I work as a bartender and I work for a rental company that rents cameras and film equipment," she says.
"It's hard for someone like me who doesn't have a full-time job to survive in Cape Town. The rent for an apartment [in the city] is like three times what I earn in a month." She says she ends up living outside the city, which makes it harder to get to some jobs.
Budaza is not alone in struggling to make ends meet every month in South Africa. The nation's official unemployment rate is currently at 27 percent compared to roughly 4 percent in the United States.
"South Africa is really facing the triple challenge of poverty, unemployment and inequality," says the former head of the African Union, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, about the report. Dlamini-Zuma is a long-time anti-apartheid activist who now heads up a national planning commission in President Cyril Ramaphosa's cabinet.
"We are a relatively rich country but with a lot of poor people," she says.
If things don't change dramatically in South Africa, Dlamini-Zuma adds, the country will fail to reach its goal of eliminating extreme poverty (people earning less than $1.90 a day) by the year 2030.
South Africa has been focused on trying to bring down poverty and reduce inequality. And it's had some success. Post-apartheid, the government launched a significant Black Economic Empowerment program to promote the transfer of white-owned businesses to black investors. South Africa has invested heavily in social programs including free primary education, a plan for universal health care, infrastructure projects to expand access to clean water and minimum income grants to parents.
Sulla at the World Bank says South Africa under the post-apartheid ANC government has been a leader on social programs.
"Their social protection programs in terms of different grants and support for the poor are working very well," he says. "This country is one of the best in the world in terms of the efficiency of its social protection system."
Yet despite these efforts the number of South Africans living below the national poverty has actually been increasing since 2011. In 2015, 55.5 percent of South Africans or more than 30 million people were surviving on less than $5 a day.
Sulla says the lack of progress against poverty is partly due to what he calls "opportunity inequality." Some people have more access to opportunity than others. And the people who've traditionally had wealth and economic opportunities continue to enjoy those benefits.
Dlamini-Zuma says the legacy of the apartheid regime still casts a long shadow over the opportunities available for millions of South Africans.
"We should not shy away from acknowledging that apartheid was a system that systematically excluded black people from the economy, from skills, from everything. So overcoming that has to be a big part of what we do."
She says South Africa's progress will be measured on the progress it makes against the "dehumanizing scourge" of poverty.
"Poverty stops us from reaching our full potential individually and collectively," she says. "It's not good to be the country with the highest inequality in the world. We need to get ourselves out of that space. But it's not going to be easy."