An Arizona gun store owner, who Fox News celebrated for refusing to let Obama voters shop at his store, has made a number of inflammatory comments on his radio show, including calling police officers who "ratted on" a man who made threats against President Obama "low-life sissy cry-babies."
Cope Reynolds made headlines earlier this month after running a full-page ad in the Arizona newspaper White Mountain Independent that stated, "If you voted for Barack Obama your business is not welcome at Southwest Shooting Authority. You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a Firearm." Reynolds told the Phoenix New Times that his ad is "a political statement" that "goes way beyond gun control."
The Fox News early morning program Red Eye has featured Reynolds' ad, and Reynolds himself made an appearance on Fox Business to discuss the widespread attention he has received in recent weeks.
Reynolds is also the host of talk radio program The Shooting Bench. On the latest edition of his show on November 23, Reynolds defended Sam Koivisto, a Jacksonville, Florida police officer who resigned after being reported to the Secret Service for allegedly telling his co-workers, "If an order was given to kill Obama or something, then I wouldn't mind being the guy." According to Reynolds, the incident proves that Koivisto "works with a bunch of lowlife sissy cry-babies here that somebody ratted on him" and that the officer "was just venting some steam, some frustration off."
Daily Beast correspondent Megan McArdle attacked the concept of an assault weapons ban by falsely suggesting that there are no functional differences between such weapons and other firearms.
In her November 21 article, McArdle wrote that the differences between assault weapons and other firearms are "largely cosmetic rather than functional," a claim also pushed by the National Rifle Association. In fact, assault weapons, like the military weapons on which they are based, have functional differences from other guns that increase their lethality.
McArdle's assessment was based on an image that purports to show two nearly identical weapons with only one being regulated under an assault weapons ban.
The image was created by a blogger who used it to argue in favor of the ban, writing that "If you can buy the gun on the top, but can't buy the bottom gun, who cares? You still have a gun." McArdle responded that "if it makes no difference, than why have the law?" and argued that "'assault weapon' is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description."
In fact, the lower pictured weapon, a Mossberg 500 Tactical Persuader, has a number of features that increase its lethality compared to the top pictured shotgun. Contrary to what the graphic suggests, the only difference between the two weapons is not just the pistol grip featured on the Tactical Persuader. The Tactical Persuader also has an adjustable stock that can be removed from the firearm completely, which allows the gun length to be shortened for increased concealability. Furthermore, when combined with a pistol grip, the firearm can be more easily maneuvered, allowing the shooter to fire from the hip and more easily use the weapon from vehicles and in other close quarters situations.
As Chief Justice John Roberts receives end-of-year accolades for not striking down health care reform, The Wall Street Journal is mocking this "strange new respect" on its editorial page. But the WSJ's criticism is a thin veil for its clear preference that Roberts return to his conservative ideology, while failing to acknowledge Roberts' record as a clear conservative on issues like corporate power and civil rights.
The WSJ has already called Roberts' refusal to join his conservative colleagues on the Court and declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional "misbegotten." It is no surprise that a November 20 WSJ editorial treated with disdain the praise for Roberts's late switch, mocking his place on Atlantic Monthly's list of "Brave Thinkers" and being named one of Esquire's "Americans of the Year" along with actress Lena Dunham. From the editorial:
Chief Justice Roberts shares the Esquire honor with Lena Dunham, the star of an Obama campaign ad and the creator and star of the HBO series about 20-something sexual angst called "Girls."
She and the Chief Justice also make the Atlantic Monthly's list of "Brave Thinkers" of 2012, by which they mean thinkers who agree with the Atlantic's liberal editors. Ms. Dunham is praised for taking "the soft glow off the 'chick flick,'" for instance when her character acts "like an underage street hooker to turn her boyfriend on," while the Chief Justice gets credit for "maintaining the Court's legitimacy" with a ruling "both brave and shrewd." President Obama probably has Time's "Person of the Year" nailed down, but expect the Chief to finish a close second.
Such is the strange new respect a conservative receives for sustaining liberal priorities. Our own view is less effusive, and to expiate his ObamaCare legal sins, a fair punishment would be that he hire Ms. Dunham as a clerk.
Yet Roberts' conservative bona fides are well established, which makes the editorial seem like an exercise in "ref-working," essentially haranguing the Chief Justice to ensure future conservative behavior. In Roberts' case, this would not be a stretch. On issues of corporate power, the Roberts Court is unprecedented in its well-reported conservatism and has given the WSJ much to celebrate.
Similarly, Roberts' record on civil rights is sufficiently right-wing. With cases addressing affirmative action, voting rights, and marriage equality in the pipeline, the current docket gives him ample opportunity to return to the conservative fold. Excepting same-sex marriage (which has yet to be accepted for review), Roberts' positions on the other two issues - presented in Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder - clearly parallel those of the WSJ.
The WSJ has characterized precedent affirming the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies in school desegregation efforts a "large legal mistake," and has called enforcement of the Voting Rights Act the "grossest kind of racial politics." The editorial board appears to have an ally in Roberts, who has already recorded his opposition to both affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act as Chief Justice. As Supreme Court expert Joan Biskupic has reported:
[T]he kinds of social policy issues that play to Roberts' true conservatism, such as affirmative action and other race-based remedies are on the agenda for the term that starts in October.
From his early days in the Reagan administration, Roberts has sought to roll back the government's use of racial remedies.[As Chief Justice, in] a 2006 case involving the drawing of "majority minority" voting districts to enhance the political power of blacks and Latinos, Roberts referred to "this sordid business (of) divvying us up by race." The following year, in a case involving school integration plans, he wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
On marriage equality, Roberts' position is more unpredictable, as he "has not yet voted in a major gay rights case." The WSJ, on the other hand, has already preemptively declared as "activist" any Court decision finding unequal restrictions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. But both liberal and conservative reporting has questioned whether Roberts would join the WSJ's aversion to a constitutional right to marriage for all, irrespective of sexual orientation. Perhaps this is where the WSJ's pressure is most directed, out of fear that Roberts does not want to be on the wrong side of history.
Ultimately, regardless of the reasons behind the WSJ's attempt to embarrass the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it might consider the reflections of conservative federal Judge Richard Posner on the "serious mistake" of right-wing media attacks against Roberts. From an interview with NPR:
"Because if you put [yourself] in his position ... what's he supposed to think? That he finds his allies to be a bunch of crackpots? Does that help the conservative movement? I mean, what would you do if you were Roberts? All the sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press. What do you do? Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, 'What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?' Right? Maybe you have to re-examine your position."
A November 19 article in The Hill repeated the false claim that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty -- a proposal to crack down on the supply of weapons to human rights abusers -- poses a threat to private gun ownership in the United States.
In a piece that relied entirely on a House Resolution filed in opposition to the ATT, Hill reporter Pete Kasperowicz also credulously repeated suggestions that the treaty could impact assistance to Israel and Taiwan. In fact, both of these claims are contradicted by the text of the proposed treaty itself and by basic United Nations procedure.
Throughout the entire article, Kasperowicz does not cite any authorities to provide deeper context for the ATT, relying instead on the text of the House Resolution filed by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), which is quoted at length. From The Hill:
The resolution, whose main sponsor is Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), argues that the ATT does not recognize the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms, and thus threatens to undermine the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The ATT's draft preamble clearly "reaffirm[s] the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems." Furthermore, the Department of State has also declared that the United States will oppose any final treaty that contains "restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution."
From the November 20 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News regular Hans von Spakovsky used a recent U.S Court of Appeals decision striking down Michigan's affirmative action ban as an opportunity to denigrate the "modern 'civil rights' movement" and misrepresent the Sixth Circuit decision as "abusive activism." Contrary to von Spakovsky's claims in the National Review Online, the appellate decision that found the process behind the ban unconstitutional is based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Repeatedly discredited von Spakovsky is infamous for continuously stressing in the right-wing media the prevalence of voter fraud, despite a dearth of evidence. On November 16, he took on equal protection jurisprudence in the National Review Online and criticized the "continued legal decay" of the Sixth Circuit appellate court and its "liberal activists." His scorn was in response to the recent decision of this federal court of appeals which - for the second time - declared that the 2006 Michigan ballot initiative that passed a constitutional amendment banning affirmative action was an unconstitutional restructuring of the state political process. As reported by SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston:
By imposing a total ban on any consideration of a race-based education policy, the main opinion said, the majority of voters who opposed affirmative action created a situation in which they not only had won on a policy point, "but rigged the game to reproduce [their] success indefinitely." Minorities are not guaranteed that they will win when they enter into political policy debates, the opinion stressed, but they must not be put at a special disadvantage in seeking policies that they favor and that will benefit them in particular.
The Circuit Court majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., relied explicitly upon two Supreme Court rulings, both based on the same "political process" reasoning used by Judge Cole. The first was Hunter v. Erickson, a 1969 decision striking down a move by voters in Akron, Ohio, to change the city charter to make it much harder for city officials to adopt any housing policy to benefit racial minorities. The second was Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, a 1982 decision striking down a voter-approved statewide law that bar the use of busing to achieve racially integrated public schools.
Other conservative media reporting has at least acknowledged that the ACLU and NAACP based their successful challenge to Michigan's ban - known as "Proposal 2" - on Supreme Court precedent. Forbes, although it wrote in opposition of the holding, recognized such precedent but theorized it "would probably be treated differently by the Supreme Court today" because there are likely four justices currently opposed to all affirmative action. Unfortunately, Forbes also misrepresented the opinion as holding "minority groups are entitled not just to equal protection under the laws, but special measures designed to correct past discrimination."
In fact, the winning argument and opinion explicitly did not turn on the constitutionality or "entitlement" of affirmative action, but rather on the restructuring of a state political process to the specific detriment of a racial minority. As reported by The New York Times:
[The decision] was not based on racial discrimination, but rather on a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The ban, the court said, unfairly placed a special burden on supporters of race-conscious admissions policies.
People trying to change any other aspect of university admissions policies, the court said, had several avenues open: they could lobby the admissions committee, petition university leaders, try to influence the college's governing board or take the issue to a statewide initiative. Those supporting affirmative action, on the other hand, had no alternative but to undertake the "long, expensive and arduous process" of amending the state Constitution.
"The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the equal protection clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change," said Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., writing for the majority.
Von Spakovsky, however, did not bother to analyze this reasoning or acknowledge Supreme Court precedent in his condemnation of the Sixth Circuit's "duplicitous legal reasoning." Instead, he summarily relied on the dissent's assertion that the holding was an "extreme extension" of civil rights law and concluded:
The Sixth Circuit's decision shows just how far the modern "civil rights" movement and their supporters in the judiciary have gone in adopting the arguments and actions of the discriminators and segregationists of prior generations. Their support for racial discrimination makes them indistinguishable.
Continuing his post-election meltdown, Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent, who is also a National Rifle Association board member, claimed in a November 15 column that America may not be able to survive "four more years of Mr. Obama and his Big Wrecking Crew government liberal jihad."
Nugent also amplified his attack on downtrodden areas of America, claiming that urban cities are "rusting wrecks full of unemployed scavengers." He singled out East St. Louis, Illinois and Detroit, Michigan, which he described as "hell-scapes of dependent hopelessness." In an October 30 interview with the Times, Nugent called the majority of Detroit residents "pimps, whores and welfare brats that have made bloodsucking a lifestyle."
Nugent continued to deride Americans who voted for President Obama in his November 15 column, describing them as only interested in "more free candy from Uncle Sugar Daddy." Following the re-election of Obama, Nugent sent out a series of tweets on November 7 calling Obama voters "subhuman varmint[s]" and "Pimps whores & welfare brats." In a Times column on November 8, he unleashed more invective, describing Obama voters as "thunderously dumb and incredibly naïve."
In the lead up to Election Day, Nugent repeatedly made inflammatory remarks about Obama. While promoting his Discovery Channel special about gun culture, Nugent called Obama "anti-American" and accused him of only feigning respect for veterans. While promoting his special on Twitter, Nugent referred to the Obama administration as "enemies of America" and leveled accusations of treason and "criminal complicity to murder."
Nugent, who drew the scrutiny of the Secret Service in April after promising to be "dead or in jail" if Obama was re-elected, also made waves in July when he wrote in a Times column, "I'm beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War."
The right-leaning Heritage Foundation has thrown cold water on the revival a conspiracy theory pushed on Fox News by contributor Dick Morris and the National Rifle Association that the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is actually a sinister Obama administration plot to eliminate the right of private individuals to own a firearm.
During a Heritage Blogger Briefing, senior research fellow Ted Bromund stated, "I don't think that the ATT is a gun confiscation measure for a variety of reasons. First, because I don't regard that as within the bounds of possibility in the United States and secondly, because that is not what the text says."
Bromund's assessment is correct. The stated goal of the treaty is to regulate the international trade of firearms in order to prevent the diversion of arms to human rights abusers, and the most recent version of the treaty's text expressly prohibits the regulation of firearm ownership within sovereign nations.
The preamble of the July 26 treaty draft clearly "reaffirm[s] the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system." Furthermore, the Department of State has stated that it will oppose any treaty that contains "restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution."
Despite convincing evidence that the treaty seeks only to regulate international trade -- and that any treaty limiting rights granted by the United States Constitution would be considered invalid -- the conspiracy theory persists. Morris, who has pushed theory on Fox News, and NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, both dedicated space in their latest books to advance the claim.
Three Fox hosts have allowed Congressman Allen West (R-FL) to repeat his unsubstantiated allegations that election official wrongdoing led to his failing bid to retain his seat. The Fox hosts not only failed to push back on West's legally unfounded position, but neglected to report that these complaints are about Florida election system problems that have been ignored or exacerbated by the state GOP.
In support of his refusal to concede the race to represent Florida's 18th Congressional District - despite the fact that the state has already certified Democrat Patrick Murphy's victory - West has been complaining that "irregularities" in county officials' performance during the ballot tabulation process, the change in voting tallies as the tabulation proceeded, the outcome of a partial recount, and the accounting of more ballots than voters, requires another partial recount of all votes cast during the early voting period. On the November 12 edition of Fox's Hannity, West made all of these accusations to host Sean Hannity, who responded that he thought a vote shift away from West to Murphy during the counting process was "unbelievable."
West repeated these claims to Fox host Greta Van Susteren on the November 13 edition of On The Record, and again on November 14 in a recorded interview with Fox host Martha MacCallum for America's Newsroom. Like Hannity, these Fox hosts did not press West on his insinuations of election malfeasance. The most obvious example was Van Susteren, who referenced West's second lawsuit filed in a Florida state court seeking an early vote recount in defiance of state law, but made no mention of his first failed lawsuit. That lawsuit, which also sought to "count paper ballots and to impound voting machines," had been denied on November 9 by a state judge. In addition to noting that West's motion had "woefully failed to establish a proper demand for injunction," the judge scolded West for contesting the election results in court when "the Supreme Court of Florida 30 years ago has said the courts should not get involved in the election process under facts and circumstances which we have here today."
More significantly, Hannity, Van Susteren, and MacCallum all failed to report that West's unsubstantiated complaints about the dysfunctional Florida election process is partly attributable to recent voter suppression efforts. As reported by the Orlando Sentinel, the incoming Republican House Speaker has already "conceded" that Florida's difficult election process and its "embarrass[ing]" irregularities may have been caused by early voting and registration changes pushed through by Republicans in the state legislature. In conjunction with budget cuts that targeted county election offices, recent GOP attempts to restrict opportunities for voting resulted in the predictable and widely reported chaos that West now complains about.
The swing in vote tallies, however, is an old problem and one that none of the Fox hosts addressed. Not only is West complaining about a losing margin more than three times that of Gore's for the entire state of Florida in the presidential election of 2000, West is also complaining about a swing in votes from himself to Murphy that is only about a quarter of the infamous Volusia County swing in votes away from Gore for Bush. Further, the optical-scan voting machines at the center of West's complaints are of the same make as those used in Volusia in 2000, as reported by election integrity expert and Salon contributor Brad Friedman, but that important context was absent from Fox's segments on the issue.
The make of the voting machines is also relevant to West's challenge of the partial recount of early votes in St. Lucie County. The election supervisor there has already explained the partial recount of some votes was necessary because of an electronic memory cartridge failure. Hannity, Van Susteren, and MacCullum not only failed to report this fact, they also failed to report such memory cartridge failure is an extremely common problem in Florida, as was extensively detailed by the Daytona Beach News-Journal.
Finally, the discrepancy between voters and votes tallied that West references has already been explained by multiple outlets as a consequence of tabulation machines erroneously counting two-page individual ballots as multiple ballots. This too was unreported by Fox News as it continues to give Allen West a platform to advance his unproven reasons for refusing to concede, without challenging the problems with his claims and providing the necessary context of a Florida election system badly in need of reform.
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative (NRA-ILA) issued an election postmortem claiming that the public has been misled by the media "about the effectiveness of NRA campaign spending." The release is the latest attempt by the NRA to sustain what has been a false media narrative about the NRA's ability to influence elections.
Despite the NRA's protestations, the outcome on Election Day could hardly have been worse for the gun organization. The NRA failed to achieve its main goal, the defeat of President Obama, and also backed the losing Senate candidate in six out of seven races where the NRA spent more than $100,000. Over two-thirds of House incumbents who lost their seats were endorsed by the NRA. The non-partisan Sunlight Foundation concluded that less than one percent of $10,536,106 spent by NRA Political Victory Fund went to races where the NRA-backed candidate won.*
These results do not comport with the widely-accepted media narrative that the NRA is an electoral powerhouse. Despite research by American Prospect contributing editor (and former Media Matters staffer) Paul Waldman proving that the impact of both NRA campaign contributions and endorsements is overblown, the fable of NRA influence has persevered. Slate's Brian Palmer encapsulated this narrative in July when he wrote that the NRA "can reliably deliver votes" and "is considered by many the most powerful lobbying group in the country."
Although mythology surrounding the NRA's power has persisted for years in the media, that façade appears to be crumbling in the wake of the 2012 elections. An article by The Hill titled "Report: NRA shoots blanks this election," highlighted the NRA's ineffective spending and noted that the Sunlight Foundation's report "challenge[s] the popular political wisdom that the NRA is among Washington's most influential lobbying forces and that candidates who buck their agenda do so at their own peril." The Washington Post offered similar analysis in an article titled "National Rifle Association shut out on Election Day" that cited the Sunlight Foundation's conclusions.
As an attempt to continue projecting itself as an organization that can determine the outcomes of elections, the NRA is now touting the success of three state ballot initiatives preventing states from banning hunting as evidence that money given to the NRA was well spent.
But the hunting ballot initiatives -- which were not even opposed by NRA nemesis the Humane Society -- are not what the 2012 elections were about for the NRA. In 2011, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced an "All In" campaign to remove President Obama from the White House that compared a potential Obama second term to a 2004 tsunami that killed over 250,000 people in South Asia.
In the wake of the 2012 elections, where the National Rifle Association spent $18 million dollars to little effect, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre promised to defeat Democrats who do not support his organization's agenda in the 2014 elections. According to LaPierre, a columnist for the organization's publications, Democrats who support gun violence prevention laws will "go out on that plank" with President Obama and "the American public and the NRA will saw it right off."
From the November 9 edition of The Daily News on NRA News:
LAPIERRE: So what [Obama] is going to try to do is walk a lot of Democrats out on that plank with him. Now that Obama has got no more elections in front of him, he is going to try to do the same thing that Bill Clinton did in '92 after he got elected, which is walk a lot of Democrats out on that plank of attacking the Second Amendment. And here's a prediction I make right now. If they go out on that plank with President Obama, he doesn't have any more elections; these Democrats will have more elections in front of them. I predict in 2014, when they are out on that plank, if they walk it with Obama, the American public and the NRA will saw it right off behind him and defend this freedom.
But the NRA had an abysmal track record for the 2012 elections. Besides failing to achieve its primary goal to defeat President Obama, the NRA backed the losing candidate in six out of seven Senate races where it spent more than $100,000. Over two-thirds of incumbent House members who lost re-election bids were endorsed by the NRA.
In the wake of the presidential election, National Review Online's Ed Whelan made it clear that the country can expect more of the unprecedented right-wing opposition of the past four years to President Obama's judicial nominees. However, news outlets often neglect this obstructionism and ignore the role of the GOP and conservative media in creating "judicial emergencies" where courtrooms across the country suffer from vacancies on the bench, an omission highlighted by a prominent judicial nominations expert.
Fresh off of ascribing a lack of virtues to the majority of the nation who re-elected the president, conservative legal analyst Ed Whelan urged the Republican party on November 8 to redouble its efforts in blocking judicial picks by expanding the obstruction to any and all Supreme Court nominees. In the NRO blog, Whelan wrote:
I'm surprised to see, in [a November 8] Wall Street Journal article, that one conservative legal commentator has opined (according to the article's paraphrase and internal quote) that "[b]ecause Republicans lost the presidential election and a couple of Senate seats, ... Mr. Obama was entitled to 'a lot of deference' should he wish to replace Justice Ginsburg or another liberal with a like-minded nominee."
I think that this view is badly misguided.
[C]onservatives shouldn't set a lower bar for a nominee who is replacing a liberal justice than for one who is replacing a conservative. Instead, we should make the case that conservative judicial principles are the right judicial principles and that anyone who doesn't embrace those principles is unfit for the Court.
This sentiment serves as a reminder of just how intransigent the right-wing has become in objecting to judicial nominees who aren't conservative ideologues. Although the named WSJ article at least referenced the prospect that Republicans would filibuster anyone left of centrist U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, it ignored the rampant obstructionism that has ground the lower court confirmations process to a halt. The unprecedented nature of this bottleneck could become even more apparent this week, when multiple stalled nominations will be sent to the lame-duck Senate floor in hopes of receiving the due consideration of an up-or-down vote that was accorded President George W. Bush's nominees exactly ten years ago. As recounted by the Constitutional Accountability Center's Doug Kendall:
There is certainly precedent for a big crop of lame-duck confirmations--in a five-day period in November 2002, a Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed 20 Bush judicial nominees on a voice vote, including contentious picks for appellate court slots, such as Michael McConnell (confirmed to a seat on the 10th Circuit) and Dennis Shedd (confirmed to a seat on the 4th Circuit).
This precedent may be overlooked, as it has become unfortunately common for the news media to downplay the GOP's role in blocking the President's nominees. But as judicial nominations expert and University of Richmond Professor of Law Carl Tobias has repeatedly noted, ignoring obvious obstructionism and instead claiming the administration fails to prioritize nominations - "overstat[ing] Democratic responsibility, and understat[ing] Republican" - does not adequately explain the unacceptably high number of vacancies in the federal judiciary. From Tobias' November 11 editorial in the Baltimore Sun:
Some critics blamed Mr. Obama for recommending an insufficient number of nominees in 2009, but he subsequently quickened the pace. Before making nominations official, the White House has robustly pursued the advice and support of Republican and Democratic senators who represent jurisdictions where vacancies have arisen. Mr. Obama has in most cases tapped noncontroversial individuals who are intelligent, ethical, industrious and independent, possess balanced temperament, and enhance diversity vis-á-vis ethnicity, gender and ideology.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has quickly scheduled hearings and votes, sending nominees to the floor. There, many of them have languished. For instance, on Sept. 22, the Senate approved two nominees even though it could easily have voted on 19 others, most of whom the Judiciary Committee had approved with minimal opposition. The Senate recessed without acting on any of those excellent nominees because the GOP refused to vote on them.
Republicans should cooperate better. The GOP has automatically held over committee ballots for seven days without persuasive reasons. However, the major problem has been the chamber floor. Republicans have infrequently entered time accords for votes. The unanimous consent procedure, which the GOP employed in September, allows one senator to halt floor ballots. Most troubling has been the Republican refusal to vote on uncontroversial, talented nominees -- inaction that contravenes Senate traditions. When senators have eventually voted, they overwhelmingly approved many nominees.
Whelan's post is not only an excellent reminder that the Republican obstructionism highlighted by Tobias may continue unabated, but also that Republican Senators have refused to be cooperative on centrist choices. Indeed, the prospect of Republicans only filibustering those "to the left of Merrick Garland," as suggested by the WSJ article, is highly suspect in light of the treatment of similarly centrist nominees this past Congressional session.
Future coverage of federal court nominees should thus look to the influential Whelan as to why these vacancies are not being confirmed. Whatever responsibility the administration may have in not offering nominees in a timely manner, the real reasons lie in Whelan's admitted goal of a Supreme Court with a "supermajority" of conservative Scalia clones.
For years, the media has advanced a false narrative that the National Rifle Association is an electoral powerhouse with a real ability to impact the outcomes of elections. The 2012 elections clearly demonstrate that the conventional wisdom is at odds with reality. While most incumbents in the House of Representatives kept their seats on November 6, over two-thirds of incumbents who lost were backed by the NRA.
Slate's Brian Palmer summed up the media's conventional wisdom on the NRA over the summer, when he wrote that the group "can reliably deliver votes," and this "is considered by many the most powerful lobbying group in the country."
This false media narrative of NRA's supposed influence on elections has persisted, even as an analysis by American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman (who previously worked for Media Matters) concluded that both NRA endorsements and campaign contributions have a negligible impact on elections. In a study of House races over four election cycles, Waldman determined that Republican incumbents did not receive a statistically significant advantage if endorsed by the NRA. The average campaign contribution of $2,500 to NRA-endorsed House candidates was also found to have insignificant impact on elections.
Of the 26 incumbent House members who lost on Election Day, 18 were endorsed by the NRA. Defeated incumbents included four Democrats and 14 Republicans. Four of the eight defeated incumbents not endorsed by the NRA were Democrats who lost to other Democrats in California's top-two primary system.
Overall, the NRA fared poorly in the 2012 election. According to open government group the Sunlight Foundation, the NRA Political Victory Fund, the NRA's political action committee, received a less than one percent return on $10,536,106 spent on independent expenditures during the election cycle. The NRA spent 0.44 percent of its money supporting winning candidates and 0.39 percent opposing losing candidates.* The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the organization's lobbying arm, garnered a 10.25 percent return on $7,448,017 spent on the election. In seven Senate races where the NRA spent more than $100,000, six of the NRA-backed candidates lost.
The following NRA endorsed incumbents were defeated on Election Day. Two incumbents included in this analysis are currently trailing vote tallies, but those races have not been officially called:
Fox host Brian Kilmeade announced on the November 8 edition of Fox & Friends that he doesn't "blame the gougers" who are jacking up prices for gasoline in the wake of superstorm Sandy. But price gouging after a natural disaster not only takes advantage of humanitarian crises, it's also illegal in both New York and New Jersey.
Kilmeade's expression of sympathy for price gougers occurred in a discussion of the difficulties victims of Sandy and the current "nor'easter" face in obtaining gas, which many desperately need for transportation, electricity, and heat. As reported by CBSnews.com:
Six days after a superstorm devastated parts of the northeast, the recovery -- and frustration -- continues.
At least 111 people are known dead. Nearly two million homes and businesses remain without power, down from a peak of over eight million -- most of them in New Jersey and New York.
There's still a scramble for gas and housing as temperatures drop.
Along the coast in Rumson, N.J., an old fashioned iron hand pump is the only way to get gasoline out of its underground tank.
The gas is fueling generators in a town largely without electricity.
One person in line said they were using the gas to power their house, take hot showers, feed their family -- in other words "the real basics like 100 years ago."
In the face of this demand - described by co-host Steve Doocy as "gas-amageddon" - some vendors in possession of gas and gas cans are charging exorbitant prices. This windfall, however, is clearly illegal under both New York and New Jersey law that prohibits such price gouging, a fact unmentioned by Kilmeade. Both the Republican Governor of New Jersey and the Democratic Attorney General of New York have warned that this practice, described by the conservative New York Post as "sleazy," will be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
From the New York law:
During any abnormal disruption of the market for consumer goods and services vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers, no party within the chain of distribution of such consumer goods or services or both shall sell or offer to sell any such goods or services or both for an amount which represents an unconscionably excessive price.
From the New Jersey law:
It shall be an unlawful practice for any person to sell or offer to sell during a state of emergency or within 30 days of the termination of a state of emergency, in the area for which the state of emergency has been declared, any merchandise which is consumed or used as a direct result of an emergency or which is consumed or used to preserve, protect, or sustain the life, health, safety or comfort of persons or their property for a price that constitutes an excessive price increase.
Kilmeade is not the only Fox personality offering sympathy for those who are engaging in illegal price gouging at the expense of victims of this natural disaster. Fox contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano took the same extreme "free market" stance on Fox Business' Varney & Co, and announced that as a "practicality," he "doesn't believe in any government regulation of the economy." As reported by Fox Insider:
[Fox's] Stuart [Varney] believes if the stations were allowed to charge what they wanted, there would be a revolution, and Judge Napolitano thinks that is the practical way to go. "If buyers were willing to pay what they agreed to pay, there would be enough gas to go around," said Napolitano.
"The free market can allocate resources better than the government can," according to the judge, and gas station owners should be able to charge what they want.
In a November 6 post titled "Vote," ex-militia blogger and Fox News guest Mike Vanderboegh wrote, "At least later on you can say you tried everything else before you were forced to shoot people in righteous self-defense of life and liberty."
Vanderboegh, one of the self-proclaimed "midwives" covering the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Operation Fast and Furious "because nobody else would touch it," has repeatedly appeared on Fox News over the past two years to discuss the failed gun trafficking sting. Setting aside his use of violent rhetoric and threats of armed insurrection against the United States government, Fox News promoted Vanderboegh as an "authority" on the topic.
In the wake of the passage of healthcare reform in March 2010, Vanderboegh received national exposure after telling his readers that "if you wish to send a message that [then-Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows." According to The Washington Post, "In the days that followed, glass windows and doors were shattered at local Democratic Party offices and the district offices of House Democrats from Arizona to Kansas to New York." Vanderboegh was unrepentant, telling the Post, "Glad to know people read my blog."
According to federal prosecutors, the plot of Vanderboegh's novel Absolved inspired four members of a Georgia militia to attempt to obtain explosives and manufacture ricin, a biological agent, as part of a plan to assassinate government officials. In Absolved, a deadly shootout between a man who has stockpiled weapons and law enforcement inspires a group of anti-government extremists to devise a widespread assassination campaign against government officials. In its introduction, Vanderboegh described the book as "a cautionary tale for the out-of-control gun cops of the ATF" and "a combination field manual, technical manual and call to arms for my beloved gunnies of the armed citizenry."