Virginia Right!

In an op-ed for Politico today, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell writes, “Few groups today are struggling more under the Obama economy than recent college graduates. More than half either can’t find work or can’t find work to match their skills, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Close to half, or 42 percent, of recent college graduates, a Pew Research Center study found, are back living with their parents.”

According to The Wall Street Journal, “In a study to be released Thursday, the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University found that recent graduates are taking awhile to find work. Only 49% of graduates from the classes of 2009 to 2011 had found a full-time job within a year of finishing school . . . .” Further, “[T]he class of 2012 faces tougher competition thanks to what Carl Van Horn, director of the Heldrich Center, calls ‘the recession hangover.’ Young adults who graduated into the dire labor market of 2008 and 2009 and have been out of work or underemployed since are applying for the same jobs as new grads are. The same goes for earlier grads who were laid off during the recession.” And, the WSJ notes, “even when new graduates do find jobs, their starting salaries tend to be lower than those for their counterparts who graduated a decade earlier . . . .”

Last month the AP reported that “[a] weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed” and a recent Pew study found “the gap in employment between the young and all working-age adults—roughly 15 percentage points—is the widest in recorded history.”

As Sen. McConnell writes, “The president has been trying for weeks to convince college students that their struggles have less to do with him than with ‘some in Congress’ who stand in his way. And for weeks, Senate Democrats have echoed his taxpayer-funded distraction and misinformation tour. . . . Fearful that young people might start to realize the reason they need relief right now is because of the Obama economy, Democrats have turned the college loan issue into yet another fake election-year fight. The goal is to distract young people from the fact that they’re suffering disproportionately under this president’s policies.”

Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Leader McConnell elaborated, “It’s not exactly a state secret that Senate Democrats have turned the Senate floor into an extension of the Obama campaign over the past few months. And that what happens here these days has a lot more to do with what some political consultant in Chicago thinks is good for the President’s reelection than what the American people think would be good for the country as a whole. . . . Today’s vote on student loan rates is a perfect example of this cynical election-year strategy in action. Rather than working with Republicans to help young people in this country weather the effects of the Obama Economy, Democrats have sought to distract them from it.”

He continued, “Here’s the real issue behind today’s vote: right now, more than half of college graduates can’t find a decent job. Close to half of them are back at home living with their parents. As a Wall Street Journal article from late last year put it, ‘the U.S. labor market may be in a malaise but young adults are in crisis.’ The real solution, of course, are pro-growth policies that make it easier for U.S. businesses to hire. . . . The real enemy of recent college graduates is this president’s economic policies. Until Democrats are ready to admit that, we’ll keep falling behind. And the real losers will be the young people we should be working together on a bipartisan basis to help.”

On its Editorial Page Editor’s Blog, The New York Times complains, “Long before he became the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell had built a career out of opposing limits to political fundraising and spending, supposedly in the name of free speech. . . . But Mr. McConnell has outdone himself with a legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court a few days ago that’s blind to the ways in which unlimited contributions damage the political system. Not only is there no reason for the court to reconsider or overturn its 2010 Citizens United ruling, he wrote, but the events of the last two years actually support the correctness of the decision. . . . He submitted the brief as part of a Montana case that the Supreme Court may add to its calendar. Since 1912, Montana has barred corporate expenditures in political campaigns. The state’s highest court decided that Citizens United did not supersede the ban . . . . In his brief, urging the court to strike down the Montana law, he says the money has allowed ‘far more political speech in 2012 than would otherwise have been the case,’ making the campaign less predictable and more interesting.”

The editors at The New York Times apparently cannot conceive of a reason that anyone would defend the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United, which ruled a number of restrictions on political speech championed by liberals, like those at the NYT editorial board, as violations of the First Amendment. President Obama even inaccurately attacked the Court for this ruling during his 2010 State of the Union address as several justices sat in front of him. Yet Leader McConnell has always maintained that “Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all,” as he said in 2010.

Like he did in Citizens United, Leader McConnell worked with renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in this Montana case. This new brief points out that “Senator McConnell was the lead plaintiff in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, litigation challenging . . . the constitutionality of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Senator McConnell filed a brief, amicus curiae, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and his counsel participated in oral argument on his behalf in that case. For many years, Senator McConnell has been a leader in the United States Senate in opposing Congressional efforts to restrict speech about elections in the name of campaign finance reform.”

In the brief in this Montana case, Abrams and McConnell state, “The ruling of the Montana Supreme Court is in direct contravention of this Court’s ruling in Citizens United. Nothing that has occurred since that ruling warrants its reconsideration. In fact, the central concerns expressed by those members of this Court who dissented in Citizens United or joined earlier opinions sustaining campaign finance laws that limited speech have not been borne out by events of the past two years. . . . The Citizens United ruling was rooted in long established First Amendment principles. There is no basis for reconsidering them or the Citizens United ruling itself.”

The brief argues, “Over two years have passed since the Citizens United ruling. One national election has been held and a vigorously fought primary campaign has been waged in a large number of states around the nation to choose a Republican candidate to run against President Obama this year. In that time period, nothing has occurred to warrant reconsideration of Citizens United. The First Amendment barrier to such legislation has not diminished. And there is no basis for concluding that any quid pro quo corruption, the only kind that this Court has found relevant, has occurred as a result of the ruling.”

In sum, “What should ultimately guide the Court, [Abrams and McConnell] suggest, is not what has supposedly changed in the past two years but what has remained unchanged since the founding of this nation. The First Amendment has not changed. Indeed, it is so well-established that the First Amendment is especially protective of political speech and so rare that such speech is the subject of attempted regulation or censorship that most First Amendment battles have been fought over other questions such as how far beyond political speech the First Amendment provides protection, how closely the protections afforded to less protected speech track those afforded to political speech, and how to characterize the particular speech at issue.”

“What cannot be subject to serious debate,” they write, “is that the speech at issue here . . . is what the First Amendment protects with the greatest level of vigilance. It remains the case, as Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United reiterates, that the First Amendment ‘“has its fullest and most urgent application” to speech uttered during a campaign for political office,’ and that ‘political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.’ And it remains true, as set forth in Buckley and repeated with approval in Citizens United, that ‘[d]iscussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.’ That is what Citizens United was about and what this case is about.”

‘The President’s decision to circumvent the American people by installing his appointees at a powerful federal agency, when the Senate was not in recess, and without obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate, is an unprecedented power grab. We will demonstrate to the Court how the President’s unconstitutional actions fundamentally endanger the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.’

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced today that former Assistant to the Solicitor General Miguel Estrada will file an amicus brief on behalf of Senate Republicans in a challenge (Noel Canning v. NLRB) to the constitutionality of President Obama’s so-called “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January.

The suit is being brought by Noel Canning, a local, family-owned business in Washington State that bottles and distributes soft drinks. The company is challenging the NLRB’s determination that it must enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.

“The President’s decision to circumvent the American people by installing his appointees at a powerful federal agency, when the Senate was not in recess, and without obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate, is an unprecedented power grab,” Sen. McConnell said. “We will demonstrate to the Court how the President’s unconstitutional actions fundamentally endanger the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.”

McConnell continued: “Miguel Estrada is one of the country’s foremost appellate advocates.  He has argued 20 cases before the United States Supreme Court, and we are gratified that he will defend the Senate’s constitutional role in the confirmation process.”

Mr. Estrada is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and serves as Co-Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group. Mr. Estrada served as Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States from 1992 until 1997 and previously served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York.

In an analysis piece today, National Journal writes, “Under continued attack from Republicans for high oil and gasoline prices, President Obama unveiled on Tuesday a slate of measures to crack down on financial speculation in energy-futures trading, which Democrats say helps drive up prices. But while a Rose Garden announcement gave the president a platform to be seen calling for action on fuel prices, it’s not clear whether financial speculation is even a major contributor to oil and gasoline prices—or whether the administration’s proposals could have any real impact on the price at the pump. . . . ‘More than anything, today’s announcement serves a political purpose: It offers the president a way to assure voters that he is looking out for their interests,’ wrote Kevin Book, an analyst for Clearview Energy Partners, in a note to clients.”

Of course, President Obama and Democrats are blaming “speculators” for high oil and gasoline prices, which is the same excuse they give every year as they continue to oppose common sense policies that would expand American energy production. National Journal points out, “In 2008, an investigation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission concluded that speculation has little effect on the price of oil, which is still largely driven by the fundamentals of supply and demand.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell observed this morning, “[W]e hear that the President is announcing some kind of task force on oil speculation today. In other words, the same thing Washington Democrats always call for when gas prices go up. If I were to guess, I’d say today’s proposal by the President probably polls pretty well. But I guarantee you it won’t do a thing to lower the price of gas at the pump. It never has in the past. White House officials admit as much. Why it would it now?

“The Democrats’ favorite policy advisor,” Leader McConnell continued, “Warren Buffet, weighed in on the issue a few years ago. Asked about the role that speculation in the oil markets plays in determining price, he said, ‘It’s not speculation, its supply and demand.’ But of course that’s not the point for this White House. President Obama only seems to care about Warren Buffett’s opinion if it polls well. The President’s goal here isn’t to do something about the problem. It’s to make people think he’s doing something about the problem, until the next crisis comes along.”

Interestingly, President Obama himself warned about this kind of political pledge-making just last month. In his weekly address, Obama said, “[A]ny career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas – they’re not looking for a solution.  They’re just looking for your vote.” Yet today the White House released a “Fact Sheet” detailing “The President’s Five-Part Plan” on oil markets.

As Leader McConnell said, “We’ve got a President who told us he was a different kind of politician doing the same old things and using the same talking points politicians in Washington have been peddling for years. I mean, weren’t these kinds of gimmicks and stale talking points precisely the kind of thing President Obama campaigned against? I thought he was offering something new and different. I think the Associated Press summed up the President’s latest proposal pretty well this morning. ‘The White House plan, which Obama was to unveil Tuesday,’ the AP said, ‘is more likely to draw sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans than to have an immediate effect on prices at the pump.’ It’s more about drawing a distinction. . . . The sad truth is, it’s all politics all the time in this White House. They’re out of ideas. They’ve got nothing new to offer. Today’s announcement is all the proof you need of that.”

Once again, President Obama took time today to press for a tax hike, his “Buffett Tax,” instead of addressing unemployment, high gas prices, or even this country’s debt crisis. Of course, the Buffett Tax would do basically nothing to help solve any of these serious problems.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Obama’s focus on this tax hike in a statement this morning, saying, “Sadly, an administration that promised it would focus on jobs is wasting yet another day on a political event that won’t take a single person off the unemployment line. With millions out of work, gas at nearly $4.00 a gallon, and the election still seven months away, Republicans are calling on the President to join us in support of the dozens of jobs and energy bills that have passed the House but are stalled in the Democrat-led Senate. We should be focused on jobs and energy legislation that can pass—not tax-hike show-votes designed to fail.”

The White House itself has said that the Buffet Tax “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control” and according to The Hill today, “Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) on Wednesday acknowledged GOP criticisms that the Obama administration’s Buffett Rule ‘isn’t going to balance the budget,’ but argued that the proposal was important as a matter of ‘values’ and ‘fairness.’ ‘This is an issue about fairness,’ Coons said on MSNBC. ‘It isn’t going to balance the budget, but it is important for values and for showing some fairness.’”

And National Journal wrote yesterday that “[i]f you’re an unemployed American . . . . you’ll realize the Buffett Rule has nothing to do with helping you, or 13 million other Americans looking for work as of March, find a job.”

Interestingly, the president was rather defensive about his tax proposal this morning. The AP notes, “President Barack Obama says his call for raising taxes on millionaires is not a redistribution of wealth . . . .” And Yahoo News writes, “President Barack Obama defended his ‘Buffett Rule’ proposal for higher taxes on the very rich Wednesday, denying it was a reelection campaign ‘gimmick’ that will do little to close the deficit or spur job growth.”

Of course, National Journal pegged the Buffett Tax yesterday, with an analysis piece concluding that it is in fact a political gimmick: “[I]t tells America’s job-seekers, don’t worry, we’re going to make the tax code look more fair to you. Lots of polls suggest that’s a good political argument. But that’s what it is: a political pitch.”

President Obama’s preemptive criticism last week of the Supreme Court as it considers the constitutionality of his health care continues to face scrutiny.

Speaking in Lexington, Kentucky, on Thursday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell took a dim view of the president’s complaints about the Court. “[A]pparently,” he said, “President Obama didn’t like the tenor of some of the questions the justices asked about the health care law during last week’s hearings, questions that highlighted the unprecedented power that the administration now has over your and everybody else’s health care as a result of its passage . . . The truth is, if this law’s in trouble, it’s because giving the government this much power is hard to defend, not because a few justices had the temerity to suggest as much. But the President seems to be saying that you’re an activist if you’re not stretching the limits of the limited powers the Constitution gives to the federal government.”

In a post on its fact-checking blog today, The Washington Post examines the arguments Obama made and finds them particularly misleading. The piece points out, “It’s clear that Obama’s ‘unprecedented’ comment was dead wrong, because the Supreme Court’s very purpose is to review laws that are passed by the nation’s democratically elected Congress — regardless of how popular or well-intentioned those laws may be.” Further, “Congress didn’t pass the Affordable Care Act with a strong majority. The vote in the House of Representatives, for instance, was 219 to 212, with no Republicans supporting and 34 Democrats opposing the measure.” Also, The Post adds, “It’s worth noting that the White House keeps changing its tune on how the public should interpret Obama’s comments. On Friday, a spokesman told us the president was referring to ‘major economic legislation.’ So now we’ve gone from altogether ‘unprecedented,’ to ‘economic issues’ to just ‘major economic legislation.’”

After discussing some of the Supreme Court precedent and legal history, the fact-checking article concludes, “First of all, the president has a rather distorted view of what constitutes a ‘strong majority’ if he thinks the Affordable Care Act vote makes the cut. Not only was the victory achieved by a margin of just a few votes in the House, but the supporters were from only one political party—his own. Second, Obama’s remarks implied that the Supreme Court would be acting in extreme fashion by overturning the health-care law. That isn’t necessarily true. Some would say that invalidating an economic regulation isn’t extraordinary at all. . . . On balance, the president earns two Pinocchios—which means creating ‘a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people’—for his comments about the pending Supreme Court decision.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the employment numbers for March today, but news reports suggest they’re disappointing. The Wall Street Journal writes, “U.S. job growth slowed in March, and the labor force shrank, signaling that the economy could be losing momentum. Jobs outside of agriculture grew by 120,000 last month—half the number that the economy added the prior month—the Labor Department said Friday, marking the first time since November that job growth fell below 200,000.” And the AP reports, “The job market slowed in March as companies hit the brakes on hiring amid uncertainty about the economy’s growth prospects. The unemployment rate dipped, but mostly because more Americans stopped looking for work.”

With today’s news, it’s worth recalling what Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration promised when they passed their nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill three years ago. Former White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein predicted that the unemployment rate with the stimulus bill would not exceed 8%. Yet the unemployment rate has been above 8% for over 36 months now. Shortly after President Obama signed the stimulus, Vice President Joe Biden boasted that the stimulus “literally drop-kicks us out of this recession” by, he claimed, creating “3.5 million jobs” in “18 months.”

Asked about the economy last week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Is that good enough? We’re used to having a vibrant, robust economy. . . . We’re driving jobs overseas because of too much government, too much taxation, regulation. Look, this is not an administration that’s friendly to those people who create jobs and make the economy grow for all of us.”

President Obama’s expensive regulations, constant calls for tax increases, and his byzantine and unpopular health care law are all making it harder and more expensive to create private sector jobs in the United States. This country can do better.

Reuters wrote yesterday, “The White House was forced on the defensive on Wednesday as it sought to explain controversial remarks President Barack Obama made earlier in the week about the Supreme Court’s review of his signature healthcare reform law. . . . Obama expressed confidence on Monday that the Court would not take an ‘unprecedented, extraordinary step’ by overturning the law, provoking a storm of protest that he had been inaccurate and was challenging the nation’s top judges in an election year. . . . During robust questioning when [White House Press Secretary Jay] Carney was told at one point that he had mischaracterized what the president had said, the press secretary was forced to repeatedly defend the remarks of his boss . . . .”

Speaking at the Rotary Club of Lexington, Kentucky, today, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discussed his criticism of President Obama’s preemptive complaints about the Supreme Court’s consideration of the president’s health care law. “[A]fter a careful study of the law and the precedents, and after weighing the arguments on both sides, the Court will make its final determination. Whether I agree with it or not, I’ll respect the decision. But, apparently, President Obama didn’t like the tenor of some of the questions the justices asked about the health care law during last week’s hearings, questions that highlighted the unprecedented power that the administration now has over your and everybody else’s health care as a result of its passage. So earlier this week, the President did something that as far as I know is completely unprecedented: he not only tried to publicly pressure the Court into deciding a pending case in the way he wants it decided; he also questioned its very authority under the Constitution.”

He added, “Now, the President’s words were particularly troubling given his past treatment of the Court. Two years ago, he used a State of the Union Address to publicly chastise the Court for its decision in another case he didn’t like — with members of the Court sitting just a few feet away. He looked at the line that wisely separates the three branches of government, and stepped right over it. But what the President did this week went even farther. With his words, he was no longer trying to embarrass the Court after a decision; rather, he tried to intimidate it before a decision has been made. And that should be intolerable to all of us.”

Leader McConnell continued, “[A]t the end of the day, it’s the judiciary that ensures we’re a nation ruled by laws, not the whim of a President or a particular Congress. That’s why the Founders made sure the people who sit on the courts have lifetime appointments. It’s why the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from lowering their pay. It’s why justices enjoy the freedom to decide cases as they see fit, even if it means upsetting the very President who appointed them. The truth is, if this law’s in trouble, it’s because giving the government this much power is hard to defend, not because a few justices had the temerity to suggest as much. But the President seems to be saying that you’re an activist if you’re not stretching the limits of the limited powers the Constitution gives to the federal government.”

“We can all disagree about the merits of a President’s policies,” he concluded. “But the American people should be able to expect that their President will defend the independence of the Court, not undermine it, safeguarding and strengthening our country’s institutions, not actively weakening them. The President crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the Court must be defended. Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they’re answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold. The fact that this President does not appear to feel similarly constrained to respect their independence doesn’t change that one bit. So respectfully, I would suggest the President back off.”

Last week, Democrats and President Obama spent the week pushing a bill to raise taxes on American energy producers, even though not a single one could explain how this was supposed to help Americans feeling the pinch of high gas prices. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) held a vote on the measure on Thursday and it was rejected on a bipartisan basis.

The Hill noted, “The outcome of the vote was not a surprise, given that a similar plan failed 52-48 last May. . . . Obama has sought to deflect blame for high gas prices, in part by casting Republicans as allies of big oil companies. He used a Rose Garden speech to urge lawmakers to back [Democrats’ tax bill]”

Despite the president’s attempts to shift blame, the Senate has now rejected Democrats’ calls to raise taxes on American energy producers twice. When Democrats were pushing this same tax increase last year, the Congressional Research Service weighed in and explained that such tax changes “would make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence.” And of course, Democrats have continually admitted that raising taxes on American energy companies won’t do anything to decrease the price of gas at the pump.

Discussing this nonsensical call from the president on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The issue is the price of gas at the pump. If you raise taxes on the producers of gasoline, you drive the prices even higher. Does anyone think we need higher gas prices when they’re already at $4 a gallon? This is not the way to lower the price of gas at the pump. . . . [The president is] trying to selectively raise taxes on some corporations, and to do that would drive the price of gas at the pump even higher. This is a terrible idea.” He added, “The Congressional Research Service, which is not a polling operation, but analyzes objectively legislation, says if you raise taxes on oil production, the price of the gas at the pump goes even higher. This is an absurd suggestion when you’ve got $4 gasoline. What the President ought to be doing is approving the Keystone Pipeline. This is this massive private sector project that will bring energy down from our friendly neighbor, Canada, to the United States. He’s blocking it. What he’s got to do is increase public production down here. Land within the federal jurisdiction, the production is down 14 percent. . . . The American people know that it’s absurd for the most energy rich country in the world to be locking up such a huge percentage of its resources.”

The Wall Street Journal writes today, “Supreme Court justices on Monday weighed whether the challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care law is ripe for a decision, opening three days of argument on the law with a string of skeptical questions for a lawyer who said the high court should wait. . . . The health-care law requires most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty, starting in 2014. . . . News media packed the court Monday morning for the case, its most closely watched in years, and dozens of people lined up for as long as 2½ days to get seats in the courtroom. Hundreds of activists gathered outside the court. . . . The most closely watched issue in the case is whether Congress exceeded its constitutional powers by passing a mandate requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. . . . The Supreme Court has scheduled six hours of oral arguments on the health-care law. The main attraction comes Tuesday, when the court considers the constitutionality of the insurance mandate. On Wednesday, the court will consider whether the rest of the health-care overhaul can remain intact if the insurance mandate is ruled invalid.”

Since Democrats jammed this law through Congress, Senate Republicans have argued that it is unconstitutional and should be struck down by the Supreme Court. GOP senators, led by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, filed amicus briefs with the Court earlier this year on behalf of the multi-state challenge to the law, after having twice submitted briefs to lower courts supporting challenges to the law. One Senate Republican brief argues, “Put simply, Congress acted without constitutional authority in enacting the Individual Mandate of the [health care law]. In so doing, it has damaged Congress’ institutional legitimacy and has triggered severe conflicts between state and federal governments that the Constitution was carefully designed to avert.” The other brief argues that if the Court finds the mandate unconstitutional, as Senate Republicans argue it should, then the Court should overturn the whole law, not just the mandate.

Americans agree that the mandate is unconstitutional. A recent Gallup poll found that “Americans overwhelmingly believe the ‘individual mandate,’ as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.” And even a majority of Democrats in the poll agrees with this position.

As Leader McConnell said in the Weekly Republican Address Saturday, “[A]s we mark the two-year anniversary of the signing of Obamacare this week, Republicans in Congress are more committed than ever to repealing this unconstitutional law and replacing it with the kind of common-sense reforms Americans really want, reforms that actually lower costs, and which put health care back in the hands of individuals and their doctors, rather than unaccountable bureaucrats here in Washington. As it happens, this year’s anniversary happens to fall on the eve of historic Supreme Court arguments on Obamacare. Beginning on Monday, the nation’s highest court will hold three days of arguments to decide, among other things, whether the law’s mandate that Americans must buy government-approved health insurance is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. As one of many public officials who filed a brief before the court opposing this bill, I believe it isn’t. But even if the court disagrees with me, the consequences of this bill are reason enough to make repeal a top priority. . . . Obamacare clearly isn’t the answer. And two years after its passage, Americans have now come to their own conclusion. They don’t like it, they think it’s unconstitutional, and they want it repealed.”

Today, Senate Democrats and President Obama showcased their misplaced priorities after they pushed for a long series of cloture votes on district court judges instead of moving forward on a bipartisan House-passed bill that would create jobs.

The Hill writes today, “Senate GOP leaders attacked their Democratic counterparts on Tuesday for scheduling action on judicial nominees instead of acting this week on a jobs bill. But the White House came out in strong support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to invoke cloture to break a Republican filibuster to confirm the 17 court nominees. . . . Fresh off the overwhelming passage of the House-backed JOBS Act last week, McConnell called on Reid to forgo the ‘manufactured crisis’ over 17 judges, and move on the JOBS Act. ‘We have a way of dealing with judicial and other appointments in the Senate — this effort to have 17 cloture votes in a row is manufactured crisis. … This is a needless exercise and waste of the Senate’s time,’ [Senate Republican Leader Mitch] McConnell told reporters. Reid noted that he liked the House-passed bill and said it would be acted on in the near future but, at this point, he was resolved to move the judicial nominations.”

Leader McConnell laid out the contrast yesterday: “[W]e should immediately take up the bipartisan Jobs bill the House sent over last Thursday. This bill passed the House on a broad bipartisan basis with a vote of 390 to 23. The President himself supports it. There’s no reason we shouldn’t take it up immediately and do something together on jobs. If the Democrat-controlled Senate turns to something contentious instead, then they’ll be saying two things to the American people: First, that they’re just not serious when they say they’re focused on jobs. And second, that they’d rather spend their time manufacturing gridlock to create the illusion of conflict.”

The Wall Street Journal noted the choice Democrats are making, asking “Are jobs more important than getting federal judges confirmed?” Even a Los Angeles Times opinion piece backing the Democrats acknowledged, “Jobs bills are arguably more urgent than judicial nominations . . . . Compared to, say, someone laid off because of the recession, a judicial nominee waiting for confirmation isn’t a particularly poignant figure.”

Apparently, President Obama’s White House has decided to give “a ringing endorsement” to Reid’s move, despite the president’s insistence that he’s focused on jobs. White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler went so far as to tell reporters on a conference call, “What the president is really asking — what he’s demanding — is that the Senate do its job on behalf of the American people.” The president is “demanding” that the Senate put jobs on the back burner and instead have show votes on district court judges?

Recall that Democrats’ messaging chief, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday that “Democrats are focused like a laser on jobs, the economy, and the middle class.” It’s hard to see how setting aside a jobs bill that has support from both political parties in both houses of Congress and the president in favor of a long series of votes on judges.

As Leader McConnell said today, “[T]his is not about making sure the President is treated fairly in his judicial nominations.  In fact, this isn’t about judicial nominations at all. This is about giving the President what he wants, when he wants it.  And what the President wants is to distract the country from his failed policies that have led to soaring gas prices and high unemployment, and instead try to write a narrative of obstruction for his campaign. . . . What the Majority should do is work with us to move these lifetime appointments in an orderly manner . . . . As I suggested yesterday, we could get to the bi-partisan JOBS Act this week and process some judicial nominees. The JOBS Act passed the House by a vote of 390 to 23, and the President says he supports it. . . . So I encourage the Majority to work with us on both legislation and nominations, not to go off on a partisan, and unprecedented, path that won’t get us anywhere, and won’t solve the problems Americans care about.”

Gas Prices Multiple Choice

Which Of The Following Best Describes The Democrats’ Strategy On High Gas Prices?

A.     Voting On Judges

“Reid (D-Nev.) took a highly unusual step Monday of launching the process for Senate approval of 17 judges as soon as Wednesday…” (“Reid Tees Up Senate Fight To Confirm 17 Judges,” Los Angeles Times, 3/12/12)

B.     Blocking Keystone

“Thursday night’s 56-42 Senate vote to kill an amendment to fast-track the $7 billion, shovel-ready Keystone XL pipeline contains a wealth of information about President Obama and the Senate Democrats’ priorities.” (Editorial, “The Keystone Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/10/12)

C.     Raising Taxes On Energy Manufacturers

“After coordinating with the White House, Senate Democrats expect to consider, likely before the end of the month, legislation that would repeal tax breaks… The aide said there are no easy energy solutions…” (“Democrats Playing Defense On Energy,” Roll Call, 3/13/12)

D.     All Of The Above

“The President simply can’t claim to have a comprehensive approach to energy, because he doesn’t. And any time he says he does, the American people should remember one word: Keystone.” (Sen. Mitch McConnell, Floor Remarks, 3/7/12)

The AP reports today, “The price at the gas pump rose over the weekend and the nationwide average is nearing $3.80 a gallon. Oil is close to $107 per barrel because of tensions tied to Iran’s nuclear program. AAA says the national average for gasoline [rose] 2.6 cents since Friday, including a fractional gain on Monday. The price has risen for 27 straight days, to $3.77 a gallon.”

And the Detroit Free Press adds, “AAA Michigan says gasoline prices are up about 25 cents per gallon during the past week to a statewide average of $3.93. The auto club says today the average is about 40 cents per gallon higher than last year at this time.”

In an op-ed for the Bowling Green Daily News last week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wrote, “Kentuckians are paying an average of $3.69 per gallon at the pump now, and some predict we could very easily see that price go as high as $5 per gallon by this summer as demand ramps up to seasonal levels. Prices that high would be unprecedented and quite a jump from the average price of $1.85 per gallon just over three years ago, when President Barack Obama took office. But it’s no surprise this president doesn’t seem to recognize high gas prices as a problem or a pain in people’s wallets. When he first ran for president, he said he took no issue with record-high gas prices, only that he ‘would have preferred a gradual adjustment’ to get them there. And the man he appointed to be his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, once bragged, ‘Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.’ Well, they’re certainly on their way.”

Yet the Obama administration continues to stand in the way of more and cheaper American energy. He rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought oil from Canada and helped move oil from North Dakota and Montana to the rest of the country. The pipeline also would have created tens of thousands of American jobs.

And now the president is calling for higher taxes on American energy producers. How this is supposed to lower gas prices create jobs is a mystery. Leader McConnell noted last week that “nobody” “can show me that raising taxes on American energy production will lower gas prices and create jobs.”

He continued, “[T]his is merely an attempt to deflect from his failed policies. Instead of returning again and again to tax hikes that increase consumers’ costs, the administration and its Democrat allies in Congress should open their eyes to the opportunity presented by the Keystone XL pipeline and the vast energy resources we have right here at home, and to the hundreds of thousands of jobs that opening them up could create.”

If President Obama really wants to do something about American energy that could affect high gas prices, he could reject policies like raising taxes on American energy companies that make it harder to produce energy here in the United States and take positive steps like approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

In an op-ed for USA Today, Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, writes, “President Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unacceptable because it violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The framers saw the dangers of power grabs by any one branch of government. The president upended years of Senate practice and more than 90 years of Justice Department precedent by bypassing the Senate to appoint his nominee to direct the new bureau. Overturning this sort of precedent is a major shift in the constitutional separation of powers. If there’s a legal rationale, the White House needs to make it public.”

Unfortunately little legal explanation has come from the White House about this outrageous maneuver. As The Wall Street Journal editors wrote last week, “A President has the power to make a recess appointment . . . . The Constitutional catch is that Congress must be in recess. The last clause of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution says that ‘Neither House’ of Congress can adjourn for more than three days ‘without the Consent of the other’ house. In this case, the House of Representatives had not formally consented to Senate adjournment. It’s true the House did this to block the President from making recess appointments, but it is following the Constitution in doing so. Let’s hear Mr. Obama’s legal justification.”

The day the president announced the appointment at a rally in Ohio, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by ‘recess’ appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.”

With the White House in the midst of a campaign to push Richard Cordray, the president’s nominee to head the unaccountable agency created by the Dodd-Frank bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has filed cloture on his nomination, making a cloture vote likely Thursday or Friday.

But as The Hill reports, “Senate Republicans offered a public show of unity Tuesday against former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray’s nomination . . . . It’s also unclear whether the White House can count on all of the 53 senators who caucus with Democrats.”

Speaking on the floor yesterday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained the basic problem with this appointment: “[T]he Director of the CFPB, by design, is set to lead one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. What we’re saying is no single person who’s unaccountable to the American people should have that much power. We are asking for the same structure as the SEC, the CFTC, and the FDIC, the FTC, the NLRB, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission — the same structure we use anytime we give unelected bureaucrats new powers that need to be checked to protect against abuse. … We don’t need any more unelected, unaccountable czars in Washington.”

Forty-five GOP senators have signed a letter to President Obama saying they won’t confirm any director for the CFPB until some key reforms of the agency are put in place. Among the reforms Republicans call for in their letter are to “Establish a board of directors to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. . . . Subject the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the [Congressional] appropriations process. . . . [And e]stablish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential regulators.”

The Hill adds, “Republicans on Tuesday insisted they would block Cordray’s confirmation in the procedural vote unless the White House agrees to significant changes to the agency’s framework. The unity was expressed at a GOP news conference, where several senators from states the White House targeted in pushing for Cordray lined up to explain their opposition. GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Dick Lugar (Ind.) and Susan Collins (Maine) attended the public event. . . . Allowing the bureau to be funded by the Fed gives it a ‘funding stream that’s completely unique in government, entirely without a check from the American people … making it one of the least transparent agencies in Washington,’ Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said at the news conference. . . . Senate Banking Committee ranking member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said the changes are needed ‘to prevent this from being a completely runaway, unaccountable agency, which is exactly the way it was crafted to be.’ . . . ‘It makes no sense for a structure to be created, no matter how noble the cause may be, where there is simply no accountability, no oversight for the budget,’ Collins said.”

As Sen. Shelby said back in May, “This is about accountability. The Bureau, as currently structured, lacks any semblance of the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution.  Everyone supports consumer protection, but we should never entrust a single person with this much power and public money.  We are simply asking the President to support common sense reforms that provide the accountability absent in the current structure.”

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) forced a cloture vote on President Obama’s nominee to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Caitlin Halligan. Senate Republicans opposed her confirmation, and the vote failed, 54-45.

Unfortunately, Halligan has a controversial record with activist views on the 2^nd Amendment and the War on Terror. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained, “In Ms. Halligan’s view, the courts aren’t so much a forum for the even-handed application of the law as a place where a judge can work out his or her own idea of what society should look like. As she once put it, the courts are a means to achieve ‘social progress’, with judges presumably writing the script.”

Leader McConnell pointed out, “On the Second Amendment: As solicitor general of New York, Ms. Halligan advanced the dubious legal theory that those who make firearms should be liable for third parties who misuse them criminally.” In a 2003 decision discussing her theory, the New York court of Appeals wrote that her complaint, on behalf of then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, “claims that illegally possessed handguns are a common-law public nuisance.” But the Court dismissed the idea, saying, “The New York Court of Appeals has never recognized a common-law public nuisance cause of action based on allegations like those in this complaint. Moreover, other jurisdictions have dismissed public nuisance claims against firearms manufacturers on similar or other grounds… In light of the foregoing, we believe it is legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic to mandate that defendants undertake, and the courts enforce, unspecified measures urged by plaintiff in order to abate the conceded availability and criminal use of illegal handguns.”

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the NRA opposed Halligan’s nomination writing, “Our opposition is based on Ms. Halligan’s attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Specifically, she worked to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005 with strong bipartisan support. This legislation was critically important in ending a wave of lawsuits sponsored by anti-gun organizations and governments, which sought to blame firearms manufacturers and dealers for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. . . . After passage of the PLCAA, Ms. Halligan participated in the legal attack on the PLCAA. The state [of NY] filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting New York City’s attack on the law’s constitutionality. The arguments in that brief were ultimately rejected by the Second Circuit, as they have been by every other appellate court (and every federal court at any level) that has considered the issue.”

On terrorism issues, Halligan joined a New York City Bar Association report arguing, “[C]riminal prosecutions in the federal courts … should be the preferred forum for future terrorism cases.” She also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the terrorist Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, who, according to the AP, “admitted he trained in al Qaeda camps and stayed in al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan between 1998 and 2001 . . . [and] also admitted meeting and having regular contact with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and with Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly helped the Sept. 11 hijackers with money and Western-style clothing.” In her brief, Halligan argued that the president did not have the authority to detain Al-Marri under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force. But, Leader McConnell pointed out, “In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that the President has the legal authority to detain as enemy combatants individuals who are associated with AQ.  Yet despite this ruling, Ms. Halligan filed an amicus brief years later arguing that the President did not possess this legal authority.”

As he concluded, “The point here is that even in cases where the law was perfectly clear, or the courts had already spoken, including the Supreme Court, Ms. Halligan chose to get involved anyway, using arguments that had already been rejected either by the courts, the legislature, or, in the case of frivolous claims against the gun manufacturers, by both. In other words, Ms. Halligan has time and again sought to push her own views over and above those of the courts or those of the people, as reflected in the law. Ms. Halligan’s record strongly suggests that she wouldn’t view a seat on the U.S. Appeals Court as an opportunity to adjudicate, even-handedly, disputes between parties based on the law, but instead as an opportunity to put her thumb on the scale in favor of whatever individual or group or cause she happens to believe in. We shouldn’t be putting activists on the bench.”

The AP reported yesterday, “Angered by President Barack Obama’s delay of a proposed oil pipeline from Canada, Senate Republicans are moving to force him to act. A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest. The State Department decided on Nov. 10 to delay the project until 2013, after the presidential election . . . . McConnell, R-Ky., called the $7 billion pipeline the ultimate ‘shovel-ready’ project and said it could create as many as 20,000 jobs.”

In fact, Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO’s building and Construction Trades Department, agreed in a piece for The Huffington Post last month. Ayers wrote, “For America’s skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: JOBS. . . . Throughout America’s Heartland, the Keystone Pipeline represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs, and as many as 500,000 indirect jobs via a strong economic multiplier effect. . . .”

Yet, as the AP notes, “The pipeline project has divided labor groups eager for the jobs it would create from environmentalists and other traditional Democratic allies who oppose the pipeline as an ecological disaster waiting to happen.”

Indeed, environmentalists have been vocal in their opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. McClatchy reported in early November, “Thousands of protesters encircled the White House Sunday in a show of numbers intended to persuade President Barack Obama to stop a proposed oil pipeline from being built. . . . Environmentalists say the project is a key test of Obama’s environmental credentials. Protesters first heard from prominent environmentalists, a preacher, a Nobel laureate, and a movie star, and then gathered to hold hands in a ring that stretched in front of the White House and several blocks down sidestreets before joining behind the White House lawn. Organizers estimated that the crowd exceeded 10,000 people.”

Politico noted at the time, “Activists fighting a proposed Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline brought their message to the White House on Sunday: Their support for President Barack Obama next year is not a foregone conclusion. . . . And they said at the protest that no matter the decision that Obama makes, the pipeline will not disappear during the election. Rather than turning out to support Obama, activists would continue to push the president; instead of knocking on doors,, student and retired activists will continue challenging the campaign and interrupting fundraisers, organizers said. . . . No doubt the administration faces a party divided on the pipeline.”

So when President Obama decided to delay a decision until after the election, the Houston Chronicle editorialized, “The Obama administration’s decision to postpone a ruling on the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline till 2013 is a poorly disguised political punt. The ruling has 2012 presidential politics written all over it, despite the environmental reasons given. By delaying a decision on the $7 billion project, which is ‘shovel-ready’ and would immediately produce an estimated 20,000 well-paying jobs in this country, Obama has avoided offending environmentalists on his party’s left, a key fund-raising and voting bloc.”

The Hill pointed out today, “The pipeline delay was a victory for environmentalists that had said approval would sap their energy to mobilize on Obama’s behalf in next year’s election.” And the AP adds, “[McConnell] and other Republicans called Obama’s decision to delay the project transparently political and said Obama had put his reelection above job creation. ‘This is politics, pure and simple,’ said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.”

As Leader McConnell explained in a floor speech this morning, “Labor unions love this project. Folks in the heartland love this project. The Chamber of Commerce loves this project. But here’s the problem: President Obama’s getting heat from his base over this project — especially from the very young and very liberal voters he’ll need knocking on doors before November. So the State Department now says they’re going to delay its approval — even though previously they were seemingly ready to approve it after a three-year review, including two exhaustive environmental evaluations.

“Here’s the bottom line: the President has said time and again that his top priority is jobs. Yet here we’ve got the single largest shovel-ready project in the country, ready to go, and he’s delaying its approval until after the election. He’s saying he doesn’t care so much about jobs in states like Nebraska that he doesn’t think he’ll carry next year so he can keep the enthusiasm up in states he hopes to carry. So I think it’s pretty clear the President cares less about this particular boon for job creation than in his own job preservation. And it’s wrong.

“There is no reason whatsoever to delay this project and these jobs by another day,” Leader McConnell said.

On Friday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, and Committee member Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) sent what National Review Online’s Ed Whelan described as “a strong letter” to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to comply with Congressional oversight requests regarding former Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan’s role in the Obama administration’s defense of its unpopular health care law.

In their letter to Holder, the senators wrote, “[Y]our Department has rejected all Congressional oversight requests for information about her role in the Obama Administration’s defense of this law. You recently told the Senate, incredibly, that you were not even aware of Congressional requests on this topic . . . we write to underscore the importance to the rule of law of an informed resolution of this question, and to apprise you of the legal and factual bases for our concerns.”

They point out, “President Obama chose to nominate a member of his Administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement—‘litigation,’ [Neil] Katyal noted to former Solicitor General Kagan, ‘of singular importance’ to the Administration. Among other involvement in this matter, it appears that she was privy to discussions of legal claims and litigation strategy concerning court challenges to the PPACA. And it is apparent that she herself enthusiastically supported this legislation as a member of the Administration which is now defending it. When a former member of the Administration is in a position to rule on litigation in which she apparently had some involvement and which concerns legislation she herself supports, public confidence in the administration of justice is undermined. Your Department’s refusal to provide information to the Congress that could eliminate this apparent conflict of interest only undermines that confidence further.”

USA Today notes, “During her Senate confirmation, when Republicans asked about health care litigation, Kagan said, “I attended at least one meeting where the existence of the litigation was briefly mentioned, but none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred.” Kagan also said she had not been asked her opinion on the merits of the case filed by the states and said she did not offer her view on legal strategy. . . . McConnell said he believes Kagan might have been more involved than acknowledged, based on Justice Department e-mails released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests by conservative groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network. . . . McConnell, in urging Holder to reveal more information about Kagan’s role, pointed to a recently disclosed March 2010 e-mail exchange between Kagan and Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, then a Justice adviser, in which Kagan wrote, ‘I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.’”

‘Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same’

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Supreme Court’s announcement today that it had agreed to hear a challenge to President Obama’s health care law:

“Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree. In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same.”