Congressional Record—Senate S7838
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy
The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy Dr. Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Abstract This article explores how Donald Trump capitalized on the right's decades-long, carefully choreographed and well-financed campaign against political correctness in relation to the broader strategy of 'cultural conservatism.' It provides an historical overview of various iterations of this campaign, discusses the mainstream media's complicity in promulgating conservative talking points about higher education at the height of the 1990s 'culture wars,' examines the reconfigured anti- PC/pro-free speech crusade of recent years, its contemporary currency in the Trump era and the implications for academia and educational policy. Keywords: political correctness, culture wars, free speech, cultural conservatism, critical pedagogy Introduction More than two years after Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House, post-mortems of the 2016 American election continue to explore the factors that propelled him to office. Some have pointed to the spread of right-wing populism in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that culminated in Brexit in Europe and Trump's victory (Kagarlitsky, 2017; Tufts & Thomas, 2017) while Fuchs (2018) lays bare the deleterious role of social media in facilitating the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other 69 | P a g e The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy explanations refer to deep-rooted misogyny that worked against Hillary Clinton (Wilz, 2016), a backlash against Barack Obama, sedimented racism and the demonization of diversity as a public good (Major, Blodorn and Blascovich, 2016; Shafer, 2017). -
Dsjfeb08.Pdf
feb. 2008>>>www.dogstreetjournal.com>>>volume 5 issue 6 The DoG Street Journal (what’sinside) (whoweare) Road to Richmond EDITORIALSTAFF Rebecca Hamfeldt >Lobbying the Legislature The DSJ reviews students’ recent trip to Co-Editor in Chief the State legislature to lobby for the Jeri Kent College. Co-Editor in Chief page 5 Stacey Marin Executive Editor In the Know Jonna Knappenberger News Editor >Students and the News Just how informed are students at the Jake Robert Nelson College? The DSJ takes a look at our Interim News Editor generation and the news. Gretchen Hannes page 14 Style Editor John Hill Mrs. President Sports Editor >The White House’s Future Katie Photiadis With presidential primaries in full Opinions Editor swing, one DSJ columnist predicts the Megan Luteran outcome of the 2008 election. Print Photo Editor page 16 Nazrin Roberson Online Photo Editor More than a T-Shirt Ryan Powers >Intramural Sports Online Design Editor Find out what’s behind competing for Michael Duarte the coveted championship t-shirt. Online Design Editor page 18 Keeley Edmonds Business Manager Khaleelah Jones Operations Editor OURMISSION Kellie O’Malley OURMISSION COVERIMAGE Layout Assistant The DSJ is the College’s only For the first time in seasons, Tribe (talktous) monthly newsmagazine and daily men’s basketball is tearing it up The DoG Street Journal online paper. Access us anytime on on the court. There have been The College of William & Mary the web at dogstreetjournal.com. several energy-charged games, Campus Center Basement We strive to provide a quality, including six straight wins and a Office 12B reliable and thought-provoking tough loss against ODU at the media outlet serving the College most well-attended home game (visitus) community with constantly in over a decade. -
The Public Eye, Summer 2010
Right-Wing Co-Opts Civil Rights Movement History, p. 3 TheA PUBLICATION OF POLITICAL R PublicEyeESEARCH ASSOCIATES Summer 2010 • Volume XXV, No.2 Basta Dobbs! Last year, a coalition of Latino/a groups suc - cessfully fought to remove anti-immigrant pundit Lou Dobbs from CNN. Political Research Associates Executive DirectorTarso Luís Ramos spoke to Presente.org co-founder Roberto Lovato to find out how they did it. Tarso Luís Ramos: Tell me about your organization, Presente.org. Roberto Lovato: Presente.org, founded in MaY 2009, is the preeminent online Latino adVocacY organiZation. It’s kind of like a MoVeOn.org for Latinos: its goal is to build Latino poWer through online and offline organiZing. Presente started With a campaign to persuade GoVernor EdWard Rendell of PennsYlVania to take a stand against the Verdict in the case of Luis RamíreZ, an undocumented immigrant t t e Who Was killed in Shenandoah, PennsYl - k n u l Vania, and Whose assailants Were acquitted P k c a J bY an all-White jurY. We also ran a campaign / o t o to support the nomination of Sonia h P P SotomaYor to the Supreme Court—We A Students rally at a State Board of Education meeting, Austin, Texas, March 10, 2010 produced an “I Stand With SotomaYor” logo and poster that people could displaY at Work or in their neighborhoods and post on their Facebook pages—and a feW addi - From Schoolhouse to Statehouse tional, smaller campaigns, but reallY the Curriculum from a Christian Nationalist Worldview Basta Dobbs! continues on page 12 By Rachel Tabachnick TheTexas Curriculum IN THIS ISSUE Controversy objectiVe is present—a Christian land goV - 1 Editorial . -
Dr. Alveda C. King
Dr. Alveda C. King PASTORAL ASSOCIATE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE DR. ALVEDA C. KING works toward her purpose in life, to glorify God. Dr. King currently serves as a Pastoral Associate and Director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries. She is also a voice for the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, sharing her testimony of two abortions, God’s forgiveness, and healing. The daughter of the late civil rights activist Rev. A.D. King and his wife Naomi Barber King, Alveda grew up in the civil rights movement led by her uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Her family home in Birmingham, Alabama, was bombed, as was her father’s church office in Louisville, Kentucky. Alveda was jailed during the open housing movement. She sees the pro- life movement as a continuation of the civil rights struggle. Dr. King is a former college professor and served in the Georgia State House of Representatives. She is a best selling author; among her books are How Can the Dream Survive if we Murder the Children? and I Don’t Want Your Man, I Want My Own. She is an accomplished actress and songwriter. The Founder of King for America, Inc., Alveda is also the recipient of a Doctorate of Laws degree from Saint Anselm College. Dr. King lives in Atlanta, where she is the grateful mother of six and a doting grandmother. To arrange a media interview, email [email protected] or call Margaret at 888-735-3448, ext. 251 To invite Alveda King to speak in your area, contact our Speakers Bureau at 888-PFL-3448, ext. -
Start Debating Stop Hating
The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character with the Tea Party movement. Some on the Left have even impugned the assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising Manhattan Declaration - which upholds the sanctity of life, the value of machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the traditional marriage and the fundamental right of religious freedom - as an political spectrum, is doing just that. anti-gay document and have forced its removal from general communications networks. The group, which was once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including This is intolerance pure and simple. Elements of the radical Left are trying marriage as the union of a man and a woman. to shut down informed discussion of policy issues that are being considered by Congress, legislatures, and the courts. How does the SPLC attack? By labeling its opponents “hate groups.” No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate! Tell the radical Left it is time to stop spreading hateful rhetoric attacking individuals and organizations merely for expressing ideas with which they These types of slanderous tactics have been used against voters who signed disagree. Our debates can and must remain civil - but they must never be petitions and voted for marriage amendments in all thirty states that have suppressed through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent’s considered them, as well as against the millions of Americans who identify character. START DEBATING STOP HATING You can take action by adding your name to the following statement: We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. -
Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, and the Consequences of Returning the Constitution to Elected Government Neal Devins
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 69 | Issue 4 Article 3 5-2016 Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, and the Consequences of Returning the Constitution to Elected Government Neal Devins Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Neal Devins, Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, and the Consequences of Returning the Constitution to Elected Government, 69 Vanderbilt Law Review 935 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol69/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, and the Consequences of Returning the Constitution to Elected Government Neal Devins* IN TROD U CTION ............................................................................... 935 I. MINIMALISM THEORY AND ABORTION ................................. 939 II. WHAT ABORTION POLITICS TELLS US ABOUT JUDICIAL M INIMALISM ........................................................ 946 A . R oe v. W ade ............................................................. 947 B . From Roe to Casey ................................................... 953 C. Casey and Beyond .................................................. -
Samuel Alito: Populist William Araiza Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2017 Samuel Alito: Populist William Araiza Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 103 Cornell Law Review Online 101 (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. ESSAY SAMUEL ALITO: POPULIST William D. Araiza† I. EVALUATIONS OF JUSTICE ALITO ............................ 103 II. THE EVIDENCE ..................................................... 107 A. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants ............... 107 B. Caetano v. Massachusetts ............................ 111 C. Snyder v. Phelps ........................................... 113 D. Fisher v. University of Texas ......................... 116 E. Ricci v. DeStefano ......................................... 118 III. EVALUATING THE OPINIONS .................................... 120 A. Differences, Similarities, and Caveats .......... 120 B. Justice Alito’s Rhetorical Style ..................... 123 IV. SAMUEL ALITO: POPULIST ...................................... 130 In 2015, the tenth anniversary of Justice Samuel Alito’s ascension to the Court passed without the level of attention lavished on the same milestone reached that year by Chief Justice John Roberts.1 The difference in attention is understandable: the Chief Justiceship has given John Roberts † Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. Thanks to participants at the Loyola University Chicago Law School’s Constitutional Law Colloquium, and in particular Eric Berger and Corinna Lain, for helpful comments on an earlier version of this Essay. Thanks also to Mark Potkewitz for fine research assistance. 1 See, e.g., Symposium, Ten Years as the Chief: Examining a Decade of John Roberts on the Supreme Court, 38 CARDOZO L. -
Thank You President Trump
Thank You President Trump conservativeactionproject.com/thank-you-president-trump/ January 13, 2020 January 13, 2020 Washington, DC Dear President Trump, On behalf of the conservative movement, we would like to thank you for the accomplishments your administration has achieved on behalf of the American people. From a booming economy, to stronger protections at the border, to implementing strong protections for the unborn, to nominating constitutionalist judges to the federal bench, you have kept your promises to the voters that elected you. Specifically, we want to applaud you for the following achievements: A booming economy that has unemployment at its lowest level in fifty years, the highest median household income on record, a labor force that has grown by 2.1 million. 1/11 Poverty rates for African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans at record lows, and unemployment among women is at its lowest level in nearly 70 years. Aggressively working to address the opioid crisis. Signing the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 which resulted in more than 6 million American works receiving wage increases, bonuses, and increased benefits. Rolling back nearly 8 regulations for every significant new one and cutting regulatory costs by more than $50 billion. Repealing two particularly onerous regulations: the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. rule, and the Obama-era “Clean Power” Plan, and revoking California’s emissions waiver, all of which cost Americans millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Withdrawing America from the Paris climate treaty, which saved American families $20,000 a year. Opening up federal lands and offshore areas to fossil fuel development and permitting the pipelines and infrastructure necessary to facilitate further development. -
Why a Federal Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
WHY A FEDERAL WEALTH TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BRIEF BY ARI GLOGOWER, DAVID GAMAGE, AND KITTY RICHARDS FEBRUARY 2021 INTRODUCTION The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries brought national attention to a new direction for the tax system: a federal wealth tax for the wealthiest taxpayers. During their campaigns, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) both introduced proposals to tax the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires, and to use the revenue for public investments, including in health care and education. These reforms generated broad public support—even among many Republicans1—and broadened the conversation over the future of progressive tax reform. A well-designed, high-end wealth tax can level the playing field in an unequal society and promote shared economic prosperity. Critics have argued, however, that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional because of the Constitution’s apportionment rule, which requires certain taxes to be apportioned among the states according to their populations. These critics advance maximalist interpretations of the apportionment rule and reconstruct the rule as a significant limit on Congress’s constitutional taxing power. In response to these objections, this brief explains why these critics misinterpret the role of the apportionment rule, and why the Constitution grants Congress broad taxing powers that allow for a wealth tax, whether it is apportioned or not. The maximalist interpretations misapprehend the role of apportionment in the constitutional structure, and improperly elevate a peripheral rule into a major barrier to tax reform. This brief explains why constitutional history and Supreme Court precedents instead support a measured interpretation of the apportionment rule. -
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Program
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMEMORATIVE PROGRAM MLK50 FORWARD Together We Win With Love For Humanity January 25, 2018, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Mistress of Ceremonies Ann Augustyn Principal Deputy Director Office of Economic Impact and Diversity National Anthem Virginia Union University Choir Virginia Union University Welcome Remarks Dan Brouillette Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy Introduction of Dan Brouillette Keynote Speaker Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy Keynote Speaker Dr. Alveda King Alveda King Ministries Musical Performance Virginia Union University Choir Virginia Union University Video MLK50: Reflections from the Mountaintop Video Closing Remarks Patricia Zarate Acting Deputy Director Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. LIFT EVERY VOICE AND SING (James Weldon Johnson, 1871 – 1938) Lift ev’ry voice and sing, Till Earth and Heaven ring. Ring with the harmonies of Liberty; Let our rejoicing rise, High as the list’ning skies, Let it resound loud as the rolling sea. Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us, Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us; Facing the rising sun of our new day begun, Let us march on till victory is won. Stony the road we trod, Bitter the chast’ning rod, Felt in the day that hope unborn had died; Yet with a steady beat, Have not our weary feet, Come to the place for which our fathers sighed? We have come, over a way that with tears has been watered, We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered, Out from the gloomy past, Here now we stand at last Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast. -
Supreme Court Riddle: Who Voted to Hear the Sports- Betting Case?
Supreme Court Riddle: Who Voted To Hear The Sports- Betting Case? 22ND FEB 2018 | WRITTEN BY: TONY BATT The mystery surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear New Jersey’s appeal of a federal sports-betting ban is almost as intriguing as how the court will rule on the case later this year. Out of 10,000 petitions for certiorari every year, the Supreme Court agrees to hear about 80 appeals, or less than 1 percent, according to the website FindLaw. For an appeal to overcome these astronomical odds, four justices must vote to hear the case. The votes are revealed in a private conference of the nine members of the Supreme Court. The least senior justice begins the voting process which continues according to seniority until the most senior justice’s vote is recorded. The votes are included in notes taken by the least senior justice who gives them to the clerk of the Supreme Court after the conference. New Jersey failed to gain four votes when the Supreme Court denied the state’s first sports-betting appeal on June 23, 2014. But three years and four days later, the Supreme Court announced it would hear New Jersey’s second sports-betting appeal and a ruling is expected before the end of June. The only justice who did not participate in the 2014 vote is Neil Gorsuch, who succeeded the deceased Antonin Scalia last year. Gorsuch seems to be at the top of the list of justices who might have voted to hear New Jersey’s appeal. -
Symmetric Constitutionalism: an Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post-Kennedy Supreme Court
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2019 Symmetric Constitutionalism: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post-Kennedy Supreme Court Zachary S. Price UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Zachary S. Price, Symmetric Constitutionalism: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post- Kennedy Supreme Court, 70 Hastings L.J. 1273 (2019). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1736 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 70.5-PRICE (DO NOT DELETE) 5/27/2019 9:48 AM Symmetric Constitutionalism: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post- Kennedy Supreme Court † ZACHARY S. PRICE Following Justice Kennedy’s retirement and the bitter fight over Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, increasingly polarized views about constitutional law in general, and specific constitutional cases in particular, threaten to undermine courts’ legitimacy, degrade their institutional capacity, and weaken public support for important civil liberties. To help mitigate these risks, this Essay proposes that judges subscribe to an ethos of “symmetric constitutionalism.” Within the limits of controlling considerations of text, structure, history, precedent, and practice, courts in our polarized era should lean towards outcomes, doctrines, and rationales that confer valuable protections across both sides of the nation’s major political divides, and away from those that frame constitutional law as a matter of zero-sum competition between competing partisan visions.