DOCSLIB.ORG

Representative State Party Tea Party Caucus Freshma N Status No. of Votes with Party No. of Votes Against Party No. of "Pre

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Representative State Party Tea Party Caucus Freshma N Status No. of Votes with Party No. of Votes Against Party No. of Percent Percent of "yes" Total no. of "yes" and "no" No. of No. of of "yes" and "no" votes votes votes No. of No. of and "no" votes cast Tea Party Freshma with against "present" times not votes cast with against Representative State Party Caucus n status party party votes voting cast party party Adams, Sandy FL R T F 89 11 0 0 100 89.0% 11.0% Aderholt, Robert B. AL R T 93 7 0 0 100 93.0% 7.0% Akin, W. Todd MO R T 93 5 0 2 98 94.9% 5.1% Alexander, Rodney LA R T 93 6 0 1 99 93.9% 6.1% Amash, Justin MI R F 58 38 4 0 96 60.4% 39.6% Austria, Steve OH R 94 6 0 0 100 94.0% 6.0% Bachmann, Michele MN R T 70 17 0 13 87 80.5% 19.5% Bachus, Spencer AL R 91 6 0 3 97 93.8% 6.2% Barletta, Lou PA R F 88 12 0 0 100 88.0% 12.0% Bartlett, Roscoe G. MD R T 78 21 0 1 99 78.8% 21.2% Barton, Joe TX R T 79 18 0 3 97 81.4% 18.6% Bass, Charles F. NH R 76 22 0 2 98 77.6% 22.4% Benishek, Dan MI R F 86 14 0 0 100 86.0% 14.0% Berg, Rick ND R F 87 10 0 3 97 89.7% 10.3% Biggert, Judy IL R 81 19 0 0 100 81.0% 19.0% Bilbray, Brian P. CA R 83 11 0 6 94 88.3% 11.7% Bilirakis, Gus M. FL R T 94 3 0 3 97 96.9% 3.1% Bishop, Rob UT R T 84 12 1 3 96 87.5% 12.5% Black, Diane TN R T F 90 8 0 2 98 91.8% 8.2% Blackburn, Marsha TN R 90 10 0 0 100 90.0% 10.0% Boehner, John OH R 4 0 0 96 4 100.0% 0.0% Bonner, Jo AL R 93 6 0 1 99 93.9% 6.1% Bono Mack, Mary CA R 86 11 0 3 97 88.7% 11.3% Boustany, Charles W., Jr. LA R 91 6 0 3 97 93.8% 6.2% Brady, Kevin TX R 88 9 0 3 97 90.7% 9.3% Brooks, Mo AL R F 91 8 0 1 99 91.9% 8.1% Broun, Paul C. GA R T 72 25 0 3 97 74.2% 25.8% Buchanan, Vern FL R 91 7 0 2 98 92.9% 7.1% Bucshon, Larry IN R F 93 7 0 0 100 93.0% 7.0% Buerkle, Ann Marie NY R F 88 12 0 0 100 88.0% 12.0% Burgess, Michael C. TX R T 82 16 0 2 98 83.7% 16.3% Burton, Dan IN R T 83 8 0 9 91 91.2% 8.8% Calvert, Ken CA R 93 7 0 0 100 93.0% 7.0% Camp, Dave MI R 88 11 0 1 99 88.9% 11.1% Campbell, John CA R 66 29 0 5 95 69.5% 30.5% Canseco, Francisco "Quico" TX R F 88 11 0 1 99 88.9% 11.1% Cantor, Eric VA R 88 5 0 7 93 94.6% 5.4% Capito, Shelley Moore WV R 89 11 0 0 100 89.0% 11.0% Carter, John R. TX R T 90 9 0 1 99 90.9% 9.1% Cassidy, Bill LA R T 92 7 0 1 99 92.9% 7.1% Chabot, Steve OH R 86 14 0 0 100 86.0% 14.0% Chaffetz, Jason UT R 72 22 0 6 94 76.6% 23.4% Coble, Howard NC R T 82 16 0 2 98 83.7% 16.3% Coffman, Mike CO R T 92 8 0 0 100 92.0% 8.0% Cole, Tom OK R 87 12 0 1 99 87.9% 12.1% Conaway, K. Michael TX R 96 4 0 0 100 96.0% 4.0% Cravaack, Chip MN R F 91 9 0 0 100 91.0% 9.0% Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" AR R F 94 5 0 1 99 94.9% 5.1% Crenshaw, Ander FL R T 91 9 0 0 100 91.0% 9.0% Culberson, John Abney TX R T 83 4 0 13 87 95.4% 4.6% Davis, Geoff KY R 94 6 0 0 100 94.0% 6.0% Denham, Jeff CA R F 92 6 0 2 98 93.9% 6.1% Dent, Charles W. PA R 82 18 0 0 100 82.0% 18.0% DesJarlais, Scott TN R F 88 12 0 0 100 88.0% 12.0% Diaz-Balart, Mario FL R 77 18 0 5 95 81.1% 18.9% Dold, Robert J. IL R F 79 21 0 0 100 79.0% 21.0% Dreier, David CA R 89 11 0 0 100 89.0% 11.0% Duffy, Sean P. WI R F 87 13 0 0 100 87.0% 13.0% Duncan, Jeff SC R T F 79 20 0 1 99 79.8% 20.2% Duncan, John J., Jr. TN R 68 32 0 0 100 68.0% 32.0% Ellmers, Renee L. NC R F 89 11 0 0 100 89.0% 11.0% Emerson, Jo Ann MO R 78 16 0 6 94 83.0% 17.0% Farenthold, Blake TX R T F 93 6 1 0 99 93.9% 6.1% Fincher, Stephen Lee TN R T F 90 10 0 0 100 90.0% 10.0% Fitzpatrick, Michael G. PA R 78 22 0 0 100 78.0% 22.0% Flake, Jeff AZ R 73 24 0 3 97 75.3% 24.7% Fleischmann, Charles J. TN R F 93 7 0 0 100 93.0% 7.0% Fleming, John LA R T 91 8 0 1 99 91.9% 8.1% Flores, Bill TX R F 96 3 0 1 99 97.0% 3.0% Forbes, J. Randy VA R 91 9 0 0 100 91.0% 9.0% Fortenberry, Jeff NE R 83 15 0 2 98 84.7% 15.3% Foxx, Virginia NC R 93 7 0 0 100 93.0% 7.0% Franks, Trent AZ R T 83 15 0 2 98 84.7% 15.3% Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. NJ R 72 11 0 17 83 86.7% 13.3% Gallegly, Elton CA R 94 4 0 2 98 95.9% 4.1% Gardner, Cory CO R F 91 9 0 0 100 91.0% 9.0% Garrett, Scott NJ R 81 18 0 1 99 81.8% 18.2% Gerlach, Jim PA R 87 13 0 0 100 87.0% 13.0% Gibbs, Bob OH R F 94 5 0 1 99 94.9% 5.1% Gibson, Christopher P. NY R F 69 30 0 1 99 69.7% 30.3% Gingrey, Phil GA R T 89 8 0 3 97 91.8% 8.2% Gohmert, Louie TX R T 77 19 0 4 96 80.2% 19.8% Goodlatte, Bob VA R 88 12 0 0 100 88.0% 12.0% Gosar, Paul A. AZ R F 88 12 0 0 100 88.0% 12.0% Gowdy, Trey SC R F 84 16 0 0 100 84.0% 16.0% Granger, Kay TX R 90 9 0 1 99 90.9% 9.1% Graves, Sam MO R 94 5 0 1 99 94.9% 5.1% Graves, Tom GA R 76 23 0 1 99 76.8% 23.2% Griffin, Tim AR R F 96 4 0 0 100 96.0% 4.0% Griffith, H. Morgan VA R F 81 17 0 2 98 82.7% 17.3% Grimm, Michael G. NY R F 80 19 0 1 99 80.8% 19.2% Guinta, Frank C. NH R F 90 8 0 2 98 91.8% 8.2% Guthrie, Brett KY R 92 6 0 2 98 93.9% 6.1% Hall, Ralph M. TX R 86 9 0 5 95 90.5% 9.5% Hanna, Richard L. NY R F 71 25 0 4 96 74.0% 26.0% Harper, Gregg MS R 90 9 0 1 99 90.9% 9.1% Harris, Andy MD R F 84 16 0 0 100 84.0% 16.0% Hartzler, Vicky MO R T F 89 11 0 0 100 89.0% 11.0% Hastings, Doc WA R 88 6 0 6 94 93.6% 6.4% Hayworth, Nan A. S. NY R F 84 16 0 0 100 84.0% 16.0% Heck, Joseph J. NV R F 81 19 0 0 100 81.0% 19.0% Heller, Dean NV R 36 7 0 0 43 83.7% 16.3% Hensarling, Jeb TX R 92 8 0 0 100 92.0% 8.0% Herger, Wally CA R T 88 7 0 5 95 92.6% 7.4% Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA R F 86 13 0 1 99 86.9% 13.1% Huelskamp, Tim KS R T F 80 19 0 1 99 80.8% 19.2% Huizenga, Bill MI R F 87 12 0 1 99 87.9% 12.1% Hultgren, Randy IL R F 86 14 0 0 100 86.0% 14.0% Hunter, Duncan CA R 91 8 0 1 99 91.9% 8.1% Hurt, Robert VA R F 90 9 0 1 99 90.9% 9.1% Issa, Darrell E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AMERICAN P VERSIGHT
    AMERICAN p VERSIGHT January11,2021 VIA ONLINE PORTAL DouglasHibbard Chief,InitialRequestStaff OfficeofInform ationPolicy DepartmentofJustice 441GStNW,6thFloor Washington,DC20530 ViaOnlinePortal Re: Expedited Freedom of Information Act Request DearFOIAOfficer: PursuanttotheFreedomof InformationAct(FOIA),5U.S.C.§552,andthe implem entingregulationsof youragency,Am ericanOversightmakesthefollowing requestforrecords. OnJanuary6,2021,PresidentTrumpinciteda mtoob attackCongresswhile mbers em werecertifyingtheelectionforPresident-electJoeBiden. 1 Theapparent insurrectionistsattackedtheCapitolBuilding,forcedtheirwaypastreportedly understaffedCapitolPolice,andultim atelydelayedtheCongressionalsessionbyforcing lawmakersandtheirstaffstoflee. 2 Fourpeoplediedduringthisassaultandafifth person,aCapitolPoliceofficer,diedthefollowingdayfrominjuriesincurredwhile engagingwithrioters. 3 Whilem ilitia mbers em roamedthehallsofCongress,Trum preportedlyfoughtagainst deployingtheD.C.NationalGuard, 4 andtheDefenseDepartm entreportedlyinitially 1 PressRelease,OfficeofSen.MittRom ney,Rom neyCondemInsurrectionatU.S. ns Capitol, Jan.6,2021, https://www.romney.senate.gov/rom ney-condem ns-insurrection- us-capitol. 2 RebeccaTan,etal., TrumpSupportersStormU.S.Capitol,WithOneWomanKilledand TearGasFired, Wash.Post(Jan.7,2021,12:30AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trum p-supporters-storm -capitol- dc/2021/01/06/58afc0b8-504b-11eb-83e3-322644d82356 story.html. 3 EricLevenson, WhatWeKnowAboutthe5DeathsinthePro-TrumpMobthatStormedthe Capitol, CNN(Jan.8,2021,5:29PM),
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Holds up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia POLITICO
    12/14/19, 1052 PM Page 1 of 1 Pro-Russia separatist soldiers celebrate in Lugansk, Ukraine, in 2014. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia By CAITLIN EMMA and CONNOR O’BRIEN | 08/28/2019 06:11 PM EDT | Updated 08/29/2019 03:40 PM EDT The Trump administration is slow-walking $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine, annoying lawmakers and advocates who argue the funding is critical to keeping Russia at bay. President Donald Trump asked his national security team to review the funding program, known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, in order to ensure the money is being used in the best interest of the United States, a senior administration official told POLITICO on Wednesday. Story Continued Below AD But the delays come amid questions over Trump’s approach to Russia, after a weekend in which the president repeatedly seemed to downplay Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine and pushed for Russia to be reinstated into the Group of Seven, an annual gathering of the world’s largest advanced economies. The review is also occurring amid a broader internal debate over whether to halt or cut billions of dollars in foreign aid. United States military aid to Ukraine has long been seen as a litmus test for how strongly the American government is pushing back against Moscow. The Trump administration in 2017 approved lethal arms sales to Ukraine, taking a step the Obama administration had never done. The move was seen as a sign that Trump’s government was taking a hard-line approach to a revanchist Vladimir Putin despite the president’s public rhetoric flattering the Russian leader.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate in Transition Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nuclear Option1
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYL\19-4\NYL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-17 6:55 THE SENATE IN TRANSITION OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE NUCLEAR OPTION1 William G. Dauster* The right of United States Senators to debate without limit—and thus to filibuster—has characterized much of the Senate’s history. The Reid Pre- cedent, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s November 21, 2013, change to a sim- ple majority to confirm nominations—sometimes called the “nuclear option”—dramatically altered that right. This article considers the Senate’s right to debate, Senators’ increasing abuse of the filibuster, how Senator Reid executed his change, and possible expansions of the Reid Precedent. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 632 R I. THE NATURE OF THE SENATE ........................ 633 R II. THE FOUNDERS’ SENATE ............................. 637 R III. THE CLOTURE RULE ................................. 639 R IV. FILIBUSTER ABUSE .................................. 641 R V. THE REID PRECEDENT ............................... 645 R VI. CHANGING PROCEDURE THROUGH PRECEDENT ......... 649 R VII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION ........................ 656 R VIII. POSSIBLE REACTIONS TO THE REID PRECEDENT ........ 658 R A. Republican Reaction ............................ 659 R B. Legislation ...................................... 661 R C. Supreme Court Nominations ..................... 670 R D. Discharging Committees of Nominations ......... 672 R E. Overruling Home-State Senators ................. 674 R F. Overruling the Minority Leader .................. 677 R G. Time To Debate ................................ 680 R CONCLUSION................................................ 680 R * Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The author has worked on U.S. Senate and White House staffs since 1986, including as Staff Director or Deputy Staff Director for the Committees on the Budget, Labor and Human Resources, and Finance.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Resolution
    CONFERENCE RESOLUTION Resolved, that the following shall be the rules of the House Republican Conference for the 115th Congress: Rule 1—Conference Membership (a) Inclusion.—All Republican Members of the House of Representatives (including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and other Members of the House as determined by the Republican Conference of the House of Representatives (“the Conference”) shall be Members of the Conference. (b) Expulsion.—A ⅔ vote of the entire membership shall be necessary to expel a Member of the Conference. Proceedings for expulsion shall follow the rules of the House of Representatives, as nearly as practicable. Rule 2—Republican Leadership (a) Elected Leadership.—The Elected Republican Leaders of the House of Representatives are— (1) the Speaker; (2) the Republican Leader; (3) the Republican Whip; (4) the Chair of the Republican Conference; (5) the Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee; (6) the Chair of the Committee on Policy; (7) the Vice-Chair of the Republican Conference; and, (8) the Secretary of the Republican Conference. (b) Designated Leadership.—The designated Republican Leaders of the House of Representatives are— (1) the Chair of the House Committee on Rules; (2) the Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means; (3) the Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations; (4) the Chair of the House Committee on the Budget; (5) the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; (6) the Chief Deputy Whip; (7) one member of the sophomore class elected by the sophomore class; and, (8) one member of the freshman class elected by the freshman class. (c) Leadership Issues.—The Republican Leader may designate certain issues as “Leadership Issues.” Those issues will require early and ongoing cooperation between the relevant committees and the Leadership as those issues evolve.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full Version of the Newsletter
    Monthly Legislative Newsletter June 2021 President Biden’s 2021 Budget On May 28, 2021, President Biden released his Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. The budget, which is largely a messaging document, included a number of investments related to public health. Additionally, the foundations of the President’s budget are both the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, which are both pieces of legislation that President Biden introduced in order to get America back on track as the tide turns on the pandemic. President Biden’s budget includes: • Extending the expanded health insurance tax credits that were included in the American Rescue Plan o These credits lower premiums by an average of $50 per person and making them permanent will allow upwards of 4 million uninsured people to get coverage • $131.7 billion for HHS o $25 billion increase from Fiscal Year 2021 • A total of $51 billion for NIH o $9 billion increase from Fiscal Year 2021 • Launches the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) o The budget provides $6.5 billion to launch ARPA-H o Will initially focus on research and development spending on cancer and other diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s o Goal would be to speed up health breakthroughs • $7.6 billion for NCI o Includes $50 million for the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative as well as Cancer Moonshot funding • $8.7 billion in discretionary funding for CDC in order to better prepare for the next pandemic You can view the full fact sheet HERE. What Does the Biden Budget Mean for Congress? While the President’s budget is largely a messaging document, its release officially kicks the congressional appropriations process into high gear.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of One-Party Rule in the Senate Charles Tiefer University of Baltimore School of Law
    Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 24 | Issue 1 Article 3 Winter 2019 Deliberation's Demise: The Rise of One-Party Rule in the Senate Charles Tiefer University of Baltimore School of Law Kathleen Clark Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Tiefer, Charles and Clark, Kathleen (2019) "Deliberation's Demise: The Rise of One-Party Rule in the Senate," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 24 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol24/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized editor of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Deliberation’s Demise: The Rise of One-Party Rule in the Senate Charles Tiefer* and Kathleen Clark** ABSTRACT Much of the recent legal scholarship on the Senate expresses concern about gridlock, which was caused in part by the Senate’s supermajority requirement to pass legislation and confirm presidential nominees. This scholarship exalted the value of procedural changes permitting the majority party to push through legislation and confirmations, and failed to appreciate salutary aspects of the supermajority requirement: that it provided a key structural support for stability and balance in governance. The Senate changed its rules in order to address the problem of partisan gridlock, and now a party with a bare majority is able to force through much of its agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Are President Trump's Allies in the House of Representatives?
    The Forum 2017; 15(3): 415–429 Andrew J. Clarke* and Jeffery A. Jenkins* Who are President Trump’s Allies in the House of Representatives? https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2017-0029 Abstract: We conduct a preliminary analysis of the first 200 days of the Donald Trump presidency, to determine who his principal allies in the US House have been. We build our analysis around three groups of Republicans, based on caucus affiliations: members of the Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP), the Republican Study Committee (RSC), and the House Freedom Caucus (HFC). We find that House Republicans, regardless off caucus membership, broadly support President Trump and largely shared in the his electoral success. Yet, we also uncover suggestive evidence that the HFC is maneuvering into a position of influ- ence with President Trump. Freedom Caucus members are more closely tied to his electoral performance than members of other conservative groups, and they appear to receive more time with the President relative to a comparable group of House Republicans. While these results are interesting, they are also initial and more time is needed to assess how President Trump builds a winning coalition with Republican House members. Introduction We are now over 200 days into the Donald Trump presidency, and Republicans are struggling to make good on their most salient campaign promises. Despite unified control of the federal government, the GOP has not been able to pass any pieces of legislation from the President’s “Contract with the American Voter.”1 Why? Political observers frequently offer a pair of related explanations.
    [Show full text]
  • Plea Agreement
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 15 CR 315 v. Judge Thomas M. Durkin JOHN DENNIS HASTERT PLEA AGREEMENT 1. This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, ZACHARY T. FARDON, and defendant JOHN DENNIS HASTERT, and his attorneys, THOMAS C. GREEN and JOHN N. GALLO, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The parties to this Agreement have agreed upon the following: Charges in This Case 2. The indictment in this case charges defendant with knowingly and willfully making materially false statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2) (Count 1), and knowingly structuring currency transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5324(a)(3) (Count 2). 3. Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his attorneys. 4. Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has been charged. Charge to Which Defendant Is Pleading Guilty 5. By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. Count 2 charges defendant with knowingly and for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5313(a) and regulations prescribed thereunder, structuring and assisting in structuring currency transactions, in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5324(a)(3).
    [Show full text]
  • Budget of the U.S. Government
    FISCAL YEAR 2019 EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE AN AMERICAN BUDGET BUDGET OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET | OMB.GOV THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year Information is also provided on certain activities whose transac- 2019 contains the Budget Message of the President, information tions are not part of the budget totals. on the President’s priorities, and summary tables. ELECTRONIC SOURCES OF BUDGET INFORMATION Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2019 contains analyses that are The information contained in these documents is available in designed to highlight specified subject areas or provide other electronic format from the following sources: significant presentations of budget data that place the budget Internet. All budget documents, including documents that in perspective. This volume includes economic and accounting are released at a future date, spreadsheets of many of the bud- analyses; information on Federal receipts and collections; anal- get tables, and a public use budget database are available for yses of Federal spending; information on Federal borrowing and downloading in several formats from the internet at www.white- debt; baseline or current services estimates; and other technical house.gov/omb/budget/. Links to documents and materials presentations. from budgets of prior years are also provided. The Analytical Perspectives volume also has supplemental Budget CD-ROM. The CD-ROM contains all of the printed materials that are available on the internet at www.whitehouse. budget documents in fully indexed PDF format along with the gov/omb/analytical-perspectives/ and on the Budget CD-ROM.
    [Show full text]
  • Widgets Weekly: the Art of Covering Congressional Minutiae
    Widgets Weekly: The Art of Covering Congressional Minutiae To compile this chart of trade press organizations, The Politico reviewed the lists of all credentialed print media that covered the 109th Congress. The lists are compiled by the House and Senate press galleries. (The list for the current Congress will not be available for several months.) For the purposes of this list, we defined the trade press narrowly, excluding congressional newspapers such as The Hill and Roll Call. (We also would have excluded ourselves, but The Politico began publishing during this session of Congress.) We also excluded most of the financial press unless the publication was tailored to bond traders or another very specific sector. Finally, we included what's referred to as the newsletter press, such as BNA. Please let us know in the comments section - or write directly to us mailto: [email protected] - if we excluded one that should be included or included one we should have left out. Source: Congressional Press Galleries Credentialed Trade Publications National Journal’s Technology Daily IDG News Service Telecommunications Reports Institutional Investor American Banker Internewsletter Atlantic Information Services Interpreter Releases Penton Media Inc. Liability & Insurance Week Food Chemical News Linn's Stamp News Research Institute of America Group LP/Gas Washington Technology Mail on Sunday Bond Buyer Mass Transit Lawyer CQ Researcher Medical Devices Report IMAS Publishing Multichannel News Inside Mortgage Finance National Law Journal Inside Washington Publishers Natural Gas Week McGraw-Hill Co. Oberle Communications Army Times Publishing Co. Oil & Gas Journal Energy Daily Pesticide Report Federal Employees News Digest Pharmaceutical Executive Government Contractor PR Week Human Events Public Lands News Natural Gas Intelligence Radio & Records U.
    [Show full text]
  • Morning Consult Respondent Demographics Summary
    National Tracking Poll Project: 2103166 N Size: 2043 Registered Voters Margin of Error: ± 2% Topline Report March 26-29, 2021 Question Response Frequency Percentage P1 Now, generally speaking, would you say that things in the country are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? Right Direction 1031 50% Wrong Track 1012 50% nr2b Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as President? Strongly Approve 681 33% Somewhat Approve 494 24% Somewhat Disapprove 213 10% Strongly Disapprove 581 28% Don’t Know / No Opinion 74 4% nr2bNET Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as President? Total Approve 1175 58% Total Disapprove 794 39% Don’t Know / No Opinion 74 4% P3 Now, thinking about your vote, what would you say is the top set of issues on your mind when you cast your vote for federal offices such as U.S. Senate or Congress? Economic Issues – like taxes, wages, jobs, 718 35% unemployment, and spending Security Issues – like terrorism, foreign policy, and 307 15% border security Health Care Issues – like the 2010 health care law, 326 16% Medicaid, other challenges Seniors Issues – like Medicare and Social Security 290 14% Women’s Issues – like birth control, abortion, and equal 102 5% pay Education Issues – like school standards, class sizes, 84 4% school choice, and student loans Energy Issues – like carbon emissions, cost of 83 4% electricity/gasoline, or renewables Other: 133 7% Page | 1 Question Response Frequency Percentage POL1_1 Do you approve or disapprove
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party Movement and Popular Constitutionalism
    Copyright 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 105 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM Ilya Somin* INTRODUCTION The rise of the Tea Party movement followed a period during which many academic students of constitutional law focused on ―popular constitu- tionalism‖: the involvement of public opinion and popular movements in influencing constitutional interpretation.1 Many of these scholars argue that popular constitutional movements have a beneficial impact on constitution- al law,2 and some even contend that popular constitutionalism should sup- plant judicial review entirely.3 At the very least, the last generation of constitutional scholarship has established that public opinion influences and significantly constrains judicial interpretation of the Constitution.4 Most of the previous scholarship on popular constitutionalism focuses on movements identified with the political left, such as the civil rights *Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. For helpful suggestions and comments, I would like to thank Jonathan Adler, Jared Goldstein, participants in the 2011 AALS panel on the Tea Party and the Constitution, and the editors of the Northwestern University Law Review Col- loquy. I would also like to thank Eva Choi and Eric Facer for helpful research assistance. 1 See, e.g., LARRY D. KRAMER, THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES: POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL REVIEW (2004); MARK TUSHNET, TAKING THE CONSTITUTION AWAY FROM THE COURTS (1999); JEREMY WALDRON, LAW AND DISAGREEMENT (1999); Matthew D. Adler, Popular Constitutio- nalism and the Rule of Recognition: Whose Practices Ground U.S. Law?, 100 NW. U. L. REV. 719 (2006) (link); Larry Alexander & Lawrence B.
    [Show full text]