DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (531)

Embed

They just can't stop themselves, can they? Fox will just find any excuse possible to continue their bogus New Black Panther fearmongering, the latest being the possible nomination of Thomas Perez for Labor Secretary: Fox Uses Labor Secretary News To Revive New Black Panthers Nonsense:

Fox News is using reports that Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez may be nominated as Secretary of Labor to revive their manufactured scandal that the Obama administration favored the New Black Panther Party in a 2008 voter intimidation case.

The right-wing media has spent years propping up the bogus charge that President Obama's Justice Department engaged in racially charged "corruption" in the New Black Panther Party case. The claims, promoted by GOP activist J. Christian Adams, fell apart given the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one defendant, while the Bush DOJ declined to pursue similar allegations in 2006.

America Live anchor Megyn Kelly highlighted news of Perez's possible appointment and said that his "fingerprints are all over some rather significant controversies," including the New Black Panthers case, during the March 11 edition of America Live.

Kelly previously led Fox's charge to tar President Obama and the Justice Department with the unsubstantiated claims of former DOJ attorney and GOP activist J. Christian Adams, who claimed in a June 30, 2009 interview with Kelly that the DOJ decision not to pursue charges in the New Black Panthers case demonstrated unprecedented, racially charged corruption. Read on...

As Stephen Webster at Raw Story noted, Perez "is likely going to face some jaw-droppingly dumb questions in the Senate if he is nominated to become President Barack Obama’s next labor secretary." I can hardly wait for the hearings to begin.

As Digby wrote this week, let's Make Tim Geithner Cry:

Since I suspect that hippie punching is going to become the default Democratic strategy going forward I'm not sure if this sort of thing will actually help. But we really have no choice but to try:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is advising the White House not to put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- a watchdog agency she invented!

Can you sign our urgent petition to the President?

Read on...

Sen. Bernie Sanders agrees. Statement: Sanders on Consumer Financial Protection Director Nomination:

July 22, 2010

Sen. Bernie Sanders made the following statement at a Capitol Hill press conference alongside Sen. Tom Harkin and members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

"I think most Americans believe that the Wall Street Reform bill signed into law yesterday by President Obama is a step in the right direction.

"But, I also believe most Americans feel that given that the outrageous greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street caused the horrendous recession that we are still suffering through, it is absolutely necessary that we have a strong, smart consumer advocate who will look out for their needs as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"The American people want someone who is prepared to represent them vigorously and someone who, when appropriate, is prepared to stand up to the enormously powerful CEOs on Wall Street who have fought so hard against any meaningful consumer protections.

"It's clear to me that Professor Elizabeth Warren is that person.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (192)

PLAYS: (187)

Embed

It appears CBS has themselves a good little Republican water-carrier in the form of their legal correspondent Jan Crawford. Crawford apparently thinks that the Supreme Court has been politicized not by the fact that our court now is one of the most right wing, pro-corporate courts in history, but instead politicized because the Democrats had problems with the nomination of Sam Alito.

I hate to break it to Jan Crawford but if the Supreme Court looks politicized right now, that's because it is. It's extremely politicized in that everything corporate America does is right and anyone opposing that power is wrong. And you don't have to have the mentality of a 12 year old to hope to see that trend reversed and to know that Alito and Roberts were going to do nothing but continue to take the court in the direction that favors the corporate elite above average citizens.

Quite frankly I don't think most Americans are even paying attention to the hearings now, didn't pay attention to Sam Alito's nomination and couldn't tell you how many votes Alito got. I don't think sadly most Americans can even tell you who's on the Supreme Court and who nominated them, much less how many votes they got when they were confirmed.

What I can tell you is that even the people I work with that don't follow politics much do know that the Supreme Court just gave corporations the right to buy our elections, and don't like it.

Media Matters has done a good job of following Crawford's hackery and given her past reporting, this newest clap-trap of comparing Senators who had legitimate concerns about where a nominee is taking the Supreme Court to 12 year olds shouldn't come as much of a surprise. She looks like she's getting her talking points right out of the latest RNC email of the day.

Transcript via Lexis Nexis below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (96)

PLAYS: (193)

Embed

Laura Bush seems to be a woman first and a Republican second. In an interview that aired Sunday, The former first lady told Fox News' Chris Wallace that she supports the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

"I think it's great. I'm really glad that there will be three [women on the court] if she is confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme court," she said.

DOWNLOADS: (477)

PLAYS: (780)

Embed

There will be no need for the Senate to waste their time interviewing President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court if Newt Gingrich has his way. Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Gingrich Sunday what he thought of the nomination of Elena Kagan.

"I think the president should withdraw it," said Gingrich. "You don't need a lot of hearings."

"The fact that she led the effort -- which was repudiated unanimously by the Supreme Court -- to block the American military from Harvard Law School," he said.

(NICOLE:) Does it surprise you that once again, Gingrich is cherry-picking his facts in a partisan hatchet job? Nope, me neither:

The facts behind the decision not to allow military recruiters at Harvard are subtler than Kagan’s critics make them out to be. For one thing, Kagan wasn't the one who barred the recruiters. Her predecessor as dean, Robert Clark, has explained that the military was barred from the law school’s Office of Career Services under its antidiscrimination policy since 1979—long before Kagan had even entered Harvard Law School, much less taken the job as dean.

Military recruiters were barred just as any employer that systematically rejects students on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation would have been because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy. Even then, the military continued recruitment on campus through a veterans organization. The ban on military recruitment, which protested DADT and affirmed the school’s commitment to LGBT students, did not actually hamper the military’s attempts to recruit at Harvard.

In 2002, the Pentagon threatened to pull federal funding for all of Harvard if the law school did not allow military recruiters back in. The law school receives no money from the federal government, but the medical and other faculties received $400 million a year. In 2003, Kagan became dean and had to respond. An appeals court ruled in 2004 that the Pentagon's threats were unconstitutional, but in the meantime Kagan did allow the recruiters back in while encouraging students to protest DADT on campus.

A group of law schools continued challenging the Pentagon’s threats in court, but Kagan and Harvard declined to join the lawsuits. Instead, Harvard Law School filed a brief coauthored by Kagan with the Supreme Court, arguing that it treated the military the same as any discriminatory employer. Goldman Sachs, the ACLU, or any other employer would have been banned if they had a stated policy of not hiring individuals based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Kagan argued Harvard was providing the “equal access” the Pentagon demanded. Kagan's brief did not argue, as some other schools did, that the Pentagon was acting unconstitutionally.