From In These Times: The SEC’s Danger of Regulatory Capture How the “cozying up” at the SEC is just another example of regulatory capture.

For our look at regulatory agencies and regulatory capture.

- Click here for the article.

The phrase “regulatory capture” shrouds a serious problem in vaguely academic jargon, making it seem like unimportant esoterica rather than anything noteworthy. But the phenomenon that the euphemism represents is, indeed, significant: When a government agency is effectively captured by—and subservient to—the industry that agency is supposed to be objectively regulating, it is a big deal.

A perfect example of regulatory capture came earlier this month from the Securities and Exchange Commission—the law enforcement agency that is supposed to be overseeing the financial industry.

As part of that responsibility, the agency's top financial examiner, Andrew Bowden, warned last year of rampant fraud, corruption and abuse in the private equity industry, which today manages tens of billions of dollars of public pension money for states and cities across the country.

“When we have examined how fees and expenses are handled by advisers to private equity funds, we have identified what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50 percent of the time,” Bowden said in that 2014 speech.
That, unto itself, doesn't sound like regulatory capture—in fact, it sounds like quite the opposite. But that's just the prelude to the real story.

Less than a year after raising those red flags, Bowden appeared at a Stanford Law School conference that the school said was designed “to encourage dialogue among the SEC; academics (and) members of the private equity and venture capital industries.” At the March event, Bowden was caught on film expressing his deep affinity for the same industry he had only months before said was plagued by rampant corruption.

"This is the greatest business you could possibly be in—you’re helping your clients,” he said. “The people in private equity, they’re the greatest, they’re actually adding value to their clients, they’re getting paid really really well.” Bowden then added: “I have a teenaged son, I tell him, “Cole, you want to be in private equity. That’s where to go, that’s a great business, that’s a really good business. That’ll be good for you.” That aside was met with an audience member telling Bowden: “I’d love to hire your son.”

Upon seeing the video, former bank regulator William Black wrote: “I would have asked for the resignation of any of my staff who made remarks even remotely like Bowden’s remarks. As financial regulators, particularly if we have the disadvantage of coming from the industry, we maintain at all times a professional distance from those we regulate. The remarks about his son are so beyond the pale that they demonstrate he is incapable of even pretending to maintain such a professional distance. His cheerleader nature is on full display.”

For more:

- Behind the SEC’s Revolving Door.
- The SEC's Revolving Door.
- Capture at the SEC? Let’s Pause for a Sec.
- Why the S.E.C. Didn’t Hit Goldman Sachs Harder.

From Politico: The Supreme Court’s Conservative Run Is Over This year’s final decisions suggest we’ve passed a turning point in the Court’s rightward march.

This likely depends on the result of the November election - but this seems to be the convention wisdom.

- Click here for the article.

. . . conservatives may find themselves in a position analogous to the one that liberals occupied in the 1970s and '80s. For several decades before that, the Supreme Court had been generally friendly to progressive causes, and liberals and conservatives alike had come to see the Supreme Court as a liberal institution. On a broad range of issues, constitutional law moved to the left. But many of the most ambitious left-leaning constitutional causes of that era ultimately fell short of their goals. The Supreme Court invalidated deliberate racial segregation in the 1950s and '60s, but it refused in the '70s to take the further step of requiring affirmative steps to end de facto segregation—with the result that many liberals animated by a vision of racial integration came to see their prior victories as hollow and the ultimate result as disappointing.

Similarly, the court in the 1970s closed the door on various liberal strategies for using constitutional law to effect economic redistribution. During the Nixon administration, leading liberals took seriously the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted to guarantee a minimum income to all adult citizens, or at least that public schools must be given equal per-pupil funding regardless of the local property tax bases of the relevant school districts. The mid-20th century era of liberal predominance at the Supreme Court closed without reaching those destinations, and many liberals went through a painful process of adjustment in the decades thereafter, realizing only slowly that the courts were no longer on their side.

The presidential election is still months away, and Clinton’s election is by no means a certainty. But if it happens, a long period in constitutional development will have come to a close. The conservative victories of the past several decades will not be for naught: A great deal of law has changed, and it will not all be unraveled. But the direction will be different. Rather than asking whether abortion and affirmative action will continue, courts will ask about this or that aspect of abortion or affirmative action on the broad understanding that the practice in some form is secure.

For more:The Right-Wing Supreme Court That Wasn’t.

From the Atlantic: Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent - A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify.

A central question involving executive power: What is worth killing for?

- Click here for the article.

Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

The statute or regulation we like best carries the same risk that some violator will die at the hands of a law enforcement officer who will go too far. And whether that officer acts out of overzealousness, recklessness, or simply the need to make a fast choice to do the job right, the violence inherent in law will be on display. This seems to me the fundamental problem that none of us who do law for a living want to face.

But all of us should.

From the New Yorker: HOW TO STEAL AN ELECTION - The crazy history of nominating Conventions.

More detail for our - brief - look at presidential elections.

- Click here for the article.

Since 1968, no one in either party has successfully defeated at the Convention the candidate who won a plurality of the primaries and the caucuses. In 1972, George McGovern, who’d chaired the Democratic commission that rewrote the Party’s delegate-selection rules, won its nomination despite an “Anybody but McGovern” challenge at the Convention, in Miami. McGovern lost to Nixon in a landslide: he carried just one state. In 1976, at the G.O.P. Convention, in Kansas City, Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford and, very narrowly, lost. Jimmy Carter, who’d won a lot of primaries, won the Democratic nomination and even the election, but after his failed Presidency many Democrats regretted binding their delegates to the primaries. In 1980, at the Democratic National Convention, in New York City, Ted Kennedy tried to challenge Carter but was defeated by the rules. That’s why, in 1984, the D.N.C. invented superdelegates, high-status Party officials who are pledged to no one candidate. This year, a lot of Republicans are regretting binding their delegates to the primaries. The rules committee meets the week before the Convention. Hundreds of anti-Trump Republicans have formed an organization called Free the Delegates and begun plotting a strategy to block his nomination by adding a “conscience clause” to the rules, unbinding the delegates. Paul Ryan said that he wouldn’t object: “It’s not my job to tell delegates what to do.” This tactic has been tried before. A savvy souvenir collector could even hawk on the streets of Cleveland the buttons that Kennedy supporters wore in 1980, which read “free the delegates.”

For more: EXTREME CONVENTIONS: SAN FRANCISCO, 1964, AND CLEVELAND, 2016.

From Business Insider: The 7 most important military decisions the next president will make in 2017

For our look at the powers of the Commander in Chief. The next one anyway.

- Click here for the article.

1. Will the US pressure China to get off of contested islands, force them off with war, or let China have its way?

2. How dedicated is the US to the NATO alliance and deterring Russian aggression?

3. What part of the world is the real priority?

4. What is America’s role in the ongoing fight against ISIS and is there a need for more ground troops?

5. How long will the Air Force keep the A-10?

6. How much is readiness worth and where does the money come from?

7. How many generals and admirals should the US have?

From Reuters: Justice Dept. reviewing Supreme Court immigration decision: Lynch

More checks and balances. Supreme Court decisions are not the end of the story.

- Click here for the article.

The Obama administration is looking into whether it can challenge the Supreme Court's decision to block President Barack Obama's plan to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Tuesday.

"We will be reviewing the case and seeing what, if anything else, we need to do in court," Lynch told Reuters in an interview.

Lynch did not say what legal options the Obama administration may pursue following a split decision by the Supreme Court justices last week that left in place a block on the executive action by a lower court.

She said any future executive actions Obama may take on immigration would be left to the White House.

From the EFF: Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer

A likely future Supreme Court case.

- Click here for the article.

In a dangerously flawed decision unsealed today, a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer.

This decision is the latest in, and perhaps the culmination of, a series of troubling decisions in prosecutions stemming from the FBI’s investigation of Playpen—a Tor hidden services site hosting child pornography. The FBI seized the server hosting the site in 2014, but continued to operate the site and serve malware to thousands of visitors that logged into the site. The malware located certain identifying information (e.g., MAC address, operating system, the computer’s “Host name”; etc) on the attacked computer and sent that information back to the FBI. There are hundreds of prosecutions, pending across the country, stemming from this investigation.

Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, we've been participating asamicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filedan amicus brief in this very case, arguing that the FBI’s investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect.

The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.)

But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights. As hundreds of these cases work their way through the federal court system, we'll be keeping a careful eye on these decisions, developing resources to help educate the defense bar, and doing all we can to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's protections for our electronic devices aren't eroded further. We'll be writing more about these cases in the upcoming days, too, so be sure to check back in for an in-depth look at the of the legal issues in these cases, and the problems with the way the FBI handled its investigation.

From the Guardian: Why elections are bad for democracy Our voting system worked well for decades, but now it is broken. There is a better way to give voice to the people

Is there a better way for people to make decisions? One that checks sudden fickle urges?

Perhaps we should substitute elections with lotteries.

- Click here for the article.

What kind of democracy is appropriate to an era of fast, decentralised communication? How should the government deal with all those articulate citizens who stand shouting from the sidelines?

Imagine having to develop a system today that would express the will of the people. Would it really be a good idea to have them all queue up at polling stations every four or five years with a bit of card in their hands and go into a dark booth to put a mark next to names on a list, names of people about whom restless reporting had been going on for months in a commercial environment that profits from restlessness?

People care deeply about their communities and want to be heard. But a much better way to let the people speak than through a referendum is to return to the central principle of Athenian democracy: drafting by lot, or sortition as it is presently called. In ancient Athens, the large majority of public functions were assigned by lot. Renaissance states such as Venice and Florence worked on the same basis and experienced centuries of political stability. With sortition, you do not ask everyone to vote on an issue few people really understand, but you draft a random sample of the population and make sure they come to the grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision. A cross-section of society that is informed can act more coherently than an entire society that is uninformed.

Experiments with sortition have been successfully applied in the US, Australia, and the Netherlands. The most innovative country so far is certainly Ireland. In December 2012, a constitutional convention began work in order to revise several articles of the constitution of Ireland. Its members were not just a committee of MPs working behind closed doors, but a mixture of elected politicians and ordinary people: 33 elected politicians and 66 citizens, drafted by lot, from both Ireland and Northern Ireland. This group met one weekend per month for more than a year.

For more: Is It Time to Take a Chance on Random Representatives? Selecting legislators by lottery was good enough for the ancient Athenians. Why not good enough for Congress?

From Slate: The eight-person court is a very different place.

Without Scalia that is.

- Click here for the article.

. . . it was Byron White who was meant to have said that adding a single new justice to the high court always created a whole new court, and this year we are learning that subtracting a single justice might have the same effect. It’s not just one less vote.

There is ample speculation out there that Scalia’s absence has moved Samuel Alito to the vocal right wing of the court, and, as Mark notes, it has perhaps even moved Clarence Thomas to speak at oral argument. One frequently reads that Scalia’s absence has forced the chief justice to forge new consensus and that Kennedy surely seems newly free to be you and me, with the man who so often belittled him gone. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has found a clarion voiceon race and the rights of criminal defendants, Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer seem to have figured out ways to work the levers and broker improbable deals, and Justice Ruth Ginsburg continues to prove that nothing happens at the court that she hadn’t anticipated for years. We’ve talked a lot about the 4–4 court, but in some ways we are seeing a court that is reconfiguring itself around the loss of a dominant force in a very small world. There is a good deal of retrenchment on the court’s right, some feints back to the center, and the left seems to be testing some boundaries. In a way all of these conversations about the court’s shift to the left this term make me realize that if you spend your whole intellectual life scrapping with just eight other people, they become just a bit too important in shaping how you think and act.

From the Intercept: THE ANDROID ADMINISTRATION Google’s Remarkably Close Relationship With the Obama White House, in Two Charts

Obama's ties with Silicon Valley have been noted before.

- Click here for the article.

When President Obama announced his support last week for a Federal Communications Commission plan to open the market for cable set-top boxes — a big win for consumers, but also for Google — the cable and telecommunications giants who used to have a near-stranglehold on tech policy were furious. AT&T chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi lashed out at what he called White House intervention on behalf of “the Google proposal.”

He’s hardly the first to suggest that the Obama administration has become too close to the Silicon Valley juggernaut.

Over the past seven years, Google has created a remarkable partnership with the Obama White House, providing expertise, services, advice, and personnel for vital government projects.

Precisely how much influence this buys Google isn’t always clear. But consider that over in the European Union, Google is now facing two major antitrust charges for abusing its dominance in mobile operating systems and search. By contrast, in the U.S., a strong case to sanction Google was quashed by a presidentially appointed commission.

It’s a relationship that bears watching. “Americans know surprisingly little about what Google wants and gets from our government,” said Anne Weismann, executive director of Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog organization. Seeking to change that, Weismann’s group is spearheading a data transparency project about Google’s interactions in Washington.

From Elizabeth Warren: Corporate Capture of the Rulemaking Process

The possible VP candidate comments on the current state of regulatory capture in the rulemaking process. The process is biased towards corporate interests from the start.

- Click here for the article.

Regulatory capture is a big deal. It is one way in which powerful corporations rig the system to work for themselves—and the rest of America pays the price. The tilt in Congress is pretty much out there for everyone to see, but corporate influence works its magic even better in the shadows—and that’s where rulemaking occurs. This essay focuses on one aspect of this pervasive phenomenon: the capture of agencies as they write the rules.

When it comes to undue industry influence, our rulemaking process is broken from start to finish. At every stage, the process is loaded with opportunities for powerful industry groups to tilt the scales in their favor.

The tilt starts early. For example, a 2011 study of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records from 1994 to 2009 found that industry groups held a virtual monopoly over informal communications with EPA that occurred before proposed rules on hazardous air pollutants were publicly available. On average, industry groups engaged in 170 times more informal communications with EPA than public interest players—communications that occurred before any proposed rules were even written.

Similarly, with financial regulation, the big banks and their friends have been lobbying the agencies aggressively. Following the worst financial crisis in three generations—one that resulted in taxpayers spending hundreds of billions to bail out the big banks—Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that a crisis of that sort never happened again. This law included a provision called the Volcker Rule to stop banks from engaging in certain kinds of risky behavior. But before that rule was even written, groups representing Wall Street interests met with federal regulators 419 times, accounting for over 93 percent of meetings between federal regulators and external parties about the Rule. Less than 7 percent of meetings were with individuals and groups representing the public interest.

As rules wind their way through the process, the lobbying intensifies. When proposed rulemaking notices are published and the public has a formal opportunity to weigh in, their views are quickly buried in an avalanche of detailed, well-funded, well-credentialed comments from industry insiders and their highly-paid allies. Those EPA rules on dangerous air pollutants? Industry groups submitted 81 percent of the comments during the notice-and-comment period. Public interest groups submitted 4 percent.

From the Business Insider: Obama's chief of staff brought doughnuts to White House reporters amid tension over a top aide's comments

Apparently it was to make amends.

- Click here for the article.

Barack Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough on Wednesday apparently brought a box of doughnuts to White House reporters gathered in the West Wing to show them that "we appreciate what you do."

McDonough's gesture came after President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, characterized Washington reporters as "27-year-olds" who "literally know nothing" in an interview with the New York Times Magazine.

Rhodes' comments sparked a backlash among the reporters, as well as with Washington's foreign-policy establishment, which he referred to as "the Blob."

. . . “We appreciate what you do,” McDonough told the press, according toThe Hill.
But at least one reporter was apparently not satisfied with the donuts.

"You should have brought Ben Rhodes," he said.

From Vox: Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history

For our look at executive branch.

- Click here for the article.

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history — and that he will be a particularly towering figure in the history of American progressivism.

He signed into law a comprehensive national health insurance bill, a goal that had eluded progressive presidents for a century. He got surprisingly tough reforms to Wall Street passed as well, not to mention a stimulus package that both blunted the recession and transformed education and energy policy.

He's put in place the toughest climate rules in American history and signed a major international climate accord. He opened the US to Cuba for the first time in more than half a century, and reached a peaceful settlement to the nuclear standoff with Iran.
You can celebrate or bemoan these accomplishments. Liberals hail them as moves toward a social democratic welfare state and a foreign policy more skeptical of military intervention; conservatives critique Obama's efforts to expand regulation and the government's reach, and accuse him of abdicating America's role as world hegemon.

But no one can deny that the changes Obama has wrought are enormous in scale.

- Click here for a Wikipedia page with a terrific graphic summarizing presidential rankings.

From Politico: Can Democrats Retake the Senate in 2016?

The author thinks it is doable.

- Click here for the article.

All Democrats have to do to re-take the Senate is to win the three yellow toss-up states where they have a natural advantage, plus a couple of the current “lean Republican” states that have voted for Obama. And Democrats will need only one “lean R” state if the party wins the White House, guaranteeing that a Democratic vice president would break a 50-50 Senate tie.

This appears doable. The Democrats’ job in 2016 is not much different than the GOP’s task last November. Republicans had, first, to hold their 14 seats in ruby red states plus Maine, where Republican incumbent Susan Collins was never in danger; and second, pick up at least six of the large pool of 21 Democratic-held seats. There were seven generally Republican states in the South and West (Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia) that were ripe for the plucking. As it happened, the GOP swept these seven and added the swing states of Colorado and Iowa, for a net gain of nine.

Thus, another Senate flip in 2016, this time to the Democrats, isn’t difficult to imagine, but it’s far from a sure thing.

Random stories about Congress

For 2305 students:

- No Summer of Love With Republicans in Obama's Final Year.

The White House is hitting congressional Republicans with ever-sharper rhetorical blows as years of ill will and election-year posturing threaten to kill what was already shaping up to be a slim legislative agenda.

As the extended congressional summer break approaches, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are echoing with insults, catty tweets and fiery accusations.

. . . With so much venom, Obama’s top spokesman didn't disagree with one reporter’s assessment that his boss has lost any remaining leverage to persuade lawmakers to take up many of the issues on his final-year agenda.

Though Press Secretary Josh Earnest blamed GOP members and asserted that Obama “certainly hasn’t given up,” some lawmakers and longtime Washington hands say the discord bodes ill for getting anything done before the elections.

- Benghazi Report Describes Inertia, Failure to Recognize Risks.

The U.S. ambassador killed in Benghazi in 2012 had traveled there to lay the groundwork for a visit from Hillary Clinton a month later and the eventual opening of a permanent U.S. consulate, a report released Tuesday by a Republican-led House panel concluded.

The finding is among the few new pieces of information in sections of the 800-page report that were released to several media outlets overnight, after a two-year and $7 million investigation into the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

- Senate Democrats Block $1.1 Billion to Fight Zika: Object to provisions on birth control, pesticide use, Confederate flag.

The Senate blocked a plan Tuesday to spend $1.1. billion to fight the Zika virus, as Democrats objected to added provisions that would limit funding for birth control, allow pesticide spraying near water sources, and raise the Confederate flag.

The conference report on Zika spending, which Democrats said was developed without their input , failed to receive the 60 votes needed to shut off debate.

- Top GOP Super PAC Ups Spending in Senate Races: Ad buys indicate where group believes candidates will be competitive.

The Senate Leadership Fund plans to spend big money defending Republicans in a quartet of battleground seats this fall, the super PAC said Tuesday, a strong indication of which states the group expects — and doesn't expect — to be competitive in November.

Headlining the fund's list of TV ad reservations is a $15.8 million buy in New Hampshire, where Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan are expected to face off in one of this election cycle's marquee races.

Voisine v. United States - Ban on guns for domestic abusers upheld

Second Amendment rights are not absolute.

- Click here for background from Oyez.

- Click here for info from Scotusblog.

Issue: Whether a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9).

Mens rea translates as guilty mind.

Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea", which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind". In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed matters. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.

From the Volokh Conspiracy: When Justices Thomas and Sotomayor dissent together.

McDonnell v. United States - Corruption conviction overturned

The court narrowly interprets what constitutes and "official action."

- Click here for background from Oyez.

- Click here for info from Scotusblog.

Issue: Whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional.

 From the Atlantic: The Ex-Virginia Governor's Overturned Conviction.

McDonnell v. United States focused on the question of what constitutes “official action” under federal corruption statutes. The prosecution said McDonnell knowingly took “official action” to receive bribes, and the jury’s verdict supported that. McDonnell argued that “merely arranging a meeting, attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech are not, standing alone, ‘official acts.’” When the Supreme Court agreed to hear McDonnell’s appeal this spring, the justices considered whether the federal government’s definition of “official acts”—the one that was provided to the jury—applied to the governor’s case. In their ruling, the eight justices said Monday that interpretation could raise “significant constitutional concerns”

From Scotusblog: Symposium: An important victory for representative democracy.

Americans who believe democracy works best when public officials understand and serve the needs of their constituents can celebrate the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to throw out the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. The government prosecuted Governor McDonnell based on a sweeping legal theory that would have turned commonplace interactions with our elected officials into bribery. Under that theory, there was no need for prosecutors to prove he exercised governmental power in exchange for something of value. If that result had been allowed to stand, then merely hearing out a constituent’s concerns would qualify as an “official act” on which prosecutors could base felony corruption convictions. Today’s decision soundly rejecting such a theory preserves the key role of access in our representative democracy.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt - Supreme Court overturns Texas' abortion restrictions

- Click here for background from Oyez.

- Click here for info from Scotusblog.

Issue: (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.

From the Texas Tribune: What the Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Means for Texas Women.

From the Atlantic: How Obama Bounced Back After a stinging defeat in the 2014 midterm elections, the president found a way to avoid being a lame duck.

Generally presidents lose power toward the end of their terms. They become lame ducks, but Obama seems to have been finding ways to turn this around.

- Click here for the article.

“We went big.”

That’s how White House press secretary Joshua Earnest explained how President Barack Obama had rebounded from a stinging defeat in the 2014 midterm election, to his present popularity. It was, he said on Sunday, a deliberate strategy crafted to ensure the “lame-duck label” wouldn’t stick.

He ticked off a list of initiatives. Obama endorsed net neutrality, shortly after the election. He went to China, and announced a carbon deal. He unveiled a set of executive actions on immigration. He reopened diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Earnest credited White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough for “seeing around a corner” in the weeks ahead of the election, and positioning the White House to respond. He made the remarks in an interview withThe Atlantic’s James Fallows at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic.

That aggressiveness, Earnest argued, had paid off, by demonstrating that “the president had the wherewithal and the energy and the authority” to accomplish things even at the end of his second term. Obama recently registered a 56 percent approval rating in a Washington Post poll, his highest level in that survey in five years.

From the Dallas Observer: Here's Why #Texit Can, but Won't, Happen

Just in case you are curious.

- Click here for the article.

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, 'one Nation, indivisible.') Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

"I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay," Scalia wrote.

If Scalia's legal opinion is correct, Texas cannot force the United States to let it secede if the U.S. refuses. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who's written extensively about potential secession.

"A state couldn’t legally force the U.S. to let it secede, if the U.S. refused. But if the state and the U.S. agreed, that would be doable; at worst, it would require a constitutional amendment (always possible, though it requires two-thirds of the vote of each house of Congress and a majority vote in three-quarter of the state legislatures), but most likely an act of Congress, coupled with a majority referendum that the state government views as binding, would suffice," Volokh writes in an email

Whether Texas left or not, Volokh says, would be a political decision by the United States and the people and government of Texas, rather than a legal one. Still, he says that's unlikely to happen, at least as things stand. 

"I very much doubt that the political will would be there today, or any time in the immediate future. Most Texans, I think, are proud to be Americans, whether or not they like what the federal government is doing, and they can see the benefits of remaining part of a powerful country that can defend their interests. But if things change, and Texans want to leave and can persuade the rest of the country to let them go, then that could certainly happen," he says.

At the 2016 Texas Republican convention in May, Texas state GOP delegates, perhaps one of the most conservative and federal-government loathing groups that could be put together, wouldn't even go so far as to endorse secession at the platform level, knocking down a plank that would've called on Abbott to do what the TNM wants.

For more: Texas v White.

What is Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents?

The obligatory Wikipedia page provides the background to put United State v Texas in context.

- Click here for it.

From Scotublog: United States v. Texas

The court upheld a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas temporarily halting the president's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program. No substantive decision was made about why it did so, meaning - as I see it - the question about whether the president exceeded - in fact - his authority still needs to be fleshed out. In addition, if he did, how?

- Click here for the summary from Scotublog.

- For facts of the case, click here for Oyez's page on it.

This is the list of the issues raised by the case:

(1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action;

(2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and

(4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.

For background on some terms used above:

- Standing.
- Arbitrary and Capricious.
- Administrative Procedures Act.
- Take Care Clause.

From the Atlantic: How American Politics Went Insane

Jonathan Rauch bemoans what he calls "chaos syndrome," which he sees as a threat to democratic governance.

- Click here for the article.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

Affirmative action upheld by the Supreme Court

The case was Fisher v University of Texas. The vote was narrow.

- Click here for Scotusblog's page on the case.
- Click here for Oyez's.

Basic info from Oyez:

Question: Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion: The University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 4-3 majority. The Court held that the University of Texas’ use of race as a factor in the holistic review used to fill the spots remaining after the Top Ten Percent Plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Previous precedent had established that educational diversity is a compelling interest as long as it is expressed as a concrete and precise goal that is neither a quote of minority students nor an amorphous idea of diversity. In this case, the Court determined that the University of Texas sufficiently expressed a series of concrete goals along with a reasoned explanation for its decision to pursue these goals along with a thoughtful consideration of why previous attempts to achieve the goals had not been successful. The University of Texas’ plan is also narrowly tailored to serve this compelling interest because there are no other available and workable alternatives for doing so.

Commentary:

- How Affirmative Action Won the Day.
- AN UNEXPECTED VICTORY FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
- How Anthony Kennedy Came Around on Affirmative Action.

From The Week: Superdelegates, explained

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Democratic primary process was their use of party regulars in the presidential selection process.

- Click here for the article.

. . . superdelegates are not bound to follow the will of the voters, nor are they required to stay true to the candidate they've pledged to support. But they may well decide the Democratic race. It's certainly possible, and perhaps even likely, that neither Clinton nor Sanders will get to 2,383 without superdelegates.

So who are these superdelegates, and how does their power work? Here's what you need to know:

Who gets to be a superdelegate?
A superdelegate is typically an elite member of the Democratic Party falling into one of three categories:

1. A major elected official, including senators, members of the House, governors, and leaders from each state's Democratic Party. For example, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are superdelegates.

2. A notable party figure, such as former and current presidents and vice presidents. For example, former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden are superdelegates.

3. Select leaders of organizations affiliated with the Democratic National Committee. These select party elders get their superdelegate status automatically by virtue of the fact that they've been elected to public office. For example, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Louis Elrod of Young Democrats of America are superdelegates.

How many Democratic superdelegates are there?
712. They control about 15 percent of the nominating process. The remaining 85 percent is controlled by delegates apportioned by the results of primaries and caucuses.

How are superdelegates different from regular delegates?
Superdelegates are free to support whichever candidate they choose, even if that candidate is not the voters' pick. As for normal delegates: Each state has a different system for selecting who they'll send to the convention as a delegate. But unlike superdelegates, delegates are allotted to candidates in proportion to their share of the vote in the state's primary or caucus and are then pledged to vote for that candidate.

Why do we have superdelegates in the first place?
For most of the Democratic Party's history, party elders picked the nominee. It was only in recent decades that the Democratic Party began experimenting with the idea of opening up the nomination process to give voters more of a say in choosing the nominee.

From Politico: Walker: GOP delegates should ‘vote the way they see fit’

Strange things can happen at conventions - well usually they don't, but they can.

- Click here for the article

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Tuesday that delegates to next month's Republican National Convention in Cleveland should “vote the way they see fit,” which could mean not necessarily supporting presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Walker, a former Republican presidential candidate and delegate to the convention, said he would cast his ballot in the first round for Ted Cruz, as the Texas senator won the Wisconsin primary, according to a report from The Associated Press.

Referring to remarks from Paul Ryan on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which the speaker of the House remarked that he would not ask fellow party members to violate their conscience by supporting Trump, Walker said the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker's comments "are legitimate."

"I think historically, not just this year, delegates are and should be able to vote the way they see fit," Walker said, according to the AP. "We'll see how things go between now and the convention as to what the next steps are. I'm not going to speculate now only because you all know the situation may change by this afternoon, let alone between now and the convention."

Walker has said he would support Trump as the presumptive nominee, but has called for him to rescind and clarify his comments regarding the judge involved in the lawsuit over Trump University. Trump questioned Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s ability to preside over the case because of his Mexican heritage. Walker said he is still looking for clarity from Trump.

See also: Republican leaders consider rewriting convention rules.

From Vox: House Democrats are staging a sit-in to force a vote on gun control

This doesn't happen everyday.

- Click here for the article.

A week after a Senate filibuster forced a vote on gun control measures, Democrats in the House of Representatives are holding a sit-in on the House floor to try to get Republicans there to do the same.

"The time for silence and patience is long gone," Rep. John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement who is leading the sit-in, said in a stirring speech Wednesday morning. "The American people are demanding action. Do we have the courage, do we have the raw courage to make at least a down payment on ending gun violence in America?"

Here's a look at it from a media perspective.

- How C-SPAN is skirting the House TV blackout on Democrats' sit-in.

A more comprehensive look from Roll Call:

- House Democrats Stage Chamber Floor Sit-In For Gun Vote.

What is an "independent expenditure?"

It's what makes a PAC different than a Super PAC. The expenditures are independent of the campaigns of the candidates they support and its all the Super PAC can spend. Super PACs are more accurately called "independent expenditure-only committees." But the expenditures are limitless, which explains their popularity. The problems is determining if the expenditures are in fact independent - if they are not coordinated.

This link in Ballotpedia helps explain how this is done: Click here for detail.

From the Pew Research Center: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

Something to chew on for today's look at political parties.

- Click here for the article.

Donald Trump and the Super PACs

Some are for him. Some are not.

Great America PAC:

A pro-Donald Trump super PAC is launching a new spot on Monday citing the Orlando attacks to bolster Trump's credentials as a possible commander-in-chief.

Great America PAC, one of the earlier pro-Trump groups to mobilize on his behalf, also plans to announce that it raised about $1 million in May, Eric Beach, the group's finance head told CNN. The super PAC also collected another $1.3 million in commitments since June 1, he said, with an expectation it will raise more than $2 million this month.

The group is one of several pro-Trump super PACs ramping up its fundraising and advertising in an effort to become the top outside organization backing the presumptive Republican nominee 

"The goal of a super PAC in this election cycle is to make sure Donald Trump has the necessary resources in the swing states," said Eric Beach, the group's finance head. "We have a sound strategy to win those states."

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands:

He’s been pummeled on policy and his pugnacious stump speeches but now Donald Trump faces attack ads focusing on something altogether different – the size of his hands.

A super PAC titled "Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands" released a minute-long ad questioning whether or not the real estate mogul-turned-presumptive Republican presidential nominee would be able to serve as president with his "little hands."

A spokesman for the PAC said that the ad aired once on MSNBC in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia on Wednesday night during primetime. MSNBC did not immediately return ABC News' request for confirmation.

The Wall Street Journal has a more complete list here.

From Politico: Senate rejects all gun bills

More on last night's vote:


- Click here for the article.

The Senate voted down four separate gun measures Monday in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history — showing the partisan paralysis over gun control has barely moved on Capitol Hill despite the stream of continued gun violence across the country.

Lawmakers took up two separate issues involving gun regulations: how to improve the nation’s background check system for those who want to purchase firearms, and how to ensure those with terrorist ties do not obtain a gun. But those questions remained unresolved by lawmakers as of Monday night.

Instead, Democrats made it clear they want to make it as painful for Republicans to oppose their gun amendments, whether through a flood of advocacy calls to their Senate offices or at the ballot box in November.

For a look at the actual votes, click here: Senate Roll Call Votes.

The votes were not for a unique stand alone bill on gun control. Instead they were offered as amendment to one of the appropriations bills that has to passed later this year. Click here for it:

- H.R.2578 - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

For more on the appropriations process:

- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Congress.Gov: Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.

From the NRA-ILA: NRA Statement on the Senate Voting Down Anti-Gun Bills

- Click here for the link.

The executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), Chris W. Cox, today issued the following statement in response to political maneuvering in the United States Senate that prevented the passage of legislation to prohibit terrorists from obtaining firearms:

“Today, the American people witnessed an embarrassing display in the United States Senate. President Obama and his allies proved they are more interested in playing politics than addressing their failure to keep Americans safe from the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

“We all agree that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms. We should all agree that law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a secret government list should not be denied their constitutional right to due process. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. It is shocking that the safety of the American people is taking a backseat to political theatre.

“We thank the majority of the senators for rejecting the gun control proposals of Senators Feinstein and Murphy. We applaud Senators Cornyn and Grassley for securing majorities for their common-sense proposals. We look forward to working with those interested in real solutions to keep the American people safe, including their right to defend themselves in the face of government failure."

- Click here for their Grades and Endorsements.

From the NYT: Donald Trump Starts Summer Push With Crippling Money Deficit

Trumps non-traditional campaign continues.

- Click here for the story.

Donald J. Trump enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history, placing both his candidacy and his party in political peril.

Mr. Trump began June with just $1.3 million in cash on hand, a figure more typical for a campaign for the House of Representatives than the White House. He trailed Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $28 million in May, by more than $41 million, according to reports filed late Monday night with the Federal Election Commission.

He has a staff of around 70 people — compared with nearly 700 for Mrs. Clinton — suggesting only the barest effort toward preparing to contest swing states this fall. And he fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, on Monday, after concerns among allies and donors about his ability to run a competitive race.

The Trump campaign has not aired a television advertisement since he effectively secured the nomination in May and has not booked any advertising for the summer or fall. Mrs. Clinton and her allies spent nearly $26 million on advertising in June alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, pummeling Mr. Trump over his temperament, his statements and his mocking of a disabled reporter. The only sustained reply, aside from Mr. Trump’s gibes at rallies and on Twitter, has come from a pair of groups that spent less than $2 million combined.

Mr. Trump’s fund-raising for May reflects his lag in assembling the core of a national finance team. In the same month that he clinched the Republican nomination, Mr. Trump raised just $3.1 million and was forced to lend himself $2 million to meet costs. Some invitations to Trump fund-raising events have featured the same short list of national Republican finance volunteers regardless of what city the event is held in, suggesting Mr. Trump has had some trouble lining up local co-hosts.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an inquiry about the campaign’s spending plans. During an interview on Monday on CNN, Mr. Lewandowski defended the candidate’s bare-bones approach.

“We are leaner, meaner, more efficient, more effective. Get bigger crowds. Get better coverage,” Mr. Lewandowski said. “If this was the business world, people would be commending Mr. Trump for the way he’s run this campaign.”

Rules in the News

Bloomberg: More Drones for Hire Coming to U.S. Skies in Landmark Rules.

The Obama administration is opening U.S. skies to more commercial drones with long-awaited regulations that the government hopes will spawn new businesses inspecting bridges, monitoring crops and taking aerial photography.

In the most comprehensive set of rules yet for the burgeoning unmanned aircraft industry, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday went far beyond its original restrictive proposal issued last year. Drone operators will be able to petition the agency to fly beyond the horizon, at night and over people if they can show such flights are safe.

"We are in the early days of an aviation revolution that will change the way we do business, keep people safe, and gather information about our world,” President Barack Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “This is just a first step, but this is the kind of innovative thinking that helps make change work for us -- not only to grow the economy, but to improve the lives of the American people."

Constitution Daily: Federal appeals court upholds ‘net neutrality’ rules.

On June 14, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit made a two-to-one decision to uphold the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enforce the principle of net neutrality. However, the road leading to the recent decision was fraught with conflict and the aftermath is likely to be the same.

The battle over net neutrality has been a long one fought primarily between the FCC and large internet service providers. The term itself was coined in a paper by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu in 2003 but was little more than just a term until 2010, when the FCC passed the Open Internet Order. The order called for ISPs to honor the principle of net neutrality through transparency on network management practices, refraining from blocking content on their networks, and avoiding unreasonable discrimination against (or favorable treatment towards) content on their networks.

Business News Daily: What You Need to Know About the New Federal Overtime Rules.

A rule change announced May 18 by the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) would expand overtime protections to an estimated 4.2 million workers, extending the rule to cover those making less than $47,476 per year and removing long-standing exemptions in the law. Business News Daily dug into the specifics of the new regulation and spoke with labor policy experts and human resources professionals about the anticipated effects of the change, for both employers and workers.

Scheduled to go into effect Dec. 1, 2016, the new rule changes overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime protections. Previously, employees were excluded if they were salaried, earned at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) or were in positions considered executive, administrative or professional. Now, those exemptions will be lifted and the pay threshold for overtime protections will be raised to $913 per week, or an annual salary of $47,476. That pay threshold will be updated once every three years, indexed to wage growth over time.

From the Dallas Morning News: Report: Texas among worst in country for high numbers of teen moms, uninsured kids

Here's an example of how an advocacy group - a think tank actually, but they promote liberal causes - uses the media to highlight issues they'd like addressed. The organization is the Center for Public Priorities - which is the liberal counterweight to the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

- You can see the report here: The 2016 KIDS COUNT Data Book.

- Click here for the article.

Texas has some of the highest rates of uninsured kids and teen births in the country despite progress in recent years, according to a report released Tuesday.

The Center for Public Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank in Austin, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation ranked Texas 43rd in the nation for overall child well-being in their 2016 KIDS COUNT Data Book. The groups found that 25 percent of Texas children are living in poverty and 11 percent are uninsured.

Texas has more uninsured children than any other state by a long shot. About 784,000 Texas children had no health insurance in 2014.

Texas is tied with Alaska for the highest percentage of uninsured kids, but in Alaska, 11 percent amounts to 21,000 children. California had the next-highest number of uninsured kids -- 497,000, which is 5 percent there.

Success will be judged based on how many of their findings impact legislation passed in the upcoming session of the Texas Legislature.

From the NYT: ‘Super PAC’ Backing Hillary Clinton Raised Largest Haul of the Year in May

A Super PAC in action:

- Click here for the article.

The main “super PAC” supporting Hillary Clinton raised $12.1 million in May, the group said on Monday — its largest haul of the year as Mrs. Clinton shifts from the Democratic presidential primary to a likely showdown with Donald J. Trump in the fall.
The group, Priorities USA Action, said it had entered June with over $50 million in cash on hand after securing more than $130 million in donations and commitments during the election cycle to date.

Priorities USA Action has reserved about $147 million in television, radio and digital platform spending across eight states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire.

“In the last few weeks Donald Trump accused President Obama of working with ISIS, took a victory lap following a national tragedy and mimed shooting someone at one of his events,” Guy Cecil, the group’s chief strategist, said in a statement, using an acronym for the Islamic State. “Priorities USA is not going to let this man anywhere near the White House because he is far too dangerous and divisive to ever be president of the United States.”

The efforts highlight the significant fund-raising and organizational advantages Mrs. Clinton and her allies enjoy against supporters of Mr. Trump, whose super PACs have yet to establish a meaningful footprint.

For more on Priorities USA Action:

- Open Secrets: Priorities USA Action.
- Politico: Here's how Hillary Clinton's allies plan to go after Trump.

- Mother Jones: Can Harold Ickes Make It Rain for Obama?

From the Texas Tribune: Platforms Reveal Common Ground Between Texas GOP, Democrats

For out look at political parties. A comparison of the party platforms of the Texas Republican and Democratic Party platforms.

- Click here for the article.

Though they disagree on nearly every major policy issue, from education funding to abortion to immigration, Texas Republicans and Democrats apparently have common ground on a few things, according to the platforms approved at recent state conventions.
Both state parties approve new platforms every two years, covering dozens of issues. Republicans put their platform together in May in Dallas. Democrats followed suit last week in San Antonio.

The platforms provide an opportunity for activists in both parties to outline the positions they expect their candidates and elected officials to hold, though there's always some that choose to ignore some of their party's positions.

While much of the two parties' platforms is irreconcilable, there are a handful of policy areas where Republicans and Democrats appear to come together.

- Medical Marijuana
- Toll Roads
- Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Campaign Finance
- Space Exploration

Click here for the respective platforms:

- Texas Democratic Party Platform.
- Texas Republican Party Platform.

From the USA today: Supreme Court allows searches based on outstanding arrest warrants

The Exclusionary Rule took a bog hit today at the Supreme Court.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court divided largely along ideological lines Monday in ruling that police can seize evidence from an unconstitutional search if they first discover the suspect has one or more outstanding arrest warrants.

The court's four conservative justices, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, ruled that even if police violate the Constitution by stopping someone without suspicion, an arrest warrant entitles them to conduct a search. In that circumstance, they said, there is no "flagrant police misconduct."

"Evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. The vote was 5-3.

The decision was controversial because in some cities thousands of people have arrest warrants pending against them, mostly for traffic violations as insignificant as unpaid parking tickets.

There were 16,000 outstanding arrest warrants in Ferguson, Mo., as of 2015 — a figure that amounts to roughly 75% of the city’s population — the Justice Department found during its investigation into the 2014 police shooting of an unarmed, 18-year-old African-American man. Cincinnati recently had more than 100,000 warrants pending for failure to appear in court. New York City has 1.2 million outstanding warrants.

The high court case involved a Utah narcotics detective's detention of a man leaving a house that was under observation for possible drug dealing. Based on the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor traffic infraction, the man was searched and found to have illegal drugs.

- Background from ScotusBlog.
- Read Sonia Sotomayor’s Atomic Bomb of a Dissent Slamming Racial Profiling and Mass Imprisonment.
- “So Little Justification that the State Has Never Tried to Defend Its Legality”

From Foreign Policy: The Syria Dissent Channel Message Means The System Is Working The State Department Syria memo isn't some dangerous sign of insurrection. It's an essential instrument for sparking essential debate.

For out look at the media's relationship with government officials. The State Department has a process in place to allow administrative policy to be challenged by its rank and file. They don't always get leaked, but one did last week, and it points out conflict within the administration regarding Syria.

Here's an inside look at how this is done.

- Click here for the article.

The New York Times details the leak here:

More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.

The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

Such a step would represent a radical shift in the administration’s approach to the civil war in Syria, and there is little evidence thatPresident Obama has plans to change course. Mr. Obama has emphasized the military campaign against the Islamic State over efforts to dislodge Mr. Assad. Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, have all but collapsed.

But the memo, filed in the State Department’s “dissent channel,” underscores the deep rifts and lingering frustration within the administration over how to deal with a war that has killed more than 400,000 people.

The State Department set up the channel during the Vietnam War as a way for employees who had disagreements with policies to register their protest with the secretary of state and other top officials, without fear of reprisal. While dissent cables are not that unusual, the number of signatures on this document, 51, is extremely large, if not unprecedented.

For more:

- AFSA: The Dissent Channel.
- Cato Institute: The Dissent Channel Goes Public.

From the Washington Post: Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut’s ban on ‘assault weapons’

This addresses a question posed last week about whether the Supreme Court might decide whether the Second Amendment applies to assault rifles. Their refusal to hear the appeal implicitly means that a majority thinks it does not.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review bans on a lengthy list of firearms that Connecticut classified as “assault weapons,” the latest example of the court’s reluctance to be drawn into an emotional national debate on gun control.

The justices decided without comment not to review a lower court decision that upheld the laws; Connecticut’s was enacted shortly after a gunman used one of the military-style semiautomatic weapons on the list to kill 20 students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012.

The decision was not a surprise, as the court has previously declined to review other court decisions that uphold bans passed by cities and states. Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, as well as many cities and towns, have similar laws. None of the legal challenges to them have been successful in lower courts.

They were enacted after a federal ban expired in 2004. Attempts to revive the federal ban have failed. But Congress is once again embroiled in a debate over gun control after the massacre at an Orlando nightclub left 49 victims dead.

Like other laws, Connecticut’s ban includes semiautomatic guns and high-capacity magazines, and covers popular weapons such as AR-­15s and AK-­47s.

. . . The court’s action Monday continues a pattern. After recognizing the individual right for the first time in Heller, which covered the federal enclave of the District, the court made clear in a subsequent case that state and local governments, like Congress, could not prohibit individual gun ownership.

But since then, the justices have avoided all cases that might clarify whether that right is more expansive or which restrictions are too burdensome.

- Here is a link to the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

From the Washington Post: Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls may be larger than it seems. Here’s why.

Building off our discussion of current problems with polling.

- Click here for the article.

In 2012, national polls in October suggested the presidential race was a virtual tie. The Real Clear Politics polling average gave Barack Obama a slight 0.7 point lead over Mitt Romney, but he actually won by almost 4 points. Of the final 11 national polls released in 2012, as reported on Real Clear Politics, 7 were a tie or had Romney ahead, while only 4 had Obama ahead.

Why were so many of the polls wrong? In part, because they failed to capture how minorities would vote. Unfortunately, some pollsters may be making the same mistakes in 2016 — and thereby underestimating Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls.

In 2012, many polls underestimated how many minorities would vote and how many would vote for Obama. For example, a Politico poll released the morning of Election Day said the race was tied at 47 percent each for Obama and Romney. The poll said that 62 percent of Latinos supported Obama, while the exit polls reported 71 percent, and Latino Decisions reported 75 percent. Among the “another race” category, which is mostly comprised of Asian Americans, Politico reported that 47 percent supported Obama, while the exit polls reported 73 percent, and an Asian American Decisions exit poll reported 72 percent.

. . . In 2016, the country is even more diverse. Pollsters need to take steps to more accurately estimate the political attitudes and behavior of black, Latino and Asian American voters. Polls that are conducted only in English and that do few or no callbacks to try contact hard-to-reach populations are not going to accurately reflect the American electorate. Polls that are conducted via online panels need to ensure that they are not under-representing minority voters with less formal education and lower incomes. Finally, pollsters should take steps to make sure each racial subgroup in their poll is weighted to match the American Community Survey’s estimates for that particular group, not just their national sample overall.

From 538: The GOP’s House Majority Is Safe … Right?

There's more than just the presidency at stake right now

Both from 538:

- The GOP’s House Majority Is Safe … Right?

It’s very possible Clinton could achieve that margin of victory. But even in an era of high straight-ticket voting, extending those coattails to House races will be difficult because Republicans’ down-ballot advantages still exceed Democrats’. Let’s take a quick tour:

Why Democrats will gain House seats in 2016:
- Rebound
- Court-ordered redistricting
- Open seats

Why Republicans will probably keep their majority:
- The great sort
- Timing
- Ticket-splitting

- Senate 2016: The Democrats Strike Back.

It may come as a shock given all the attention being paid to the presidential race this year, but the president isn’t all-powerful. In fact, the U.S. Congress is supposed to be a coequal branchof the federal government. From voting on important legislation to confirming Cabinet appointees and federal judges, the Senate matters.

Right now, Republicans hold 54 seats to the Democrats’ 46 (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats). The Democrats have a favorable map in 2016: Of the 34 seats up for grabs, 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats need to net four seats to win control of the Senate if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and five seats if Donald Trump wins. We’ll launch our official Senate projections later this year, but it’s not too early to take a more informal tour through the races. The combination of the polling, the political lean of the states being contested and the candidates running suggests a close race for control of the chamber.

The biggest factor working in the Democrats’ favor is fairly simple: Senate election results are increasingly tied to the presidential vote in each state.
And of the eight seats most likely to change hands in 2016, six are held by Republicans in states that President Obama won twice, and one is held by a Democrat in a state that former President George W. Bush won twice. If Trump does better in the presidential race than expected, Democratic gains could be kept to a minimum, but the field is tilted in their favor.

What impact will Gary Johnson have on the 2016 election?

Johnson is the Libertarian nominee and might have an impact on the election by pulling enough vote from either mayor party's candidate to tip the vote in competitive states one way or another. The question is whether Democratic or Republican voters are more likely to defect.

It's generally held that Libertarian candidates pull votes from Republicans while Green Party candidates pull them from Democrats, but the trendy prediction now is that Johnson might hurt Clinton more then Trump. Some also think his candidacy will deny Trump or Clinton a majority vote in the electoral college, which would thrown the election to the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824.

Some thoughts:

- The National Review: It will take some maneuvering, but Gary Johnson can make the difference.

Because the Libertarian platform is much closer to the Republican platform than to the Democratic, the conventional wisdom is that Johnson will pull many more votes from Trump than from Clinton. And that will probably prove to be the case. But if Trump’s campaign is willing to try something radical — and the evidence suggests it is — it can use Johnson to keep Hillary out of the White House. If Trump’s campaign is willing to try something radical — and the evidence suggests it is — it can use Johnson to keep Hillary out of the White House. 

At the moment, there is limited general-election polling that includes Johnson; a Trump–Clinton–Johnson race has been polled in only a handful of states. And, this long before the election, what polling there is is suspect. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that there are three solid Democratic states in which polling shows support for Johnson exceeding Clinton’s lead over Trump. Which means that if Trump’s supporters were to vote Johnson, Hillary could be denied those states’ reliably Democratic electoral votes.

- From Yahoo News: This time around, Gary Johnson’s third-party bid makes sense.

Johnson — who will be on the ballot in all 50 states — is approaching the national electorate this year more from the left than the right. He’s appealing to Bernie Sanders supporters on the basis of his pro-pot, pro-gay rights, anti-surveillance views.

“Of all the candidates left, running for president, I side most with Bernie Sanders,” Johnson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush this week.

Going after Sanders supporters makes sense. Many of them are loath to support Clinton, and even Trump made explicit overtures to them this week.

But the resistance to Trump among conservatives equals and probably dwarfs the distaste for Clinton among liberal progressives. Many on the right hate Clinton, are disgusted with the idea that they might have to vote for Trump to stop her, and are desperate for an alternative.

Yet the barriers for social conservatives to support Johnson are just as high as they are for liberal progressives, if not higher.

Johnson will have to convince progressives that cutting government spending by 23 percent, eliminating the personal and corporate income tax, payroll, Medicare and Medicaid taxes, and moving to a 28 percent consumption tax on goods and services — are good ideas.

But social conservatives are resolute on the issue of religious liberty, and Johnson has sided decisively with gay rights when discussing cases over the past few years in which bakers, photographers and others have declined to provide services for gay weddings.
Johnson is clear that social conservatism was one of the things that bothered him most as a Republican governor and presidential candidate.

And a handful more, it you care to check them out:

- CBS News: 2016 by the numbers: Will Gary Johnson disrupt Clinton vs. Trump race?
- The Fiscal Times: Could Libertarian Gary Johnson Play the Spoiler in November?
- USA Today: Gary Johnson could give us President Paul Ryan.

From the Economist: America's primaries are over; how would they have turned out under a parliamentary system?

Or rather - what if we had proportional representation instead of winner take all elections?

Hot Air has great commentary:

- Click here for it.

I think they’ve got the nomenclature right for Trump’s, Clinton’s, and Sanders’s movements, but no self-respecting conservative is going to cede that label to John farking Kasich and his merry band of centrists. Call that party the Republicans (or the Tories, in honor of the squishy British version of conservatism) and let the group to their right be the Conservatives. Also, while Cruz might emerge as Conservative leader, it’s unlikely that an also-ran like Kasich would head the Republicans. Kasich made the cut here only because he refused to take a hint and drop out in April despite having no chance of winning the nomination. He’s a placeholder. But that raises the question: Who would lead the Republicans? One enjoyable dilemma created by a formal Republican/Conservative split would be watching center-right pols try to calculate which party would be better for their careers and, consequently, which of their principles they should abandon. Should Marco Rubio join the Conservative Party and battle Cruz for the leadership? Or, fearing he can’t win, should he go all-in on amnesty, social liberalism, etc, and rebrand as a center-right Republican?

If the vote turned out this way, Hillary would obviously be a strong favorite to emerge as prime minister. She and Bernie would probably form a coalition, giving her a 54 percent majority in parliament, but Sanders would have leverage. His party plus Trump’s could create a different majority coalition; he’d warn Hillary that if she doesn’t promise to do things his way on trade, for instance, he’ll bolt and he and Trump will make a deal for one of them to run the government. That’s sort of what Bernie’s doing right now in holding out on endorsing Hillary, but once she’s safely elected president she can choose to keep her promise or not and won’t have to worry about consequences until 2020. In a parliamentary system, her job would depend day-to-day on keeping that promise. No matter how you slice and dice these numbers, though, the Conservatives and the Republicans end up as nonfactors. Cruz and the Republican leader would be at the mercy of the ruling coalition. That feels like a fitting takeaway from 2016.