Several endangered House Democrats think they may have found a way to escape voters’ wrath in next month’s midterm elections: run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Call them the anti-Pelosi Democrats who are openly opposing Pelosi for another term as speaker if their party can somehow maintain control of the House. Republicans are widely expected to make big gains in the Nov. 2 elections.
Marshall told Fox News he’s not running against Pelosi per se; just seeking to neutralize the resonant issue Republicans have created by tying all Democratic candidates to the California Democrat.
Yet Marshall still hedged when asked if he thinks Pelosi has been a “good” speaker.
“It’s a real challenge when somebody comes from a district that is as liberal as Ms. Pelosi’s district to govern from the middle, which is where we need people to be governing,” he said.
Vulnerable first-timer Bobby Bright in Alabama is also pledging to oust Pelosi as speaker as are at least four other House Democrats, from New York to Oregon.
It’s a survivalist tactic in a potential “wave” cycle whose atmospherics strongly favor the GOP. House Minority Leader John Boehner is poised to claim the gavel if Republicans capture the lower chamber.
But this sudden growth of weeds in Pelosi’s own garden is also a measure of her unpopularity across the country, which stands in three national polls at 56 percent or higher.
“I think a lot of members want to prove their independence from leadership and I think there are a lot of voters right now looking for that,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “They don’t want a rubber stamp.”
State Sen. Roy Herron, a Democrat gunning for a House seat in rural Tennessee, told Fox News his jump aboard the anti-Pelosi bandwagon resulted in punishment from party leaders.
“The day that it was reported that I would not support either Speaker Pelosi or Mr. Boehner for speaker, it was announced that some of the TV ads that had previously been bought would not go forward,” he said. “If that’s the price of being independent, then it’s a price I’m prepared to pay.”
Ervin was part of an unusual hearing featuring American Muslims on Capitol Hill Sept. 24 that was led by Rep. Sue Myrick, a North Carolina Republican and head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus. In addition to Ervin, participants included Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, (I LOVE Him! ~JP )founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Hedieh Mirahmadi, president of the World Organization for Resource Development & Education (WORDE); Shadi Osier, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of America; and Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former radical Islamist who has become a vocal critic of the Ground Zero mosque.
But these men and women had very important stories to tell about how Islamist radicalism has affected their lives and the dangers it poses to the United States. They emphasized the importance of educating members of Congress about the link between nonviolent political Islam and a totalitarian, violent strain.
~Recent – Chief Justice SUPREMELY fed up (click image to read)
When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president’s next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them.
The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political and awkward for the justices, who he says are expected to sit “like the proverbial potted plant.”
Of course, Alito did not remain impassive at the most recent State of the Union speech by President Barack Obama. He reacted to Obama’s unusual rebuke of the court for its decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true.”
The 60-year-old justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged with a smile that his colleagues “who are more disciplined refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.”
Alito, answering questions following a speech Wednesday at the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York, also said, “Presidents will fake you out.” The institute provided an online video link to Alito’s talk and question-and-answer session.
The president will begin a sentence with an invocation of the country’s greatness, Alito said. If justices don’t jump up and applaud, “you look very unpatriotic,” he said.
But, Alito continued, then the president may finish the thought by adding “because we’re conducting a surge in Iraq or because we’re enacting health care reform.” Justices aren’t supposed to react to statements about policy or politics.
The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years.
“So I doubt that I will be there in January,” Alito said.
At least one justice, Stephen Breyer, has said he was not bothered by Obama’s criticism and believes justices should attend so that viewers can see the three branches of government represented in the same room.
~For full article click on image…
Justice Samuel Alito Wednesday warned Americans of a grave danger to constitutional governance, laying blame squarely on the nation’s law schools.
Having suffered the president’s critical remarks and the ensuing Congressional Democrats’ standing ovation at the 2010 State of the Union address, the headline from Justice Samuel Alito’s “Let Judges be Judges” speech Wednesday night at the Manhattan Institute’s Wriston Lecture was that he doubts he will be in attendance when the State of the Union address is again delivered next January. Sad as I am to see the rot of dirty politics sully a dignified custom of our great nation, I was far more disturbed by another section of Justice Alito’s speech in which …
“… he used the occasion to warn that the nation’s most prestigious law schools are now dominated by “judicial theorists” who oppose judges applying the laws and the Constitution as written.
“It’s critical for alternative voices to be heard in the law schools,” the justice said during the question-answer period. “The Federalist Society does a fantastic job of providing an alternative voice in law schools,” Alito said, referring to the 20,000-strong conservative legal society that believes the judiciary should “say what the law is, not what it should be.”
“Asked whether a judge should apply the law as written or do what the judge thinks is fair and just, two thirds of those polled said ‘apply the law as written,'” Alito noted. Judges “have no warrant to pursue a reform agenda that is not grounded in the Constitution, and they should not aim to be theorists or crowd-pleasers,” he added. “Let judges be judges, for if they are not our legal system as we know it will fade away.”
In raising the issue of our law schools actually training students … who will be our future lawyers and judges … to legislate from the bench and to interpret the Constitution as a “living document” rather than “as written” by the nation’s founders, Justice Alito validates the dangers to our freedom of an overreaching judiciary. Our Founders provided that changes to the Constitution be made by the people through the amendment process and not by judicial rulings. In its Pledge to America, Congressional Republicans have promised “… to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored.” If made a majority in the midterm elections, the GOP has promised it “… will require that every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority.”
For the sake of our nation and the freedom of generations to come, I pray that Republicans will take the majority in Congress this November. But even if that happy event should transpire Conservatives will still have much to do. For those of us who believe our precious legal system should be guided by the Constitution as written rather than as politically expedient judicial interpretations, our efforts must be on holding Congressional Republicans to their word.
Every action, every reform must emanate from authority granted by the original intent of the Constitution and we must be vigilant to see that the GOP holds to its pledge.
A controversial billboard depicting “four faces” of President Obama — a “terrorist, a gangster, an illegal immigrant and a gay man” (So whats the problem? ~JP) — was taken down Friday after it stirred a lot of reaction in the Grand Junction, Co., area. The caricature also showed the president gambling with items such as the Bible and the U.S. Constitution.
According to local news reports, the artist and sign’s owner have received an outpouring of hate mail and even death threats since the billboard went up. As a result, the sign was quickly removed Friday morning.
The local Grand Junction Tea Party chapter says they are upset by the bullied censorship and “infringement on First Amendment rights” are plans to protest the removal of the billboard Saturday afternoon.