SCOTUS Dings DOMA | Dems Blast Obama's War On Coal
Today in Washington, D.C. - June 26, 2013:
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two major decisions affecting marriage and the established traditions of American society. Literally they removed the lid from "pandora's box" and thumbed their noses at the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) summed up the SCOTUS decisions as follows:
The Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and held that the supporters of Proposition 8 in California did not have standing to defend Prop 8 in federal court.
Links to decisions: DOMA ruling and the Prop 8 ruling.
Essentially, the DOMA ruling means that the federal government must provide the same benefits to same-sex spouses as opposite-sex spouses, if the same-sex marriage has been lawfully performed. In other words, if a gay couple is married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then the federal government will recognize that marriage on the same basis as a traditional marriage.
The Prop 8 ruling is far more complex, but the bottom line is that it likely clears the way for same-sex marriage in California. It does not, however, have any real implications for marriages outside of California.
Critically, neither ruling establishes a federal, constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Those states that have marriage amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and woman are untouched by these rulings. Those states that recognize same-sex marriage are similarly untouched.
The bottom line? The definition of marriage is reaffirmed as a matter primarily of state law, not federal law. The issue goes back to the states, and for the foreseeable future, states will continue to define the parameters of lawful marriage. The House today took up resolutions to take up and move forward on three bills. However, the House today addressed only H.R. 1864 — "To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault." At the conclusion of debate,a vote was ordered. However, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
Yesterday, the House passed:
H.R. 2289 (Voice Vote) — Renamed section 219(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the "Kay Bailey Hutchison Spousal IRA."
H.R. 2383 (395 – 2) — Designated the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the "Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge."
H.R. 1092 (392-3) — "Designated the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the "Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center."
The Senate today resumed consideration of S. 744, the immigration reform bill. At 11:30 AM, the Senate began a series of three votes: voting 68-30 to waive all Budget Act points of order against the bill and its amendments, voting 69-29 to adopt the Leahy amendment as modified with the Corker-Hoeven language, and finally voting on cloture (to cut off debate) on the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment to the bill, as modified by previous amendments.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has filled the amendment tree, which means Reid is blocking any other amendments from being introduced. Reid has also filed for cloture (to cut off debate) on the underlying bill, S. 744.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 97-1 to confirm Penny Prtizker to be Secretary of Commerce. Later this week, a vote is expected on the nomination of Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx to be Secretary of Transportation.
In a must-read editorial today, The Wall Street Journal blasts President Obama’s new regulations announced yesterday that will cost Americans in higher energy prices and will also cost many their jobs. “President Obama's climate speech on Tuesday was grandiose even for him, but its surreal nature was its particular hallmark. Some 12 million Americans still can't find work, real wages have fallen for five years, three-fourths of Americans now live paycheck to check, and the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery. But there was the President in tony Georgetown, threatening more energy taxes and mandates that will ensure fewer jobs, still lower incomes and slower growth.”
The WSJ editors explain, “The plan covers everything from new efficiency standards for home appliances to new fuel mileage rules for heavy-duty trucks to new subsidies for wind farms, but the most consequential changes would slam the U.S. electric industry. These plants, coal-fired power in particular, account for about a third of domestic greenhouse gases. Last year the Environmental Protection Agency released ‘new source performance standard’ regulations that are effectively a moratorium on new coal plants. The EPA denied that similar rules would ever apply to the existing fleet, or even that they were working up such rules. Now Mr. Obama will unleash his carbon central planners on current plants. . . . Daniel Shrag of Harvard, an Obama science adviser, told the New York Times Monday that ‘Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed.’ At least he's honest, though in truth Mr. Obama's target is all forms of carbon energy. . . . The higher costs will ripple through the energy chain, which is precisely Mr. Obama's goal. Only by artificially raising the cost of carbon energy can he make even heavily subsidized ‘renewables’ competitive.”
Politico adds, “President Barack Obama’s opponents have accused him for years of waging a war on coal. On Tuesday, he sounded the cannons. The president announced a broad climate change package that lays out his vision for a low-carbon U.S. future — and made it clear that coal will have a diminished place in it. Obama’s plan goes after coal on multiple fronts. It orders EPA to write long-expected regulations setting greenhouse gas limits that would undoubtedly fall heavily on coal-fired power plants. The plan aims to discourage the construction of coal plants overseas, which could hurt exports, and calls on owners of coal-burning operations to switch to natural gas. Altogether, the results could deal a death blow to the American coal industry. . . . ‘This is going to be a legacy issue for the President, a legacy of higher energy costs, lost jobs, and a shattered economy,’ said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.”
And many Democrats agree. National Journal writes, “Some of the loudest opposition to Obama's speech on climate change yesterday at Georgetown University came not from Republicans, but from rural Democrats like [West Virginia Sen. Joe] Manchin. ‘It's clear now that the President has declared a war on coal,’ Manchin said in a press release. ‘The regulations the President wants to force on coal are not feasible. And if it's not feasible, it's not reasonable.’ . . . And he's not alone. Rep. Bill Enyart, a freshman Democrat from down-state Illinois, said he would ‘work tirelessly’ against the new mandates. The regulations would ‘decimate our Southern Illinois coal industry,’ Enyart said in a statement that's getting picked up by newspapers in his district. Rep. Nick Rahall, a big coal backer who represents southern West Virginia, called the new policy ‘misguided, misinformed and untenable.’”
In a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell vented his frustration with the president’s plan: “I’ve long warned, for example, that the White House was determined to wage a War on Coal. They denied it, of course, but only just long enough to get through the election. So it’s not a coincidence that the President didn’t give his speech before the election—or that he gave it at a university that symbolizes the D.C. elite, rather than somewhere in coal country: at a place like Morehead State University, or the University of Pikeville.
“Now the President’s supporters seem all too happy to admit that there’s a War on Coal. Just yesterday, an advisor to the White House said that ‘a War on Coal is exactly what’s needed.’ He didn’t just admit it. He said it was ‘exactly what’s needed.’ The quote is right here on the chart behind me.
“Look: Republicans are all for developing the fuels and the energies of the future. We just think that it all should come about as part of an all-of-the-above strategy, which is exactly what the White House said it supported too – before the election. But now, with the election over, the truth comes out. And in truth, the Administration seems to adhere to a dogma that could best be described as ‘none of the above, except a couple things that make our base happy.’ I’d note that such an approach is basically nonsensical, since it ignores what’s necessary to keep our country’s growing energy needs met as we move toward a future where renewables look set to play a greater role. Because it simply tries to pretend that it will not take years, if not decades, for these other types of energy to come online in a way that will truly meet our energy needs.
“In a phrase, it’s a strategy that subordinates almost everything to politics. That’s why Republicans believe a true all-of-the-above strategy means developing wind and solar – and natural gas, and oil, and coal – and embracing the American jobs that come along with more American energy. And here’s what we believe it absolutely does not mean: picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring ‘war’ on them. Sometimes, people in Washington seem to forget that the decisions made here actually affect the lives of others. And I’m often left to wonder: do they just not care? Of course, coal is an important industry to my state, and I’m going to defend Kentucky workers from out-of-touch Washington attacks. But it’s pretty naïve to think this is just about Kentucky, or West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. As I said yesterday, a ‘War on Coal’ is a war on jobs.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took the president to task for his plan to unilaterally implement a national energy tax that will destroy jobs and make energy less affordable for American families, and called on the president and Senate Democrats to take action to stop student loan rates from doubling next week. He said, “You know, millions of Americans remain out of work and the cost of groceries, gas, and health care continues to rise. The president’s announcement yesterday of essentially a national energy tax and a continuation of the war on coal will only make matters worse, putting thousands and thousands of Americans out of work, increasing the cost electricity – especially in a state like mine in Ohio where about 95 percent of our electricity comes from burning coal. And he’s looking for another excuse to not approve the Keystone pipeline.
“Listen, all of this is making matters worse. The president’s policies are not helping the economy, they’re making it worse.
"And if that’s not enough, we’re about to see student loans double. The House has done its work. Senate Democrats and the president continue to stay on the sidelines. What we passed in the House was very close to what the president offered in his budget. It’s time for the president and Senate Democrats to help lead.”
Tags: SCOTUS, DOMA, Marriage, same sex marriage, federal, States, Prop 8, President Obama, War on Coal, Democrats, student loan rates To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Links to decisions: DOMA ruling and the Prop 8 ruling.
Essentially, the DOMA ruling means that the federal government must provide the same benefits to same-sex spouses as opposite-sex spouses, if the same-sex marriage has been lawfully performed. In other words, if a gay couple is married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then the federal government will recognize that marriage on the same basis as a traditional marriage.
The Prop 8 ruling is far more complex, but the bottom line is that it likely clears the way for same-sex marriage in California. It does not, however, have any real implications for marriages outside of California.
Critically, neither ruling establishes a federal, constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Those states that have marriage amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and woman are untouched by these rulings. Those states that recognize same-sex marriage are similarly untouched.
The bottom line? The definition of marriage is reaffirmed as a matter primarily of state law, not federal law. The issue goes back to the states, and for the foreseeable future, states will continue to define the parameters of lawful marriage.
Yesterday, the House passed:
H.R. 2289 (Voice Vote) — Renamed section 219(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the "Kay Bailey Hutchison Spousal IRA."
H.R. 2383 (395 – 2) — Designated the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the "Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge."
H.R. 1092 (392-3) — "Designated the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the "Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center."
The Senate today resumed consideration of S. 744, the immigration reform bill. At 11:30 AM, the Senate began a series of three votes: voting 68-30 to waive all Budget Act points of order against the bill and its amendments, voting 69-29 to adopt the Leahy amendment as modified with the Corker-Hoeven language, and finally voting on cloture (to cut off debate) on the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment to the bill, as modified by previous amendments.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has filled the amendment tree, which means Reid is blocking any other amendments from being introduced. Reid has also filed for cloture (to cut off debate) on the underlying bill, S. 744.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 97-1 to confirm Penny Prtizker to be Secretary of Commerce. Later this week, a vote is expected on the nomination of Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx to be Secretary of Transportation.
In a must-read editorial today, The Wall Street Journal blasts President Obama’s new regulations announced yesterday that will cost Americans in higher energy prices and will also cost many their jobs. “President Obama's climate speech on Tuesday was grandiose even for him, but its surreal nature was its particular hallmark. Some 12 million Americans still can't find work, real wages have fallen for five years, three-fourths of Americans now live paycheck to check, and the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery. But there was the President in tony Georgetown, threatening more energy taxes and mandates that will ensure fewer jobs, still lower incomes and slower growth.”
The WSJ editors explain, “The plan covers everything from new efficiency standards for home appliances to new fuel mileage rules for heavy-duty trucks to new subsidies for wind farms, but the most consequential changes would slam the U.S. electric industry. These plants, coal-fired power in particular, account for about a third of domestic greenhouse gases. Last year the Environmental Protection Agency released ‘new source performance standard’ regulations that are effectively a moratorium on new coal plants. The EPA denied that similar rules would ever apply to the existing fleet, or even that they were working up such rules. Now Mr. Obama will unleash his carbon central planners on current plants. . . . Daniel Shrag of Harvard, an Obama science adviser, told the New York Times Monday that ‘Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed.’ At least he's honest, though in truth Mr. Obama's target is all forms of carbon energy. . . . The higher costs will ripple through the energy chain, which is precisely Mr. Obama's goal. Only by artificially raising the cost of carbon energy can he make even heavily subsidized ‘renewables’ competitive.”
Politico adds, “President Barack Obama’s opponents have accused him for years of waging a war on coal. On Tuesday, he sounded the cannons. The president announced a broad climate change package that lays out his vision for a low-carbon U.S. future — and made it clear that coal will have a diminished place in it. Obama’s plan goes after coal on multiple fronts. It orders EPA to write long-expected regulations setting greenhouse gas limits that would undoubtedly fall heavily on coal-fired power plants. The plan aims to discourage the construction of coal plants overseas, which could hurt exports, and calls on owners of coal-burning operations to switch to natural gas. Altogether, the results could deal a death blow to the American coal industry. . . . ‘This is going to be a legacy issue for the President, a legacy of higher energy costs, lost jobs, and a shattered economy,’ said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.”
And many Democrats agree. National Journal writes, “Some of the loudest opposition to Obama's speech on climate change yesterday at Georgetown University came not from Republicans, but from rural Democrats like [West Virginia Sen. Joe] Manchin. ‘It's clear now that the President has declared a war on coal,’ Manchin said in a press release. ‘The regulations the President wants to force on coal are not feasible. And if it's not feasible, it's not reasonable.’ . . . And he's not alone. Rep. Bill Enyart, a freshman Democrat from down-state Illinois, said he would ‘work tirelessly’ against the new mandates. The regulations would ‘decimate our Southern Illinois coal industry,’ Enyart said in a statement that's getting picked up by newspapers in his district. Rep. Nick Rahall, a big coal backer who represents southern West Virginia, called the new policy ‘misguided, misinformed and untenable.’”
In a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell vented his frustration with the president’s plan: “I’ve long warned, for example, that the White House was determined to wage a War on Coal. They denied it, of course, but only just long enough to get through the election. So it’s not a coincidence that the President didn’t give his speech before the election—or that he gave it at a university that symbolizes the D.C. elite, rather than somewhere in coal country: at a place like Morehead State University, or the University of Pikeville.
“Now the President’s supporters seem all too happy to admit that there’s a War on Coal. Just yesterday, an advisor to the White House said that ‘a War on Coal is exactly what’s needed.’ He didn’t just admit it. He said it was ‘exactly what’s needed.’ The quote is right here on the chart behind me.
“Look: Republicans are all for developing the fuels and the energies of the future. We just think that it all should come about as part of an all-of-the-above strategy, which is exactly what the White House said it supported too – before the election. But now, with the election over, the truth comes out. And in truth, the Administration seems to adhere to a dogma that could best be described as ‘none of the above, except a couple things that make our base happy.’ I’d note that such an approach is basically nonsensical, since it ignores what’s necessary to keep our country’s growing energy needs met as we move toward a future where renewables look set to play a greater role. Because it simply tries to pretend that it will not take years, if not decades, for these other types of energy to come online in a way that will truly meet our energy needs.
“In a phrase, it’s a strategy that subordinates almost everything to politics. That’s why Republicans believe a true all-of-the-above strategy means developing wind and solar – and natural gas, and oil, and coal – and embracing the American jobs that come along with more American energy. And here’s what we believe it absolutely does not mean: picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring ‘war’ on them. Sometimes, people in Washington seem to forget that the decisions made here actually affect the lives of others. And I’m often left to wonder: do they just not care? Of course, coal is an important industry to my state, and I’m going to defend Kentucky workers from out-of-touch Washington attacks. But it’s pretty naïve to think this is just about Kentucky, or West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. As I said yesterday, a ‘War on Coal’ is a war on jobs.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took the president to task for his plan to unilaterally implement a national energy tax that will destroy jobs and make energy less affordable for American families, and called on the president and Senate Democrats to take action to stop student loan rates from doubling next week. He said, “You know, millions of Americans remain out of work and the cost of groceries, gas, and health care continues to rise. The president’s announcement yesterday of essentially a national energy tax and a continuation of the war on coal will only make matters worse, putting thousands and thousands of Americans out of work, increasing the cost electricity – especially in a state like mine in Ohio where about 95 percent of our electricity comes from burning coal. And he’s looking for another excuse to not approve the Keystone pipeline.
“Listen, all of this is making matters worse. The president’s policies are not helping the economy, they’re making it worse.
"And if that’s not enough, we’re about to see student loans double. The House has done its work. Senate Democrats and the president continue to stay on the sidelines. What we passed in the House was very close to what the president offered in his budget. It’s time for the president and Senate Democrats to help lead.”
Tags: SCOTUS, DOMA, Marriage, same sex marriage, federal, States, Prop 8, President Obama, War on Coal, Democrats, student loan rates To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 2:01 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home