I called the Supreme Court public information office about the significance of December 1 for this case. As I suspected, there is none currently. As I reported on November 19, the Department of Justice waived the right to respond on behalf of Obama, the DNC, etc., to the writ of certiorari filed by Philip Berg in his case against Barack Obama.
According to the SCOTUS representative, the next step is for the case to be scheduled for conference with the full Court. About 10,000 certiorari petitions are received per term with 75-80 granted. There is no set time for this petition to be heard by the full Court. The writ will be granted or denied at that meeting. We can have a docket watch for the date and outcome.
UPDATE: 12/2/08 – Lisa Liberi from Philip Berg’s office wrote to say that the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission. Obama, and the DNC have separate counsel but the Court has had no response from them. According to Liberi, SCOTUS was waiting a week in case the responses had been mailed. A conference date with the full Court regarding the certiorari petition will be scheduled after the week passes. She also noted that Berg has a petition in the works to prevent Electors from casting Obama votes in the Electoral College.
Related Posts:
Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court Due December 1
Berg vs Obama: Dept of Justice Waives Right to Respond to Petition
Berg vs Obama: Update and current status
Donofrio vs Wells: NJ Obama citizenship case slated for SCOTUS conference
Category: politics
Obama rolls out the Mod Squad
Modification, that is.
In about an hour, Coach Obama will roll out his team. While he is in charge of the vision-thing, he has assembled a team of independent minded people who barely resemble the change-thing he campaigned on. More like a Modification Squad.
If any PUMA’s and Just Say No Deal folks are still reading, how is the appointment of Hillary as SoS playing with your camps?
Now that the election is over, the New York Times notes that the Bush administration had some initiatives of merit, even if unrealized. In fact, after bashing “the failed policies of the Bush Administration,” Obama is going to make a go at pursuing one of them in Afghanistan.
Several times during his presidency, Mr. Bush promised to alter that strategy, even creating a “civilian reserve corps” of nation-builders under State Department auspices, but the administration never committed serious funds or personnel to the effort. If Mr. Obama and his team can bring about that kind of shift, it could mark one of the most significant changes in national security strategy in decades and greatly enhance the powers of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state.
Mrs. Clinton may find, as her predecessor Condoleezza Rice and others in the Bush administration discovered, that building up civilian capacity is easier to advocate than execute. [my emphasis]
That problem will be no less acute for Mr. Obama in Afghanistan, where the building projects and job-creation activities that Mr. Bush promised in 2002, soon after the invasion, and then again in late 2005, have ground to a halt in many parts of the country because the security situation has made it too dangerous for the State Department’s “provincial reconstruction teams” to operate.
The security situation must be resolved in order for the statecraft to have a chance to work. To his credit, Obama proposed more troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Given the defense team he has assembled, the change he campaigned on seems less change and more modification. Probably, chanting “the modification we need” would not have been as catchy. I pray it works.
Obama: Now beltway experience is good
President-elect Barack Obama is on the defensive a bit over his appointments of Clinton-era people to his administration.
This quote was too amazing to pass up:
“What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking,” Mr Obama said at his third press conference in as many days. He said he would be foolish, at such a “critical time in our history”, to pick people who “had no experience in Washington whatsoever”.
Please feel free to fill in the large blank that is left by that observation.
I recall someone saying Washington was the problem.
Chris Matthews to oppose Arlen Specter in 2010?
The question mark is because the original blog to report this has backed off a little. Matthews, MSNBC’s Hardball host would most likely serve to mobilize conservatives in PA for Specter. Specter, a moderate Republican, might face a conservative challenge in the primary but would likely prevail. He is very popular here.
And in other news, Al Franken is still a loser.
Will the Catholic Bishops shut down the hospitals?
Yesterday, Melinda Henneberger published an article on Slate that takes seriously the proposed response by the American Catholic in the event the Congress passes the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This follows a similar piece by my friend and colleague, Paul Kengor on Crosswalk which provides background for the Bishops’ stance.
Henneberger and Kengor make the case that the Catholic vote helped push Obama over the top. Surely a Catholic vote that resembled the evangelical vote would have made an Obama presidency more unlikely. Kengor writes,
The bishops are also upset that Catholic politicians helped make this possible. A short list includes vice-president-elect Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, both pro-choice Catholics, and plenty of pro-life Catholic Democrats around the country, such as Senator Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), who worked his tail off to deliver Pennsylvania’s crucial Electoral College votes to Obama. And there were groups like “Catholics for Obama,” men like Doug Kmiec and Pittsburgh Steelers’ owner Dan Rooney, and all those young people who voted in hordes for Obama, including the 60 percent of students at Catholic colleges who believe abortion should be legal, according to a new study commissioned by the Cardinal Newman Center.
Addressing the crux of this post, Kengor summarizes a recent statement of the American Bishops regarding Catholic hospitals post-FOCA:
Further, the bishops dread that FOCA would require all hospitals with obstetrics programs to do abortions, a natural expectation given that Obama has spoken of abortion as a “fundamental right,” a basic government service, and a vital component of America’s “safety net.” He calls groups like Planned Parenthood a “safety-net provider.” The bishops fear that this aspect of FOCA would mandate Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, which would force the hospitals to shut down rather than compromise their beliefs.
Henneberger believes it could happen, saying,
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of “devastating consequences” to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That’s a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for. It couldn’t happen, could it?
You wouldn’t think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could.
After correctly noting that Obama said during the campaign that the first thing he would do is sign the FOCA, Henneberg notes the potential moral meltdown for Catholic institutions:
Though it’s often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn’t be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute “material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.”
Henneberger concludes her article with hopes that Obama will not be as President who he has always been. As she points out, Obama’s first appointments do not signal the moderate stance which pro-life Catholic Obama voters (somehow) hoped for.
At the very moment when Obama and his party have won the trust of so many Catholics who favor at least some limits on abortion, I hope he does not prove them wrong. I hope he does not make a fool out of that nice Doug Kmiec, who led the pro-life charge on his behalf. I hope he does not spit on the rest of us—though I don’t take him for the spitting sort—on his way in the door. I hope that his appointment of Ellen Moran, formerly of EMILY’s List, as his communications director is followed by the appointment of some equally good Democrats who hold pro-life views. By supporting and signing the current version of FOCA, Obama would reignite the culture war he so deftly sidestepped throughout this campaign. This is a fight he just doesn’t need at a moment when there is no shortage of other crises to manage.
Obama’s choice is clear. The Catholics will be under the bus, not the pro-choice groups. FOCA may face some Democratic pro-life opposition and maybe a filibuster, but if (when) it gets out of Congress, Obama will sign it. Word is that he wants to avoid controversy in the first year, however, he built it in to his campaign by promising the troops that he would sign FOCA first thing. If he signals Dem leaders to keep it down, he risks aggravating his base. In contrast to the hopeful Ms. Henneberger, I think Obama will probably keep his word.
UPDATE: I came across this Reuters article not long after I published this post. Note the NARAL reps understated approach to FOCA.
Another looming battle will involve the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, which would further entrench a woman’s right to an abortion. It is seen as codifying Roe v. Wade.
It has never moved beyond the committee stage and is not seen as being at the top of the policy agenda next year.
But Obama has pledged to sign it into law, and the Democratic-led Congress might pass it.
Keenan said NARAL estimated that in the House of Representatives there were “185 fully pro-choice votes … 204 anti-choice votes and 46 mixed.” She added that the Senate was also seen to be still sharply divided on the issue.
“There’s a lot of work that needs to be done before we even get around to considering a FOCA vote,” Keenan said.
FOCA has been like a red flag to social conservatives who say it will sweep aside most restrictions on abortion rights, such as parental notification laws and the Partial-Birth Abortion Act that bans a certain late-term procedure.
Americans United for Life Action said that as of Friday, it had more than 230,000 signatures on an anti-FOCA petition on its website fightfoca.com — virtually all since the election.