By Julie Hirschfeld Davis THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON —  One week before Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan begins her Senate confirmation hearings, both liberal and conservative groups are criticizing her record on abortion rights.

The anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, which calls Kagan a pro-abortion activist, recruited failed conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork for a news teleconference this week to denounce her. At the same time, the liberal Center for Reproductive Rights released a report Monday casting doubt on the depth of Kagan’s support for abortion rights.

The seemingly conflicting developments highlight the degree to which key players — along with the public — can do little better than guess at many of her views on major constitutional issues.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which doesn’t take positions on Supreme Court nominations, released a report Monday concluding that Kagan has demonstrated intellect and knowledge of the law but has not weighed in on most constitutional issues. Free speech and presidential powers, on which Kagan has written extensively, are exceptions, the ACLU said.

“The simple truth is that there is much that we do not know about Kagan’s views on the Constitution and the court,” the ACLU’s report said. “The available record offers very few clues about her constitutional views on criminal justice, immigration, voting rights, prisoners’ rights, due process, the Establishment Clause and a host of other recurring Supreme Court topics.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights said it’s clear from her record that Kagan believes the Constitution affords the right to an abortion. But the group said some of her writings raise questions about how significant Kagan believes those rights are to women’s health, lives and equality.

The center says it’s important that the Senate ask Kagan about her views on the matter during her confirmation process. It criticized as “troubling” Kagan’s contention in a 1988 memo she wrote as a Supreme Court clerk that elective abortions are by definition not medically necessary.

Kagan was writing a memo to Justice Thurgood Marshall recommending that he vote to let stand a ruling requiring Monmouth County, N.J., to pay for inmates’ elective abortions.

“Quite honestly, I think that although all of this decision is well-intentioned, parts of it are ludicrous,” Kagan wrote. She said women generally have no right to have their abortions paid for, and “I do not see why prisoners should have such rights.”

The center’s report also criticized Kagan for supporting what it called a “too-narrow health exception” in legislation banning a procedure its opponents call partial-birth abortion. Her recommendations “would have had harsh consequences for women seeking abortions, and were unconstitutional under then-prevailing law,” it said.

WASHINGTON — In a case pitting free speech against national security, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.

The decision was the court’s first ruling on the free speech and associations rights of Americans in the context of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks. The law has been an important tool for prosecutors: Since 2001, the government says, it has charged about 150 defendants for violating the material-support provision, obtaining about 75 convictions.

The court’s majority said deference to the other branches was called for, given the threat posed by terrorism.

“At bottom,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “plaintiffs simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization.”

Read more here

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a “patch” that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free

Picture from Fox News

From ABC News:

White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.

One of the people briefed said opportunities to “take out” Awlaki “may have been missed” because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which would specifically target an American citizen.

A spokesperson said the White House declined to comment.

While Awlaki has not been charged with any crimes under U.S. law, intelligence officials say recent intelligence reports and electronic intercepts show he played an important role in recruiting the accused “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Awlaki also carried on extensive e-mail communication with the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, prior to the attack that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian.

According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki.

An American citizen with suspected al Qaeda ties was killed in Nov. 2002 in Yemen in a CIA predator strike that was aimed at non-American leaders of al Qaeda. The death of the American citizen, Ahmed Hijazi of Lackawanna, NY, was justified as “collateral damage” at the time because he “was just in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said a former U.S. official familiar with the case.

In the case of Awlaki, born in New Mexico and a college student in Colorado and California, a strike aimed to kill him would stretch current Presidential authority given to the CIA and the Pentagon to pursue terrorists anywhere in the world.

Where Anwar al Awlaki Might Be Hiding

Awlaki’s father told reporters in Yemen last week that his son had gone into hiding in the mountains of Yemen and was being protected by al Qaeda, even though, the father claimed, his son was not part of al Qaeda.

He told reporters he was pleading with the United States, “Please don’t kill my son.”

The question of what limits apply to an American with suspected operational ties to al Qaeda comes as the U.S. steps up efforts to track any American with ties to Yemen.  

Hundreds of FBI and other federal agents will fan out this week as part of a secret operation to pursue leads about Americans with connections to Yemen that were previously dismissed as not significant, according to law enforcement officials.

From the AP:

Erroll Southers, President Obama’s choice to lead the Transportation Security Administration, says he is withdrawing because his nomination has become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s choice to lead the Transportation Security Administration is withdrawing his nomination.

In a statement, Erroll Southers says he is withdrawing because his nomination has become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda. Obama tapped Southers to lead the TSA in September but his confirmation has been blocked by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who says he’s worried Southers would allow TSA employees to join a labor union.

The White House says the president has accepted Southers’ decision with great sadness.

Sen. Wicker, who also visited Afghanistan as part of the GOP delegation led by the senate minority leader, repeated the alleged confusion created by the Obama administration.

A task force commissioned as part of President Obama’s January 2009 Executive Order to revise terrorist detention policy, interrogation tactics, and close down Gitmo, issued a preliminary report in July 2009 summarizing their legal views for the handling of enemy combatants.

“When asked the question , ‘What do we do with captured enemy combatants?’ it was clear that the, the answer is confusion and uncertainty on the part of our troops” and the Afghan security forces,” said Wicker.
 
Wicker, however, pointed out that the confusion as to how to deal with enemy combatants is something that can be overcome.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

From Fox News:

The Rev. Al Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP all jumped to the defense of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after his controversial remarks about President Obama, but the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. is calling Reid’s comments “sadly outrageous.”

“If Michael Steele or any other conservative had said anything like it, the remarks would be labeled racist and plastered over every available news outlet,” Alveda King said in a statement released Tuesday. 

“What would my uncle and my father think, to hear such things from one of the most powerful leaders in the country? Their ‘beloved community’ is sorely threatened when racism rears its ugly head once again.”

Sen. Russ Fiengold did his own soul searching after Reid was quoted in a book saying candidate Barack Obama in 2008 could benefit from being light-skinned and not having a “Negro dialect” unless he wants one. Feingold told a local television station late Monday that he’s still mulling whether Reid should stay or step down as majority leader.

“I’m thinking about that and we’re going to be getting together as a caucus next week, and that topic will come up. I have not decided whether these comments merit that or not,” Feingold told ABC affiliate WISN. “They’re very unfortunate. They should have never been said. So I need to think about it.” 

But on Tuesday, he closed rank around the embattled leader. An aide to Feingold told Fox News the Wisconsin senator communicated through a senior member of his staff to Reid that he backs him as majority leader and is no longer unsure if Reid should remain in that position.

Some progressives bloggers, however, fearing Reid is a liability, said he should step down now so Democrats have a better chance of keeping the Nevada Senate seat in November. And while Reid reportedly called RainbowPush head Jesse Jackson to apologize after the gaffe was reported, Jackson has been uncharacteristically quiet on the racially tinged matter.

Reid said Monday that he “could have used a better choice of words,” and he signaled that he’s moving on. 

“We have a lot to do,” Reid said. “I feel good about people reaching out to me. I’ve apologized to the president. … I’m not going to dwell on this anymore.” 

Other leading Democrats, including President Obama, have accepted Reid’s apology, while conceding that he used inappropriate language. But critics say it’s not Obama who needs an apology but Americans who Reid presumed would hesitate to vote for a black man.

Steele, the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, is among those Republicans calling for Reid to step down. He and others say Democrats are operating by a double-standard, since they were insistent that former Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott step down in 2002 after he praised the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a former segregationist, at his 100th birthday party. 

Feingold said Lott’s remarks were more insensitive than Reid’s. 

Obama, in an interview with TV One, called Reid a “stalwart champion … of civil rights” and a “good man” who meant no offense. 

“For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that makes absolutely no sense,” Obama said. “He apologized, recognizing that he didn’t use appropriate language, but there was nothing mean-spirited in what he had to say and he’s always been on the right side of the issues.” 

Nevada’s other senator, John Ensign, a Republican,  said Monday that lawmakers should accept Reid’s apology. Republican Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, said a determination on Reid’s fate should be made among Nevada voters and the Democratic caucus, respectively.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid and are quoted in a yet-to-be-released book about the campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Obama is the nation’s first African-American president.

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were first reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.

“I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.”

Reid remained neutral during the bitter Democratic primary that became a marathon contest between Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom Obama tapped as the United States’ top diplomat after the election.

Reid’s comments are included in the book, obtained Saturday by The Associated Press and set to be published on Monday. “Game Change” was written by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann.

The book also says Reid urged Obama to run, perceiving the first-term senator’s impatience.

“You’re not going to go anyplace here,” Reid told Obama of the Senate. “I know that you don’t like it, doing what you’re doing.”

In another section, aides to Republican nominee John McCain described the difficulties they faced with their vice presidential pick, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Steve Schmidt, a senior member of Sen. John McCain’s presidential team, is quoted telling Palin’s foreign policy tutors: “You guys have a lot of work to do. She doesn’t know anything.”

The authors also quote Obama’s initial reaction to McCain’s selection of a little-known governor: “Wow. Well, I guess she’s change.”

Vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was direct. “Who’s Sarah Palin?” the book quotes the then-senator as asking as they left the nominating convention in Denver.

Reid, facing a tough 2010 re-election bid, needs the White House’s help if he wants to keep his seat. Obama’s administration has dispatched officials on dozens of trips to buoy his bid and Obama has raised money for his campaign.

Recognizing the threat, Reid’s apologies also played to his home state: “Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues.”

Even before his ill-considered remarks were reported, a new survey released Saturday by the Las Vegas Review Journal showed him continuing to earn poor polling numbers. In the poll, by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Reid trailed former state Republican party chairwoman Sue Lowden by a 10 percentage points, 50 percent to 40 percent, and also lagging behind two other opponents.

More than half of Nevadans had an unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 33 percent of respondents held a favorable opinion.

Message to the GOP…until then, in general, our pocketbooks are closed!

From The Hill:

A 2009 spending spree has left the Republican National Committee (RNC) with its worst election-year cash flow this decade.

The largest GOP party committee has $8.7 million in the bank heading into an election year with 37 governors’ races, a dozen major Senate contests, dozens more in the House and an all-important redistricting cycle on the horizon.

Said one RNC official: “It is very troubling, and the thing is, most people don’t understand this. But it is really troubling.”

The RNC had $22.8 million in cash and no debt when Michael Steele was elected chairman at the end of January, but has since seen its cash on hand drop to less than $9 million at the end of November.

Over the previous five months, while governors’ battles were being waged in New Jersey and Virginia, the committee saw its cash reserves drop by a full $15 million. Through November, the committee spent more than $90 million last year, which is nearly $20 million more than the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“They’re spending money at 2002 levels when they are not raising money at those levels,” said a GOP operative. “That kind of thing worked when RNC was awash in money, but you can’t do that in this environment.”

Off-years like 2009 are generally a time for committees to get their financial house in order. They work to retire any debt left from the last election cycle and then build a war chest in preparation for the even-year election.

The RNC, though, made huge investments in New Jersey and Virginia, betting on the momentum created by those gubernatorial races to spur more giving.

Both were big GOP wins, but the question for many in the party is whether they were worth such a dent in the party’s coffers. And even subtracting the $13 million spent in those races — $9 million in Virginia and $4 million in New Jersey — the committee has just about broken even since Steele took over.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) lost both races, but saw its cash on hand climb to a debt-free $13 million. That’s not a whole lot better than the RNC, but the DNC began the year in much worse fiscal shape, with $5.6 million in cash and $5 million in debt.

RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho noted that Republicans had taken just one governorship or Senate seat from Democrats in the last four years before the wins in New Jersey and Virginia.

“The fact that the RNC committed a large amount of resources and staff in 2009 did yield a significant dividend,” Gitcho said. “The goal of the RNC is to raise money and win elections. We had a strong fundraising performance last year, but have an even more aggressive approach for the 2010 midterms.”

After each of the last two midterm off-years, the RNC had more than $30 million in the bank.

In 2005, it raised $19 million more than it spent, and in 2001, it raised $10 million more than it spent.

The situation is particularly troubling for the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which had just $4.3 million in cash and $2 million in debt at the end of November. The committee, which is targeting upwards of 40 Democratic districts, could use the national party’s help in a big way.

Critics of the Steele-run RNC say a freewheeling style and reliance on outside consultants has hurt the committee’s bottom line.

“It’s problematic, to be sure,” said conservative commentator Matt Lewis. “They should be riding high, but I think conservatives have decided it’s better to donate to groups like the Club for Growth — or to the candidates themselves.”

While the RNC continues to spend heavily on consultants and outside help — about half of the $90 million it spent between January and November — the DNC has moved much of its operation indoors.

The RNC has spent about twice as much as the DNC on consultants this cycle, according to a review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.

About $35 million of the $90 million spent by the RNC has gone to direct mail and telemarketing — its trademark methods of rounding up donors. The DNC has spent about $11 million on those two things, but has raised nearly as much as the RNC.

One former RNC member pointed out that the Republican Governors Association (RGA) ended the year with $25 million in the bank — suggesting more of the onus could have been on that organization.

“He’s got a lot of money to raise,” the member said of Steele. “Does that mean you can’t get there? No. But major donors are going to have to kick in, and he’s going to need to get a lot of new donors by prospecting.”

Steele has endured a series of questions about the committee’s finances and his stewardship. The committee spent heavily on a new website, and Steele has drawn heat for renovating his office, awarding high salaries for close associates and accepting speaking fees.

Earlier this year, a group of RNC officials headed by Treasurer Randy Pullen presented Steele with a resolution asking for more checks and balances on his ability to award contracts and spend money.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.